The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Spotlight

The CBD’s Tortoise Threat

The conservationist group thinks it has the goods on the Bureau of Land Management’s new Western solar plan.

•
Tortoise
Alexander Mils / Getty Images / Heatmap

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!

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

Offshore Wind’s Existential Crisis at Climate Week

Can the industry ever recover?

•
A wind turbine and Chris Wright.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Luke Liu

American offshore wind’s existential crisis was laid bare at this year’s Climate Week.

California and New York officials gathered on Tuesday at the New York Bar Association in Manhattan to tell attendees of the annual climate action mega-event about their efforts to hold the Trump administration to account. After Trump regulators upended wind projects off the East Coast and struck buyout trades with energy developers to ditch ocean wind leases, both states filed fresh legal action against the administration, targeting what they said were egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars that canceled once-promising projects that would’ve given gigawatts of power to grids expecting energy demand to spike.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Another Solar Company Trying Gas-Powered Data Center on Federal Lands

And more of the week’s top news around project development.

•
The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Ada County, Idaho – Trump’s push for more data centers on federal lands is causing a lot more ruckus and catching another solar company in the cross-fire.

  • Last week, D.C. news outlet The Washington Sun first reported that a subsidiary of solar developer Arevia Power submitted a right-of-way application for a data center project on federal lands in Idaho, a fact the Bureau of Land Management confirmed in a statement to me Thursday. The project is currently in a preliminary phase of permitting and a public notice can be expected this year, a Bureau of Land Management representative told me.
  • Until the initiation of any National Environmental Policy Act review, information on the data center is scarcely available on public websites. So here’s what BLM told me about it in a statement: the data center project will be 4 million square feet and include a 3,226-acre parcel of federal land. An additional 514 acres will be needed for a 10.6-mile “electrical load line corridor.” The data center complex will include a substation, stepdown electrical yards, a water connection, and a 450-megawatt on-site natural gas-fired power facility. The project is expected to use upwards of 600 megawatts though, which explains the potential load lines.
  • The Sun story also claimed the Arevia project will connect to a “sprawling utility-scale” solar project. BLM has previously said the data center is in some way “linked” to an Arevia solar farm proposed on federal lands north of Twin Falls, Idaho.
  • Arevia Power did not respond to a request for comment on the project nor the reported inclusion of gas generation along with solar, which I could not find discussed on their website. This is not the first time I’ve seen reports of this kind of activity from a solar developer. On August 3, I reported that solar developer Clearway canceled a proposal submitted to the Bureau of Land Management to transform a solar application into a data center and gas project – after we made the existence of the proposal public.
  • On Thursday I spoke with Heather Tied-Nelson, acting communications lead for the Bureau of Land Management Idaho field office, briefly over the phone about the project. “It’s all so very early in the process. We’re working with the company to try to finalize their plan of development and probably publish a notice of intent to begin the planning process later this fall or winter,” Tied-Nelson told me. Then I asked whether the data center was tied to Arevia’s solar efforts and if this was another solar farm-for-data center application swap kind of situation. She replied: “I can’t speak to that.”

2. Carbon County, Wyoming – Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: The Trump administration just delayed a large fossil-free power project after criticism from a powerful Republican senator. But this time, it’s hydropower.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Pro-Renewables Super PAC Paying ‘Close Attention’ to Tom Tiffany

A conversation with Tom Matzzie of the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition

•
The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s Q&A is with Tom Matzzie, chair of the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition – a pro-renewables Super PAC fighting lawmakers of both sides of the aisle who spurn the sector. The Super PAC won quite a few victories during the primary season, successfully boosting challengers to hardline conservatives in the U.S. that fought for cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act and are no longer going to serve in the Lower Chamber. Matzzie, also CEO of solar firm CleanChoice Energy, is intent the sector must go on offense to win more public bipartisan support and survive the Trump 2.0 era.

I chatted with Matzzie to hear how he’s looking at the general election season. The conversation revealed to me they want the renewables industry to be seen as politically lethal. And they’re paying close attention to the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow