Clean Power

Published on August 12th, 2011 | by Reggie Norris


Renewable Energy Projects Under Pressure from Feds and Environmental Groups

August 12th, 2011 by  

At the close of 2010, the Obama administration announced an ambitious plan to preserve massive amounts of land, particularly in the West. Pursuant to a regulatory change instigated by the administration, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been instructed to survey its vast holdings – some 250 million acres – and designate suitable tracks as “wild lands.” Under this proposal, millions of acres of resource rich public land would be declared off-limits to all forms of commercial development.

While this is a well-intentioned idea designed to preserve open space, it is, ironically, making it harder for renewable energy projects to get off the ground, projects the administration desires. By restricting large amounts of land, much of it remote and isolated, BLM is removing some of the cheapest and best land for renewable energy projects from the market. In addition, it drives up the price of the more scarce, available land, making the already thin margins on renewable energy projects even more precarious.

Recently, the Arizona solar market received a huge boost as Australian-based EnviroMission moved forward on plans to build a massive solar tower in Arizona’s La Paz County. This solar tower will be twice as tall as the Empire State building, 2,600 feet tall, making it the second-tallest building in the world and will be able to produce clean, cheap electricity for 150,000 homes with its 200 megawatt power generation capacity for up to 80 years. One of the reasons why a project of this immense size can be built is because the solar tower will be located in isolated, desert north of Quartzsite, Arizona on about 5,500 acres. Land that is not as remote may be too expensive to purchase for a project this size.

However, what if this land were restricted to any development as a part of BLM’s wild lands program? EnviroMission would be forced into land that may not be as cost-effective, potentially ruining the financial viability of the project. It is basic economics: if the government starts restricting the supply of available land, then the demand is going to increase and so is the price. But this is the risk the Obama administration and other local municipalities are facing as they work to restrict more and more land, potentially making it harder and more costly for company’s like EnviroMission to find land to build these types of projects on.

On top of federal pressure, renewable energy project developers are getting pressure from an unlikely source: environmentalists. Vashti Supplee, the director of bird conservation for the Arizona chapter of the National Audubon Society, is concerned about the EnviroMission project saying that it is possible that birds migrating along the Colorado river might be confused by it. “This thing seems to be a weird black hole at the moment…I don’t know what’s going on with it,” Supplee said. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Environmentalists are fighting large-scale projects in the California solar market as well. As one example, in an arid expanse of rangeland and barbed wire 50 miles southeast of Hollister in the Panoche Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and a group of local residents known as Save Panoche Valley are suing to block a $1.8 billion, 399-megawatt solar farm claiming the 4 million solar panels that would be constructed across the roughly 3,200 acres west of Interstate-5 would harm endangered species and disrupt the rural character of the area. The case is pending in court as we speak.

Also recently, SunPower Corporation and a subsidiary of First Solar Inc. announced that they had reached a settlement agreement with between Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Biological Diversity relating to development of the 250 MW California Valley Solar Ranch and the 550 MW Topaz Solar Farm. Part of the objection of the environmental groups was the impact of the solar farms on local endangered species. As part of the settlement, First Solar and SunPower agreed to purchase an additional 36 square kilometers of land for preservation, in addition to the 69 square kilometers the companies had committed to, and to remove 48 kilometers of fencing from the area. Additionally, the companies will not use rodenticides in the construction and operation of the projects, and to make additional financial contributions to help San Luis Obispo County acquire lots in undeveloped areas nearby for wildlife conservation.

Ultimately, these lawsuits have the same effect as federal land restrictions, they drive up the costs of developing solar farms. In a time with high unemployment, high energy prices and a major dependence on foreign oil, it seems counter-intuitive to make it harder and more expensive to develop renewable energy projects, like solar farms. This is particularly relevant as many states such as California, Arizona, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have aggressive renewable energy standards mandating renewable energy production.

Restricting land use and endlessly litigating with those companies who are trying to provide renewable energy solutions is an excellent way to prevent future development of renewable energy projects. The economics of these projects are tenuous, at best, particularly with today’s debt markets, and any increase in cost, whether from increased land costs or litigation, puts them in peril. The U.S. government and environmental groups need to take a hard look at the economic and energy future of this country and realize that their actions are making it harder not only to create jobs but the infrastructure this country needs to grow in a sustainable manner.

Photo Credit: BrightSorce Energy

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , , , , ,

About the Author

Prior to joining Clean Energy Experts, Reggie ran operations for the first completely carbon-neutral water company in the U.S., Nika Water Company that donates 100% of its profits to support projects that bring clean water and safe distribution to under-developed areas around the world. Prior to Nika, Reggie was a corporate & securities attorney for Wilson Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati where he represented high-growth consumer and technology focused start-up companies. Earlier, Reggie was a staff attorney for the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. He holds a LLM from University of San Diego School of Law, a JD from University of California Hastings College of the Law and an AB in English from Stanford University.

  • Pingback: Interior Opening Up 17 Solar Energy Zones in 6 Western States | CleanTechnica()

  • Pingback: Arizona solar potentially losing focus on commercial solar | CleanTechnica()

  • Pingback: Arizona solar potentially losing focus on commercial solar |

  • Pingback: Arizona solar potentially losing focus on commercial solar | Clean Energy Experts()

  • Robert E. Itzkovich

    Nice!: … . Keep ON the GOOD WORK _ in FULL POWER CAPACITY!: … . MOST Satisfactional!: … .

  • I’m all about solar energy, and I think it’s important to develop it quickly in as many places as possible. But that doesn’t mean “Everywhere, at any cost to the environment.” If clean energy is an environmental as well as societal goal, then it’s implementation shouldn’t destroy the environment. That seems pretty intuitive. I’m not talking about rich folks worrying about a new wind farm ruining their precious view of the sea – that’s a selfish and stupid thing to do. But building a huge solar farm on top of a delicate and relatively pristine piece of desert habitat is another issue. These projects should be sited carefully so that we can get the environmental benefits of solar and wind without harming the environment where they are built.

    People who care about sustainability should be wary of making the same argument that the oil and gas industry makes for increased drilling – that the government shouldn’t impose environmental regulations in the west because it increases costs and we need the energy and jobs.

  • Ian Dowdy, AICP

    As a conservationist in Arizona I find the author of this article particularly ill-informed. The facts fly in the face of this article so consider them since the author failed to do research:
    1. Enviromission is not proposed on BLM lands, rather on Arizona State Trust lands.
    2. Lands under consideration as “wild lands” under the Obama policy were largely pristine lands in remote and sensitive areas, the vast majority of which were not suitable for alternative energy development
    3. The conservation and environmental community largely embraces solar development and are informing and guiding the BLM toward suitable lands.
    4. Renewable energy is a balancing act, the benefit must outweigh the harm.

Back to Top ↑