Hard points

Crafting policy proves harder than seat-of-the-pants decision making

Once again council has become mired in developing a policy that will govern how, and to whom, it will grant its two priority points—points it can choose to award to developers of renewable energy projects in this community.

As part of recent changes to the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act municipalities now have an opportunity, albeit a limited one, to participate in the determination of which projects will get built in their community.

Developers who win the approval of council, by way of a motion, are awarded two points toward their application for approval. Though not a defining determinant, most participants believe with scarce transmission capacity available, few new projects will get approved in the County without council’s blessing.

But while County council was outraged that the Green Energy Act had stripped it of its authority over such projects in 2010, it is now having a difficult time figuring out what to do with its limited say, now that it has been restored somewhat.

It’s important they get it right. There are an estimated 65 project applications waiting in the queue hoping to win council’s blessing.

Earlier in the meeting the committee of council heard from Sophiasburgh resident Jim Johnston and his son-in-law Frank Kolb. They want to build three 500 kW solar electricity generating installations on Johnston’s property on Greenpoint Road. Each project would cover about four acres, according the presentation given by Kolb.

Some councillors wanted to grant Johnston and Kolb the two priority points—forgetting, or perhaps unaware of, the long queue that has formed for these points.

In any event, staff has attempted on a handful of occasions this fall to steer council toward a common and coherent policy. It has crafted a list of criteria that will govern developers’ use of roads and infrastructure as well as the municality’s emergency response capacity.

The two most contentious criteria call for an annual payment in lieu of taxes in the amount of $7,500 per megawatt for the term of the power purchase agreement, plus profit sharing equal to four per cent of the project’s output.

The other criterion requires the developer to submit a decommissioning plan for the project and provide a site rehabilitation security deposit.

Some believe the County ought to merely get out of the way of these developers— particularly small ones like Johnston and Kolb. Others want clear rules and a level playing field. And yet there are some who fail to understand the rules they craft for one developer— whether they are a neighbour or foreigner, small or multinational, solar, industrial wind turbines or biogas—will shape the rules for all.

COME TO COUNCIL
As the process was originally crafted and adopted in September, the rules, when defined, would have given staff the template to screen applicants and hand out the priority points to those who successfully navigated the list if criteria.

Sophiasburgh councillor Terry Shortt pushed hardest for each application to be directed through council.

“The public must have its say,” said Shortt. “It’s council that will award these two points—not staff. It is our job to hear these presentations and give people the opportunity to have their say.”

Some worried that council will be swamped if it has to process more than 60 applications in a short time frame.

Picton Councillor Bev Campbell felt council could better spend its energy on developing a sound policy rather than listening to and adjudicating dozens of individual proposals.

“If nobody has a concern about a project, why are they coming to council?” asked Campbell. “It seems a waste of time.”

Hillier Councillor Alec Lunn suggested simple curiosity might be enough to insist renewable energy proponents come to council to make their pitch.

While a consensus was soon reached that each proponent would have to come before council—getting that expressed— in the tangle of motions accumulating like barnacles on this policy creation exercise—took considerably longer.

WHO PAYS?
The more contentious issue again arose around money.

Councillor Barry Turpin continues to insist that small developers should be absolved of any fees be charged by the muncipality. He describes the amount being asked for from these developers is “right out to lunch.”

He contended the $7,500 per megawatt proposed in the criteria was derived from the amenities agreement developed in anticipation of industrial wind turbines in Sophiasburgh.

“We were trying to discourage them,” said Turpin.

He says a such a fee will be too great a burden on developers.

“It might not make these projects feasible,” said Turpin. “If they make money—that is what income tax is for.”

Mayor Peter Mertens reminded the councillor from Bloomfield that the basis of the payment in lieu of taxes came not from a previous amenities agreement, but from a current proposal by a solar developer seeking to win the County’s two priority points for up to eight new 10MW projects they hope to develop in Prince Edward County.

“If it is worth that to them, it should be feasible to other developers,” suggested Mertens. “This is the only compensation the municipality gets from these projects—we must keep it on the table.”

At this point Councillor Jamie Forrester invited solar project proponent Frank Kolb to comment on whether he felt the amount the municipality was asking for its two points was fair.

He didn’t.

In the end the committee agreed it would see every applicant’s presentation but sent the issue of compensation back to staff for advice.

WAITING ON A WINDOW
The application window for small feed-in tariffs under the new rules (FIT 2.0) has been delayed several times over the past year. When, and if, the window opens in the new year there will be a rush of applicants eager to win the rich premiums the province is paying for this form of energy. Council will then be under the gun to make five dozen decisions quickly.

It still has work to do.