You are here: home   Blogs   The GOAT Blog   In the zones
The GOAT Blog

In the zones

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

Judith Lewis Mernit | Dec 17, 2010 04:25 PM

You’ve got to hand it to Ken Salazar: Never before has an Interior Secretary been so methodically driven to make U.S. public lands safe for renewable energy development. Unlike the men and women who have held his position in previous administrations, especially the last one, Salazar has put solar, wind and their attendant transmission needs on their own pedestal, right up there with oil and gas drilling.

Up until now, however, the solar projects permitted in the last three months – eight nine so far, to generate nearly 4,000 megawatts – were all put in motion while renewable energy development was still in Wild West mode, without any focused discussion about responsible siting of utility-scale solar. That wasn’t working for anybody – not for developers wanting certainty, not for environmentalists sinking their funds into litigation to protect what they thought were already protected landscapes.

Thursday afternoon, Interior released the first documented evidence that Salazar is making good on his promise to rectify that situation: An environmental impact study from the Bureau of Land Management establishing “solar energy zones” (SEZs) in six Western states, places where the sun shines hard and rare desert species won’t be unduly disturbed by concentrating solar power towers, mirrors and the bulldozers that clear their way. It comes just as Congress managed to extend renewable energy grants in the tax bill, preserving precious funds for start-ups too new for tax credits to matter.

And you could tell that environmentalists wanted to be happy about it; really they did. But, well, they’re not. At least not yet.

“We’re very supportive of the BLM creating solar energy zones,” said Barbara Boyle, senior representative for the Sierra Club in California. “It’s important not to fragment the landscape by scattering solar all over the desert; it’s much better to cluster projects.”

The problem is that the draft solar energy study doesn’t do much to make that happen.

“They neglected to create any meaningful incentives to cajole developers into those zones as opposed to developing just anywhere,” Boyle says.

And at least two of those zones, Boyle says, shouldn’t even be in there at all.

The BLM’s eagerly awaited “Solar Energy Development Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” goes back to December 2008, when the agency set out to do “an overarching review of solar development on our public lands,” says BLM’s head of energy policy, Ray Brady. Salazar in March of 2009 ordered the effort better focused and funded, allowing BLM to staff up and focus on what Brady calls “a higher level of environmental review.”

The study certainly does that: Included in the descriptions of the 24 zones BLM settled on in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Colorado and Utah are frank descriptions of exactly what solar development would do to the land. The largest of the areas, Riverside East, includes 162,317 acres of mostly “undeveloped and rural” land, where “utility-scale solar energy development would introduce a new and discordant land use.” Solar development in a 25,000-acre slice of Nevada’s Amargosa Valley would adversely affect “wilderness characteristics on 19,406 acres of designated wilderness within the Death Valley National Park,” and impede access to the park from the south and west.

Still, “a significant part” of the Riverside East site “is a good place for solar development,” Boyle says. And while a project in the works by developer Solar Millennium in the Amargosa Valley has stirred up controversy about dust and water use, at least half the community in Beatty, Nevada regularly voices support for energy development there, provided it brings jobs.

Few conservationists can say the same, however, for two other sites that linger on the BLM’s latest map: The 110,000 acre Iron Mountain zone, which lies between Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve, and the 24,000 acre Pisgah site a little farther north. In both areas, “there’s a high concentration of desert species and important movement corridors,” Boyle says. “The environmental community as a whole does not agree with BLM’s decision” to include them.

Just as alarming is the study’s inclusion of a “preferred alternative” that zones a whole 21 million acres in the southwestern states for solar energy development -- a puzzling option, considering that the ostensible point of the study was to steer development toward specific and appropriate lands. Even those 21 million acres may not be the end of the story: In a conference call on Thursday with Salazar and a rep from the Energy Department, BLM director Bob Abbey reinforced the notion that the agency has drawn no hard boundaries around the zones; they’re only there, he said, for the sake of efficiency. “We would still entertain applications on areas outside of the solar development zones,” Abbey said. “We understand the need for flexibility.”

That, Boyle says, “is ridiculous. It defies logic. They haven’t even tied how much land they’re proposing for development to the amount of solar they need to tie us to a renewable energy future." Even an ambitious solar energy slice of the carbon-cutting pie should require no more than 200,000 acres, Boyle argues. And not all of that has to be BLM land -- thousands of acres of degraded private land are already in play.

The public has until March 17, 2011 to plow through the study – which tops 10,000 pages, without appendices – and submit comments. But it’s already pretty clear what the gist of the enviros' comments will be.

“We’re really commending BLM for taking this approach of looking for priority areas,” says Alex Daue, renewable energy coordinator at The Wilderness Society in Colorado. “But right now those zones are just lines on a map. They need to be more than that.”

Judith Lewis Mernit is a High Country News contributing editor. She writes from California.

Amargosa Valley is Beautiful
Kevin Emmerich
Kevin Emmerich
Dec 28, 2010 07:39 AM
Great article, Judith!

I would like to respond to one of the quotes:

"Still, “a significant part” of the Riverside East site “is a good place for solar development,” Boyle says. And while a project in the works by developer Solar Millennium in the Amargosa Valley has stirred up controversy about dust and water use, at least half the community in Beatty, Nevada regularly voices support for energy development there, provided it brings jobs."

 
It is totally not accurate to say half of the community of Beatty regularly voices support for solar energy development. (take it from someone who lives 5 miles from there) The truth is, most of them don't really know much about it due to all of the fast tracking. Most of them that do go to the public meetings are skeptical about the long term viability of these projects and voice concerns about water over draft. Support of massive solar development would run ugly transmission through the scenic Oasis Valley (Beatty area). None of us want that! About 95 percent of the residents of Amargosa Valley, south of Beatty oppose Solar Millennium. In fact, now that it got approval, there are several for sale signs all over that community. When subsidies dry up for Solar Millennium, Amargosa will not have much of a tax base left, Who would want to live next to that? It obstructs their view of Death Valley National Park 4 miles away.

And what parts of Riverside East do the Sierra Club think is appropriate for desert scraping? Last I heard, Chuckwalla Valley is still beautiful and biologically rich!


solar
Janine Blaeloch
Janine Blaeloch
Dec 28, 2010 12:04 PM
I haven't opened the PEIS yet, but this article makes it pretty clear it's not going to portend much improvement in the present, horrible policy being pursued on public lands. Even as an experienced and thus rather cynical reviewer of EISs, I really was holding out hope that the PEIS process would truly seek to eliminate all but the very most degraded lands from consideration. If they're starting with a number of acres, we are in deep, deep trouble. And if, as Boyle says, we need maybe 200,000 acres....um--didn't I read somewhere that the Wildlands Conservancy and others had already identified about that amount of land that was either private or public degraded land? The momentum behind this juggernaut is incredibly discouraging. It would be nice to see evidence somewhere that the BLM is using its knowledge of the land it manages to ease the Administration off this policy course--but I guess the more "helpful" they are, the more secure their budget will be.

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. Rancher vs BLM: a 20-year standoff ends with tense roundup |
  2. Photos of a standoff | Armed militia members join a Nevada rancher to pro...
  3. After the standoff, what's next for Bundy and BLM? |
  4. The energy haves and have-nots | Will rooftop solar owners get off the grid — and...
  5. Why homes are lost to wildfire | This Forest Service expert says it's as much a soc...
  1. Why homes are lost to wildfire | This Forest Service expert says it's as much a soc...
  2. Locals resist a Bakkenization of the Beartooths | South-central Montanans oppose new drilling, forew...
  3. Photos of a standoff | Armed militia members join a Nevada rancher to pro...
  4. The energy haves and have-nots | Will rooftop solar owners get off the grid — and...
  5. Will the Colorado River reach the Gulf of California once more? | Photographs of last month's historic water pulses....
 
© 2014 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone