The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) has denied plans for a 607-hectare solar farm in southern Alberta, Canada, citing concerns over potential increases in bird deaths at Frank Lake, a globally recognized bird habitat. The proposed Foothills Solar Project, capable of producing up to 150 MW of power, would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions but was deemed unacceptable by the AUC due to the environmental and social impact on the Frank Lake Important Bird Area. The area is home to over 250 species of birds, including 60 at risk, and provides nesting and feeding habitats.
Research around the “lake effect hypothesis,” the idea that birds might mistake solar panels for water, crash into them, and die, is in its infancy. Still, studies across North America suggest that mortality rates related to this hypothesis can range quite high, which was a significant concern for water birds in the area. Besides, a significant portion of the proposed solar farm would have been built within one kilometre of the Frank Lake IBA area, threatening important nesting and feeding habitat.
The proposed solar farm faced opposition from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Foothills County, and the grassroots group Frank Lake Concerned Citizens. Lacey Cosgrave, a member of the group, said that her family would have considered moving had the project gone through since the solar farm would have been visible from her home. Cold Lake First Nations invested in the project, hoping to participate in the renewable energy sector, but did not comment on the commission’s denial.
Elemental Energy, a Vancouver-based company, operates solar energy projects across North America, including four in southern Alberta, and is disappointed by the utility commission’s decision. The company plans to review the AUC decision and identify opportunities to move the Foothills Solar Project forward, but it would need to reapply with any changes made to the project. Filing an application for review and variance or appealing through the Court of Appeal of Alberta are options for the company. However, both avenues for appeal would have narrow grounds.