News

Citing Need for Assessments, US Freezes Solar Energy Projects

»

by: Dan Frosch, The New York Times

photo
Nevada Solar One power plant opened in February 2008. The 400-acre, 64-megawatt, solar power plant is the first built in the US in 17 years and is the third largest in the world. The plant produces energy to power about 14,000 homes. Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. (Photo: Reuters)

    Denver - Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.

    The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

    But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.

    "It doesn't make any sense," said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. "The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry."

    Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land in the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California, where sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.

    Galvanized by the national demand for clean energy development, solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management since 2005. They center on the companies' desires to lease public land to build solar plants and then sell the energy to utilities.

    According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.

    All involve two types of solar plants, concentrating and photovoltaic. Concentrating solar plants use mirrors to direct sunlight toward a synthetic fluid, which powers a steam turbine that produces electricity. Photovoltaic plants use solar panels to convert sunlight into electric energy.

    Much progress has been made in the development of both types of solar technology in the last few years. Photovoltaic solar projects grew by 48 percent in 2007 compared with 2006. Eleven concentrating solar plants are operational in the United States, and 20 are in various stages of planning or permitting, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

    The manager of the Bureau of Land Management's environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.

    Water use can be a factor as well, especially in the parched areas where virtually all of the proposed plants would be built. Concentrating solar plants may require water to condense the steam used to power the turbine.

    "Reclamation is another big issue," Ms. Resseguie said. "These plants potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span. How to restore that land is a big question for us."

    Another benefit of the study will be a single set of environmental criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed the application process, said the assistant Interior Department secretary for land and minerals management, C. Stephen Allred. The land agency's manager of energy policy, Ray Brady, said the moratorium on new applications was necessary to "ensure that we are doing an adequate level of analysis of the impacts."

    In the meantime, bureau officials emphasized, they will continue processing the more than 130 applications received before May 29, measuring each one's environmental impact.

    While proponents of solar energy agree on the need for a sweeping environmental study, many believe that the freeze is unwarranted. Some, like Ms. Gordon, whose company has two pending proposals for solar plants on public land, say small solar energy businesses could suffer if they are forced to turn to more expensive private land for development.

    The industry is already concerned over the fate of federal solar investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress renews them. The moratorium, combined with an end to tax credits, would deal a double blow to an industry that, solar advocates say, has experienced significant growth without major environmental problems.

    "The problem is that this is a very young industry, and the majority of us that are involved are young, struggling, hungry companies," said Lee Wallach of Solel, a solar power company based in California that has filed numerous applications to build on public land and was considering filing more in the next two years. "This is a setback."

    At a public hearing in Golden, Colo., on Monday, one of a series by the Bureau of Land Management across the West, reaction to the moratorium was mixed.

    Alex Daue, an outreach coordinator for the Wilderness Society, an environmental conservation group, praised the government for assessing the implications of large-scale solar development.

    Others warned the bureau against becoming mired in its own bureaucratic processes on solar energy, while parts of the West are already humming with new oil and gas development.

    Craig Cox, the executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a renewable energy trade group, said he worried that the freeze would "throw a monkey wrench" into the solar energy industry at precisely the wrong time.

    "I think it's good to have a plan," Mr. Cox said, "but I don't think we need to stop development in its tracks."

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

This is proof that every

This is proof that every attempt to get clean renewable energy will be thwarted because our government is controlled by the enemy, big oily tongues up their own behinds.

I wonder who will be paid to

I wonder who will be paid to provide the *assessments*? I'm sure that they'll require approval from Dick Cheney.

Look, they have a mandate to

Look, they have a mandate to protect our public lands and wildlife from destruction! Thank God that in one case at least they are following it! They should be applauded! Why do we think solar is so much better than oil? If we destroy our environment with one as opposed to the other, what is the difference? I agree we need renewable energy but point-of-use (solar panels on your house and factory) makes much more sense than industrializing the Mojave desert. Even wind turbines do terrible things to the environment. We are a society full of entrepreneurs: we can do better. Please support these public servants who are upholding our national laws!

Conspiracy theories aside,

Conspiracy theories aside, it is not unreasonable to examine the environmental impacts of solar developments. Unlike wind developments, centralized solar plants are incompatible with any other land use. Hence, at least habitat is being consumed and should be assessed. This has to be done on a case-by-case basis, but a programmatic EIS could provide guidance. Two years is, however, excessive. Considering the need to replace fossil fuels, fast-tracking this should be done.

While it is certainly true

While it is certainly true that an environmental study with the potential to cancel the project is a requirement for rational construction, I share the misgivings of other people. There are too many instances of complete lack of attention paid to environmental studies for such things as coal plants and oil drilling with their inherent danger to the environment for this to be an innocent concern for the environment. Furthermore, the Bush administration has been openly hostile towards alternative sourcces of energy and is trying to reduce the time in which alternative sources of energy can be offset by government pay.

To: I have but one

To: I have but one question. Their jobs. Extortion is more efficient than bribery.

Is this some kind of deep

Is this some kind of deep fantasy IQ test? OK to promote Tar Sands..... Inejficeint, wastful OK to promote Oil Shale extraction.... Inefficeint, wastful OK to promote offshore drilling...... OK to to promote the production of Ethanol on arable land.... A crime against humanity OK to conduct experiments on by punching out the ionoshphere................................................................. Halt a viable renewable source of energy achieving critical mass................................... because of relocatable wildlife while the countries economy goes to pot. Its cynical and abusive I bet they are laughing their heads off in the administration.

Seems like an odd time for a

Seems like an odd time for a sudden interest in environmental impact, yet,the questions are worth asking and exploring. I suspect environmental impact studies could be fast tracked as well, and completed in a couple of months rather than a couple of years - and could be on going as the project develops. What is lacking here is simply the desire and will on the part of the government and agencies involved to move swiftly and efficiently toward developing solar energy. The concerns really don't have to be either or, than can be both and.

REGINA: I'd suggest a bit

REGINA: I'd suggest a bit more sophistication. Bureaucrats, i.e., civil servants, do not make enough money to have substantial investments in oil or anything else. (Except those doing the revolving door from military to "defense" industry and back again.) Civil servants for the most part do the bidding of their politically appointed superiors who will boot their butts if they don't obey orders or if they say what's going on. The superiors are ultimately appointed by none other than decidedly self interested Bush-Cheney Special Fossil Fuel Only No Matter the Damage Promotional Team. The Promo Team has already brought you Iraq, Afghanistan (with its pipeline from the Caspian), increased ANWAR and offshore drilling, and has the hots to get Iran's oil before the Team fades far too late into the sunset. (Or they might stage a "terror" attack, invoke their own directives for indefinitely postponing the election, and inaugurate themselves for life; I put nothing, nothing past these self righteous world class criminals.) As usual, the rot starts at the top. We can expect more blockades against other alternative sources of energy from wind to low head hydraulic to biomass to geothermal to tidal based on a sudden utterly out of character alleged concern for the environment by these lovers of the status quo ante. Rivers, mountains, deserts, and shorelines are in terrible danger from these new technologies, but, of course, not from the old fossil fuel technologies. Just ask the BCSFFONMD Promo Team.

That's why CHANGE is

That's why CHANGE is necessary in Washington and it can't come fast enough!

If the government wants to

If the government wants to regulate for environmental impacts of industry and utilities, then by all means get started. But it seems this moratorium is not about saving the environment. Solar power creates low greenhouse emissions per unit of power produced, especially if solar power is used to create more solar panels. No, this seems to be about Big Oil taking cover behind "our" government's regulations (created for just such an emergency): government as road-block to progress through red-tape. And apparently they assume we believe this very study has never been done before now. Are they saying it's OK to store atomic weapons all over the country, or store high level nuclear waste in the desert, but we better study this solar panel thing for a while? This is what our government should have been doing for decades now, devoting time and investment for new energy sources, instead of the Star Wars program, the failed Drug War, or the occupation of Iraq. Nipping a new sustainable energy economy in the bud, while perhaps desirable from the point of view of a Big Oil lobbyist, is an unconscionable act of hubris perpetrated on the entire world, when considered in context to what is known about humans' role in global climate change. Can we expect less, or more, or anything from the Bush administration?

unbelievable, seems they

unbelievable, seems they want to make sure they sell every last drop of oil before we can have renewable energy. James Hansen is right, they are criminals.

While solar is put into

While solar is put into bureaucratic limbo, drilling for gas and oil has been fast-tracked. And, we KNOW that both of those have severe negative impacts on the arid west. Someone described drilling for gas in that region as mining for silver while throwing away the gold. The "gold" in this case is WATER which is extracted and POLLUTED while drilling for the gas. The water table is lowered and the polluted water is left to evaporate in settling ponds. Yet ANOTHER example of Re THUG LIE CON "energy policy".

Oh, but drilling for oil and

Oh, but drilling for oil and gas, and mining, is okay???

The only possible reason for

The only possible reason for this is that the government doesn't want to let alternative energy undercut the profits of oil, coal and nuclear energy corporations. C'mon. Where's the downside? Oooh... too much shade from solar panels is going to destroy the environment! It's even more dangerous than toxic gases from combusting oil and coal, or the radioactive waste from nuclear fission. Argh! Save us from the shade, Bush!

I have but one question:

I have but one question: What oil and gas industry investments are held by the bureaucrats who are stalling the development of solar energy?