This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
The conservationist group thinks it has the goods on the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan.
The Biden administration is trying to open a lot more Western territory to utility-scale solar. But they are facing a conservationist backlash that may be aided by the views of scientists within the federal government.
Yesterday, activists pushed back against the environmental review of the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan that would make more than 31 million acres available for utility-scale solar applications across 11 states. The BLM is trying to meet the next two decades of demand for renewable electricity while avoiding the kinds of environmental and social conflicts that stymie individual projects. But it appears key stakeholders filed protests against the environmental review, including counties that would host new solar farms and Republican politicians, as well as the whistleblower advocacy group PEER we wrote about last week.
Today, however, we’re going to focus on the protest filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, which submitted to BLM what amounted to the contours of a lawsuit.
The protest argued the environmental review of the plan not only failed to adequately protect the Mojave desert tortoise – a species protected as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act – but appeared to make “arbitrary” decisions to open potential tortoise habitat and travel areas. Per the protest, the review did so without clearly explaining how it took into account guidance from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary species protection agency.
Zooming in, scientists at the Service said in a power-point presentation dated April of this year (that CBD happily pointed out is available online) they supported excluding occupied tortoise habitat and translocation sites from the solar plan. Employees at the Service also gave CBD guidance documents they submitted over the past year to the Bureau that outlined “extensive criteria for exclusion” that activists say were not followed and weren’t reflected in the review documents previously released by the government.
Why does this matter? Well, it could determine whether the decisions relevant can hold up in court. CBD is using the word “arbitrary” because it’s a standard followed under the Administrative Procedures Act, which forces government officials to show their work and demonstrate they considered all available information submitted to them.
CBD’s Patrick Donnelly – who we spoke with at length in our first edition of The Fight – authored the protest filing. Donnelly told me the acreage relevant to the tortoises totals only about 200,000 acres of the almost 12 million that would be available for solar under the plan, so the grievance shouldn’t be a herculean endeavor to address.
“We’re trying to go into the protest process with an open mind, not cynically,” he told me, “and make this plan a lot less harmful.”
Still, if CBD escalates, the Bureau will have to show how it went from getting these recommendations to landing on the acreage it opened to solar. It could also shake the certainty of developers with applications within the solar plan area already dealing with tortoise protection advocates on the individual project level, like EDF Renewables’ Bonanza Solar project north of Las Vegas which has a draft environmental review in public comment.
Proving a government decision is arbitrary requires demonstrating the move was not “reasonable and justifiable,” Ankur Tohan, an attorney at K&L Gates, told me. Usually the bar for the government to prove itself is “relatively low,” and courts are “very deferential to an agency” as long as “the agency’s action took into account the relevant factors.” The problems arise for the government if “the internal analysis is contradictory,” Tohan said.
Personally I’m having trouble figuring out how the Service’s initial recommendations were internalized at BLM – though I am assuming they were handled in some way, as otherwise the Service would presumably stand in the way. BLM does acknowledge that “design features and project guidelines” were modified to “better avoid impacts to species where not excluded” and said developers “shall configure solar development projects to maintain existing desert tortoise habitat.”
I asked BLM to explain this, but they declined to answer questions on the matter. “The BLM has no comment at this time,” BLM press secretary Brian Hires said, citing the need to “review all protests.” So I guess we’ll have to wait and see!
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A look at the week’s biggest fights over wind and solar farms.
1. McIntosh County, Oklahoma – Say goodbye to the Canadian River wind project, we hardly knew thee.
2. Allen County, Ohio – A utility-scale project caught in the crossfires over solar on farmland and local-vs-state conflicts now appears deceased, too.
3. Albany County, Wyoming – We have a new “wind kills eagles” lawsuit to watch and it could derail a 252-megawatt project slated to be fully online next year.
4. Martin County, Kentucky – I’ve been getting complaints we’re too much of a downer in this newsletter and should praise success stories. So here’s one: a solar farm in Kentucky on a former coal site.
Here’s what else we’re watching…
In Delaware, U.S. Wind is appealing a local regulator’s decision to reject a substation for offshore wind.
In Illinois, the Panther Grove 2 utility-scale wind project just cleared its county planning commission. The project is a joint venture between Enbridge and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners.
In North Dakota – the home state of Trump’s pick for Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum – Minnkota Power Cooperative and PRC Wind yesterday announced plans to develop a new 370-megawatt wind farm near the town of New Rockford.
In Texas, a subsidiary of Eni New Energy completed building a 200-megawatt battery storage facility just outside the southwestern city of Laredo.
In Nebraska, what would be one of the state’s largest utility-scale solar projects is facing an uphill climb with county regulators. Good luck, NextEra!
In New York and New Jersey, the cable landings for the Vineyard Mid-Atlantic offshore wind project are starting to receive federal review.
In Tennessee, a different NextEra solar project has a key county hearing scheduled for early February.
In Washington state, regulators have approved a 470-megawatt solar project in Benton County, which we’ve previously told you is home to its own massive fight over wind energy.
In California, residents are complaining to local media about a solar project potentially destroying native Joshua Trees.
In Massachusetts, the small city of Westfield is inching closer to restricting battery storage facilities in its limits.
A conversation with Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam of DNV Energy Systems
Today we’re speaking with Cici Vu and Morgan Putnam from DNV Energy Systems, who helped craft a must-read report out this week on community relations in transmission with Americans for Clean Energy Grid (ACEG). Their report compiles findings of a roundtable with environmentalists, Indigenous rights activists, developers, and individual land owners, and finds transmission can fare better than solar and wind in this current political climate – and that community benefit agreements can be helpful for getting projects across the finish line. But some issues divided the roundtable, including how to structure labor benefits to ensure lots of people get job opportunities from transmission.
The following is a lightly edited and abridged version of our conversation:
Jael: Can you walk me through what you and ACEG found as a part of your research?
Morgan: ACEG identify – like you have – that there is a realness to the community opposition that can arise with these projects. While there are clearly cases of money being spent to augment that, it doesn’t mean the opposition isn’t present. ACEG’s interest was to help make meaningful progress on this issue and figure out how we can do better to accelerate the rate at which we develop transmission. As the report calls out early on, development really proceeds at the pace of trust within a community.
Cici: There are a lot of reports out there on best practices. There are 1,500-page reports on desktop research and lots of interviews and so forth. But I think ACEG hit the nail on the head by bringing in the voices at the same table. With my expertise in mediation, we were able to do that. The recruiting of all the voices helped make the report more inclusive, and more comprehensive and more holistic in viewpoints and perspectives.
The other thing that was really important was bridging the technical aspects of these large infrastructure projects that are so complex that communities don’t understand [them.] Being able to bring the large complexities of these projects – transmission, in this case – and community needs and interest, and being able to translate and interpret and be able to talk to one another, is a core piece of this report.
The tool that gets us there is these community benefits agreements, project work agreements. And they only work well and are effective if they are co-developed with the voices, the developers, the landowners, the host communities alike.
Jael: Did you feel there was a need for a consensus on best practices for community engagement?
Cici: It’s a differentiator. It’s one of the reasons we’re doing this.
We all recognize the needs of load growth demand. But to most effectively advance some of these best practices and make them actionable, these trusted voices have to discuss and agree. Or not agree – because we have a non-consensus segment as well where there were issues that did not meet consensus. When that happened, we made a recommendation to continue the discussion toward consensus.
Jael: What issues were most difficult to find consensus on and why?
Cici: The big piece of tension was how would these projects treat workforce development [and] bring in a local workforce while balancing the needs of labor,because labor has the skills. For instance, one of the issues was that local workforces need to be up-skilled in a way that is much more structured and systematic because there are safety issues in climbing a pole and doing electrification and things like that.
Jael: At a high level, are we seeing a similar broad backlash to transmission like what we’re seeing in specific communities with solar and wind?
Morgan: No, we’re not. It could happen. But those types of things you’re referencing are not yet occurring in transmission. I think it is less likely but not impossible, because–
Jael: What about Grain Belt Express or what’s happened around Piedmont? Do those situations give you any pause?
Morgan: So Grain Belt I think a little bit but it’s in a different category in my mind. Grain Belt is a specific project and, well, just look at the MISO region where that project sits. MISO’s moving forward with a lot of transmission. That project is but one project and it is being developed by an independent transmission developer that has… I think they face additional hurdles at times by virtue of their independence.
Having said that, I think the earlier statement still applies to all transmission. It’s about trust. It’s something where I think if you have the trust and support of the communities, you’re going to be able to move the projects forward.
Cici: We’ve seen a lot of momentum in favor of longer term regional planning of transmission. We haven’t seen as much attention on the triggering words we see with solar, or wind, and the incoming administration for transmission. And we also have a lot of the load demand, which is data centers.
We’re all crossing our fingers with the incoming administration. It’s so unpredictable.
This week’s top news around renewable energy policy.
1. Youngkin sides with locals – Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin this week said at his State of the State address that he would oppose efforts to “end local control of solar project siting” – indicating he will fiercely challenge efforts by some state policymakers to resolve challenges posed by town and county restrictions on renewables by overriding them.
2. More like Hearing Watch – We’re starting to learn how Trump’s most significant nominees may run federal energy and climate agencies. Thank you, senatorial advise and consent process!
3. Using land for data – One of Biden’s final days this week was spent opening up federal lands for constructing data centers in order to give the U.S. a leg up in developing artificial intelligence.