Bylaw amendments spark debate; Industry upset with MD changes
Proposed amendments to Bylaw 1140-08 drew harsh words from representatives from the wind power industry present at the Municipal District Council Meeting on Aug. 26.
The proposed amendments outlined in Draft Bylaw 1152-08, which seek to add new land use restrictions on wind turbines, were prepared by Development Officer Roland Milligan and reviewed by Chief Administrative Officer Loretta Thompson on Aug. 19, and presented to the Council for approval on Aug. 26.
The crux of the proposal was the addition of new definitions for terminology central to the bylaw, namely “cumulative effects”, “development permit” and “viewshed,” a new term coined specifically within the context of wind turbines and their impact on scenic landscapes.
According to the draft bylaw, “cumulative effects” would henceforth be defined as “the resulting combined impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on the landscape,” including “total effect, both direct and indirect impacts, to any resource, ecosystem or human community no matter who has taken the action.”
Meanwhile, the contentious new term “viewshed” would be defined as “the area visible from a point, a line, an arc or specific locality” that constitute “areas of particular scenic or historic value that are deemed worthy of preservation against development or other change.”
The proposal also included two minor amendments to sections of the original draft. Explains council member Bjorn Berg, “What we’ve tried to incorporate here is some groundbreaking new amendments that haven’t been used in any other municipalities.”
Representing the wind power industry at the meeting were Allan Kettles of Benign Energy and Kevin Van Koughnett of TransAlta Wind. Speaking on behalf of the wind industry, Kettles expressed his displeasure over the fact that the MD did not consult the industry directly when formulating the amendments.
“The Alberta government goes to industry in the case of major legislation changes,” he asserted.
“We feel wronged that this has not occurred here. We found out about [the amendments] so late that we didn’t have time to review them.”
Van Koughnett contended that his industry was under the understanding that it would be able to review the proposal before it was tabled.
“We thought it common courtesy that we would be invited to the first reading,” he explained.
“As it happened, we only found out about it on the website.”
MD Reeve Ron Cyr defended the council in the procedures undertaken.
“All that a first reading really does is present the issue onto the table,” he explained. “We haven’t brought anything onto the floor yet.”
Cyr further added that there was no timeline on approval of the document and that council wanted a good document in the end.
Councillor Berg defended the council’s exclusion of wind power executives from the legislation process, arguing that this would have been perceived as a conflict of interest.
“What we don’t want is for one group to feel like it’s being excluded because another group had first access,” he said.
“I would like to see that we have as collaborative a discussion as possible.”
Councillor Ted Smith further argued that the dispute was the result of a lack of understanding of the municipal process on the part of industry personnel.
The wind industry representatives remained unconvinced by the council’s argument, asserting that the MD’s current policy direction was biased against wind power and emphasizing the industry’s unparalleled importance in the community.
“We are about to pour $3 billion into the community,” asserted Kettles. “That’s more than the Shell and Gulf plants combined.”
Ultimately, the bill was put to a vote, which resulted in a tie, meaning that the amended draft was not passed.
Council then agreed to hold a meeting to further discuss the proposed amendments, tentatively scheduled for Sept. 11.
This meeting, it was decided, would include an afternoon session for council members and representatives of the wind power industry and an evening session open to the general public.
By Benjamin Freeland
Reporter
5 September 2008
The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.
Blog it:
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
|
