AUC won’t consider local opposition to buy Saamis Solar

By Collin Gallant on January 8, 2025.

@@CollinGallant

The city’s planned purchase of the Saamis Solar Park will not be subject to a public hearing, according to the Alberta Utilities Commission, which ruled two opposition groups in Medicine Hat have failed to prove their case that it would directly affect them.

The AUC also stated in a letter released Tuesday that some concerns of the Medicine Hat Utility Ratepayers Association and Medicine Hat Land Developers group were not subject to AUC jurisdiction, but could be taken up with local government.

The AUC now expects to issue a ruling in early February on the city’s application to acquire the previously approved 325-megawatt, 1,600-acre solar array.

MHURA had applied for standing in the proceedings to block the conditional sale, announced last August between the city’s energy division and Irish green-power developer DP Energy.

It claimed the public-private nature of the deal opened up the issue to the general public.

“The commission acknowledges that the Saamis Solar Park project may impact utility rates or have tax implications to residents of the city,” the decision reads. “However, these issues are not properly before the commission in this proceeding.”

Administrators have said the project is one way the city’s energy company can strengthen the business by adding lower cost power production over time and reduce provincial carbon fees.

It applied to regulators to approve the transfer, to consider altering a set construction plan in order to accommodate phasing and also rule on how intermittent solar power production would be viewed in relation to an effective production capacity cap in the city’s power charter.

Those are all conditions of the $7-million sale agreement, while staff and elected officials say more about the economic case for construction would come to council when a final investment decision is presented.

MHURA argued through its law firm that the city had a duty to consult residents prior to acquisition, which they claim would expose ratepayers to long-term costs and higher prices.

The commission stated council has the authority to approve business decisions, set rates and have processes to receive and consider input from the community.

A city argument to restrict the groups from participating in the transfer application claimed “the concerns about potential investment and ratepayer impact are both premature and a matter of legislative authority of the city for the approval of elected councillors. Taken together, MHURA’s concerns fall outside of the scope of the application.”

The Medicine Hat Land Developers, four landowners at the eastern edge of the project area, argued that lengthening the construction timelines would push off potential reclamation and therefore further delay utility servicing and development on their lands north of Ranchlands.

The city began talks to acquire the project in September 2023, about 10 months before the DP application was approved, which landowners implied raised questions about local permitting processes. Had the undisclosed agreement been known, their lawyer argued, their position in the original hearing may have been altered.

“The commission finds that the concerns are not relevant to this application and were substantively considered in the original proceeding,” said the AUC, which ruled last summer that the expanded footprint of the then-DP Energy project was in the public interest and there was no plan to develop the lands for decades.

17
-16