re: Comment on draft…

re: Comment on draft regulation EBR 013-3835: re Closure of the White Pines Wind Facility

For the following reasons the “New regulation under the Environmental Protection Act to close the White Pines Wind Project” needs to be changed to the “New regulation under the Environmental Protection Act to decommission the White Pines Wind Project”.

This change is required in order to bring the draft regulation into line with the purpose and provisions of the White Pines Wind Project Termination Act, 2018 (the Act). Specifically, section 4(1) of the Act sets out wpd’s duties to ensure the Project is decommissioned in accordance with regulations under this Act or under the EPA; and 7(1) clarifies that The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the decommissioning of the White Pines Wind Project by wpd White Pines Wind Inc.

Despite the clear language used in 4(1) and 7(1) of the Act, for no apparent reason the word “decommission” has been dropped. There is not a single reference to decommissioning in the draft regulation or the draft technical document.

To be clear, the Act provides for regulations governing the decommissioning of the Project by wpd NOT for regulations with provisions for closure that are in many cases totally out of whack with EPA Section 64.2 Table 1 regarding a Decommissioning Plan Report identifying procedures for dismantling or demolishing the facility; activities related to the restoration of any land and water negatively affected by the facility; and procedures for managing excess materials and waste.

Not only does this draft regulation fail to follow through on the provisions of the Act, even worse, it undermines and potentially co-opts the Act.

There are standardized rules and procedures governing decommissioning. But this draft regulation puts things in a whole new ballpark. “Closure” is so open-ended it could mean virtually anything wpd wants it to mean and involve whatever wpd wants it to involve as long as the MOECP goes along and is permitted under the EPA. And that’s exactly how the draft regulation and draft technical report plays out. Of particular concern are options for wpd to make other arrangements with landowners. There is no provision for this in procedures governing decommissioning. Another concern is the complete lack of attention to restoring the project location to a condition suitable for the likely future use of the land on which the project is located. The draft regulation merely notes site restoration activities required under the technical closure document to monitor the project location on an ongoing basis, including actions to (a) monitor natural features, agricultural land and road allowances affected by the closure of the facility and (b) address any negative environmental effects noted during the monitoring activities described in clause (a). Maybe I am missing something here, but what site restoration activities will be carried out that would actually restore the site to a condition suitable for the likely future use?

There is a standardized process for decommissioning even for Projects that are abandoned during construction, and it needs to be followed. The absence of a renewable energy approval does not mean that the MOECP and wpd now get to “wing it”. The Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals: Guidance for preparing the Decommissioning Plan Report provides for cases exactly like White Pines: “decommissioning in the event that a project is abandoned during construction.”

Below are protocols in the Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals for dismantling and demolishing above- and below-ground structures:
4.1. Procedures for Dismantling and Demolishing
The tables below represent a general description of decommissioning activities for different renewable energy technologies. It should be noted that the decommissioning plan in respect of these activities should include, but is not limited to, the items presented in these tables. The probable future use of the project location should also be considered in selecting the appropriate activities from the tables.
Above-ground Structure Decommissioning
Renewable Energy Decommissioning Activities
Wind
• Dismantling and removal of turbine components including blades, nacelle, tower and transformers.
• Removal of cables, access roads (in consultation with the land owner, if applicable), crane pads/ laydown areas, transmission/distribution lines, buildings, transformers.

Below-ground Structure Decommissioning
Renewable Energy Decommissioning Activities
Wind
• Removal of the wind turbine foundation to an extent consistent with the probable future use.
• Removal of any underground electrical lines.

Based on the above:

 ALL REFERENCES IN THE DRAFT REGULATION TO “CLOSURE OF THE WHITE PINES WIND FACILITY” BE CHANGED TO “DECOMMISSIONING OF THE WHITE PINES WIND PROJECT”
 CHANGE REGULATION 2.1: “shall carry out the closure of the facility” TO: “shall carry out decommissioning in accordance with Ch. 7 of the Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals and the White Pines Wind Project Decommissioning Report provided under EPA Section 64.2 Table 1 requiring a Decommissioning Plan Report identifying procedures for dismantling or demolishing the facility; activities related to the restoration of any land and water negatively affected by the facility; and procedures for managing excess materials and waste.
 DELETE “facility means the White Pines wind facility described in Schedule A of this Regulation” and references to closure of the facility (Schedule A covers turbine components (blades, nacelle, hub) but says nothing about turbine bases, crane pads, transformers and potentially other equipment that also need to be decommissioned/demolished).
 ADD section on Site Restoration in Ch. 7 of Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals.
 DELETE all references to draft Technical Closure document , or, alternatively provide a draft Technical Closure document that complies with Ch. 7 of the Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals. (note that 4.1 Procedures for Dismantling and Demolishing in the Technical Guide call for the removal of underground electrical lines).

One final note: the EBR website “Description of the Regulation is incorrect in stating that: “The renewable energy approval included requirements for closing the facility, including lands affected by the project”. In fact, there is not a single reference to “closing” in the renewable energy approval much less to “requirements for closing the facility”. There are some references to “retiring” the project, however, and many references to decommissioning.

To sum up, the Act specifically provides for the decommissioning of the White Pines Wind Project and wpd’s duties in this regard and that is exactly what members of the public expect this regulation needs to provide for and achieve.