Wind Energy Regulations CALGARY Monday, May 6 - 12:00 to 6:00 pm Municipal Build

[vassile52]

Wind Energy Regulations
​Land Use Bylaw 1P2007 caters to a variety of renewable energy technologies but it does not specifically accommodate wind energy generation (wind turbines). The goal of this project is to accommodate wind turbines of various scales – from small scale machines, which may be mounted on a building or structure, to larger freestanding wind turbines in appropriate locations. We are considering defining categories of wind turbines (based on scale and impact) and will determine which Land Use Districts will be appropriate for each category. We will likely also create a supplementary policy document to accompany any amendments to Bylaw 1P2007. Any policy document would provide further guidance to individuals and/or organizations wishing to install wind energy technologies. Information on the various other approvals that may be required when pursuing a Wind Energy project (for example Alberta Utilities Commission approval) would also be included.
Project Stage
Initial consultation has occurred with internal and external stakeholders, as well as Community Associations (through the Federation of Calgary Communities).
Research in regards to technology and best practices is ongoing.
Draft amendments to Bylaw 1P2007 are currently being prepared.
Follow-up consultation with all stakeholder groups will take place in due course.
UPATE:
Draft Rules for Urban Scale Wind Turbines in the City of Calgary, April 2013
Below is a draft set of rules to clarify the requirements to install micro-generator wind turbines in the City of Calgary.  The intent is to refine the rules for wind turbines and separate them from the other types of Power Generation Facilities, with the intent to make it as clear as possible for potential applicants, wind industry partners, consultants, the general public, and City administration on what the acceptable conditions are for these types of developments.
We are seeking your feedback and suggestions on these draft rules.  We would like your evaluation on how well you anticipate these rules would address your particular interest in wind turbines (future applicant, general public, installer, distributor/manufacturer, regulator, etc) as we have tried to address several perspectives through their creation.
It is important to note that this set of draft rules guides turbine opportunities on industrial, commercial, and special purpose land use districts (including school sites, parks, municipal infrastructure development, and university areas).  While there are still opportunities for wind turbines in residential districts under the Power Generation Facility rules, these draft rules do not specifically apply to those circumstances.
We are available to discuss your thoughts either by phone, email, or in person, and can offer to be available for an open discussion at the following times and location:
Wednesday, May 1 - 3:00 to 6:00 pm Municipal Building, 4th floor
Monday, May 6 - 12:00 to 6:00 pm Municipal Building, 4th floor
The Municipal Building is located at 800 MacLeod Trail SE.  The building is open to the public until 6:00pm.
We look forward to your thoughts, and would like to receive your comments by May 7th, 2013.
Depending on the feedback and following the May 7 deadline, we may be preparing a report to bring these regulations forward to Calgary Planning Commission and Municipal Council for their consideration.  This process is anticipated to occur through the months of May to July, 2013.
Proposed Draft Wind Turbine Regulations information Package
Your comments can be forwarded to:
The City of Calgary
Care of: Lesley Kalmakoff
P.O. Box 2100, Stn M, #8073
Calgary, AB T2P 2M5
 
Fax: 403-268-1997
Email: Lesley.Kalmakoff@calgary.ca
Phone:  (403) 268-3738

[SparWeb]

I guess you mean this:

Draft Rules for Urban Scale Wind Turbines in the City of Calgary

There are a few members who use this site from Calgary, or nearby.  I encourage them to read this and share their opinions with the city.  It's the same-old boilerplate that has given other forum members trouble for years.  Basically these rules amount to allowing only "lawn art", except for a corporation with deep pockets willing to green-wash their reputation with a wind turbine, and go through all the hoops.

[fabricator]

Yep. basically the same thing they passed here, no guy wires allowed, it doesn't specify freestanding monopoles but I'll bet that's the intent, municipalities do NOT want individuals to have potentially dangerous residential wind turbines, bottom line, sure you can put one up but it better have all the proper certifications for the tower, the turbine, everything.

[SparWeb]

Excerpt from my letter to the planning official:

 
This seems like a "nice to have" bylaw to have on the books, rather than a practical regulation of an economic resource.  Folks who are looking for a way to make practical use of them, or discover that a wind turbine will solve a problem they have (such as remote location or unreliable grid power, plus a windy site) should not be blocked by the bylaw.  The cost of the project is strongly affected by the regulations, but if you care to read my points below, I hope you will begin to see that a suitable site for a wind turbine does not require these costly limitations.  On the contrary, the only small wind turbine installations that this regulation will permit are the annoying ones that are put up by fools with too much money to burn.
 
My comments will focus on the Type 1 WECS:
 
A WECS rotor with a 4-meter swept arc will probably have a maximum power output of 3000 to 4000 kiloWatt-hours per year, but only if it would be installed at a good site.  Locating them in the city knocks it down by 50% (at least) and limiting the tower height to 15 meters also ensures they will be submerged in the turbulence of the urban environment.  The owner should expect only about 1 or 2,000 kW-hr per year.  That might account for 10-20% of a household energy use, and a much smaller fraction of the typical consumption of a school, business, or an institution, so hardly a worthwhile economic project.  At the Enmax buy-back rate that's not even 200 bucks.
 
My fear is that any serious and technically knowledgeable person will look at the bylaw and quickly figure out that a practical WECS installation will not be permitted, or is too costly.  On the other hand, the door is open for completely pointless wind turbines to be installed in arbitrarily selected places; by those people who want to own one, but don't realize until it's too late that the machine is effectively hamstrung.  If installed at a school under these circumstances, the educational purpose will not be served!
 
The definition of the tower is too specific, and yet the setback definition isn't specific enough.  Even in the urban environment, there are private, secure properties where the public does not regularly access.  Why then are there so many fences and signs necessary?  A WECS on a crowded site is pointless, with or without signs and fences and expensive towers, because the wind won't be there.  Meanwhile a WECS on an industrial site is not accessible to the public because a perimeter fence is usually installed, therefore a fence around the tower is redundant.
 
Monopole towers are prohibitively expensive in the Calgary context, and offer no advantage in safety (all things being equal) over other types of tower.  At some sites, there can be circumstances where lattice and guy-wire-supported towers will be at a disadvantage over a monopole, however on the typical sites where a WECS would be practical, these advantages do not apply (children climbing, vehicles striking cables, etc.) because practical sites are much more open, and the public is rarely present, or excluded from the area.  Let the site conditions select the suitable tower design, not an arbitrary rule.
 
An aesthetic argument about the tower does not hold water, when the city is dotted with Fortis/Enmax utility transmission lines and communication antennas, which are typically lattices and/or guy-wire-supported.  I can photograph some of the rustier ones if you haven't seen them.  I know the utilities get an exclusion from aesthetic issues but they get away with thousands, while there will only be a handfull of WECS in the future anyway.  It is hypocritical to make an example of a wind turbine.  Also counter intuitively, I can show you examples where lattices blend into the scenery better than monopoles.
 
Lastly: A WECS on a monopole tower can only be serviced by a crane, or by climbing the tower.  There are safety concerns with those activities too!  No one type of tower offers a great safety advantage over another.  Bringing a truck-crane out to the site to service the turbine is time-consuming and expensive.  And impeded by that fence again.
 
Okay I think I beat that to death.  Moving on...
 
I've noticed that it is not applicable to residential districts.  Can't figure out why.  Still prohibited except as emergency back-up supply?
 
A safety requirement is in error:  The CSA does not (to my knowledge) certify wind turbines.  The do certify electrical interconnection equipment, including the inverters and battery charge regulation devices that may be added to the WECS system.  The CSA also does not certify towers, though the constituent metals may conform to CSA grades of steel or aluminum.  An engineer could make these determinations, however many city or utility company inspectors are qualified to do so as well.  Take care not to just select another "certification" agency, because the certification rules remain hazy these days.  Some overseas companies are just buying the sticker.
 
I don't know where the "parking stalls" comes from.  Relevance?  Are you forbidding people from charging electric vehicles with wind turbines?  Are you ready with what to say to the media if they get a hold of that one?
 
Also noticed some spelling errors, and references to "SWES" rather than "WECS", probably an artefact from the document your planners copy-pasted from the other jurisdiction's bylaw.
 
You might also want to consider an exclusion to portable wind turbines, of the type used by RV's at campgrounds, boats, and other temporary sites where the turbines (which are typically very small, eg 1 meter or less) are only used to maintain remote or portable power supplies.  This isn't a problem in rural areas but in a city with a million people I can imagine this becoming an avenue of frivolous complaints.
 
I have to agree with prohibiting annoying lights, signs, labels and the like on the turbines & towers.  At this point you will probably be surprised to hear that you have missed an important factor in the determination of setbacks - furthere evidence that this bylaw was copied from a copy of a bad regulation, rather than researched by the planners.  If you actually have read this far, I'll leave this as a little puzzle to solve yourselve, or you can demonstrate that you are sincerely looking for public input by replying, and asking me.  I'll be happy to discuss it, but this e-mail is already too long.
 
Okay, to sum up, I have read regulations from other jurisdictions before, and they look a lot like this one.  Since the administrators of those locations demonstrated a hostile attitude toward the wind turbine owners, I think your draft regulation is a poor choice to photocopy for Calgary's use.  It would be much wiser to consider the factors that make a wind turbine installation successful, and not successful, and regulate on the issues that are of concern to the city and its residents, such as safety, community, education, and energy independence for those who need this technology.
 
Steven T. Fahey