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
Q&A

How to Talk to Climate-Minded Investors About Data Centers

A chat with Colette Lamontagne, senior director for electric power at Ceres.

Colette Lamontagne.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Colette Lamontagne, senior director for electric power at the sustainability finance advocacy group Ceres. Her team just released a shareholder engagement guide for the utility space around data center development. I’ve been wondering when the ESG crowd would enter into the AI infrastructure fray, so I asked if I could chat with Colette about what the guide could teach my lovely readers and whether the data center backlash portends a new wave of boardroom fights between electric companies and institutional investors.

Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

The Most Important Data Center Vote You Haven’t Heard About

Plus more on this week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Washtenaw County, Michigan — The Mitten State made itself the center of the data center backlash this week, as multiple AI skeptics won key Democratic congressional primaries. Yet the most significant election result wasn’t a primary vote, but rather a quiet referendum in a small town outside Ann Arbor.

  • On Tuesday, the town of Augusta voted by a nearly 9-1 margin to overturn a land use ordinance enacted by the township government the previous year allowing a data center on agricultural land. This means developer Thor Equities will either have to find a way around clear local rejection or abandon Augusta for its proposed data center.
  • Augusta sits on the border of Michigan’s 7th congressional district, where Sunrise Movement cofounder Will Lawrence pulled off a surprise upset against a moderate establishment-backed candidate. Lawrence’s victorious primary campaign was rooted almost entirely in advertising against data center development and tying his opposition to supporting the industry.
  • I believe the Augusta result proves the case made by Lawrence’s candidacy — voters will resoundingly back ways to fight data centers. A Lawrence campaign memo published by Politico after the primary makes the argument he will defeat incumbent Republican Tom Barrett almost entirely on this issue, too, calling it “the hyperscale elephant in the room.” The memo also claims there are “data center voters” who have “not traditionally been available to Democrats [but] have been highly motivated by hyperscale development in mid-Michigan.”
  • “Will’s strong stance on this issue and his consistency in showing up and standing alongside residents in data center fights expands his potential voter base in the general,” the memo states.

2. Travis County, Texas — I’ve been getting a lot of texts from sources about Texas Governor Greg Abbott issuing a stop to data center permitting. Let’s get into what really is happening here.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Spotlight

How the National Park Service Wound Up in a Data Center Deal

The agency is reportedly considering a land swap that would allow AI infrastructure in one of northern Virginia’s largest green spaces.

The Prince William Forest Park entrance.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A national park site and Civil War conflict area in Virginia is now a battleground in the fight over data center development on federal real estate — and Congress is starting to get involved.

On July 23, the Prince William Times reported that Trump’s National Park Service is “considering a land swap” to allow “at least four data centers” on land within the boundaries of Prince William Forest Park in northern Virginia, one of the largest green spaces in the Washington D.C. metro area and a flashpoint during the Civil War. Since then, my colleagues and I have confirmed based on interviews with sources familiar with the plan, public lobbying disclosures, and previously unreported correspondence from Congress to the Park Service that, indeed, there has been a concerted behind-the-scenes effort to make this swap happen, going back more than a year. Many of those concerned about the idea of this exchange told me they’ve been unable to get clear answers from the Park Service on the likelihood of the swap.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow