Caroline Industrial Solar Project

09/27/2025

Just an FYI for everybody. This page is not monitored - I believe in free speech. No "approvals" required. No filtering.

I do not believe in censorship and over reach.

If it is okay with Facebook, it is okay with this page.

SPEAK FREELY HERE.

Cheers,

Send a message to learn more

09/13/2025

We all need to leverage this while it is hot.

https://www.westernstandard.news/news/caroline-residents-demand-minister-overturn-auc-solar-project-ruling/67468?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2025-09-13&utm_campaign=Western+Standard+s+Daily+Newsletter

If you are on not on my list and want to be, send me an email asking to added

For those that are, you will shortly receive an email template ready to load, add your thoughts and push send.:)

A group of rural Albertans is calling on Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Williams to overturn the provincial regulator’s approval of a solar farm in the hamlet of Caroline, warning the project threatens agriculture and residential land use.

09/11/2025

If you are not on the Caroline and surrounding area email list regarding renewables - ie the Caroline solar project which has received another confirmation Aug. 27th from the AUC please join. Send me an email "solar" in the subject and you will be automatically added.

[email protected]

Strength in numbers.

"The power of the people is stronger than the people in power."
Wael Ghonim

Send a message to learn more

09/08/2025

Tuesday Sept 9 Council Meeting. Copied from the Clearwater taxpayers association, newsletter, the beacon.

“Even though there was significant
support at the Public Hearing for
delaying approval until after the fall
election, the majority of participants at
the PAC/Council meeting on August 25th
supported putting final consideration
of the document on the agenda for
Council’s up-coming September 9,
2025 meeting. At that meeting Council
will have the option to pass, amend,
delay, or refuse acceptance of the Land
Use Bylaw.”

I have reviewed what it means for Caroline residents. I have posted two pdf’s on my webpage

https://www.russellbarnett.ca/land-use-bylaws

pretty much everything is at the discretion of the bylaw officer

Section 643 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) of Alberta (RSA 2000, c M-26), as it pertains to non-conforming uses and buildings. This section outlines the provisions for what is commonly referred to as "grandfathering" in the context of land use bylaws. The text is sourced from the official ver...

09/07/2025

Sept 1st Letter to Minister Dan Williams

Russell Barnett, CPA
Caroline, Alberta, T0M 0M0
[email protected]]
403-888-6346]

September 1, 2025
Honourable Dan Williams
Minister of Municipal Affairs
MLA for Peace River
Alberta Legislative Assembly
#3, 10013 - 101 Avenue
La Crete, AB T0H 2H0

Email: [email protected]

Dear Minister Williams,

RE: URGENT REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION TO OVERRULE AUC DECISION
29924-D01-2025 ON CAROLINE SOLAR PROJECT AND PROTECT RURAL
MUNICIPAL INTERESTS

I am writing as a concerned resident of Caroline, Alberta, and the originator of Proceeding 29924 before the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), which sought a review of the approval for the 14.67-megawatt Caroline Solar Project by PACE Bang Energy LP (PACE). As Minister of Municipal Affairs, with your deep roots in rural Alberta and commitment to empowering local governments, I urge you to intervene and overrule the AUC’s decision dated August 27, 2025 (Decision 29924-D01-2025), which denied
our review application. This project threatens Caroline’s agricultural heritage, residential integrity, and municipal autonomy, contradicting the United Conservative Party’s (UCP)
“agriculture first” policies that you and your government champion.

Your advocacy for rural communities, demonstrated through your Peace River riding and recent tours of central and southern Alberta municipalities, underscores the importance of local decision-making in preserving our province’s economic and cultural foundations. In Caroline, we face a crisis: an industrial solar project imposed on land
zoned for future residential development, just 21 meters from homes, despite overwhelming local opposition and Clearwater County’s post-amalgamation rejection. The AUC’s denial undermines the municipal empowerment you advocate and demands your intervention.

Background on the Caroline Solar Project( pic 08/21/2025)

(*the pictures at the bottom were inserted here, FB not so much :)

The project involves constructing a 14.67-megawatt solar power plant on 57 acres of privately owned land within the former Village of Caroline, now part of Clearwater County following the January 1, 2025, amalgamation approved by your ministry. The
original AUC approval (Decision 28295-D01-2025, issued February 28, 2025) was granted despite:

• - The land being zoned “Reserved for Future Residential Development” under the Caroline Land Use Bylaw (LUB), conflicting with the Municipal Development Plan
(MDP) and Inter-municipal Development Plan (IDP) that prioritize residential and agricultural growth (Decision 28295-D01-2025, para. 17).

• - Proximity to residences (as close as 21 meters), inadequate setbacks, unproven
noise mitigation, visual blight from panels, and environmental risks including wetland impacts, stormwater drainage issues, soil erosion, and fire hazards (Decision 28295-
D01-2025, paras. 6, 14-18).

• - A superficial “agrivoltaics” plan (sheep grazing under panels) lacking predator control, health protocols, or feasibility, dismissed as uncertain yet accepted as
mitigation (Decision 28295-D01-2025, para. 78).

• - Delayed reclamation security starting in Year 2, risking taxpayer liability without upfront bonds as mandated by UCP policy (Decision 28295-D01-2025, para. 88). The Village of Caroline’s pre-amalgamation “support” (Exhibits 28295-X0021, X0029) was secured without full resident consent and predated the amalgamation. Clearwater County’s post-amalgamation opposition, evidenced by its Statement of Intent to Participate, council resolution (April 7, 2025), and reply submissions (Exhibit 29924-X0081), was ignored. Despite 2.5 years of resistance—including five days in court, 118 Caroline Concerned Citizens Group (CCCG) members, and now the Rural Alberta
Concerned Communities Group (RACCG) with 302 members—the AUC claimed “no municipal opposition,” a palpable error of fact under Rule 016, Section 5(1)(a) (Decision
29924-D01-2025, para. 10).

Our review application (Proceeding 29924) raised grounds including the amalgamation’s impact (Section 5(1)(c)), procedural notice failures (Section 5(1)(d)), and errors of fact and mixed fact/law (Section 5(1)(a)), such as misalignment with land
use documents and failure to account for local opposition. The AUC’s denial on August 27, 2025, dismissed these without adequate scrutiny, perpetuating a flawed self-review
process that favours developers over communities.

How This Contradicts UCP Policies and Your Mandate

Your government’s February 28, 2024, directives, effective March 1, 2024, and codified in the *Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment (EELUVA) Regulation* (December 6, 2024), mandate an “agriculture first” approach:

• - Renewable projects on high-quality (Class 1-3) agricultural land require agricultural impact assessments proving coexistence, post-construction productivity reports within
36 months, and irrigability assessments where applicable.

• - Visual impact assessments are mandatory in designated zones (over 82,000 sq km), with buffer zones scrutinizing solar projects near pristine viewscapes.

• - Upfront reclamation security to the province or landowners, ensuring no taxpayer burden. The Caroline project, approved before these rules but reviewed afterward, violates them: it occupies cultivated lands without proven agrivoltaics, ruins residential viewscapes, and offers delayed security. Minister Neudorf’s August 23, 2024, letter on the Reconcept solar project in Lacombe reinforces limiting projects on prime lands
unless agriculture co-exists, protecting viewscapes, and ensuring developer-paid reclamation—principles betrayed here. Premier Smith’s talk show comments (referenced in my April 13, 2025, letter to her) emphasize balancing property rights with
agricultural classifications, yet the AUC overrides zoning and community voices under amisguided “private property” veil.

As Minister of Municipal Affairs, sworn in on May 16, 2025, your mandate includes supporting collaborative local government and respecting municipal bylaws (per your Premier’s letter). The AUC’s reliance on Section 619 of the *Municipal Government Act*, which allows its approvals to prevail over municipal land use bylaws, undermines Clearwater County’s post-amalgamation authority and the LUB’s residential zoning. Your rural roots in the sand and gravel industry and advocacy for families align with
protecting Caroline’s agricultural and residential future from this disruptive project.

Request for Your Intervention

I respectfully request that you:

1. Overrule the AUC Decision: Exercise ministerial authority under the *Alberta Utilities Commission Act* or *Municipal Government Act* to direct a full, independent review or revocation of Decisions 28295-D01-2025 and 29924-D01-2025, applying
2024-2025 policies retroactively where public interest demands.

2. Implement a Provincial Pause: Support an immediate pause on this project’s construction, pending reassessment of municipal opposition and compliance with EELUVA requirements.

3. Empower Municipalities: Advocate for amending or revoking Section 619 of the *Municipal Government Act*, which permits the AUC to override municipal land use bylaws, to restore local planning authority. Additionally, support tools allowing counties
like Clearwater to veto non-compliant projects, including automatic standing in AUC proceedings and cost recovery.

4. Convene a Meeting: Arrange a discussion with myself, Clearwater County representatives, and RACCG members to explore solutions restoring trust in rural energy development.

This is not about denying renewables but enforcing UCP mandates for agriculture-first, viewscape-preserving, and municipally respectful growth. Rural Albertans in Caroline
and your Peace River riding deserve leadership that upholds our heritage against corporate overreach. Attached are key documents: the original AUC decision, review
submissions, Clearwater County’s reply, my rebuttal to PACE, Minister Neudorf’s letter, my letter to Premier Smith, and the review denial decision.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I am available at 403-888-6346 or [email protected] to discuss further.

I look forward to your prompt response and action.

Sincerely,
Russell Barnett, CPA
On behalf of the Rural Alberta Concerned Communities Group (RACCG)

09/07/2025

Sept. 7, 2025 - Ready for round three?

Below are excerpts from the AUC decision or our Request for Variance Aug 27, 2025

"The Commission’s authority to review its own decisions is discretionary." - how nice of them to entertain us

"Second, the review process is not intended to provide a second opportunity for parties with notice of the original application to express concerns about the original application
that they chose not to raise in the original proceeding;" - the only thing important is the developer

", the review applicant must show that there are changed circumstances "- there certainly were???

"Village deferred issues to the County and the County deferred issues to the Village " - neither of our elected officials helped, in fact they HELPED THE DEVELOPER

"County, despite anticipating the amalgamation, did not seek adjournment or abeyance " - again their inaction cost us all dearly

"The fact that a different local authority is now the decision-maker does not amount to a material change in circumstance." - dear clearwater council, you are irrelevant?

"The County did not identify any concerns with the project." - they have an obligation to help us stop this stupidity

" An error is palpable if it is obvious" - nothing is obvious to the AUC if goes against their ideology

"PACE noted the Land Use Bylaw includes discretionary uses that will not, in the opinion of the Municipal Planning Commission, (1) materially alter the use of the land
from that existing on the date the land was designated to this Land Use District, or (2) conflict with future urban expansion". - this is NOT TRUE

"This does not mean that the Commission is bound by a municipality’s land use authority and planning instruments.37 PACE submitted that insofar as R. Barnett alleged that the
hearing panel misapplied the Land Use Bylaw, this would be an error of law and therefore outside the scope of Rule 016." - the AUC knows what’s best for our Village?

"the review panel finds that no error is identified regarding the hearing panel’s treatment of land use planning authorities. The hearing panel had specific regard to the local municipalities, as demonstrated by its requested input from both the Village of Caroline and the County. 39 The hearing panel also expressly engaged with the local planning documents, including the. Inter-municipal Development Plan, the Municipal Development Plan, and the Land Use Bylaw." - here is where they use the interns letter from the County. (Which they said was not representative) and Caroline council’s mumbling as proof that WE SUPPORT THIS - no changing your mind, will not look at new info etc

"The hearing panel found there was no conflict between the project and land use bylaw"

"In reply, PACE noted the Village is a municipality as contemplated in the Municipal Government Act, and that the residents of the Village are not the municipality. The residents are represented by councillors. Additionally, PACE identified certain materials on the record that the hearing panel considered, including letters from the Village indicating its support. for the project.
45 PACE further submitted that the hearing panel did not err in its public interest assessment under Section 17(1) of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. PACE submitted that the hearing panel considered the project’s social, economic, and environmental impacts, and weighed these factors against the project’s overall benefits. It argued that a failure to weigh the
number of residents who oppose a project is not a palpable and overriding error. " - this should make everybody very angry

"The assessment is multifactorial. This exercise cannot be reduced to a numerical exercise based on the number of parties supporting or opposing a project." - what the heck? democracy is old fashioned

"The review panel declines to re-weigh the evidence and finds no reviewable error on this ground."

"The review panel finds that no error of fact was made " - these type of comments are seen throughout the document

"vegetative screen is a matter of judgement," and the AUC does not care about the people’s judgement, only the developers

". PACE also argued the alleged error regarding property values " - because Pace lives here and knows our properties better than we do and professional appraisers

"the purpose of a review is not to reinterpret the evidence"

"legal requirements associated with fire risks and resulting claims would amount to an error of law, which is outside the scope of Rule 016.59 - " so therefore we cannot deny the decision because “law” prevents us from considering fire risk? This whole thing is about process and rules common sense? forget it

"The review panel finds that there was no obvious error in the hearing panel’s assessment of fire risk" Of course not

Send a message to learn more

08/22/2025

Taken August 21. just a reminder of what we are fighting for. I have not seen any decision on the appeal yet not that sending it back to the same people that made the decision in the first place is actually an appeal covering a field in glass is not farming and agrivoltics is term. Regardless of the details, it is just the wrong location 

03/02/2025

does anybody believe this to be true?

03/02/2025

Is this true?

03/02/2025

all covered in glass?