Ensuring Appropriate Siting…

 Ensuring Appropriate Siting of Renewable Generation Facilities:

  Oxford County’s comments are based on the assumption that any ground-mount system (whether connected to the transmission/distribution systems or not) would be required to comply with these siting restrictions, as we would assume that, from a municipal perspective, our concerns would apply to both types of facilities (connected or not). We would appreciate clarity as to whether this is the intent of this regulatory change. It would be in the best interest of the County to minimize unnecessary additional siting criteria for those facilities that do not connect to a transmission/distribution system.

  Oxford County’s comments are based on the assumption that the siting restrictions currently in force are those available through the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) and the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process. If the proposal is intended to complement any additional siting restrictions, additional clarity should be provided to municipalities. To help assess this additional criteria, it would be helpful to have a summary of the existing restrictions to provide the needed context for an appropriate analysis. It is suggested that when further communication is released on this matter, the Province more specifically identifies how these siting restrictions will augment, match, or override the existing environmental regulations, as applicable, and ensure that Wind Facilities and Solar PV Facilities are separately identified for clarity.

  1. a. Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities proposed to be sited less than 15 metres from the facility property boundaries.

  The County requests that clarity be provided as to whether this statement simply suggests that a non-rooftop solar PV system must be 15m or more from the property boundary to be considered for connection to the electricity distribution system. It is unclear how this differs from the current restrictions for non-rooftop solar PV facilities and, as stated above, could be presented in the context of the existing siting criteria. See our overall comments on this section.

  1. b. Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities and Wind Facilities proposed to be connected to a residential dwelling.

  We would like to request clarity as to whether this statement suggests that a non-rooftop solar PV system can be connected to the electricity distribution system so long as it does not connect to a residential dwelling. It is suggested that Section 1 a. and 1 b. be better defined/clarified in this regard.

  1 c. Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities over 10 kW proposed to be located on properties within prime agricultural areas, as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement and designated in an official plan.

  It is generally good practice to not locate non-rooftop solar PV facilities in prime agricultural areas; however, many prime agricultural areas in Ontario include sites and areas of non-workable land (e.g. closed landfills, older, poorly rehabilitated pits/quarries, and existing non-agricultural zoned and developed lands). Oxford County recommends a means or process for municipalities to consider allowing for site specific exceptions to the prime agricultural area restriction in specific circumstances, such as those noted above. See our overall comments on this section.

  1 d. Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities over 10 kW proposed to be located on a property that is not captured by an official plan for which the prime agricultural area designation process has been completed.

  As stated, avoidance of prime agricultural areas for these types of facilities would be a preferred approach. However, the County recognizes that there may be areas within these designated areas that may still be determined to be appropriate for renewable energy facilities (e.g. would not remove any agricultural land from production and would not otherwise have a negative impact on agricultural land or operations). See our overall comments on this section.

  3. Generators would be required to provide confirmation to the distributor or transmitter, signed by a relevant professional (e.g. a member in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Planners who is a registered professional planner in Ontario), as evidence that a renewable energy generation facility meets the prime agricultural area siting requirements (1c and 1d, above).

  Oxford County recommends that written confirmation of whether the lands are located in a prime agricultural area be provided by a planner representing the local municipal authority responsible for the Official Plan and associated prime agricultural area designation. Local planning authorities have the most detailed understanding of the local policy context, including the designation of prime agricultural areas.  This is particularly important, if the ability to consider exceptions to the prime agricultural area locational restrictions is to be provided for, as previously suggested.

  As such, there should be appropriate and meaningful consultation with the planning authority responsible for implementing the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the regional and/or local official plans, which are discussed in 1c and 1d above.

  Oxford County Comments:

  Although the County is generally in support of restricting the siting of Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities based on the above criteria, it is suggested that the municipality should have the discretion to approve the siting of renewable energy generation facilities permitted to be connected to the distribution or transmission systems only in very specific circumstances that may fall outside the general restrictions provided here.

  It is recognized that a 15m buffer from the property boundary is in place to mitigate potential noise/visual impacts, although the County questions the need to comply with the setback restriction for non-rooftop solar facilities in certain circumstances, for instance, next to roadways, parking lots and other County-owned lands, where the potential negative impacts on adjacent lands would seem to be negligible.

  Further, there may be areas within the prime agricultural area designation that have limited potential to be rehabilitated back to workable agricultural land and where solar would not otherwise have a negative impact on agricultural land and operations.  There may be opportunities for the municipality to consider approving site specific exemptions (perhaps with OMAFRA’s input/approval) under certain circumstances that would meet local and provincial goals and objectives.

  For instance, smaller Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facilities could potentially be permitted on existing non-agriculturally zoned and developed properties with limited potential to return to agriculture, or an a farm where they would:

  •Be provided based on an analysis of a need to ensure electricity generation facilities are provided in a “co-ordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change where accommodating projected needs”;

 •Not result in the loss of agricultural land or hinder surrounding agricultural lands or operations;

 •Be limited in size and located within the main farm building cluster; and

 •Comply with any other siting criteria the municipality or Province may deem to be appropriate. 

  5. b. Any Non-Rooftop Solar PV Facility or Wind Facility that has received a microFIT, FIT, or Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) Contract (whether or not that facility has been constructed as of the in-force date of this regulation).

  Oxford County staff note that point b. should also include any facility where net-metering is already in place and approved by the Local Distribution Company (LDC).

[Original Comment ID: 212073]