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

Trump Keeps Wind Farms Waiting Despite Court Ruling

The administration told a federal court that it has a “new analytical methodology,” hence the continued delays.

Trump measuring wind turbines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A federal judge ruled in early August that the Trump administration’s freeze on vertical height clearances for wind turbines was likely illegal. More than a month later nearly all of the wind energy projects remain on pause, as federal officials add new red tape that industry representatives say runs afoul of the court’s edict.

Let’s catch-up quickly on the American wind sector’s existential dilemma: the federal government has control over airspace higher than 200 feet from the ground and wind farm turbines essentially always enter that sphere of control. For at least a year and a half, the Trump administration through the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration has slowly gummed up what industry and former government officials have said was once a rote, benign bureaucratic process for ensuring turbine rotation didn’t interfere with flight patterns or radar at nearby airports.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Why a Climate Law Expert Sees ‘Small Glimmers of Hope’

Talking about the data center backlash, the midterm elections, and the future of renewables with Columbia Law School’s Romany Webb.

Romany Webb.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This week’s conversation is a quick catch-up with our friends at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. I hopped on the phone with the center’s deputy director Romany Webb to chat about recent updates they published to anti-renewables opposition analysis. I wanted to dig into their research beyond the toplines — what should people care about in the coming election? How have data centers come up in their research? Or the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act?

The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

All the Data Center News That’s Fit to Print

A developer sues an Arkansas paper, plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Pulaski County, Arkansas – A major utility sued the biggest newspaper in Arkansas over reporting on a data center energy deal. It’s a crucial case to follow.

  • The lawsuit Entergy filed last week against the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette centers on whether the newspaper was legally able to publish about an Entergy deal with Google around payments for a large solar farm to power a data center. It claims the information reported was a trade secret accidentally released by the state public services commission.
  • In a statement to a local ABC station, the utility claimed Google’s “electricity contract may be confidential to newspapers,” and that the publication also erroneously reported on the solar farm financing. Entergy is seeking a temporary restraining order blocking the publication from reporting any more information in its possession that would qualify as theirs or Google’s trade secrets, and claims they believe more information is in the publication’s possession that may be reported in the future, according to federal court filings.
  • So far, the utility has been unable to win the stoppage and U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky rejected their request on Wednesday. The case is proceeding and I will be checking in regularly for you on this one.
  • Why is this case so important? This is easily the most aggressive communications response to public reporting on a previously-unknown deal related to a data center. At a time when non-disclosure agreements are a profound liability for the sector, I am surprised to see a utility go as far as a federal court challenge.

2. Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania – Speaking of hardcore legal strategies, have you ever heard of a data center developer asking every local official to recuse themselves?

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow