Power Renewable Energy Corporation - AUC€¦ · Power Renewable Energy Corporation ... The application, filed pursuant to Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, was registered

Decision 21394-D01-2017

Power Renewable Energy Corporation Facility Applications

Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document Application AltaLink Management Ltd. Facility Application

Jenner Wind Power Plant and Interconnection June 16, 2017

Alberta Utilities Commission

Decision 21394-D01-2017: Jenner Wind Power Plant and Interconnection

Power Renewable Energy Corporation

Facility Applications

Applications 21394-A001, 21394-A002, 21394-A004, and 21394-A006

Alberta Electric System Operator

Needs Identification Document Application

Application 21394-A003

AltaLink Management Ltd.

Facility Application

Application 21394-A005

Proceeding 21394

June 16, 2017

Published by the:


Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W.

Calgary, Alberta

T2P 3L8

Telephone: 403-592-8845

Fax: 403-592-4406

Website: www.auc.ab.ca

Contents

1 Decision summary ................................................................................................................. 1

2 Introduction and background .............................................................................................. 1

3 Legislative scheme ................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Power plant .................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 New transmission facilities ............................................................................................ 6

3.2.1 AESO NID applications .................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Transmission facility applications .................................................................... 7

4 AESO needs identification document .................................................................................. 7 4.1 Commission findings ..................................................................................................... 8

5 Jenner 122.4-MW power plant ............................................................................................ 8 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Environment ................................................................................................................. 10 5.2.1 Overhead collector lines ................................................................................. 11

5.3 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 15

5.3.1 Noise impact assessment................................................................................. 15 5.3.2 Class C2 adjustment ........................................................................................ 17

5.4 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 21 5.4.1 Environmental issues ...................................................................................... 21 5.4.2 Noise ............................................................................................................... 24

5.4.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 25

6 Halsbury 306S Substation and transmission line 949L ................................................... 26 6.1 Halsbury 306S Substation ............................................................................................ 26 6.2 Transmission line 949L ................................................................................................ 26

6.3 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 30

7 AltaLink Jenner 275S Substation alterations ................................................................... 31 7.1 Commission findings ................................................................................................... 32

8 Decision ................................................................................................................................ 32

Appendix A – Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 34

Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 1


Calgary, Alberta

Power Renewable Energy Corporation

Facility Applications

Alberta Electric System Operator

Needs Identification Document Application

AltaLink Management Ltd. Decision 21394-D01-2017

Facility Application Proceeding 21394

Jenner Wind Power Plant and Interconnection Applications 21394-A001 to 21394-A006

1 Decision summary

1. In this decision, the Alberta Utilities Commission must decide whether to approve

applications to construct and operate the Jenner Wind Power Plant and its interconnection to the

Alberta Interconnected Electric System. These applications include a needs identification

document application from the Alberta Electric System Operator, facility applications from

Power Renewable Energy Corporation to construct and operate the 120-megawatt Jenner Wind

Power Plant, the Halsbury 306S Substation and transmission line 949L, and a facility application

from AltaLink Management Ltd. to alter the Jenner 275S Substation. This proceeding was the

first in which applications utilizing market participant choice (for the approval and construction

of transmission facilities) and a Class C2 adjustment (to address noise issues related to wind

masking) were considered by the Commission.

2. After consideration of the record of the proceeding, and for the reasons outlined in this

decision, the Commission finds the AESO’s assessment of the need to be correct and that

approval of the proposed developments, including the Preferred Route of transmission line 949L,

is in the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the project and its

effect on the environment.

2 Introduction and background

3. Power Renewable Energy Corporation (PRE) filed an application with the Commission

for approval of a phase 1 buildable area for a 120-megawatt (MW) wind project designated as

the Jenner Wind Power Plant. The application, filed pursuant to Section 11 of the Hydro and

Electric Energy Act, was registered on March 3, 2016 as Application 21394-A001.

4. On May 13, 2016, PRE filed Application 21394-A002 with the Commission for approval

to construct and operate the Halsbury 306S Substation pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 18 of the

Hydro and Electric Energy Act. On May 19, 2016, PRE filed Application 21394-A004 for

approval to construct and temporarily operate transmission line 949L pursuant to sections 14, 15

and 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act and Section 5 of the Transmission Deficiency

Regulation.

Power Renewable Energy Corporation, Alberta Electric System Operator Jenner Wind Power Plant and Interconnection and AltaLink Management Ltd.

2 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

5. The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) filed an application with the Commission,

pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act, seeking approval of a needs identification

document (NID) to interconnect the Jenner Wind Power Plant to the Alberta Interconnected

Electric System. The application was registered on May 17, 2016 as Application 21394-A003.

6. AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) filed a facility application with the Commission

for approval to alter the Jenner 275S Substation. The application was filed pursuant to

sections 14, 15 and 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act and was registered on

May 24, 2016, as Application 21394-A005.

7. Pursuant to Section 15.4 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, PRE, the AESO and

AltaLink requested that the Commission consider the NID application and the facility

applications jointly. The Commission granted the request and advised parties that the

applications would be considered in Proceeding 21394.

8. The Commission issued a notice of application for the Jenner Wind Power Plant,

Application 21394-A001 on April 18, 2016. The notice was sent directly to potentially impacted

stakeholders within 2,000 metres of the project. It was also published on the AUC website and

notification was automatically emailed to eFiling System users who had chosen to be notified

of notices of application issued by the Commission. The notice was also published in the

Brooks Bulletin and the Medicine Hat News.

9. In response to the notice, the Commission received four statements of intent to

participate: from Carmen Stopanski, the Alberta Wilderness Association, the Friends of Science

Society, and Rylee Osadczuk.

10. On June 22, 2016, the Commission issued a notice of applications for the related

interconnection applications, applications 21394-A002 to 21394-A005. The notice was sent

directly to potentially impacted stakeholders within 2,000 metres of the proposed power plant

and within 800 metres of the proposed transmission line and substations. It was also published on

the AUC website and notification was automatically emailed to eFiling System users who had

chosen to be notified of notices of application issued by the Commission. The notice was also

published in the Brooks Bulletin and the Medicine Hat News.

11. No additional statements of intent to participate were received in response to the notice of

applications.

12. The Commission issued its ruling on standing on September 21, 2016, in which it denied

standing to the four parties that had sought to participate in the proceeding.1

13. On October 7, 2016, the AESO filed a letter requesting that the Commission suspend

further process and withhold from issuing a decision on its NID application, until PRE filed a

phase 2 application for its Jenner Wind Power Plant. The AESO submitted that:

… the AESO files a connection NID with the Commission only after the “required

deliverables” for Stage 3 of the Connection Process have been satisfied. In the case of a

proposed generating facility, these deliverables include the filing by a project proponent

1 Exhibit 21394-X0127, AUC Ruling on standing, September 21, 2016.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 3

of a power plant application, pursuant to Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy

Act, with the Commission.2

14. The AESO stated that it is the filing of a phase 2 application that satisfies the AESO’s

Stage 3 Connection Process requirement and that the AESO had filed its NID application

prematurely by filing the application after PRE filed its phase 1 application.3

15. In response to the AESO’s request, PRE filed a letter on October 11, 2016, in which it

requested to file a phase 2 buildable area application prior to the phase 1 application being

approved in order to limit the time the AESO’s NID application, and the interconnection

applications associated with it, would be suspended.4

16. The Commission granted the AESO’s request to suspend the processing of the NID

application and also suspended the processing of the associated interconnection applications, i.e.,

PRE’s applications for the new Halsbury 306S Substation and transmission line 949L and

AltaLink’s application to alter the Jenner 275S Substation, so that the AESO NID application

may be considered with the associated transmission applications in a single process.5

17. In response to PRE’s request to file a phase 2 buildable area application, the Commission

stated:

the buildable area approval process is progressive in nature. A phase 1 approval

delineates the area within which a project can be built and phase 2 addresses specific

turbine specifications and siting issues. It is also anticipated that a phase 2 application

will address any conditions attached to a phase 1 approval and will likewise be

responsive to any concerns identified by the Commission in its phase 1 decision. Implicit

in the process is that approval of phase 1 is necessary to proceed to phase 2.6

18. The Commission stated that it could not begin processing PRE’s phase 2 application until

it decided whether to approve phase 1. If PRE filed its phase 2 application, the Commission

would hold it in abeyance until it ruled on the phase 1 application and would also hold the

AESO NID and the related interconnection applications in abeyance.

19. The Commission offered an alternative to PRE. PRE could file the portions of its phase 2

application necessary to form a complete power plant application when combined with its

phase 1 application, in essence abandoning the buildable area application type, and instead apply

for the wind farm as a typical power plant application.

20. PRE decided to combine its applications and requested that the power plant applications

be considered in a separate proceeding to allow the interconnection applications to continue to be

processed. Alternatively, it requested that the Commission “issue a ruling on the [interconnection

applications] and to not withhold any such ruling pending the ongoing processing of the [power

plant application]”. PRE argued that “the issues arising from the [power plant application] will

2 Exhibit 21394-X0128, AESO LT AUC request to suspend proceedings 2016-10-07.

3 Exhibit 21394-X0128, AESO LT AUC request to suspend proceedings 2016-10-07.

4 Exhibit 21394-X0129, PREC request to AUC to file Phase 2 Application.

5 Exhibit 21394-X0130, AUC Letter to Parties - 2016-10-17.

6 Exhibit 21394-X0130, AUC Letter to Parties - 2016-10-17.


4 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

be different than those associated with the [interconnection applications] and that the timing of a

decision on one should not be dependent on the other.”7

21. PRE filed the second portion of its power plant application on November 1, 2016. This

application was registered as Application 21394-A006.

22. On December 16, 2016, the Commission issued a notice of applications for the

Jenner Wind Power Plant, applications 21394-A001 and 21394-A006. The notice was sent

directly to potentially affected stakeholders within 2,000 metres of the project. It was also

published on the AUC website and notification was automatically emailed to eFiling System

users who had chosen to be notified of notices of application issued by the Commission. The

notice was also published in the Brooks Bulletin and the Medicine Hat News. No additional

statements of intent to participate were received in response to this notice.

3 Legislative scheme

3.1 Power plant

23. The Commission regulates the construction and operation of power plants in Alberta.

The wind farm proposed by the applicant, including the associated collector system, is a “power

plant” as that term is defined in Subsection 1(k) of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act.

Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act states that no person may construct or operate a

power plant without prior Commission approval. In addition, sections 14 and 15 of the

Hydro and Electric Energy Act direct that Commission approval is necessary before the

construction or operation of a substation or a transmission line.8

24. When considering an application for a power plant and associated infrastructure, the

Commission is directed by sections 2 and 3 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, and

Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.

25. Section 2 lists the purposes of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. Those purposes

include:

To provide for the economic, orderly and efficient development and operation, in the

public interest, of the generation of electric energy in Alberta.

To secure the observance of safe and efficient practices in the public interest in the

generation of electric energy in Alberta.

To assist the government in controlling pollution and ensuring environment conservation

in the generation of electric energy in Alberta.

26. Section 3 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act requires the Commission to have regard

for the purposes of the Electric Utilities Act when assessing whether a proposed power plant is in

the public interest under Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. The purposes of the

7 Exhibit 21394-X0131, PREC Letter re Response to AUC Oct 17 Letter.

8 Defined in Section 1(1)(o)(iii) of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, “transmission line” includes substations.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 5

Electric Utilities Act include the development of a fair, efficient and openly competitive electric

industry structure and the development of an electric generation sector guided by competitive

market forces.9 Section 3 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act also directs that the Commission

shall not have regard to whether the proposed power plant “…is an economic source of electric

energy in Alberta or to whether there is a need for the electric energy to be produced by such a

facility in meeting the requirements for electric energy in Alberta or outside of Alberta.”

27. The Commission’s public interest mandate is expressed in Section 17 of the

Alberta Utilities Commission Act, which states:

Public interest

17(1) Where the Commission conducts a hearing or other proceeding on an application to

construct or operate a hydro development, power plant or transmission line under the

Hydro and Electric Energy Act or a gas utility pipeline under the Gas Utilities Act, it

shall, in addition to any other matters it may or must consider in conducting the hearing

or other proceeding, give consideration to whether construction or operation of the

proposed hydro development, power plant, transmission line or gas utility pipeline is in

the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the development,

plant, line or pipeline and the effects of the development, plant, line or pipeline on the

environment.

28. In Decision 2001-111, the AUC’s predecessor, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

(EUB or the Board) explained how it assesses whether the approval of a power plant is in the

public interest:

The determination of whether a project is in the public interest requires the Board [the

Commission’s predecessor] to assess and balance the negative and beneficial impacts of

the specific project before it. Benefits to the public as well as negative impacts on the

public must be acknowledged in this analysis. The existence of regulatory standards and

guidelines and a proponent’s adherence to these standards are important elements in

deciding whether potential adverse impacts are acceptable. Where such thresholds do not

exist, the Board must be satisfied that reasonable mitigative measures are in place to

address the impacts. In many cases, the Board may also approve an application subject to

specific conditions that are designed to enhance the effectiveness of mitigative plans. The

conditions become an essential part of the approval, and breach of them may result in

suspension or rescission of the approval.

In the Board’s view, the public interest will be largely met if applications are shown to be

in compliance with existing provincial health, environmental, and other regulatory

standards in addition to the public benefits outweighing negative impacts.10

9 Electric Utilities Act, Section 5.

10 EUB Decision 2001-111: EPCOR Generation Inc. and EPCOR Power Development Corporation, - 490-MW

Genesee Power Plant Expansion, Application 2001173, December 2001, page 4.


6 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

29. In Decision 2014-040,11 the AUC applied the above principles to its assessment of the

Bull Creek Wind Project. The Commission considers the above approach to be consistent with

the purpose and intent of the statutory scheme and is satisfied that it continues to provide an

effective framework for the assessment of wind energy projects.

30. Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission Lines, Industrial

System Designations and Hydro Developments applies for the construction and operation of

power plants, substations and transmission lines, which are governed by the Hydro and Electric

Energy Act. The application must meet the informational and other requirements set out in

Rule 007. Specifically, an applicant must provide technical and functional specifications,

information on public consultation, environmental and land-use information including a

noise impact assessment. The application must also meet the requirements set out in

Rule 012: Noise Control.

31. Further, an applicant must obtain all approvals under other applicable provincial or

federal legislation.

3.2 New transmission facilities

32. Except in the case of critical transmission infrastructure, two approvals from the

Commission are required to build new transmission capacity in Alberta. First, an approval of the

need to expand or enhance the Alberta Interconnected Electric System, pursuant to Section 34 of

the Electric Utilities Act, is required. Second, a permit to construct and a licence to operate a

transmission facility, pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, must

be obtained.

3.2.1 AESO NID applications

33. The AESO is Alberta’s independent system operator established under the

Electric Utilities Act, and is responsible for preparing a NID and filing it with the Commission

for approval pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act.

34. In Decision 2004-087, the Commission’s predecessor, the EUB, described the NID

process as follows:

It is the Board’s view that section 34 contemplates a two-stage consideration of an NID.

In the first stage, the Board must determine whether an expansion or enhancement of the

capability of the transmission system is necessary to alleviate constraint, improve

efficiency, or respond to a request for system access… If it is determined that expansion

or enhancement of the system is required to address constraint, inefficiency, system

access requests, or any combination thereof, the Board must then assess, in the second

stage, whether enhancement or expansion measures proposed by AESO are reasonable

and in the public interest.12

11

Decision 2014-040: 1646658 Alberta Ltd. – Bull Creek Wind Project, Proceeding 1955, Application 1608556,

February 20, 2014. Errata issued on March 10, 2014. 12

EUB Decision 2004-087: Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document – Southwest Alberta

240-kV Transmission System Development Pincher Creek – Lethbridge Area, Addendum to Decision 2004-075,

Application 1340849, October 14, 2004, page 12.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 7

3.2.2 Transmission facility applications

35. Applications for new transmission facilities designed to serve the Alberta Interconnected

Electric System are generally prepared by a transmission facility owner (TFO) in accordance

with directions from the AESO. However, under the Transmission Deficiency Regulation, a

market participant that requires a transmission facility to provide system access service may

make a proposal to the AESO to construct and temporarily operate a transmission line. If the

AESO accepts the proposal and the Commission approves the transmission line, the market

participant is required to transfer ownership of the transmission line to a TFO following its

construction.

36. As noted above, Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act sets out the

Commission’s public interest test for new utility infrastructure. In Decision 2009-028, the

Commission explained how it applied that test when considering an application for new

transmission facilities.

In the Commission’s view, assessment of the public interest requires it to balance the

benefits associated with upgrades to the transmission system with the associated impacts,

having regard to the legislative framework for transmission development in Alberta. This

exercise necessarily requires the Commission to weigh impacts that will be experienced

on a provincial basis, such as improved system performance, reliability, and access, with

specific routing impacts upon those individuals or families that reside or own land along

a proposed transmission route as well as other users of the land that may be affected.13

37. The Commission confirms that this approach applies equally to all applications for new

transmission facilities regardless of whether the application is made by a TFO on the direction of

the AESO, or by a market participant under the Transmission Deficiency Regulation.

4 AESO needs identification document

38. The AESO explained in its application that PRE requested system access service for a

wind power plant designated as the Jenner Wind Power Plant, with a capacity of 120 MW. The

AESO submitted that the need could be met by adding a new 240-kilovolt (kV) transmission line

to connect PRE’s proposed Halsbury 306S Substation to the existing Jenner 275S Substation and

modifying Jenner 275S Substation by adding one 240-kV circuit breaker.

39. The AESO indicated that PRE submitted a proposal for the construction and temporary

operation of transmission line 949L pursuant to Section 5 of the Transmission Deficiency

Regulation. It explained that, in accordance with the process set out in that regulation, PRE

would be responsible for the design and construction of transmission line 949L and for operating

the transmission line for a short period of time before transferring operating responsibility to

AltaLink. It also confirmed that AltaLink would be responsible for the design, construction and

operations related to the alterations to Jenner 275S Substation.

13

AUC Decision 2009-028: AltaLink Management Ltd., Transmission Line from Pincher Creek to Lethbridge,

Proceeding 19, Application 1521942, paragraph 33.


8 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

40. The AESO conducted power flow, transient stability, and short-circuit analyses to assess

the effects that the project would have on the transmission system. The AESO stated that

post-connection assessments identified system performance issues, some of which also exist in

the pre-connection assessments, that could be largely mitigated through real-time operational

practices and remedial action schemes. The AESO stated that the remaining thermal criteria

violations could be resolved by restoring the seasonal continuous thermal ratings of transmission

lines 7L159 and 7L16. The AESO stated it plans to direct the transmission facilities owners of

transmission lines 7L159 and 7L16 to restore the seasonal continuous thermal ratings and that

these restorations will have to occur prior to the energization of the proposed development.

41. The AESO directed PRE and AltaLink to file facility applications with the AUC for the

facilities to meet the need identified and to assist the AESO in conducting a participant

involvement program for its NID application. The AESO submitted that no concerns or

objections have been raised regarding the need for the proposed transmission development.

4.1 Commission findings

42. The Commission finds that the NID application filed by the AESO contains all the

information required by the Electric Utilities Act, the Transmission Regulation and Rule 007.

43. No interested party demonstrated that the AESO’s assessment of the need to interconnect

the Jenner Wind Power Plant is technically deficient or that approval of the NID application is

not in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission considers the AESO’s assessment of the

need to be correct, in accordance with Subsection 38(e) of the Transmission Regulation, and

approves the AESO’s NID application.

5 Jenner 122.4-MW power plant

5.1 Introduction

44. PRE requested approval to construct and operate the 122.4-MW Jenner Wind Power

Plant in Application 21394-A006. The power plant would consist of 36 turbines, each with a

capability of 3.4 MW. The power plant would be located in townships 21 and 22, ranges 8 and 9,

west of the Fourth Meridian, approximately 3.5 kilometres east of Jenner, Alberta.

45. The locations of the turbines are shown in the following map:


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 9

Figure 1: Jenner Wind Power Plant proposed location

46. The power plant would also include a 34.5-kV collector system consisting of

underground and overhead power lines. The turbines would be 110 metres tall and have a rotor

diameter of 140 metres. The maximum height at the tip of blade would be 180 metres.

47. PRE submitted that it had notified and obtained the necessary approvals from

Transport Canada, Alberta Transportation and Environment Canada. PRE also provided an

evaluation from NAV Canada which concluded that it had no objection to the project.

48. PRE consulted with the Special Areas Board and stated that it would apply for a

development permit upon receiving approval from the AUC.

49. PRE applied to Alberta Culture and Tourism for Historical Resources Act clearance for

the project. Alberta Culture and Tourism required that PRE conduct a historical resources impact

RED

DEER

R.

884

555

RA

NG

E R

D. 9

1

R.9 R.8W.4M.

T.22

T.21

T.20

WIND FARM PROJECT BOUNDARYWIND TURBINES

N.T.S.


10 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

assessment for archaeological resources. PRE confirmed that it would conduct the assessment

field studies prior to construction and provided a summary of its initial findings.

50. PRE conducted a participant involvement program with the goal of ensuring that all

potentially-affected stakeholders have the necessary information regarding the project and the

ability to ask questions and express their concerns and suggestions. The program involved

notifying parties within 2,000 metres of the project boundary and conducting consultations with

stakeholders within 800 metres of the project. PRE also held open houses on November 24, 2015

and June 21, 2016 in Jenner. PRE submitted that it would continue to consult with stakeholders

as the project progresses.

5.2 Environment

51. PRE retained McCallum Environmental Ltd. (McCallum) to prepare an environmental

evaluation of the project. McCallum prepared an initial environmental assessment for phase 1 of

the buildable area process; it then provided a second report in PRE’s subsequent power plant

application that included the locations of turbines, access roads, and collector lines.14

52. In its second report, McCallum acknowledged that the project will result in increased

fragmentation of wildlife habitat but contended that the use of cultivated lands and paralleling

linear infrastructure will reduce these impacts. McCallum submitted that the project’s

environmental impacts will be minimized through the mitigation measures it proposed and that

standard and best practice construction mitigation methods will be implemented to ensure there

are no significant impacts on valued ecosystem components.

53. In the Alberta Environment and Parks-Wildlife Management’s (AEP WM) Renewable

Energy Referral Report dated March 12, 2015,15 AEP WM identified the project site as having a

potential high risk for wildlife with concerns primarily related to the proximity to valley and

coulee breaks of the Red Deer River and the inclusion of areas of native grassland within the

buildable area. In response to these concerns, PRE agreed to implement a 500-metre setback

from valley and coulee breaks of the Red Deer River in order to mitigate risks associated with

the presence of birds and bats along the Red Deer River corridor.

54. PRE submitted an updated Renewable Energy Referral Report (dated October 7, 2016),16

which covered both application phases 1 and 2, including the locations of turbines, access roads,

and collector lines.

55. PRE submitted that all pre-development wildlife monitoring had been conducted, and

AEP WM’s Renewable Energy Referral Report and subsequent correspondence confirmed that

the pre-construction wildlife monitoring met AEP WM’s requirements. PRE confirmed that in

the event of delays to the project it would work with AEP and update any studies if necessary.

56. The environmental report stated that four of the proposed turbines would be located

within native grassland and that the remaining 32 turbines would be located on cultivated land.

The total disturbance to native grassland would be approximately 11.51 hectares. PRE submitted

14

Exhibit 21394-X0134, Attachment 10: JWPP Environmental Effects Assessment. 15

Exhibit 21394-X0006, Attachment 6 - Alberta Environment and Parks Consultation. 16

Exhibit 21394-X0138, Attachment 6: AEP Consultation.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 11

that it would restore the 8.33 hectares of native grasslands that would be temporarily disturbed

by construction and would pursue compensation for the 3.18 hectares of native grasslands that

would be permanently disturbed. PRE stated it would investigate at least the following three

options associated with compensation for the permanent disturbance: (i) reclaiming previously

disturbed native grassland; (ii) creating protection offsets through conservation easements; or

(iii) contributing to conservation groups that are completing habitat restoration projects. PRE

stated it would continue to consult with AEP with respect to the restoration and compensation

plan for native grasslands.

57. PRE submitted that in order to mitigate the effects to native grassland, it would construct

during dry/frozen ground conditions outside of AEP’s recommended minimum setbacks and

restricted activity periods for sensitive wildlife species, and it would locate all temporary

components, such as storage areas and operational trailers, on cultivated land.

58. PRE provided a project-specific environmental protection plan (EPP) that outlined the

practices to be used to ensure successful conservation and reclamation of valued ecosystem

components in the area. AEP WM reviewed the EPP and found it met the current policy of

minimizing disturbance on native grasslands.17

59. PRE proposed a post-construction wildlife monitoring program that was reviewed and

confirmed by AEP WM, that it would meet its requirements. Given the assessment of high risk to

wildlife for the project, AEP WM recommended that the post-construction mortality monitoring

occur for a minimum of three years.18

5.2.1 Overhead collector lines

60. AEP WM raised concerns about the project’s use of overhead collector lines that transfer

electricity from individual turbines to the substation. AEP released a new version of

Wildlife Directive for Alberta Wind Energy Projects19 that came into effect on January 27, 2017.

However, the directive makes it clear that the earlier version of the Policy - Wildlife Guidelines

for Alberta Wind Energy Projects – 201120 will apply to applications filed with the AUC before

the directive came into force. The new directive states as follows with respect to collector lines:

Wind energy project collection lines must be placed underground using minimal

disturbance construction techniques unless there are significant landscape constraints

(Bradley and Neville 2011). Where aboveground power lines are required due to

17

Exhibit 21394-X0138, Attachment 6: AEP Consultation, PDF page 10. 18

Exhibit 21394-X0138, Attachment 6: AEP Consultation, PDF page 11. 19

Government of Alberta, Wildlife Directive for Alberta Wind Energy Projects, Fish and Wildlife Policy, Alberta

Environment and Parks, AEP Fish and Wildlife 2016 No. 6, April 7, 2017. Retrieved from

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-land-use-guidelines/documents/WildlifeWindEnergyDirective-Apr07-

2017.pdf. 20

Alberta Government, Wildlife Guidelines for Alberta Wind Energy Projects, Fish and Wildlife Division,

Sustainable Resource Development, September 19, 2011. Retrieved from

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/249abbdc-444a-4bd5-97b6-64374624acf1/resource/987fea0d-75a6-4bef-9e82-

344367a5dae3/download/2011-WildlifeGuidelines-AlbertaWindEnergyProjects-Sep19-2011.pdf.

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-land-use-guidelines/documents/WildlifeWindEnergyDirective-Apr07-2017.pdf

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-land-use-guidelines/documents/WildlifeWindEnergyDirective-Apr07-2017.pdf

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/249abbdc-444a-4bd5-97b6-64374624acf1/resource/987fea0d-75a6-4bef-9e82-344367a5dae3/download/2011-WildlifeGuidelines-AlbertaWindEnergyProjects-Sep19-2011.pdf

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/249abbdc-444a-4bd5-97b6-64374624acf1/resource/987fea0d-75a6-4bef-9e82-344367a5dae3/download/2011-WildlifeGuidelines-AlbertaWindEnergyProjects-Sep19-2011.pdf


12 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

landscape constraints these lines must be designed and constructed to avoid collision and

electrocution of birds.21

61. AEP WM acknowledged that the Jenner project should not be held to the new standard

but noted that the 2011 guidelines also recommend the reduction of above ground power lines

and, where that is not possible, above ground lines should be designed to avoid strikes and

electrocution of birds. AEP WM requested that PRE use underground collector lines on native

grassland and within wildlife and/or wetland setbacks.

62. AEP WM indicated that the project is sited in “an area with considerable wildlife

sensitivity” and that “the overall sensitivity of the Project area” also contributed to the

recommendation to bury all collector lines on native grassland and within wildlife and/or

wetland setbacks.22 Below is a map of PRE’s proposed collector routes overlaid on the area’s

vegetation use.

21

Government of Alberta, Wildlife Directive for Alberta Wind Energy Projects, Fish and Wildlife Policy, Alberta

Environment and Parks, AEP Fish and Wildlife 2016 No. 6, April 7, 2017, PDF page 10. 22

Exhibit 21394-X0138, Attachment 6: AEP Consultation, PDF page 19.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 13

Figure 2 –Proposed collector routes23

63. PRE stated that all individual turbine connections on native grassland would be buried

and that overhead lines are only proposed for the longer distance backbone collector system.

PRE stated that the collector lines follow linear developments to the greatest extent possible. In

particular, the north/south overhead collector lines are sited parallel to the Preferred Route of the

proposed 240-kV transmission line to minimize the area of disturbance and keep the majority of

the overhead lines in the same corridor.

64. PRE confirmed that all overhead collector lines would meet AEP’s recommended

setbacks for wildlife species.

23

Exhibit 21394-X0138, Attachment 6: AEP Consultation, PDF page 17.


14 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

65. PRE utilized a wetland classification system that classify wetlands as follows:

Class I – Ephemeral wetlands

Class II – Temporary wetlands

Class III – Seasonal ponds and lakes

Class IV – Semi-permanent ponds and lakes

Class V – Permanent ponds and lakes

Class VI – Alkali ponds and lakes

Class VII – Fen Pond

66. PRE stated that wetlands with higher classifications typically support a higher abundance

and diversity of wildlife and vegetation. PRE stated that the overhead collector lines would cross

four Class I wetlands in cultivated land that have no wildlife habitat, and would cross five Class I

wetlands in native grassland. PRE stated that it would position poles at least 15 metres from the

wetland boundaries and that it does not expect any effects on the wetlands.

67. PRE argued that burying the collector lines would disturb significantly more native

grassland and estimated that burying all the collector lines on native grassland would disturb

approximately 16.5 hectares of native grassland. It contended that using above ground lines

would limit the extent of the project’s disturbance to the footprint of the pole and support

locations, as compared to underground lines which would have a much larger footprint. In

addition, PRE noted that any maintenance issues with collector lines would require that buried

lines be excavated.

68. PRE argued that overhead distribution lines are an approved method of development for

serving oil and gas facilities in the local area and stated that it attempted to parallel existing

distribution lines with its proposed collector lines where possible.

69. PRE committed to installing bird marking devices on the collector lines that are

within 100 metres of Class III wetlands, Class IV wetlands, and Class V wetlands and within

100 metres of any open water body’s high water mark.

70. PRE stated it is planning a second phase for the Jenner wind farm with an additional

180 MW of capacity. PRE committed to enhancing pole structures to support its future

expansion so that future collector lines could be understrung on the existing poles to avoid future

ground disturbance.

71. PRE submitted that burying all of the collector system on native grassland would add

approximately $9 million to the capital costs of this project and would add an additional

$9 million for its 180-MW expansion.

72. The Commission issued information requests to clarify which portions of the collector

lines paralleled linear infrastructure and whether PRE would be amenable to burying the

single-circuit collector lines that do not parallel the Preferred Route of the transmission line. PRE

responded as follows:


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 15

PRE has considered buried lines, but to avoid crossing pipelines with buried cables and

for cost reasons, PRE strongly prefers overhead collector lines in the referenced areas due

to the abundance of oil and gas activities in the region and the associated below-ground

and surface infrastructure. PRE also notes the extensive network of overhead collection

lines that are already installed in the area for the oil and gas industry.

However, in order to address proliferation concerns on native prairie, PRE would be

amenable to burying the line segments on native prairie, as identified in IR5-002 (b) and

(c) that do not parallel disturbances, if so directed by the AUC. A potential revision to the

collector system is shown in the red ovals marked IR5-002(d) on page 4 in Attachment

IR5-002-1. This change would reduce the total length of overhead collector lines on

native prairie by approximately three kilometres, and in total by 4.3 kilometres, and

would increase the number of buried pipeline crossings by approximately 11.24

73. PRE submitted that if significant bird collisions are identified along the collector system,

it would consult with AEP WM and would install line modifications, such as additional

bird-marking devices on segments of the collector system that lack markers.

5.3 Noise

5.3.1 Noise impact assessment

74. PRE retained RWDI Consulting Engineers & Scientists (RWDI) to prepare a noise

impact assessment (NIA) for the project. PRE submitted updated NIAs in support of

supplementary information request responses. The initial NIA was dated October 31, 2016,25 the

second NIA was dated January 24, 2017,26 and the third, and most up-to-date NIA, was dated

March 17, 2017 (the Project NIA).27

75. The Project NIA indicated that the project would utilize 36 Senvion 3.4-MW wind

turbines with hub height of 110 metres with 3,600 kilovolt-ampere (kVA) pad-mounted

transformers. The sound data for the proposed wind turbines were provided in Senvion’s

acoustics specifications. The Project NIA also included the proposed Halsbury 306S Substation.

The sound data for the proposed substation equipment was provided in the Halsbury 306S

Substation NIA, also prepared by RWDI.

76. The Project NIA identified and included the sound level contribution of existing

energy-related facilities, including six multi-well batteries.

77. The October 2016 and January 2017 NIAs identified 10 residential receptor locations in

the project study area. However, in response to information requests, the applicant confirmed

that based on the most recent site visit, one of these receptor locations was no longer considered

a receptor. As such, the March 2017 Project NIA identified nine residential receptor locations

within the noise study area.

24

Exhibit 21394-X0178, JWPP_Information Request 5 Response, PDF page 6. 25

Exhibit 21394-X0132, Attachment 11: Noise Impact Assessment. 26

Exhibit 21394-X0157, Attachment IR4-008-1 Revised NIA Report. 27

Exhibit 21394-X0170, IR5-006-02_Revised_NIA March 2017.


16 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

78. RWDI submitted that the permissible sound level (PSL) values determined in accordance

with Rule 012 are 40 dBA Leq nighttime and 50 dBA Leq daytime for all residential receptor

locations, with the exception of receptor R1. Receptor R1 is a Hutterite colony and has a

dwelling density of nine to 160 dwellings per quarter sections resulting in a PSL of 43 dBA Leq

nighttime and 53 dBA Leq daytime.

79. RWDI set out the predicted cumulative sound level of the project compared with the

PSLs as outlined in Rule 012. The results of the cumulative sound level assessment indicate that

the project is predicted to be in compliance with Rule 012 PSL values at all receptor locations

assessed.

Table 1. Cumulative sound level assessment28

Notes: 1 - Ambient sound level as outlined by AUC Rule 012, Table 1. 2 - The cumulative sound level is the logarithmic sum of AUC ambient sound level and Existing Oil and Gas Facilities contributions and the project contribution. 3 - PSL as outlined by AUC Rule 012.

28

Exhibit 170, IR5-006-02_Revised_NIA March 2017, PDF page 21.

Receptor ID Ambient sound

level1 (dBA)

Existing oil and gas facilities contribution

(dBA)

Project contribution

(dBA)

Cumulative sound level2

(dBA)

PSL3 (dBA)

Nighttime (22:00 – 07:00)

R1 38 19.5 26.2 38.3 43

R2 35 16.6 34.2 37.7 40

R3 35 16.2 34.1 37.6 40

R4 35 9.7 31.0 36.5 40

R6 35 11.5 32.1 36.8 40

R7 35 25.0 31.8 37.0 40

R8 35 20.3 29.3 36.1 40

R9 35 19.9 29.3 36.1 40

R10 35 19.2 28.9 36.0 40

Daytime (07:00 – 22:00)

R1 48 19.5 26.2 48.0 53

R2 45 16.6 34.2 45.4 50

R3 45 16.2 34.1 45.3 50

R4 45 9.7 31.0 45.2 50

R6 45 11.5 32.1 45.2 50

R7 45 25.0 31.8 45.2 50

R8 45 20.3 29.3 45.1 50

R9 45 19.9 29.3 45.1 50

R10 45 19.2 28.9 45.1 50


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 17

80. The Project NIA evaluated the potential for a low frequency noise contribution from the

project. RWDI included the C-Weighted sound level (dBC) minus the A-Weighted sound level

(dBA) for the project sound contributions and existing energy-related facilities. RWDI stated it

considered the potential for a low frequency noise issue to be low because the C-weighted values

are below 60 dBC and the specification for the turbine states that tonality will not occur.

5.3.2 Class C2 adjustment

81. The Project NIA included an application for a nighttime Class C2 adjustment at receptors

R2, R3 and R4.

82. PRE included the request for a Class C2 adjustment to the PSL in its public consultation

program and a sound specialist was available to answer questions on the subject at the Jenner

open house in June 2016. PRE submitted that stakeholders expressed no concerns on the topic.

83. Rule 012 allows project proponents to apply for a Class C2 adjustment to the PSL at a

residence if the proponent can demonstrate that the ambient wind sound level (AWSL) at a

particular dwelling is higher than an assumed ambient sound level based on Table 1 of Rule 012.

In other words, the Class C2 adjustment accounts for “wind masking” which can occur when the

sound of the wind at a residence “drowns out” the sound of the wind turbine. The maximum

available Class C2 adjustment under Rule 012 is 10 dB.

84. To qualify for a Class C2 adjustment, the project proponent must complete an AWSL

survey to determine the difference between the ambient sound level found in Table 1 of Rule 12

and the measured AWSL. Such survey must include, for each (group of acoustically comparable)

dwelling(s), the measurement of the available wind noise masking for each wind speed of at least

three metres per second (m/s) in each wind direction that is downwind from dominant wind

turbines toward the most exposed side of that dwelling.

85. RWDI conducted an AWSL survey at two receptor locations (dwellings), receptor R3

and receptor R7, over a 17-day monitoring period from May 20 to June 6, 2016.

86. The results of the AWSL survey indicated greater than assumed ambient rural sound

levels of 45 dBA and 35 dBA for the daytime and nighttime period respectively. Based on the

review of the audio recording, RWDI determined the elevated levels were due to the influence of

wind on the surrounding structures and vegetation.

87. PRE stated that the AWSL survey verified the presence of wind masking in the project

area and requested a Class C2 adjustment to the PSL to inform future compliance testing. PRE

submitted that the Class C2 adjustment to the PSL accounts for the wind generated sound, which

would allow future compliance testing to discern between sound generated by the project and

normal wind-generated sound levels in the area.

88. A record of wind speeds was collected from a weather tower at the project site and

averaged in 10-minute intervals. From these records, an average site wind shear was calculated

using standard meteorological formulae and a relative wind profile was generated to obtain the

ground level (1.5 metres) and hub height (110 metres) wind speeds.


18 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

89. RWDI submitted that the Senvion 3.4-MW wind turbines reach maximum noise output of

104 dBA when winds reach 7.5 metres per second (m/s) at hub height. Based on wind shear

calculations, RWDI determined the maximum turbine sound emissions will occur during 4 to

4.5 m/s ground level wind speeds.

90. The monitoring results were executed in 10-minute intervals and for each interval, the

L9029 sound level was extracted and the wind speed and wind direction were averaged. Records

were grouped into 12 wind direction bins, from zero degrees and comprised of +/- 15 degree

groupings. Groups were further subdivided into integer wind speed bins of

+/- 0.5 m/s starting at 3 m/s.

91. For each wind speed and bin direction, the standard deviation for the L90 records was

determined and the minimum number of valid samples required for a +/- 3 dB confidence level

was determined. The AWSL was calculated for each receptor, wind direction and wind speed

bins.

92. RWDI assigned each receptor an AWSL for a wind speed bin and wind direction bin

based on the location of the nearest turbine and the relative type of dwelling. Receptors R2 and

R3 used the measurement record from receptor R3, while the remaining receptors used the

measurement record from receptor R7. If a wind speed and wind direction bin combination

resulted in no valid measured AWSL, the second nearest turbine direction was used. This was

the case for receptor R4.

93. As third party energy-related facilities were operational during the measurement period,

the modelled contributions of those facilities were subtracted from the AWSL prior to

calculation of the PSL resulting in an ambient sound level without the influence of

energy-related facilities.

94. Using the AWSL at each receptor location and methodology outlined in Rule 012, RWDI

determined the Class C2 adjustment to the daytime and nighttime PSL for each receptor location.

95. RWDI determined that no receptors qualify for a Class C2 adjustment to the daytime

PSL, but some receptors would qualify for a Class C2 adjustment to the nighttime PSL.

96. RWDI requested Class C2 adjustments to the nighttime PSL for receptors R2, R3 and R4.

The determination of the Class C2 adjustment to the nighttime PSL results for those receptors is

summarized below.

29

The sound level that is exceeded 90 per cent of the time. This parameter is used to assess the AWSL in 10-minute

intervals, to account for lulls in wind speed and will consequently represent the quietest 10 per cent of the time in

a 10-minute interval.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 19

Table 2. Determination of adjusted nighttime PSL from the valid AWSL30

Receptor ID

Angle to nearest turbine

(0⁰ as North)

Wind direction

bins ± 15⁰

Valid AWSL (dBA) for Ground Wind Speed Bin (Hub Height Wind Speed)

(m/s)

Class C2 Adjusted PSL (dBA) for wind speed bin (hub height wind

speed) (m/s)

Final PSL (dBA)

3 (5) 4 (7) 5 (9) 3 (5) 4 (7) 5 (9)

R2 1 156 150 36.7 39.2 - 42 44 - 44

R3 1 152 150 36.7 39.2 - 42 44 - 44

R4 2, 3 347 330 37.2 37.2 37.3 42 42 42 42

Notes: 1 - Values based on measurement results from R3 ambient survey, third party facilities removed. 2 - Values based on measurement results from R7 ambient survey, third party facilities removed. 3 - Second nearest turbine used to determine wind bin, as nearest turbine resulted in minimal L90 data for day and night. -' indicates no valid L90 measurements for the wind speed.

97. RWDI submitted a summary table that included a comparison of the Rule 012 nighttime

PSL to the requested Class C2 adjusted nighttime PSL at receptors R2, R3 and R4 summarized

in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Class C2 adjustments requested

Receptor ID

AUC Rule 012 nighttime PSL (dBA)

Class C2 Adjusted nighttime PSL (dBA)

R2 40 44

R3 40 44

R4 40 42

98. A summary of the predicted cumulative sound level compared with the Class C2 adjusted

nighttime PSL for receptors R2, R3 and R4 is presented in Table 4. This assessment shows that

the project will comply with the Class C2 adjusted PSL at receptors R2, R3 and R4.

Table 4. Assessment of compliance with Class C2 adjusted PSLs31

Receptor ID C2 adjusted ambient

sound level (dBA)

Existing oil and gas facilities

contribution (dBA)

Proposed project contribution (dBA)

Predicted cumulative sound level

(dBA)

C2 adjusted nighttime PSL

(dBA)

R2 39 16.6 34.2 41.3 44

R3 39 16.2 34.1 41.3 44

R4 37 9.7 31.0 38.9 42

99. In accordance with Rule 012, a Class C2 adjustment may only be requested if the

operation of the wind turbines can be adjusted for the variability of the wind speed and direction

to maintain compliance with the PSL. In response to information requests, the applicant stated

30

Exhibit 21394-X0170, IR5-006-02_Revised_NIA March 2017, PDF page 18, Table 11. 31

Exhibit 21394-X0170, IR5-006-02_Revised_NIA March 2017, PDF page 22, Table 15.


20 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

there are a variety of operating modes available with the Senvion wind turbine that include the

normal operating mode and three sound reduced modes. PRE confirmed the Senvion wind

turbine normal and sound reduced operating modes can be triggered by wind speed and wind

direction measured at the nacelle-mounted instrumentation on the turbine and that, in the event

of a complaint, specific atmospheric conditions can be preprogrammed into the turbine to engage

the reduced noise operating modes.

100. Rule 012 states that a Class C2 adjustment for one dwelling may be applied to other

dwellings within the same project study area that have a similar acoustical environment and

ambient wind sound level.

101. Specifically, Rule 012 states:

For a dwelling to be deemed similar, justification must be provided demonstrating that

the difference in daytime and nighttime ambient wind sound level at the dwelling(s) is no

greater than plus or minus three dB from the measured wind ambient sound level at the

similar dwelling.

102. PRE submitted that receptors R2 and R3 are similar because of their proximity to each

other and their similar site conditions.

103. PRE submitted that receptor R7 was chosen as the most representative of wind conditions

at receptor R4 for wind masking for the following reasons:

The orientation of R4 to the Jenner Wind Power Plant is similar, with both receptors

located east of the project, with R4 only southeast of turbines while R7 is east, southeast

and northeast of turbines.

Both locations are single family farms.

Wind-generated sound would be influenced by structures more than vegetation.

There are structures between the turbines and the residences.32

104. In order to demonstrate the requirement for acoustic similarity between receptors, PRE

submitted that “measured AWSLs are more dependent on wind speed than the number of

structures, or orientation of structures to the microphone or the density of vegetation.”33

PRE submitted that receptors R3 and R7 have less than 3 dBA variation in the directions for

which valid data for use in a Class C2 adjustment is available. It provided a table, reproduced in

Table 5, to demonstrate this point:

32

Exhibit 21394-X0169, IR5-006-1_C2 Adjustment, Detailed Analysis_R7, page 4. 33

Exhibit 21394-X0169, IR5-006-1_C2 Adjustment, Detailed Analysis_R7, page 1.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 21

Table 5. Measured AWSL for 4 m/s wind speed at R3 and R734

Receptor Wind Direction Bins

+/- 15 degrees

Wind Speed Bin

(m/s)

AWSL

(dBA)

R3 150 4.0 39

180 39

300 37

330 39

R7 150 4.0 37

300 40

330 37

105. PRE submitted that there is less than a 3 dBA variation between receptors R3 and R7

despite the fact that the “general layout, number of structures and trees varied between the two

sites, with fewer structures on the R3 location compared to R7, particularly for wind from the

300⁰ and 330⁰ directions.”35


5.4.1 Environmental issues

106. The Commission recognizes PRE’s attempts to locate infrastructure on cultivated land

and to parallel linear disturbances to mitigate the environmental effects of the project.

107. The AEP WM Wind Energy Referral Report indicates that with the exception of

overhead collector lines on native grassland, the project’s impact to the environment is

acceptable to AEP WM. AEP WM’s review and sign off on PRE’s pre-development wildlife

surveys, environmental protection plan, and post-construction monitoring program is an

important factor in the Commission’s consideration of the environmental effects of the project.

The Commission recognizes PRE’s commitments to update any wildlife studies in the event of

delays to the project.

108. The Commission also recognizes PRE’s commitments to develop a plan to compensate

for the 3.18 hectares of native grasslands that would be permanently disturbed by the project and

to continue to consult with AEP to develop this plan. Further, PRE committed to reclaiming

8.33 hectares of native grasslands that would be temporarily disturbed during construction and to

using best practices for native grassland reclamation.

109. The Commission recognizes that burying collector lines is an important tool to mitigate

incremental impacts to wildlife, in particular bird and bat mortalities from collisions with wind

turbines and related infrastructure, and observes that most of the approved wind energy

developments in Alberta have utilized underground collector lines. However, the Commission

also recognizes that there could be instances where the use of overhead connector lines may be

required. In such circumstances, the Commission finds that routing overhead collector lines

34

Exhibit 21394-X0169, IR5-006-1_C2 Adjustment, Detailed Analysis_R7, page 2, Table 1. 35

Exhibit 21394-X0169, IR5-006-1_C2 Adjustment, Detailed Analysis_R7, page 2.


22 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

parallel to linear disturbances such as transmission and distribution lines will mitigate the impact

of the collector lines.

110. The Commission acknowledges that PRE’s attempts to site the turbines on cultivated

land, as opposed to native grasslands, will result in the distribution of the turbines to be more

widely spread out into groupings or clusters rather than a single contiguous area. Connecting

these clusters necessitates a lengthier collector system and requires that the collector system

traverse native grassland. The Commission is satisfied that the impacts of the overhead portion

of PRE’s proposed collector system will be mitigated in part by routing the collector lines

parallel to existing and proposed linear infrastructure, such as distribution lines and the

Preferred Route of the proposed 949L Transmission Line, should the Commission approve that

route.

111. The Commission considers PRE’s amendment to its collector system to bury additional

lines on native grassland that do not parallel linear disturbances to be an important measure that

demonstrates PRE’s commitment to mitigating the environmental impacts of the project. While

AEP WM has not had an opportunity to review and comment on this amendment, the

Commission finds that it is a material improvement over the earlier collector system layout and

appears to be more consistent with the goals and objectives of AEP WM, set out in its most

recent directive.

112. The Commission finds that given PRE’s proposal to parallel linear disturbances,

including transmission and distribution lines, the use of overhead collector lines on native

grassland is acceptable in these circumstances.

113. Should the Commission approve the project, it will direct PRE to bury the collector

lines on native grassland in sections 4, 5, 8 and 9 of Township 21, Range 8, west of the

Fourth Meridian that do not parallel linear disturbances and for which PRE has provided an

underground option.36

114. Having regard to the recommendations in AEP WM’s signed October 7, 2016 Renewable

Energy Referral Report and the environmental commitments of PRE, should the Commission

approve the project, it would include the following conditions in the approval:

a. PRE shall keep the project’s wildlife data current (i.e., no more than two years old) until

the project is commissioned by updating the wildlife field surveys as necessary.

b. PRE shall implement any additional mitigation measures recommended by AEP WM

should any new wildlife features or issues be identified during completion of updated

wildlife surveys.

c. PRE shall complete a minimum of three years of post-construction bat and

bird mortality surveys, and submit the results of the surveys yearly to AEP WM.

PRE’s post-construction bird mortality surveys must include surveying along any

36

As shown in Exhibit 21394-X0168, IR5-002-1 Jenner Wind Power Project Proposed Collector Detailed Map

Book.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 23

above-ground segments of its collector line system located on native grasslands. PRE

shall provide yearly confirmation to the Commission that it has conducted this work.

d. PRE shall implement mitigation measures as directed by AEP WM if the

post-construction wildlife mortality surveys indicate levels of bat or bird mortalities in

the vicinity of any of the turbines or any of the above-ground collector lines that are

unacceptable to AEP WM.

115. The reclamation obligations for certain power generation facilities in Alberta, including

wind power generating facilities, are set out in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement

Act, which is administered and enforced by Alberta Environment and Parks.

116. Under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, an operator carrying out an

“activity” (as defined in the act and/or its regulations) has a duty to reclaim specified land and

obtain a reclamation certificate from Alberta Environment and Parks. To obtain a reclamation

certificate an operator must reclaim the land in accordance with the standards set out in

the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act or as otherwise directed by

Alberta Environment and Parks.

117. Until recently, the definition of “activity” under the Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act did not include wind power generation projects and, therefore, the duty to

reclaim did not apply to the operators of such projects. However, on March 31, 2017, the

Renewable Electricity Act came into force and amended the Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act by adding “the generating of wind electric power” to its Schedule of Activities.

118. As a result of this amendment, it is the Commission’s view that wind power generation

projects now fall within the definition of an “activity” in the Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act and that the operators of such projects located on specified land are now

required to obtain reclamation certificates from Alberta Environment and Parks.

119. The Commission expects that the applicant will comply with all applicable requirements

for conservation and reclamation of the project site under the Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act at the end of the project’s life, including the requirement to obtain a

reclamation certificate. However, if for any reason, at the time of decommissioning, there are no

statutory reclamation requirements in place for wind electric power generating facilities, the

applicant will be required to submit a reclamation plan to the Commission for its review and

approval in accordance with the following condition:

The applicant shall comply with current applicable reclamation standards at the time of

decommissioning. If no legislative requirements pertaining to reclamation are in place at

the time of decommissioning, the applicant will submit a reclamation plan to the

Commission for approval.

120. The Commission finds that, with the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined

above, the environmental effects of the project can be adequately mitigated.


24 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

5.4.2 Noise

121. The Commission first assessed the noise impact assessment without the request for the

Class C2 adjustment. In that regard, the Commission finds that the March 17, 2017 Project NIA

submitted by PRE meets the requirements of Rule 012 and accepts that the cumulative sound

level of the power plant is predicted to meet the daytime and nighttime PSL at all receptor

locations assessed.

122. The Commission recognizes that PRE’s rationale for applying for a Class C2 adjustment

is driven primarily by concerns about meeting the nighttime PSL when conducting post-

construction noise monitoring. The Commission finds that PRE demonstrated that the wind

resource in the project area, for certain directions and wind speeds, will likely result in an

ambient sound level greater than the assumed ambient sound level (i.e., wind masking) at

receptors R3 and R7. The Commission finds that the methodology RWDI used to conduct the

AWSL survey in aid of its request for a Class C2 adjustment is acceptable and that it meets the

requirements of Rule 012.

123. The Project NIA identified that at receptors R2 and R3, for the wind direction of

150 degrees, +/- 15 degrees, a Class C2 adjustment to the nighttime PSL of 2 dBA and 4 dBA

would be required at ground level wind speeds of 3 m/s and 4 m/s or higher, respectively. The

Project NIA also indicated that for receptor R4, a Class C2 adjustment to the nighttime PSL of

2 dBA would be required for a wind speed of 3 m/s or higher at a wind direction of 330 degrees,

+/- 15 degrees.

124. The NIA then summarized the Class C2 adjustment as a broad adjustment to the

nighttime PSL. The Commission finds this conclusion to be inconsistent with Rule 012,

Section 2.1(24) which provides that a Class C2 adjustment for a wind speed and wind direction

applies to the PSL when that wind speed and direction is present near the dwelling. The

nighttime PSL for remaining wind speed and directions where a Class C2 adjustment was not

applied for remain determined in accordance with Table 1 of Rule 012.

125. RWDI was unable to collect sufficient data for many of the wind directions, in particular

the direction relative to the nearest turbine to receptor R4, based on measurements at receptor

R7. The Commission finds that using a larger wind bin size, e.g. +/- 45 degrees, may have

alleviated some of the problems related to insufficient data.

126. Because PRE is not applying for a Class C2 adjustment at receptor R7, the Commission

considers that it cannot apply for a Class C2 adjustment at receptor R4 based on measurements at

receptor R7. To reiterate, Rule 012 states:

A Class C2 adjustment for one dwelling may be applied to other dwellings within the

same project study area that have a similar acoustical environment and ambient wind

sound level.

127. In the Commission’s view, the clause does not contemplate the use of measurements at

one receptor where no Class C2 adjustment is sought and applying those measurements to

another receptor as is applied for in this case. If receptors R4 and R7 were truly acoustically

similar in the context of a Class C2 adjustment, it would be necessary to apply for the adjustment

at both receptors. Further, the Commission finds that the nature of wind masking is reliant upon

the layout, size and type of structures and vegetation surrounding a residence and, as a result, is


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 25

site dependent. It is also the Commission’s view that the clause regarding dwellings with

acoustically similar environments was intended to refer to groupings of houses, such as receptors

R2 and R3, and was not meant to allow for measurements at two or more receptors that are not

grouped or in immediate proximity to each other.

128. For these reasons, and having regard for the fact that the project will be in compliance

with the PSL without a Class C2 adjustment at receptor R4, the Commission denies the request

for the Class C2 adjustment at receptor R4.

129. The Commission considers that receptors R2 and R3 are in close proximity to each other

and acoustically similar and approves the applied for Class C2 adjustment for these receptors.

The Commission approves a nighttime PSL of 42 dBA for a wind direction of 150 degrees,

+/- 15 degrees at a wind speed of 3 m/s and a nighttime PSL of 44 dBA for a wind direction of

150 degrees, +/- 15 degrees at a wind speed of 4 m/s or higher for receptors R2 and R3. The

nighttime PSL at these receptors for all other wind directions and wind speeds is still considered

to be 40 dBA.

5.4.3 Conclusion

130. As noted in Section 3 above, the Commission is required by Section 17 of the

Alberta Utilities Commission Act to decide if approval of the project is in the public interest

having regard to its social and economic effects and its effects on the environment.

131. The Commission is satisfied that the technical, siting, environmental and noise

requirements for the power plant comply with the requirements prescribed in Rule 007.

132. The Commission finds the participant involvement program undertaken by PRE to be

satisfactory and that it meets the requirements of Rule 007.

133. An important consideration for the Commission with respect to the environmental effects

of the project is the applicant’s compliance with various AEP guidelines applicable to the

project. The Commission regards compliance with the existing regulatory requirements

administered by other public or government departments or agencies to be an important element

when deciding if potential adverse impacts are acceptable. In this case, AEP’s only outstanding

concern related to the use of overhead collector lines for certain portions of the project. The

Commission finds that in these circumstances, PRE’s use of limited above-ground collector lines

is acceptable given the mitigations measures it has proposed and, in particular, the paralleling of

transmission and distribution lines and the use of bird markers.

134. The Commission is satisfied that the applicant’s estimated daytime and nighttime

predicted cumulative sound levels for the project meet the requirements of Rule 012, and that a

Class C2 adjustment is justified for receptors R2 and R3.

135. Having regard to the foregoing, the Commission finds that the adverse effects of the

project, which include noise and impacts to the environment, can be mitigated to an acceptable

degree. The Commission therefore considers the project to be in the public interest in accordance

with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.


26 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

6 Halsbury 306S Substation and transmission line 949L

6.1 Halsbury 306S Substation

136. PRE requested approval to construct and operate the Halsbury 306S Substation, which

would be located on privately owned agricultural land within Special Area No. 2 in the southeast

quarter of Section 32, Township 21, Range 8, west of the Fourth Meridian.

137. PRE proposed that the substation would contain the following major equipment:

two 240/35-kV, 120/160/200-megavolt-ampere (MVA) transformers

one 240-kV circuit breakers

nine 35-kV circuit breakers

associated substation equipment

138. The substation would be surrounded by a chain-link fence approximately 64 metres by

70 metres in dimension.

139. PRE filed a NIA for the Halsbury 306S Substation, prepared by RWDI. The NIA

concluded that the substation would comply with the daytime and nighttime PSLs as outlined in

Rule 012.

6.2 Transmission line 949L

140. PRE also proposed to construct a new single-circuit 240-kV transmission line, designated

as transmission line 949L, that would connect PRE’s Halsbury 306S Substation to AltaLink’s

existing Jenner 275S Substation.

141. PRE submitted that the primary land uses in the study area are ranching and farming, but

that there is also a considerable amount of oil and gas facilities. PRE identified four preliminary

routes for the transmission line and eliminated two of the routes after consultation and

consideration of the route impacts. PRE proposed a Preferred Route and an Alternate Route as

shown in the figure below.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 27

Figure 3: Transmission line 949L proposed routes

JENNER

275S SUBSTATION

PROPOSEDHALSBURY 306S

JENNER

RE

D

DEER

R.

555

884

554

TOWNSHIP RD. 202

RA

NG

E R

D.9

0 T.21

T.22

T.20

R.9 R.8W.4M.

555

884

PROPOSED PREFERRED ROUTEPROPOSED ALTERNATE ROUTE N.T.S.

SUBSTATION


28 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

142. PRE summarized the routes in the following table:

Table 6. Transmission line 949L route comparison

143. PRE submitted that the Preferred Route would have a lower impact on the environment

and infrastructure such as oil and gas facilities and pipelines. It also indicated that the Preferred

Route would reduce overall impacts of the project by paralleling the proposed overhead

collection lines of the wind farm.

144. PRE did not provide the costs of the transmission line because the transmission line is

being constructed as a market participant choice facility and all costs will be incurred by PRE. In

response to information requests from the Commission, PRE estimated that the Alternate Route

would cost approximately three to five per cent more than the Preferred Route.

145. PRE retained McCallum Environmental Ltd. to prepare an environmental summary

report that summarizes the results of pre-construction wildlife field surveys and habitat

evaluations conducted in the project area. The report was intended to identify

potentially-affected valued ecosystem components, determine the project’s impact on those

components, and develop techniques to mitigate any adverse environmental effects.

146. The report indicated that routing adjacent to existing disturbances, such as roads and

power lines, will help reduce wildlife habitat fragmentation. It stated that the Preferred Route

would fall alongside existing disturbances for approximately 75 per cent of its length, while the

Alternate Route would follow existing disturbances for approximately 54 per cent of its length.

147. The report identified that the Jenner 275S Substation is located within the AEP

recommended setback of 1,000 metres for an active ferruginous hawk nest that sits on an existing

37

Exhibit 21394-X0108, PRE Response to Information Request Round 2 for Jenner Wind Interconnection,

page 11, Table 1.

Transmission Line 949L Route Comparison37

Preferred Alternate

Length (km) 13.91 13.65

Pipeline Crossings (total number crossed) 26 (39) 28 (40)

Structures 70 77

Nearby waterbodies 2 6

Wetlands crossed by right-of way 17 17

Distribution Crossings 12 10

Wells in vicinity 16 16

Stakeholders 6 5

Residences within 800 metres 0 0

Cultivated land crossed (m) 825 965

Environmentally Significant Areas crossed (km)

0 4.5

Parallel electric transmission lines (km) 0.7 7.8

Co-location of proposed wind project overheard collector system (km)

48 per cent 0 per cent

Access Good Good

Cost Low Medium


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 29

transmission line structure. The Preferred Route would be located approximately 235 metres

from the nest while the Alternate Route would be located approximately 830 metres away. The

Alternate Route would also be located approximately 430 metres from a sharp-tailed grouse lek.

148. PRE submitted that it assessed an additional route in an attempt to maintain the

1,000-metre setback from the ferruginous hawk nest as much as possible but that it rejected this

route because of additional environmental impacts and engineering difficulties. PRE submitted

that it would install bird makers within an AEP specified distance of the nest and would restrict

construction of the portion of the line within the setback distance to be outside the April 15 to

July 15 breeding period.38

149. McCallum indicated that the Preferred Route would have the least potential impact to

wetland species as it would contain the fewest number of total and permanent wetlands.

150. PRE submitted that the Preferred Route would have lower impacts to wetlands. It stated

that 10 of the 17 wetlands that the Preferred Route would cross are classified as Class III or

higher, while 14 of the 17 wetlands that the Alternate Route would cross are classified as

Class III or higher. PRE submitted that wetlands with higher classifications typically support a

higher abundance and diversity of wildlife and vegetation. In addition, the Alternate Route

would cross four, and be adjacent to an additional two, permanent shallow open water bodies,

while the Preferred Route only crosses one semi-permanent water body.

151. PRE consulted with AEP WM and AltaLink about the use of bird markers on the

transmission line. PRE estimated that it would install bird markers on approximately

4,600 metres of line.

152. PRE also filed correspondence from AEP WM indicating it had reviewed PRE’s

justification for the preferred route and agreed with the rationale and proposed mitigation.39

153. PRE conducted a participant involvement program in conjunction with the participant

involvement program for the Jenner Wind Power Plant. The program included notifying parties

within 2,000 metres of the project boundary and conducting consultations with stakeholders

within 800 metres of the project. PRE also held an open house on November 24, 2015 in Jenner.

154. PRE confirmed that it had executed an Asset Transfer Agreement with AltaLink and that

the Interim Operating Authority Services and Interconnection Agreement had been drafted and

would be in place prior to energization. PRE submitted that the Interim Operating Authority

Services and Interconnection Agreement covers a temporary period that will not exceed six

months following energization subject to extension by the parties’ written agreement.40 AltaLink

indicated that it had worked with PRE to facilitate the temporary operation and eventual transfer

of transmission line 949L to AltaLink. AltaLink stated that it would apply to the Commission to

transfer the necessary approvals to operate transmission line 949L and for an interconnection

order to complete the market participant choice process.

38

Exhibit 21394-X0078, Attachment 7: JWPIP Environmental Summary, PDF pages 62-64. 39

Exhibit 21394-X0078, Attachment 7: JWPIP Environmental Summary, PDF page 61. 40

Exhibit 21394-X0108, PRE Response to Information Request Round 2 for Jenner Wind Interconnection Project,

PDF page 29.


30 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)


155. The Commission finds that the applications to construct and operate Halsbury 306S

Substation and transmission line 949L comply with the information requirements prescribed in

Rule 007. The facility applications are also consistent with the need identified in the NID

application.

156. The Commission is also satisfied that the participant involvement program undertaken by

PRE meets the requirements of Rule 007.

157. The Commission finds that the Preferred Route of transmission line 949L will have the

least impacts because it will parallel more linear infrastructure, cross fewer water bodies, and

have less impacts to wetlands than the Alternate Route. The Commission recognizes that

AEP WM agreed with PRE’s justification for the selection of the preferred route. The

Commission is satisfied that with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the

environmental effects of the transmission line and substation will be minimal.

158. The Commission finds that there are no outstanding technical or environmental concerns

associated with the substation or transmission line, nor are there any outstanding public or

industry concerns.

159. Given the considerations discussed above, the Commission finds the construction of the

Halsbury 306S Substation and transmission line 949L to be in the public interest pursuant to

Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.

160. The Commission directs PRE to install bird marking devices on segments of the

transmission line that are:

a. Within 100 metres of Class III, IV and V wetlands.

b. Within 100 metres of the high water mark of open water bodies.

c. Within AEP’s 1,000-metre minimum setback for the existing ferruginous hawk nest.

d. Within AEP’s recommended minimum setbacks for high disturbance level activities for

any bird species at risk that may subsequently be identified during pre-construction

wildlife surveys.

161. The Commission expects that PRE and AltaLink will coordinate their efforts to file an

application to transfer operation of the transmission line to AltaLink after construction is

completed, and anticipates that such application will be filed within six months of the

energization of the transmission line.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 31

7 AltaLink Jenner 275S Substation alterations

162. AltaLink applied pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act to

alter and operate Jenner 275S Substation by adding one 240-kV circuit breaker and to install or

modify other associated substation equipment. AltaLink is the owner of the Jenner 275S

Substation pursuant to Permit and Licence 21975-D02-2016.41

163. AltaLink also applied pursuant to Section 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act for an

order to interconnect the Jenner 275S Substation to PRE’s transmission line 949L.

164. The Jenner 275S Substation is located in the southeast quarter of Section 19,

Township 20, Range 8, west of the Fourth Meridian. AltaLink stated that upon completion of the

alterations, the Jenner 275S Substation would contain the following major equipment:

two 240/25-kV, 50/67/83-MVA LTC transformers

one 138/25-kV, 15/20/25-MVA transformer

seven 240-kV circuit breakers

one 138-kV circuit breaker

ten 25-kV circuit breakers

associated substation equipment

165. AltaLink also proposed to expand the fenceline of the substation by approximately

30 metres by 55 metres to the northeast.

166. Subsequent to filing its application, AltaLink filed a separate application and received

approval to install three additional 25-kV circuit breakers at Jenner 275S Substation in

Proceeding 21975, bringing the total number of 25-kV circuit breakers to 13.

167. AltaLink’s participant involvement program consisted of a notification and consultation

process. It provided a project-specific information package to stakeholders within 800 metres of

the substation and conducted consultations with stakeholders directly adjacent to the substation.

AltaLink submitted that there are no outstanding concerns or objections to the substation

alterations.

168. AltaLink submitted that based on the scope of the project and mitigation measures

proposed, it anticipated that the potential environmental effects of the project will be negligible.

169. AltaLink stated that it received Historical Resources Act approval from Alberta Culture

and Tourism for the project on March 3, 2016, and filed a subsequent application for a proposed

temporary workspace for which it received approval on April 14, 2016.

41

Substation Permit and Licence 21975-D02-2016, Proceeding 21975, Application 21975-A001,

September 27, 2016.


32 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

170. The cost of the substation project is estimated to be approximately $4,963,000 (within

+20 per cent/-10 per cent accuracy). This cost would be allocated entirely to the customer, PRE.


171. The Commission finds that the facility application to alter Jenner 275S Substation

complies with the information requirements prescribed in Rule 007, and that it is also consistent

with the need identified in the NID application.

172. The Commission is satisfied that the participant involvement program meets the

requirements of Rule 007.

173. It is also satisfied that there are no outstanding technical or environmental concerns

associated with the substation alterations, nor are there any outstanding public or industry

concerns.

174. Given the considerations discussed above, the Commission finds the alterations to

Jenner 275S Substation to be in the public interest pursuant to Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities

Commission Act.

8 Decision

175. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves

applications 21394-A001 and 21394-A006 and grants PRE the approval set out in Appendix 1 –

Jenner Wind Power Plant – Approval 21394-D02-2017 – June 16, 2017.

176. Pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act, the Commission approves the need

outlined in NID Application 21394-A003 and grants the AESO the approval set out in

Appendix 2 – Needs Identification Document Approval 21394-D03-2017 – June 16, 2017.

177. Pursuant to sections 14, 15 and 19 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission

approves Application 21394-A002 and grants PRE the approval set out in Appendix 3 – Permit

and Licence 21394-D04-2016 – June 16, 2017, to construct and operate Halsbury 306S

Substation.


approves Application 21394-A004 and grants PRE the approval set out in Appendix 4 – Permit

and Licence 21394-D05-2017 – June 16, 2017, to construct and operate transmission line 949L.


approves Application 21394-A005 and grants AltaLink the approval set out in Appendix 5 –

Permit and Licence 21394-D06-2017 – June 16, 2017, to alter and operate Jenner 275S

Substation.

180. Pursuant to Section 18 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, the Commission approves

Application 21394-A005 and grants AltaLink the approval set out in Appendix 6 – Connection

Order 21394-D07-2017 – June 16, 2017, to connect PRE’s transmission line 949L to AltaLink’s

Jenner 275S Substation.


Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017) • 33

181. The appendices will be distributed separately.

Dated on June 16, 2017.


(original signed by)

Anne Michaud

Commission Member


34 • Decision 21394-D01-2017 (June 16, 2017)

Appendix A – Abbreviations

Abbreviation Name in full

AEP Alberta Environment and Parks

AEP WM Alberta Environment and Parks-Wildlife Management

AESO Alberta Electric System Operator

AltaLink AltaLink Management Ltd.

AUC or the

Commission


AWSL ambient wind sound level

EPP environmental protection plan

EUB or the Board Alberta Energy Utilities Board

kV kilovolt

McCallum McCallum Environmental Ltd.

MVA megavolt-ampere

MW megawatt

NIA noise impact assessment

NID needs identification document

PRE Power Renewable Energy Corporation

PSL Permissible Sound Level

Rule 007 Rule 007: Applications for Power Plants, Substations, Transmission

Lines, Industrial System Designations and Hydro Developments

Rule 012 Rule 012: Noise Control

RWDI RWDI Consulting Engineers & Scientists

TFO transmission facility owner

Documents

Power Renewable Energy Corporation - AUC€¦ · Power Renewable Energy Corporation ... The application, filed pursuant to Section 11 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, was registered