The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) turned down a major solar project application proposed for the M.D. of Provost, citing agricultural and environmental concerns.
The decision to turn down Westbridge Renewables’ Eastervale Solar Inc. (ESI) application was released in AUC decision 28847-D01-2025 Feb. 19.
“The Commission has weighed all of the potential benefits in its assessment,” noted the decision. “However, overall, the Commission finds that the benefits associated with the project do not outweigh the adverse impacts of the project, particularly the impacts to the environment.
“For the reasons outlined in the decision, the Commission finds that approval of the applications is not in the public interest, and...the Commission denies the applications.
“This decision is without prejudice to ESI’s ability to re-apply for a project on the same lands after it has considered the Commission’s concerns.”
According to the decision the project would have consisted of a 300-megawatt (MW) solar power plant; the Eastervale 1090S substation; and a 200-MW, 400-megawatt hour (MWh) battery energy storage system.
The project was proposed to be located on about 314 hectares, 776 acres, of agricultural land in the M.D. of Provost, about 10 km southwest of the village of Hughenden.
The ECA Review reached out to ESI’s parent company, Westbridge Renewable Energy Corporation, for comment Feb. 26 but no response was received by deadline. If a response is received, this story will be updated.
The AUC noted the critical role the M.D. of Provost, its bylaws and policies played in its decision. “The M.D.’s concerns in this proceeding focused heavily on the project’s perceived incompatibility with the MD’s agricultural land use planning objectives,” stated the decision.
“The M.D. raised concerns about the viability and feasibility of ESI’s agrivoltaics plan and argued that the proposed project would result in an unacceptable degradation of high-quality agricultural land, which conflicts with the municipality’s agricultural land preservation goals.
“Municipalities play a unique role in land use planning and have a strong interest in upholding local objectives. The Commission considers their land use authority and planning instruments when determining if a project is in the public interest and values the insights municipalities can provide on the potential effects of projects.”
The decision noted the Eastervale proposal as it was presented would impact wetlands.
“The Wildlife Directive for Solar Energy Projects establishes standards for solar energy projects in Alberta to avoid or mitigate the risk to wildlife and wildlife habitat,” stated the decision.
“ESI later revised the project and, in doing so, increased the project’s total impacts to wetlands. With respect to both the initial and revised versions of the project, ESI justified its non-compliance with the Wildlife Directive on the basis that there was existing cultivation in and around the project wetlands.”
The decision noted ESI’s approach to siting was not sufficiently protective of wetlands, pre-existing agriculture doesn’t entitle a project to impact wetlands and ESI could have re-sited major project infrastructure to reduce environmental impacts.
The AUC decision also stated that the application’s proposed reclamation security program didn’t ensure sufficient funds would be available at the project’s end of life. Municipal councils routinely discuss the issue of who will pay for the clean-up of renewable energy projects.
The AUC further noted ESI’s agrivoltaics plan was expected to result in increased productivity.
M.D. of Provost Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Tyler Lawrason stated the decision reflected council’s goal.
“It was our position to deny the project,” said Lawrason in a phone call Feb. 26. “So we’re happy with that decision.”
Lawrason added that the M.D. was also happy to hear acknowledgement of a municipality’s role in the planning process.
“It’s nice to see acknowledgement of our role,” said the CAO.
He further added the M.D. of Provost council feels its their duty to act as ratepayer’s wish and in this case did so based on public consultation.
“Council’s not the guitar, they’re the amplifier,” added the CAO.
The Eastervale Preservation Authority (EPA), a group of property owners in the project area, spoke against the application and were satisfied with the decision.
“The landowners from the EPA are satisfied with the decision report from the AUC in this proceeding,” noted spokesperson Mark Wight in a Feb. 25 email. “It outlines, definitively, the importance of protecting sensitive wildlife areas and ensuring the future productivity of valuable, fertile, agricultural land."
The ECA Review reached out to AUC Senior Communications Advisor Geoff Scotton to confirm if the Eastervale decision can be appealed.
“AUC decisions are intended to provide certainty in regulatory decision making around proposed utility projects, etc.,” stated Scotton in a Feb. 26 email. “Nonetheless, two avenues of potential appeal exist for AUC decisions. Each is accessible only on limited grounds.”
According to the AUC, an applicant or participant in a proceeding may formally ask the Court of Appeal of Alberta for permission to appeal an AUC decision.
An application for permission to appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date the decision is issued.
An applicant or participant in a proceeding can also ask the AUC to review its decision.
An application to review a decision must be filed within 30 days from the date the decision is issued and satisfy the limited grounds described in AUC Rule 016, which essentially requires either a mistake was made in the decision or important information was missing or otherwise excluded.
