we were unable to protect the river valley against epcor solar farm

material related to the solar farm is archived below.

ERVCC plans to appeal A RULING regarding EPCOR’s solar farm. We have received legal opinions that this ruling made various legal errors.

This is our last chance to stand up for an ecological and culturally important land, our last chance to ensure that solar energy production happen where it is compatible with land use.

• This land is threatened central aspen parkland habitat, of which less than 5% remains in a native state in Canada. According to the Nature Conservancy, this ecozone “provides habitat for over 45 species at risk and includes some of the most productive and extensive waterfowl breeding habitat on the continent” yet 80% of it has been lost to agricultural use and it is the most impacted ecozone in the Prairies.

• The Alberta Government’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism designated this land HRV 3 – the same heritage resource value as much of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and Writing-on-Stone, both UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Oral history and archaeological findings going back 9,000 years suggest this land was used as a sacred Sundance site.

• The solar farm project fences off this entire area and seriously constricts 1.5 km of a regional wildlife corridor used by deer, elk, moose, and even black bears and cougars.

• The 2022 IPCC report emphasizes that the climate and biodiversity crises must be resolved together. In other words, solar development must not be at the expense of nature.

THE LEGAL DETAILS

ERVCC filed for judicial review of city council’s decision to rezone the land and approve the solar farm in 2020, based on the fact they did not subject the project to the River Valley Bylaw. The bylaw states that “major public facilities shall not be constructed or expanded unless their location with the River Valley is deemed essential and approved by City Council.”

• In 2022, the judge determined our claim was “moot” because the project had been approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission, and the Municipal Government Act states that provincial decisions take precedent. The AUC approval and MGA rule are true. However, the AUC’s approval stated the project would be subject to the city’s River Valley Bylaw – which, furthermore, was a requirement set out in the master agreement between the City and Epcor when the land was transferred to Epcor.

• So how did the River Valley Bylaw condition just disappear? Why would the AUC have included the point if it did not expect it to be followed? And why were there two years of public hearings, thousands of pages of reports produced by city administration, and a vote by city council if nothing they said mattered? The disappearance of the condition also means the project was subject to zero environmental review.

• This issue is a fight both to protect our river valley and to hold our city accountable. We expect our city administration and council to follow our bylaws, vote to keep unnecessary industry out of the river valley, and intervene in provincial decisions if similar proposals come up again (which is likely, as Epcor owns other land in the river valley). We also expect – as the city is Epcor’s owner and sole shareholder – that they will ensure Epcor projects are in the best interest of the city. More generally, we expect proper process; an energy regulator should not be determining land use without an environmental review.

• The judge made other statements we see as possible errors too. A good assessment of the case was done by the Environmental Law Center and can be reviewed HERE

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP:

Donate and ask others to do the same. We can only proceed with the appeal if we raise the money to pay for legal fees by May 1, 2022. A GoFundMe has been set up to help us.

HOPED FOR OUTCOME

If our appeal is successful, the decision will go back to city council to vote on whether the river valley location is essential for the project. It would be very difficult for anyone to claim it is (and in a Taproot survey before last fall’s municipal election, 10 out of 12 councillors plus the mayor stated that they did not support the river valley location of the solar farm). If city council voted against the project, they would be in an excellent position to bargain.

• While construction is already underway, we would like to see this land restored and protected as a wildlife corridor, habitat, and an extremely significant cultural area – all befitting a River Valley Urban National Park. We would also like to see the solar project built on brownfields or rooftops, where it belongs.

• Lastly, we want to make clear to city council, city administration, and Epcor that citizens expect them to respect the river valley and stand up for our city’s own bylaws.

solar farm appeal Background

In 2017, EPCOR presented a proposal to the city of Edmonton to build a solar power plant next to the E.L. Smith water treatment plant in the west end of the city. While the catalyst for the proposal was a requirement by the city of Edmonton for EPCOR to convert approximately 10% of its conventional power consumption to locally produced renewable sources, the city left the details up to EPCOR, and to help enable the shift, it permitted EPCOR to add a premium to its customers’ bills to subsidize the project.

EPCOR’s solar power plant proposal requires the rezoning of 99 acres of river valley parkland (near the proposed Big Island / Woodbend Urban Provincial Park) for industrial use, the cutting of trees, enclosure of the area by a fence, and installation of 45,000 ground-mounted solar panels. As indicated in the business case it presented to Edmonton’s Utilities Committee in February 2018, EPCOR chose this location because it enables the greatest profit: EPCOR was given the title to the land, there would be transmission cost savings, and there would be corporate benefit in developing solar energy expertise and in constructing tangible assets.

While EPCOR is to be commended for developing solar power in Edmonton, this development should not happen at the expense of the river valley. As the business case acknowledges, the main goal of the project is “environmental responsibility” (1, 13). An information board at the project open house also stated that EPCOR is “committed to the City of Edmonton’s objective to become a leader in energy efficiency and conservation” (slide 5).

However, the river valley location directly prevents conservation and hence environmental sustainability; cutting trees and using river valley land means this proposal is anything but green. The proposal runs counter to the River Valley bylaw, which states as its first goal: “to ensure preservation of the natural character and environment of the North Saskatchewan River Valley and its Ravine System.” And this bylaw was expressly created to keep industrial use out of the river valley; as the bylaw itself notes, “civic uses such as public utilities” are a threat to the river valley, and “these uses tend to be incompatible with the aims of nature preservation and parkland development.”

The proposal also conflicts with Edmonton’s environmental master plan “The Way We Green.” While EPCOR’s business case frequently cites “The Way We Green,” it cherry-picks references to alternative energy and ignores references to conservation, such as: “The City protects, preserves, and enhances the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System as Edmonton’s greatest natural asset.” Looking ahead, the proposal also interferes with Edmonton’s goals with its “Ribbon of Green” and “Breathe” strategies.

In order for this project to be environmentally responsible, it must consider both energy efficiency and conservation. A solar power plant in the river valley does not do this. The problem seems to be a conflict of shareholder requirements: EPCOR is expected to work as a commercial entity and thereby maximize profit, and at the same time it is being asked to develop an environmentally responsible project. Environmental projects cannot be evaluated by classical economic models focused on profit; they need to follow true-cost accounting. In this case, that means accounting for “conservation value,” which is well known to be an unquantifiable yet irreplaceable value.

The following diagram, taken from “The Way We Green,” shows the hierarchy of nested values used in true-cost accounting. It shows how the environment has the highest value, social needs have the second-highest value, and economic decisions carry the third-highest value.

Because the proposal does not account for conservation value of the land, it does not align with environmental best practices for solar, which involve “site without regrets” as a guideline. As the Solar Trade Association notes, “Ground-mounted solar should ideally utilise previously developed land, brownfield, contaminated land, industrial land and [low-grade] agricultural land.”

Conservation Value

Edmonton’s North Saskatchewan River Valley is the only ecological corridor through our city. While EPCOR’s proposal states it mitigates wildlife interference by allowing a 100-metre corridor alongside the facility, this number seems arbitrary and insufficient rather than backed by scientific evidence. Karsten Heuer, a well-known wildlife biologist with the Yellowstone to Yukon Corridor initiative, has emphasized that minimum width must be 450 meters, and in 2017, a development project in Canmore was rejected because it involved a corridor width of only 350 meters. While Edmonton’s river valley contains “pinch points” of less than 450 meters, these are recognized as problematic areas – and it certainly makes no sense to introduce a new one as part of a project whose goal is “environmental responsibility.”

The river valley land in question offers a perfect opportunity for restoration and is capable of providing excellent riparian habitat. Habitat loss is now recognized to be as serious a problem globally as climate change (see the UN-funded report released by the ISPPB this past March), so destroying habitat negates the environmental benefit of developing solar energy. We need to stop further habitat destruction and focus on restoring the open spaces that exist. “The Way We Green” likewise notes, “local and global ecosystem loss [is] a trend that places our own sustainability and quality of life at risk. [In Edmonton], in a given year more natural areas are still lost than protected. With biodiversity on the decline around the world and in Edmonton, new tools are needed to achieve the City’s biodiversity commitments.” The first goal listed in “The Way We Green” is to “Protect, preserve, and restore ecosystems and increase biodiversity.”

Likewise, trees should not be cut in the river valley for a solar power plant. As Edmonton’s Urban Forest Management Plan makes clear, “Edmonton’s trees represent an irreplaceable asset. The 2010 Corporate Tree Policy tree assessment…estimate[s] the value of the publicly owned portion of our urban forest at more than $1.2 billion. Unlike other municipal infrastructure, trees increase in value over time. The urban forest also makes a quantifiable contribution to the long-term livability of our city. Using modeling programs developed by the US Department of Agriculture and Forest Service, City staff measured our urban forest’s ability to clean the air, reduce stormwater runoff and sequester carbon. Combining field observations, meteorological information and air quality readings, Edmonton’s forest removed an estimated 531 tonnes of pollutants in 2009 alone, a feat worth more than $3 million.”

Finally, open green space is of major benefit for recreational use by Edmontonians. The physical and mental health benefits of access to nature are well documented, and Edmonton’s river valley furthermore provides an unparalleled opportunity for people to learn about nature. The healthier the ecosystem, the deeper the opportunity for learning proper stewardship. As the southwest of Edmonton expands, maintaining green space in the river valley – as wide wild spaces and as linear corridor – is ever-more important.

Alternatives

Transitioning to solar power involves a major opportunity for public education and engagement. Locating the project in the river valley will make the project controversial rather than simply encouraging Edmontonians to embrace the transition to renewable energy. It also sets a bad precedent for industrial use of the river valley, both by public utilities and private landowners who might seek to lease their land for similar use.

A better solution is afforded by another option EPCOR explored, which is locating the panels on rooftops of their various facilities. While this might involve greater capital costs, those costs are more than offset by saving 99 acres of river valley parkland. Furthermore, the goal of implementing 10% renewable energy was not intended as an endpoint, but rather a starting point, to shift toward greater sustainability and resiliency. The incentive should thus be used to invest in scalable projects on rooftops or in brownfields and parking lots so that EPCOR can learn from and which have the future potential to leverage community investments.

Another option is for EPCOR to enter into a third-party contract to purchase green power. The Government of Alberta will soon roll out its Community Generation Program to help achieve its goal for 30% of the province’s energy to come from sustainable sources by 2030. This may provide opportunities for EPCOR to partner with individuals, organizations and businesses in Edmonton and area to produce renewable energy.

Tying either option above to restoration of the river valley land around the E.L. Smith Water Treatment Plant would make this a model environmental project, demonstrating the careful land use needed to truly transition Edmonton toward sustainability and resiliency – which is, of course, the main goal of shifting to solar energy.

Conclusion

Edmonton has spent the last century removing industry from the river valley to restore habitat and enable healthy recreational use.

Allowing industrial facilities in the river valley now ­– irrespective of the type of service they provide – is a step backward. This land is most valuable as conserved natural land.

The ERVCC supports the development of solar energy in Edmonton, but in locations that do not disturb natural land. There is a special irony in cutting down trees and destroying the environment to make way for a solar power plant. That’s what rooftops, brownfields and parking lots are for. As the North Saskatchewan River Valley Conservation Society’s executive direct Harvey Voogd has said, “Green energy should not be produced at the expense of Edmonton’s ribbon of green.”

What You Can Do 

Sign our petition! Click here to add your name: https://www.change.org/p/edmonton-city-council-preserve-edmonton-s-river-valley-from-industry-stop-epcor-s-solar-power-plant

If you support solar — just not in the river valley — please call or email your city councilor and the mayor to let them know.

This is our river valley. Together, we are going to protect it for good.

References and Resources

Bylaw 7188 (the River Valley Bylaw)  https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/plans_in_effect/North_Saskatchewan_River_ARP_Consolidation.pdf

EPCOR Solar Power Plant “Report to Utility Committee” Business Case [[SEE PDF]]

EPCOR Solar Power Plant Open House Information Boards https://www.epcor.com/products-services/infrastructure/construction-projects/el-smith-solar-farm/Documents/ELS-openhouse-boards-july-19.pdf

Fleury, Allison and Robert D. Brown. “A Framework for the Design of Wildlife Conservation Corridors with Specific Application to Southwestern Ontario.” Retrieved from: 
https://atrium2.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/4617/Fleury%20and%20Brown,%201996.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Foubert, Tanya. “Y2Y Stands Firm on Minimum Corridor Width.” Retrieved from: 
http://www.rmoutlook.com/article/Y2Y-stands-firm-on-minimum-corridor-width-20161013

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity. Retrieved from: 
https://www.ipbes.net/news/media-release-biodiversity-nature%E2%80%99s-contributions-continue-%C2%A0dangerous-decline-scientists-warn

Nagai, Tracy. “Canmore Council Rejects Major Development in Three Sisters Wildlife Corridor.” Global News. May 3, 2017. Retrieved from: 
https://globalnews.ca/news/3424333/canmore-council-rejects-major-development-in-three-sisters-wildlife-corridor/

Solar Trade Association. “Solar Farms: Ten Commitments.” Retrieved from 
http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/STA-solar-farm-commitments-Artworked.pdf

Stolte, Elise. “‘Go Elsewhere’: Epcor’s 23-Hectare River Valley Solar Farm Plan Faces Stiff Opposition.” Edmonton Journal. Feb. 6, 2018. Retrieved from: 
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/city-to-hold-open-house-on-24-hectare-solar-farm-in-river-valley

The Way We Green. Retrieved from 
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/TheWayWeGreen-approved.pdf

Urban Forest Management Plan. Retrieved from 
https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/PDF/Urban_Forest_Management_Plan.pdf

Wildlife Directive for Alberta Solar Energy Projects: Link

Voogd, Harvey. “Green Energy Shouldn’t Come at Expense of River Valley.” Edmonton Journal. April 20, 2018. Retrieved from: 
http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-green-energy-shouldnt-come-at-expense-of-river-valley

APRIL 2022 UPDATE: BIODIVERSITY PROECTION

Edmonton city council approved two policies on April 4 that were long overdue:

1. Ending aerial spraying of wetlands around the city (which we’d been spending over half a million dollars a year on, during a global biodiversity crisis)

2. Committing to a 2023 cosmetic pesticide ban (preventing the non-essential use of pesticides).

The former means protecting birds, dragonflies, and other species that naturally control mosquito populations. Edmonton has had an aerial mosquito spraying program since 1974. Canada and the US have lost nearly one third of bird populations since 1970. Scientific research points to the collapse in insect numbers as a main cause. The greatest decline has been in “aerial insectivores.”

Bank swallows were once common in Edmonton’s river valley, but after a 98% decline in the last 40 years they are now a threatened species.

It is critical to recognize that we are in an interconnected climate, biodiversity, and health crisis. The best way to protect ourselves is through supporting healthy ecosystems.

The city needs to hear gratitude and support from citizens for these important policies. Please consider sending them an email to thank them (write to city.clerk@edmonton.ca and ask that your email go to the mayor and city council) and/or send a letter to the Edmonton Journal saying the same.

If you have any questions or comments on the above items, or on river valley conservation, please email info@ervcc.com

October 2020 Update:

ERVCC’s Response to Solar farm rezoning

Edmonton City Council has now voted to rezone 99 acres in the river valley for EPCOR’s solar farm project. The ERVCC continues to oppose this project, as outlined in our press release below.

November 2020 Update:

ERVCC to Challenge Solar Farm in court

The Edmonton River Valley Conservation Coalition is now in the process of filing a legal claim against the City of Edmonton to oppose its recent rezoning of 99 acres of river valley parkland for an Epcor industrial solar plant. Our legal documents were submitted to the Court of Queen’s Bench on Monday, December 7.

We have a river valley bylaw precisely to protect our river valley from commercial, industrial, and public utilities threats. Solar energy is, of course, good in the right location – like on rooftops, landfills, and brownfield sites. But this is rare aspen parkland habitat that is heavily used by wildlife, and a regionally significant wildlife corridor; it is not an essential, nor appropriate, location for an industrial solar power plant.

This land is already sequestering carbon, as well as purifying the air, cooling the city, preventing flooding and drought, and providing habitat. The project would disturb the plants and soil with pilings for 45,000 solar panels, preventing the land’s full functioning as a carbon sink. It would also include the cutting of trees. The panels would be located behind a security fence, meaning that an area the size of 26 football fields would be lost as habitat, and a pinch-point “alley” approximately 1.5 km long would be created in the wildlife corridor. According to the province’s own solar guidelines, large solar projects do not belong in river valleys because they also threaten water birds, who tend to mistake the panels for water and then die from collision or stranding after impact, as they require water to take flight again.

The city has an obligation to respect the river valley bylaw. And that respect is now critical in this time of climate crisis and biodiversity crisis. According to a recent UN report, modernity has wiped out 60% of wildlife populations since 1970, and one million species are now at risk of extinction. The greatest cause for these losses is the destruction of natural habitat. By simply locating the solar panels elsewhere, we can work toward our city’s climate goals and preserve our river valley, which is so valuable ecologically and to the people of Edmonton. The ERVCC is standing up for protection of our river valley against this non-essential industrial use.

The ERVCC is crowd-sourcing funding for the legal challenge. The river valley matters to all of us, and so we are counting on Edmontonians to contribute to our campaign. We all need to stand up for what we love, or we are going to lose it.

We asked our supporters to donate to our legal fund and you were all very generous. Thank You. Our fundraiser is over. ERVCC realizes that as a collective we will face challenges along the way, but together we are closing in on our ultimate goal creating a more biophilic city.