The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has come under harsh criticism during the last part of 2008 and the early part of 2009 for creating a monstrous backlog of solar energy applications. In July 2008, the BLM put all solar applications on hold ostensibly because these projects are: (1) large scale commercial facilities with a large foot print and most likely will be used exclusively for solar energy generation; (2) most likely to occupy the land for a long period of time, perhaps as long as 30 years; (3) these projects will require changes to the land use plan; and (4) the BLM will be required to conduct a detailed environmental review under NEPA.

Critics have complained about the huge backlog of solar applications. Although the BLM has been flooded with solar energy applications, it doesn't process them very fast. True performance metrics on how long the average solar applications take are hard to find. One would assume the average turnaround time is somewhere north of 14-16 months.

And when the BLM put all solar applications on hold last year, investors, solar companies, manufacturers, politicians, the general public, Sierra Club and environment organizations were scrambling to redirect. Western states advocates were busy lobbying for some sort of action from the BLM. Some of the harshest critics came from investors when they felt the BLM stands for Bureaucratic Land Moratorium.

This 22 month moratorium caused a huge ripple effect throughout the renewable community -- yes, even a tsunami of sorts. Active projects were scrapped. Funding efforts went south. Deals were cancelled. Orders were placed on hold. Havoc was the watchword of the day. Politicians started receiving an avalanche of mail from disgruntled investors and company executives. Solar panel manufacturers had to put skilled personnel on furlough. Some manufacturing plants were closed. Various PPAs were also cancelled due to the uncertainty of the approval process.

Most of the solar developers are worried the BLM will not approve their projects in time to qualify for federal aid. The recent stimulus bill passed by congress in February 2009 requires solar developers to begin construction by the end of 2010 to qualify for grants from the Treasury Department (up to $2.5 billion).

Katherine Gensler, Manager of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association said, "Hitting the brakes before we'd really gotten off the ground was definitely a scary prospect for the industry".

The BLM has enormous responsibilities. It manages 258 million acres of public lands in 13 western states. These public lands make up about 13 percent of the total land surface of the United States and more than 40 percent of all land managed by the Federal government. It balances the ecological systems of nature, while at the same time, works with environmental, outdoorsmen, politicians, lobbyists, recreational, businesses and the American public. A strong challenge in these trying times.

Now the Good News

Fortunately Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (and a former senator from Colorado) recognized the BLM was not actively pursuing the best interests of the American people, particularly in the western states, and initiated a number of major projects that will ultimately speed up the review and approval of solar applications.

* On June 29, 2009, Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar announced the "fast tracking" of solar energy on public lands, including 670,000 acres for solar study zones and expediting their environmental analysis. The announcement included 13 large-scale solar plants, creates 50,000 jobs and plans to be under construction by the end of 2010. Only areas with "excellent resources, suitable slope, proximity to roads and transmission lines or designated corridors and containing at least 2,000 acres of BLM administered public lands " were considered.

Secretary Salazar said in making the announcement "I would hope that when people look back in the year 2020 to this announcement ... they will see this as a true milestone in moving the United States of America forward in the renewable energy future". Secretary Salazar also said he expected there to be 13 commercial-scale solar projects under construction on public lands by the end of 2010.
* Secretary Salazar recommended to President Obama Bob Abbey, formerly a top Interior Department official in Nevada, as the new Director of the BLM. Mr. Abbey has 32 years experience in the overall conduct of energy, environment, and natural resources, mostly in the western states, including 8 years as BLM's director in Nevada. He is held in high regard by the industry he represents and he has received awards and kudos from the U.S. Senate. The energy industry has high hopes for his successful leadership.
* Secretary Salazar has established new BLM offices in Nevada, California, Arizona and Wyoming to expedite the processing of the solar applications. These new offices are close to where most of the current utility-grade action is taking place. The office in Fillmore, Utah, is already open. The BLM has undertaken a massive recruiting program to locate and identify skilled personnel to staff these new offices.

The Bureau of Land Management has seen a 78 percent jump in the number of solar energy project applications since it reversed last year's ill-fated decision and started accepting applications again. The number of applications has risen to 223 from 125. The applicants are vying to build solar power plants of 10 megawatts or larger in California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada according to data provided by the BLM. Over 2 million acres are involved in these utility-scale projects. Out of the 223 projects, only 2 have progressed sufficiently enough to undergo environment reviews.

Conclusion

True to his reputation, Secretary Salazar has made unprecedented and bold decisions to insert himself more actively in the chain of command at the BLM. Although he faces a challenging opportunity of momentous scale, he has proven his mettle by hearing the renewable energy crowd. He has initiated a bold, new sense of urgency into both the people and the processes of the DOI and the BLM.

The Beltway Boys (and girls) of the U.S. Congress cannot (and should not) bear all the blame for the BLM's dismal failure. Whether poor management, lack of leadership, budget, vision or all of the above, the BLM has sullied its reputation of its otherwise stellar 200 year history. To be sure, there are many professionals working hard to be good stewards of the natural resources of this great country. But the current (and the previous) BLM management must bear the blame and be accountable for this monumental snafu. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for the BLM to reinvent themselves and establish a new order.

Only time will tell how successful how Secretary Salazar and the new BLM Director will be. The U.S. is at a critical juncture while other countries have taken the lead in the solar industry.

Wake up, America. It's time to retake the Hill!

Comment
Carl Luther
10.27.09 As an energy professional, albeit with no particular affiliation with any development firm or company, I'm concerned that private industry somehow believes they ought to have access to public lands. Industry is not proposing installations out of the goodness of their hearts - they are proposing these installations because they want a place at the public trough. There, I said it...these so-called "green barons" are willing to despoil large sections of natural, public property for private gain. It is disengenous to state that there are no other places where these installations can be built. With the notable exception of the Western states, most property is privately owned. And guess what? That private ownership happens to dove-tail nicely with population centers. Putting an installation in the middle of "unused" public lands in the west means that less of the energy generated will actually make it to the consuming public due to transmission losses.

Don't get me wrong - I'm completely on-board with promoting the use of green-energy. But as an American, I am vehemently opposed to the utilization of public lands for the installation of massive installations feeding a for-profit private entity. If the government wishes to create a public utility as they did with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Salt River Project, and others, and define and annex properties accordingly for the public good, then the precedent exists. The author in this case does not present such a case.

Having grown up in the western states where my family ranched, farmed and were public servants, I can assure you that I am aware of the many "multiple use" areas the Forest Service, BLM, and various state agencies have to juggle in using public lands. Late 19th and early 20th century scars remain on the land from some of those experiments that would not be permitted today. The thing those early industrial experiments on public land have in common with what is being proposed is that once the profit dried up, the owners vacated, leaving nothing more than the detrius of their having been there. Let's not make that mistake again. There are plenty of privately-owned areas where these types of activities can occur. Public process needs to occur when it deals with the disposal or use of properties held in trust for the public at large.

Copyright © 2002-2006, CyberTech, Inc. - All rights reserved.