The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) has issued a new request for information from PACE Bang Energy LP over changes to the controversial Caroline Solar Farm.Russell Barnett, the driving force behind local resistance, says the regulator’s latest move may signal cracks in the process.The 14.67-megawatt project was conditionally approved by the AUC earlier this year despite massive opposition, in particular from Barnett’s Rural Alberta Concerned Communities Group (RACCG) and the Caroline Concerned Citizens Group (CCCG).In a copy of the AUC’s letter obtained by the Western Standard, dated Sept. 29, 2025, the regulator asked for clarification on why PACE reduced the distance between the project fence and solar panels from seven metres to four metres, how this impacts the layout, and whether it qualifies as a project amendment.Barnett — the RACCG’s de facto leader — has been very vocal in his criticism, as the project has raised concerns with locals over visual impacts, environmental risks, property values, among other issues.“This is a joke process,” Barnett said.“You can see PACE will basically just say whatever the AUC wants to hear to get approval.”.The AUC is also seeking confirmation on the capacity reverting to 16.1 megawatt peak (MWp) — matching the number from the original application — after an earlier adjustment to 14.67 MW, along with specifics on reclamation security plans under new guidelines.In a statement to the Western Standard, the AUC stated, “The most recent letter from the AUC, about the reduction of the fence-to-panel distance, is not the same process as the AUC requesting an internal ‘review’ of its original decision… However, this proceeding did have a review process.”It detailed the approval, subsequent review applications by the CCCG and Clearwater County, and the denial of those requests on Aug. 27, 2025 (Decision 29924-D01-2025) after a suspension due to unpaid intervener costs.On the fence adjustment, the AUC added, “The Commission’s condition of approval… was based on expert evidence and public interest considerations. The Commission has now asked PACE for clarification questions based on their direct response submission.”This scrutiny follows the AUC’s Feb.28, 2025, conditional approval, which mandated a 40-metre residential setback and 27.5-metre wetland buffer based on submitted evidence..“I think they’re looking for a way out without saying they made a mistake,” Barnett said, suggesting the AUC’s latest move might reflect doubts on the Commission’s part.He also highlighted broader concerns, alleging land man tactics that “are out of control.”“[They’re] looking at deaths in farmers’ families and going after the 85-year-old lady,” he claimed.“‘After you sign this agreement, don't tell anybody, we'll give you $10,000 cash like that.’ We have affidavits to that effect.”He then tied the battles between local, concerned Albertans against big companies to global trends, saying:“Let’s face it, Trump [recently] called renewables garbage, Italy’s banning solar, and so is Australia. The world is changing, but Canada is not.“But I do think the AUC is seeing a much higher quality of fightback now.”Barnett has also attacked the project’s reclamation plan, which he says is tied to a numbered company with minimal ownership — 1% — and claimed PACE was buying and selling permits.“They said they were going to do something [about it] in 15 years, completely ignoring the [recent] UCP mandate. It’s a sham,” Barnett stated.“The only mitigation we want is no project at all.”When asked if the project could set a precedent for how closely the commission scrutinizes layout changes or capacity recalculations, the AUC said it was “not bound by precedent” and said the “Caroline decision demonstrates the Commission’s authority to impose specific conditions when supported by the evidence, such as setbacks.”In a statement, John Poulin, Director of Development and Engineering for PACE Canada said that there "are new government guidelines on reclamation security which [the AUC is] inquiring about" and that "this will be addressed in our response to the AUC."
