Defenders of Wildlife Steps in to Protect Critical Tortoise Habitat

Defenders of Wildlife filed a legal challenge this week against the Department of Interior's decision to permit two large solar projects along the California-Nevada border because each would significantly impair a critical desert tortoise habitat linkage.  The challenge calls out the Department of Interior's own doublespeak with respect to the need for "responsible development of renewable energy on our public lands."  The solar projects in question - First Solar's Stateline and Silver State South - would destroy a total of over 6.3 square miles of habitat in the Ivanpah Valley; this area not only provides genetic connectivity across the tortoise's range, but research also shows the valley will "retain the precipitation and temperature levels necessary to sustain the species" through anticipated impacts of climate change.  First Solar refused to consider relocating the projects to already-disturbed lands, and the Department of Interior decided to permit the projects even though they would be located outside of designated "solar energy zones" identified to encourage "responsible development."

The site of the proposed Silver State South solar project (pictured above) in the Ivanpah Valley provides a critical habitat linkage for the desert tortoise, and hosts a variety of animal and plant species, such as this giant cholla cactus (foreground), and the Mojave yucca in the background.

The U.S. Government has contradicted itself when it has evaluated the importance of the Ivanpah Valley.  The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2011 described the land on which the Silver State South project would be built as "critically important" because the it “has the lowest level of existing habitat degradation and likely provides the most reliable potential for continued population connectivity” for the desert tortoise.  During preliminary environmental review of the Silver State South project in 2012, FWS argued that the Bureau of Land Management should reject the project because of the impacts on tortoise habitat connectivity.

Yet, in 2013, FWS' final biological opinion did not mention either of these previous official comments and suggested both the habitat linkage and the solar project may be able to co-exist, but acknowledged that if this was not true then "[l]oss of population connectivity between the northern and southern portions of Ivanpah Valley would create a nearly closed population of desert tortoises within a 258-square-mile area in its southern portion...and a nearly closed population within the 255-square-mile area of the northern portion of the valley," potentially leading to the local decline of the species.  The final environmental impact statement recommended long-term monitoring of the project's impact on habitat connectivity, but failed to identify steps the government would take to correct for any harmful impacts. The Stateline Solar project would be built on the western edge of the Ivanpah Valley, and would also contribute to the loss of habitat connectivity, although probably to a less degree than the Silver State South project.

This desert tortoise's burrow is located on the site of the proposed Stateline Solar power project, across from the proposed site of the Silver State South project on the western edge of the Ivanpah Valley. Both projects would pinch, if not eliminate habitat connectivity for the species.

What is most frustrating about these two First Solar projects is that they can be built on alternative locations that do not jeopardize the recovery of desert wildlife.  The solar panels can be installed on rooftops or on already-disturbed lands;  First Solar should know this by now - the company's 250 megawatt Agua Caliente solar project was built on already-disturbed land in Arizona, and they are investing in other projects on already-disturbed lands.  Other companies are building even larger projects on former agricultural land, such as SunPower's 579 megawatt Antelope Valley Solar Ranch project.  There is no reasons to sacrifice critically important wildlife habitat to install solar panels, when the technology can be adapted to nearly any location.

Defenders' legal challenge is important because it reaffirms the need for all energy companies to respect fundamental environmental concerns when choosing where to build, and forces the Department of Interior to uphold not just the law, but its own standards for "responsible development" when evaluating the environmental impacts of energy projects.

Defenders of Wildlife v Jewell by SaveTheDesert

This is Not Disturbed Land

Recent press articles suggest the energy industry continues its efforts to define the ecological viability of desert habitat in a way that gives it wide latitude to build in some of the most remote corners of the American southwest.
 
First, the Bechtel corporation told SCPR reporter Caitlin Esch that it should be allowed to bulldoze over 3.4 square miles of desert to build its Soda Mountain Solar project next to the Mojave National Preserve because “[t]here are distribution lines, phone lines, petroleum pipelines, a cell phone tower, a mine, off-highway vehicle recreation area, it’s also permitted for high speed rail."  Apparently some phone lines, buried pipelines, and a cell phone tower in a valley means the rest of the intact habitat is not worth saving.  In other words, Bechtel should be allowed to disturb as much as 2,800 football fields worth of land because some telephone lines already exist in the valley.   The project will also pump over 62.5 million gallons during construction, and 10.2 million gallons of water each year afterward to wash the solar panels.  This will draw from desert aquifers that support springs that support the endangered Mohave tui chub fish and bighorn sheep.

A panorama photo of the site where Bechtel wants to build the 3.4 square mile Soda Mountain solar project next to the Mojave National Preserve.  Photo by Michael Gordon (www.michael-gordon.com)  See also Basin & Range Watch's site on the Soda Mountain Solar project.

Bechtel is misleading when they reference the Rasor OHV area, which does not impact the actual site of the proposed solar project;  the OHV area may have an impact on the habitat nearby, but it does not excuse the destruction of a neighboring valley.  And the high speed rail - if built - would parallel Interstate 15, and not draw water from the aquifer.

Separately, BrightSource Energy and NRG continue to justify their choice of location for the 5.6 square mile Ivanpah Solar project by describing the Ivanpah Valley as already-disturbed, and in some cases the companies give the false impression that the project was built on a dry lake bed.  Google "Ivanpah Solar" and "dry lake" and you'll see plenty of articles that reference the project as built on the lake bed itself.  The project was actually built west of the dry lake bed on an alluvial fan that provided habitat for a variety of wildlife.

[Click on image to expand] Notice that the Ivanpah Solar project, in red, was not built on the dry lake bed, labeled in green.  Please stop saying that the project was built on a dry lake bed.  Also notice that both the Primm golf course and gambling outpost are less than half the size of the solar project.  BrightSource and NRG nearly doubled the amount of disturbance in the Ivanpah Valley to build their project.

BrightSource and NRG also like to point out that there is a golf course nearby, as if the entire Ivanpah Valley became a sacrifice zone simply because there was some pre-existing disturbance.  However, the golf course occupies less than a square mile of desert habitat - a fraction of the size of the Ivanpah Solar project. 

This photo of a construction marker in the Ivanpah Valley shows the intact desert habitat in spring 2011, before BrightSource Energy bulldozed and mowed down 5.6 square miles of habitat for desert tortoises, coyotes, golden eagles, cactus wrens and rare desert wildflowers.

As I have noted before on this blog, if we applied these corporations' logic to other natural treasures, we would allow ridiculous levels of destruction in places like the Yosemite Valley simply because there are already some roads and hotels there.  Imagine if a resort developer wanted to double the amount of disturbance in the Yosemite Valley to build a new hotel with three high rises and large parking lots - would we permit such destruction simply because there is pre-existing infrastructure elsewhere in the same valley? Absolutely not. 

If Bechtel and BrightSource are confused as to the definition of already-disturbed land, perhaps they can look at the example of other solar projects built on fallow agricultural land, or solar panels installed over parking lots and on rooftops.  Solar is flexible and scalable - there is no reason to sacrifice remote wildlands when more sustainable alternatives exist.

BrightSource Makes Weak Case for Palen Solar Project

BrightSource Energy filed a relatively weak argument for why the California Energy Commission (CEC) should reconsider its opinion of the Palen Solar project in the Colorado Desert region of southern California.  A Presiding Member Proposed Decision in December recommended that the full Commission reject the project primarily because of the impacts on wildlife, but BrightSource requested more time so that it could make a stronger case that its project would not be a problem for wildlife.

The data submitted by BrightSource suggests its design is likely more harmful to birds than other types of technology, and that if the Palen project is built it would add significantly to the cumulative impact on birds in the Chuckwalla Valley region and pose new dangers.   The data submitted by BrightSource compares bird mortality at its Ivanpah Solar project - located further north near Las Vegas - to the Genesis and Desert Sunlight Solar projects in the Chuckwalla Valley area.  In the few months that BrightSource has been testing its Ivanpah Solar project - involving focusing thousands of mirrors to heat air above the project - it has killed at least as many, if not more birds than the other projects on a per month basis.  However, data across all three projects  -  Ivanpah, Desert Sunlight, and Genesis - is likely uneven because of the different technology types, locations, use of surveys, and questions about the effectiveness of those surveys to accurately capture the full impact of each project on wildlife.

BrightSource began operational testing the Ivanpah Solar project - focusing the mirrors - around September 2013, corresponding with a spike in bird mortality at the site.  However, the company only began conducting surveys for bird carcasses in November.  More time and study is likely needed to determine what percentage of total bird mortality is captured in each survey since each survey only covers a fraction of the 5.6 square mile project.  Even with the smaller sample of time and nascent surveys, at least 135 birds were harmed by the Ivanpah Solar project in 2013, according to the data submitted by BrightSource (not to mention killing or displacing over 170 desert tortoises during construction).

The Genesis Solar project, on the other hand, was responsible for at least 140 bird deaths throughout 2013, and the Desert Sunlight project killed 105.   Although the Genesis project killed more birds in 2013 than the temporarily operational Ivanpah project, the mortality rate at Genesis spiked during July and August and killed a different mix of species than Ivanpah, including water birds.   All three projects - Genesis, Desert Sunlight, and Ivanpah - pose a collision threat to birds; the reflective surfaces of the panels and mirrors confuse birds that fly into them and die from the impact.  But BrightSource's technology poses an added threat by burning birds in super-heated air above the field of mirrors.   Even birds that are not confused by the mirrors and simply traveling over the project can be killed. 

Imagine if the Genesis Solar project used BrightSource's technology. Arguably, the added threat of scorching birds would result in an even higher mortality rate during each month of the year.  BrightSource's proposed Palen Solar project would be built near Genesis, and would not only add to the cumulative impact, but also pose a threat of greater magnitude than either Genesis or Desert Sunlight.  Unlike the Ivanpah Solar project, the Palen Solar project would be built in proximity to the Colorado River and Salton Sea, where birds seeking water sources might confuse the expanse of mirrors as a body of water, a phenomenon at solar sites known as the "lake effect."

[Click on image to expand] The Palen Solar power project would be built near the Genesis and Desert Sunlight solar projects, adding to the cumulative toll on birds in the region with technology that not only poses a collision threat, but also incinerates birds in flight.

The CEC should consider how the Palen Solar project would add to a cumulative toll on bird species in the Chuckwalla Valley region - in addition to the Desert Sunlight and Genesis Solar projects.  Not only would the Palen Solar project contribute an added threat of collision, but it would also bring a new element of danger to wildlife with the super-heated air above the field of mirrors.  The cumulative impacts are reason enough to reject the project and consider alternatives.  Regardless, more studies are needed to understand the true extent of each technology's impact.  If carcass surveys only began at Ivanpah in November, when will they begin at Genesis and Desert Sunlight?  If we're going to build more of these projects, now would be a good time to study the true costs of the path we are about to embark upon to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Can Ivanpah Be Saved?

The Department of Interior issued a Record of Decision this week approving two more massive solar projects in the Ivanpah Valley.  With this approval, First Solar could begin construction of the Silver State South and Stateline Solar projects as soon as this spring, even though the Fish and Wildlife Service has expressed concern that the projects could destroy a key habitat linkage for the imperiled desert tortoise.  Conservation groups have asked Interior and First Solar to consider alternative locations for the project, and Defenders of Wildlife in November warned that it may challenge Interior's review of the projects under the Endangered Species Act.

This photo was taken from Metamorphic Hill, looking over the desert habitat that will be destroyed to build the Stateline Solar project.  Further in the distance beyond the dry lake bed, First Solar would bulldoze another swath of intact desert to build the Silver State South Solar project.

There is no good reason why these projects must be built in Ivanpah, but plenty of reasons why they should be built elsewhere.  First Solar picked sites close to transmission lines and secured a power purchase agreement with utility companies without consideration of how these choices might impact our desert wildlands and wildlife, and blind political momentum has done the rest for them. 

Some people argue that the desert ecosystem will be better off with the clean energy generated by these projects, as if there was only a binary choice between clean energy that destroys wildlands and climate change, when in fact solar panels can be just as productive on rooftops or already-disturbed lands.  With just a year or two of tactical patience, First Solar could have found a better place for these solar panels.   The impacts of emissions already generated by humans guarantee negative impacts on all of our wildlands for decades; it is more important that the next step we take is toward clean and sustainable model.  The fact that anybody would insist on the sacrifice of the Ivanpah Valley - a largely intact desert ecosystem that hosts an above averages richness of species - is unreasonable and ignores smarter alternatives.

The Mojave yucca pictured above will be destroyed when First Solar bulldozes over 3.7 square miles of prime desert tortoise habitat to build the Silver State South Solar project.

We should be deploying clean energy with the long game in mind, not with some rushed fervor that tramples on our conservation ethic.   Furthermore, Interior's dutiful execution of the President's climate action plan runs in parallel with continued leasing of public lands to coal, oil and gas extraction, pouring salt on the wounds of Ivanpah.

Desert Conservation Languishes As Industrial Uses Expand

As the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) continues to facilitate the march of industry into relatively remote corners of America's desert wildlands, efforts to set aside these natural treasures are slow going as Congress has been jammed up by partisan squabbling, and the President has been shy about using his authority under the Antiquities Act to designate monuments.   Waiting for conservation by executive or legislative action may seem worthwhile when you consider that those protections will be more permanent, but what seems to be most lacking in our deserts is proactive conservation through the land management process administered by the BLM; other than islands of critical habitat designated for some endangered species, land use management plans seem to do little to prevent industrial-scale development on land considered to hold important wildlife, scenic and recreation values.

New Mexico Gets a Monument, and May Get A Second This Year

Despite the President's overall reluctance to establish monuments under the Antiquities Act, New Mexico appears to be fairing well - the state is home to one of the largest monuments the President has created so far, and many in the conservation community appear confident that the President will designate a second.  These are long overdue protections, but even if the second monument is granted there are still  plenty of treasured places vulnerable to energy development in New Mexico.

President Obama designated New Mexico's newest national monument - Rio Grande del Norte - in March 2013,  before his 2014 State of the Union pledge to protect even more of America's public lands.  There are rumors that President Obama may again use his power under the Antiquities Act to establish a second monument in southern New Mexico in the Las Cruces area, a conservation proposal that is also the subject of legislation introduced by New Mexico's representatives on Capitol Hill.  It is not clear how much land would be protected by a Presidential order, but legislation proposes protections for three swaths of desert around Las Cruces - the Organ Mountains, Potrillo Mountains, and a "desert peaks" complex.  What is not clear from speculation in the press is whether the President's monument would protect all three swaths of land that New Mexico's representatives seek to protect - totalling nearly 498,000 acres - or just a portion.  You can view maps for the proposed conservation designations accompanying New Mexico Congressperson Martin Heinrich's Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks conservation bill by following these links: Organ Mountains, Desert Peaks complex, Potrillo Mountain complex.

[Click on image to expand]  The map above shows the general areas of the lands to be protected under conservation bills introduced by Senator Udall and Congressman Heinrich of New Mexico (Organ Mountains, Potrillo Mountain, and the desert peaks area), and the Otero Mesa region to the west.

The beautiful Otero Mesa in the southeastern corner of the state, however, remains vulnerable to fossil fuel exploration, despite a strong grassroots effort to seek monument status for one of the largest intact desert grasslands in the United States.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to establish an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) in Otero Mesa, but the ACEC proposal would not exclude energy industry use.  In the BLM's draft environmental impact statement, it identified only 11,000 acres in the Otero Mesa region with "wilderness" qualities, even though the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance has identified over 700,000 acres of land with wilderness qualities.

The Google Earth image above shows an area of approximately 68 square miles industrialized by oil and gas extraction in southeastern New Mexico near Carlsbad.  This scale of development would wreak havoc on Otero Mesa, which is not yet afforded protection from the energy industry.

Arizona Conservation Bill Awaits Congressional Action

Arizona congressperson Raul Grijalva introduced legislation last year to protect over 950,000 acres of Sonoran desert habitat, mostly west of Phoenix.   The Arizona Sonoran Desert Heritage Act, like most legislative efforts, is stalled on Capitol Hill.  Grijalva's bill would create two new National Conservation Areas, two Special Management Areas, and thousands of acres of new wilderness designations.  The new designations would bring more conservation into the balance where military training ranges, urban sprawl, and agriculture have dominated.  The population explosion has also placed greater demand on open space for recreation, with hikers and OHV riders competing for the same trails. Outdoor shooting is also taking a toll as Arizonans drive out to the desert for target practice, often taking aim at the iconic saguaro cacti that dot the landscape.  All of this begs for better resource management, and conservation of what is left of desert wildlands.

You can download a map of Grijalva's proposed conservation measures below.



Nevada Waiting in Line

The last time Nevada enacted conservation measures for its southern desert was in 2002, and it was a double-edged sword.  The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 protected 452,000 acres of desert with 18 new wilderness designations, but it also released thousands of acres of wilderness study areas and further cemented plans to accommodate an unnecessary airport proposed for the Ivanpah Valley, over 30 miles from the city.   Las Vegas' sprawl has destroyed a significant swath of desert habitat in southern Nevada, and the swelling population has contributed to "edge effects," with hundreds of miles of OHV trails etched into the surrounding desert.  Plans for massive new renewable energy projects, transmission lines and transportation infrastructure threaten to further fragment what is left, potentially rivaling the amount of land destroyed in the city's sprawl if all of the projects are approved and built.

Some more conservation may be on the horizon, but probably at a cost.  A bi-partisan group of Nevada representatives are supporting a bill that would create the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument that would protect 22,650 acres of ecological and archaeological resources north of Las Vegas.  However, the legislation would allow construction of a transmission line right through the monument,  and designate additional land to support the proposed airport in the Ivanpah Valley.  A separate bill introduced by Senator Reid would create the Gold Butte National Conservation Area (NCA) in southeastern Nevada, protecting valuable wildlife habitat and recreation areas.  The bill would also designate 129,500 acres of wilderness within the NCA, and another 92,000 acres of new wilderness areas within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.  The prospects of this legislation are less certain because it lacks the same bi-partisan support that the Tule Springs legislation enjoys.

[Click on image to expand]  The proposed Gold Butte National Conservation Area and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument would protect additional desert habitat, although compromises in the legislative process would put other lands at risk.

California Desert Protection Act, Part II?

The California desert is a popular place.  Nearly 1.4 million people visited Joshua Tree National Park in 2012, and over 900,000 made the trek out to the remote Death Valley National Park - the fifth largest park in the United States.  The Mojave National Preserve is the newest of California's desert parks - created by Senator Feinstein's California Desert Protection Act in 1994 - but still hosted over 500,00 visitors in 2012.  But enjoyment of the desert is not restricted to these parks, as millions of people hike, tour by 4x4, race off-highway vehicles and hunt all throughout California's desert lands.  A recent surge in renewable energy construction has also showcased the fact that California's wilderness and National Park units seem insufficient to protect the feeling of remote escape that is achieved by 360 degree views of largely unspoiled wildlands.  Energy projects proposed for the region would be visible from miles away, and shatter the solitude of vast swaths of the desert by introducing industrial-scale development to a place where desert peaks and a sea of creosote bushes should dominate the view.

Nearly two decades after the first California Desert Protection Act cleared a contentious debate on Capitol Hill, Senator Feinstein has pledged continued support for additional desert conservation, and introduced the second California Desert Protection Act in 2010.  The Senator has not yet reintroduced the bill in the current legislative session, but she penned an op-ed on her plans to do so in November; it is not clear why the introduction of the bill has been delayed.  Assuming the reintroduced bill mirrors the 2010 version, the new California Desert Protection Act would create two new national monuments protecting lands donated by the Wildlands Conservancy for conservation purposes, designate new wilderness areas, and slightly expand the existing desert parks.

A map of the 2011 version of the California Desert Protection Act below shows the new monuments and wilderness designations that would greatly enhance conservation. 



Conservationists are also anxiously awaiting the release of the draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP).  Initially expected to be released late last year, the roll out of the draft has been delayed, but is expected to propose some of the most significant changes to the way California's desert is managed since the California Desert Conservation Area Plan was implemented in 1980.  Initial alternatives floated for public consideration in late 2012 ranged from makeovers that would encourage industrial development in some of the most remote corners of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts, while other options would protect desert mountains and open valleys with National Landscape Conservation System and Area of Critical Environmental Concern status.  The DRECP could turn out to be a nightmare for the desert's millions of visitors if it encourages the destruction of treasured places, but it could also turn out to be a model for landscape-level planning and conservation.

We frequently hear the term "multiple use" when the Department of Interior talks about managing our deserts, but some uses are clearly more exclusive than others and it seems little thought has been put into preserving some of the most fragile qualities of our public lands - solitude and spectacular vistas.  BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah Solar project can be seen from miles away by those trying to enjoy the solitude of the Mojave National Preserve.  It will kill migrating birds that are beloved by people throughout the western hemisphere.  Oil and gas exploration in New Mexico will carve miles of new roads into a delicate grassland ecosystem and sprout noisy well pads throughout entire vistas, altering the character of the land for a very long time.  Although land management is indeed a balancing act, it seems most wise to error on the side of conservation since it is a form of management sure to result in the least regret.

Destructive Ivanpah Solar Project To Finally Start Operations

Government officials and executives are expected to flip the switch on the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System on February 13, over three years after BrightSource Energy and its lead investor, NRG, began bulldozing pristine desert to build the project.   During the 3+ years it took these companies to replace over 5.6 square miles of intact ecosystem to build 377 megawatts of solar capacity, Californians have added at least twice as much solar capacity with panels installed on rooftops or over parking lots, and even more capacity has been added with utility-scale projects built on already-disturbed lands.

Years of public relations efforts by NRG and BrightSource have not changed the fact that the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the eastern Mojave Desert arguably represents one of the most destructive renewable energy projects permitted on public lands by the Obama administration.  The Ivanpah Solar project is to the Mojave what oil drilling would be to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge- unnecessarily destruction with the proven risk of ongoing impacts to wildlife from operations.  The Ivanpah Solar project is yet another monument testifying to an unsustainable centralized grid that incents corporate destruction of public lands, and ignores the spaces in our cities and already-disturbed lands that are perfectly capable of generating energy from the sun.

• The Ivanpah Solar project literally burns birds to death in mid-flight. The super-heated air above the thousands of mirrors singes the birds' feathers and eyes within seconds, causing them to fall to their death.  During initial operational testing so far, over 70 birds have been burned to death or severely injured at the project, including warblers, gnatcatchers, and falcons.  Surveys may not be discovering all of the fatalities because of the immense size of the project and potential that scavengers move carcasses before they are found. 

• The Ivanpah Solar project has displaced or killed over 173 desert tortoises since construction began, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  The impacts far exceeded estimates during initial environmental review for the project.

• BrightSource and NRG have spent over 22 million dollars caring for tortoises displaced by the massive project.  If the project were not built on prime desert tortoise habitat, that money could have been invested in more clean energy.

• The project was built on approximately 5.6 square miles of high quality desert tortoise habitat  that the Fish and Wildlife Service warned also serves as a fragile and important connectivity corridor for the species, maintaining its resilience in the face of climate change and other human threats.  Environmental groups asked BrightSource Energy to consider alternative project locations and designs, but the company ignored these alternatives.

• NRG and BrightSource like to point out that the nearby Primm golf course uses more water than the Ivanpah Solar project, which uses dry cooling technology.  While this is true, the Ivanpah Solar project has destroyed several times more habitat than the golf course, and adds to the cumulative demand on local groundwater sources.

• NRG and Brightsource have also argued that the Ivanpah Valley is of no ecological value because there is already a golf course, a highway, and gambling outpost that disrupt the desert habitat.  However, the Ivanpah Solar project more than doubles the amount of development in the valley.  Applying this twisted evaluation of wildlands to other beloved natural treasures would mean places like the Yosemite Valley are not worth saving, since roads, shops and hotels also dot that landscape.  If the Ivanpah Solar project were actually built in Yosemite, it would consume nearly the entire valley.

• The Ivanpah Solar project is built far outside of the "Solar Energy Zones" identified by the Department of Interior in 2012 as appropriate places for solar projects on public lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service and many conservation groups have determined that the Ivanpah Valley is an inappropriate place for utility-scale energy development.

Now that BrightSource and NRG have done their damage, it is now a question of whether or not the Obama administration will approve more projects here, despite concerns from conservationists and biologists.

[Click on image to expand] The Ivanpah Solar project (in red) is multiple times larger than the Primm Golf course, and extends deep into prime desert tortoise habitat.

[Click on image to expand]  To give you a sense of the scale of Ivanpah, the project footprint (white outline) is compared to Google Earth imagery of the Yosemite Valley.

This image of the Ivanpah Solar project taken from miles away in the Mojave National Preserve during initial operational testing in September 2013 shows the glare of thousands of mirrors.  The shiny "lake effect" may confuse migrating birds into thinking the project is a body of water, and damages visual resources for users of public lands.

 A screenshot from Avian Mortality at a Solar Energy Power Plant (1986), a study by Michael McCrary and others at a solar power tower plant in California that found these birds burned by the super-heated air generated by the mirrors focusing the suns rays at central points above ground.  The study also found that most birds probably died from collisions with the mirrors.  The study focused on a small 10 megawatt solar power tower project on 72 acres near Barstow, CA.  The Ivanpah Solar project is over 48 times larger than the Solar One project, which has since been dismantled.

Will Utility Companies Charge You For Being Efficient?

Will utility companies charge me extra because I cut my energy usage through efficiency improvements at home?  Utility companies across the country are proposing new fees for people who find a way to reduce their dependence on a dirty and destructive energy grid by operating rooftop solar systems.  The core of the utility companies' argument is that these homes and businesses with rooftop solar cut the amount of energy they need from the grid, and thus they reduce the amount they pay for the operation and maintenance of transmission lines and substations that bring them energy from far away places. 

There seems to be two major problems with utility company logic.  First, what will stop them from charging me for reducing my use of the grid through energy efficiency improvements?  How do they distinguish between people who install rooftop solar panels, and people who replace appliances and light bulbs to cut electricity usage?  And second, what choice do I have when the utility companies make poor investment choices in unnecessary grid infrastructure and power plants.  In California alone, utilities wasted billions of dollars on a nuclear plant that is now shut down, and now want to charge us for demolishing the plant and replacing it with unnecessary natural gas plants.  Utility companies also invent reasons to build multi-billion dollar transmission lines that do not always make sense, further entangling our society in an unsustainable grid.

The utility companies' effort against rooftop solar exposes their intention -  to stop distributed solar generation from rendering their monopoly of the grid obsolete.   I am willing to accept that anyone connected to the grid should pay at least a fee for that service, but the utility companies are leveraging that fee to punish people based on the amount of solar they generate at home.   If you apply the logic of that penalty elsewhere, it would mean that anybody that intentionally reduces the electricity they pull from the grid should pay extra charges to pay even more for the grid, including those of us who invest in new appliances or light bulbs that use less electricity.

Reduce your electricity use by switching lights off if they are not in use, and un-plug "vampire" appliances and chargers that will use power in stand-by mode.  Keep in mind cable TV boxes and DVRs use quite a bot of energy even when in stand-by mode.

We all already pay standard fees on our utility bill to pay for the grid in addition to the per kilowatt hour charges for the amount of electricity we use.  So why should we be punished if we try to reduce the amount of grid energy we use?  The anti-solar surcharge applies to many people that are still paying the utility company transmission and distribution charges, it is just that utility companies want to charge them even more for attempting to break from their centralized model.

I live in an apartment building that does not allow me to install my own rooftop solar, but my city recently adopted support for "solar gardens" that allow residents who cannot install their own solar panels to buy into a solar installation elsewhere, such as solar panels on a warehouse or over a parking lot.  The energy those panels produce would offset the energy I use from the grid.  In the meantime, I have switched out incandescent bulbs for LEDs, installed smart power strips that cut stand-by power usage, and I am mindful of turning off lights in rooms I am not using.   All of this adds up, and my average daily energy usage has dropped by nearly 25% over the past two years.  Does this mean I am a freeloader on the grid?  Should my utility charge me more for using less?

What is worse is that the anti-solar fee sets a precedent for forcing people to pay for infrastructure and destruction that they barely need, and cannot control.  If I have to pay my utility company extra money to sustain its outmoded business model, I am undermining the very reason I try to cut my energy usage - to protect our environment and reduce my own footprint.  The role utility companies play must change to accommodate new technologies, and to address the climate crisis.   Utility companies should not be allowed to strangle distributed generation and efficiency improvements; they should instead become partners in transforming our system to one that rewards lower energy use and local clean energy generation. 

Keystone XL Clears Environmental Hurdle, but Outcome Far From Certain

The Department of State today issued the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would deliver up to 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Canada to Nebraska, linking to an existing pipeline that would then make the oil accessible to ports in the Gulf of Mexico.  An initial read of the EIS suggests State is laying the groundwork for the Obama administration to approve the pipeline because the document assesses that the pipeline would not have a significant impact on the climate.  Although we have seen this plenty of times before - an EIS downplays the impacts of a project and signals impending approval - the outcome is far from certain in the case of the Keystone XL pipeline.

An illustration from the EIS that looks like it belongs in a children's book shows the process for ripping up the miles of prairie and badlands to lay the Keystone XL pipeline.

The President claimed in his June 2013 climate speech that he would evaluate whether or not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline based on its overall contribution to the climate crisis; he should instead ask whether the Federal government should facilitate a 5.4 billion dollar investment that makes it easier for companies to profit from an unsustainable and destructive fuel source.  Although the document's "wells to wheels" analysis of the pipeline's impact on greenhouse gas emissions does acknowledge that the pipeline could contribute to an overall increase in these emissions,  that analysis is in a footnote on page 4.14-36 of the EIS.  The EIS primarily lays out the case that the tar sands oil is likely to be extracted from the ground in Canada, distributed and burned via other means, such as rail and trucks, regardless of whether or not the pipeline is built.

What is encouraging is that the President has plainly accepted that the climate crisis is a threat.  What is troubling is that he continues to adhere to an "all of the above" energy policy that does not seem to differentiate among energy sources based on sustainability.  The Department of Interior has opened more public lands to natural gas and coal extraction, and even the administration's solar policy has permitted some of the most poorly sited and destructive renewable energy projects imaginable, such as BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah solar project.   If we truly believe that we face a climate crisis, and that our wildlands are under unprecedented threat, our policies should prioritize energy efficiency and sustainable renewable energy.  Our transportation investments should favor mass transit, pedestrian and bike friendly cities, and fuel efficient vehicles.  We should not be green lighting the construction of multi-billion dollar oil pipelines.

The President must consider whether his administration should approve further entrenchment in a paradigm that he has already admitted we must abandon, or to affirm his pledge to innovate and switch to a more sustainable path.  Whether or not Keystone XL is found to contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the irrefutable fact is that the pipeline is a step in the wrong direction. An investment of time, money and sweat in an industry that should be rendered obsolete by investments in a smarter path.