-
- Welcome to the Landscape, your show about America's parks
and public lands.
I'm Erin Weiss with the Center for Western Priorities coming
to you from Denver, where I believe this season is called
First False Spring.
It's February in 65 degrees. Don't be fooled, folks.
- And I'm Kate Retinger in Salt Lake City,
where it's still rainy and cold.
But that's not gonna stop us from
talking about solar energy.
Today we've got Justin Muse with the Wilderness Society here
to discuss the Bureau of Land Management's new solar plans
for Western public lands.
But before we jump into that, let's do the news.
- Right after we put out last week's episode,
we got some bad news.
Out of Utah State leaders did a 180 on plans
to swap out state land inside
of Bear's Ears National Monument
for federal land elsewhere in the state.
This is all pretty standard after a a Monument proclamation.
It's happened over decades. Uh, this has gone on.
Now, this land swap wouldn't affect the monument size
or status, but it means that
for now you've got about 165,000 acres
of state land sprinkled throughout the monument, which makes
managing Bear's Ears
as a connected landscape a little trickier
and potentially a little more expensive for the Feds.
So what happened here?
Well, the state of Utah
and the Interior Department collectively put many,
many hours into crafting a plan that Utah leaders
and the federal government could agree on.
The plan would've made the monument whole
and benefited Utah's public school system
by putting more land into state trust
that would generate revenue for schools.
State officials liked the plan.
Utah's congressional delegation was on board.
They introduced a bill last year to make it official,
but that bill has not yet passed.
And now Utah State leaders are pulling their support for it,
saying they're opposed to the Bureau
of Land Management's plan for how to manage the monument.
Now, here's the catch That management plan
hasn't even come out yet.
We don't know what's in it.
We don't know what is in there
that state leaders theoretically object to,
because of course, this plan isn't even final yet.
But whatever was going on, Utah leaders think
that BLM wasn't deferential enough
to the state when putting it together.
So now they're throwing a fit, taking their ball,
and going home and costing Utah
schools money in the process.
- In other news, Arizona state legislators have filed a
lawsuit against President Joe Biden over his designation
of BJ Nogio.
It Coveney ancestral footprints
of the Grand Canyon National Monument.
On a side note, I still can't believe
that's the name of the monument.
It literally, I could not get through it in one breath.
- , why don't we just go with Bjo Venny for now.
- . Okay. Um,
the lawmakers claim the designation is an unlawful land grab
that exceeds the authority granted to the President
by the Antiquities Act.
Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs supports the monument
and opposes the lawsuit.
Now, we've seen this type of lawsuit before.
In fact, Utah sued the president over his decision
to restore Bear's Ears
and Grant Staircase National Monuments in 2022.
That lawsuit, which was ultimately an attempt
to weaken the Antiquities Act, was thrown out
by a federal judge last year.
This lawsuit is similarly aimed at getting the US Supreme
Court to put limits on the president's ability
to designate national monuments,
but it's unlikely to succeed.
Every single challenge
to a president's authority under the Antiquities Act has
failed at the Supreme Court or in lower courts.
Since it, since the, since the passage
of the Antiquities Act in 1906.
- Our guest today is Justin Muse, director
of Government Relations for Climate
and Energy at the Wilderness Society.
Justin, welcome to,
I believe this is your first time on the landscape.
- Yes, it is, Aaron. Thank you very much for having me.
- So we got you here today to talk about this
proposal from the Bureau of Land Management.
It would prioritize around 22 million acres of public land
for utility scale solar development across the west.
That's the top line on this,
but what else would this plan do?
- Yeah, that's a, that's a really good top line, Aaron.
Um, so the Western Solar Plan update is
a landscape level analysis, um, that the Bureau
of Land Management has embarked upon.
Um, that's in fact an update on a,
a landscape level analysis dated about 10 years ago.
Um, and its purpose is to determine which BLM lands are
or may be appropriate
for solar applications across 11 Western states.
Um, so this, uh, it's an update on, um,
the analysis conducted during the Obama administration,
which was itself supplemented
by state specific updates in California
and Arizona, which did the same.
Um, and the 11 western states that it applies to, um,
are the six states that were covered by the 2012 plan,
which are Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada,
Utah, and California.
Um, and it adds five additional Western states, which,
which include Washington State, Oregon, Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming.
Um, and essentially what the plan does is it determines, uh,
a, it determines two sets of criteria.
Um, it includes resource-based exclusion criteria.
So these are land, these are features of, of,
of lands that are not acceptable
for solar energy development.
And some examples of that are areas
of critical environmental concern, lands
with wilderness characteristics, lands that are used
for recreation and habitats and, and things like that.
Um, and it also, uh, puts forward five, um,
alternatives, uh, for potential priority criteria.
Um, so these are criteria that'll guide
where may be acceptable for solar applications to happen.
Um, and those, those five alternatives include criteria
that include things like, uh, proximity to transmission.
So one of the, one of the criteria is within 10 miles
of a transmission line, um, of a certain load,
uh, or, or more.
Um, another is, uh, the slope of the land.
So 10% or or less is another criteria included there.
Um, a third is, uh,
is whether lands have been previously disturbed or degraded
or otherwise developed.
Um, and the alternatives include, um, essentially just, uh,
different combinations of those criteria to,
to determine which lands may be acceptable
for solar applications.
Um, and the preferred alternative
that the administration has put forward in its draft
programmatic EIS, um, is, it's called alternative three.
And it combines the transmission proximity criteria on,
um, with, uh,
the slope criteria on the 10% or less.
Um, so, um, that's alternative three.
Another alternative that,
that we at the Wilderness Society are especially interested
in is the fifth, uh, criteria set, um,
which is those two plus disturbed and degraded lands.
So in the preferred alternative, um, that would, uh,
put about just over 22 million acres
of BLM lands in the west, um, uh, make them open
for application.
Um, and the fifth alternative would be just over 8 million
acres in the west.
- Alright, so let me try to summarize.
Tell me if you, if this is more or less right.
Uh, so this means, number one, do build close
to existing transmission lines.
Don't build on steep cliffs or mountains or rolling hills
and do build on places that have already been disturbed
because of other development or oil and gas
or things like that, that, you know, those kind of the,
the three big things that are important right now
- Yeah.
In, in our view at the Wilderness Society.
That's, that's absolutely true.
I, I will note that the preferred alternative put forth I is
not considering the disturbed
and degraded criterion. Um, but
- Yes, but there's some, but there's some
room in this process.
We'll get into that, what that means in a second. Kate.
- Yeah. Justin, so you've mentioned that this is a proposal.
It's, um, I guess it's called a programmatic environmental
environmental impact statement.
Um, what do those words mean
and what, uh, what's what comes next in this process?
- Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for the question, Kate.
Um, so it's, uh,
it's a landscape level analysis.
Um, basically what it is is a 30,000 foot
planning process, um, which will determine, um,
which areas are available for solar applications
and which aren't.
So the ultimate goal is to guide, um,
guide applications away from areas
that are highest conflict
and towards areas that are lowest conflict.
Um, and then after that, uh, project level
analysis will happen once applications are made.
- And, and does it come along with like a comment period?
And, um, all of those things we expect
out of like a NEPA process?
- Yeah, absolutely.
So there's a, a 90 day comment period that,
that began when this, uh, this proposal was released.
And that'll conclude on April 18th.
Um, and the Bureau of Land Management is looking
for comments on, on, you know, which alternative, uh,
folks wanna see selected on the criteria on
another thing that I haven't mentioned yet,
which are programmatic design features, uh,
which are requirements that projects must have in order to,
to move forward in the application areas.
Um, you know, some examples of those, uh, include, um,
you know, design features requiring development developers
to retain short native plant species
that will fit under solar panels
and essentially make these developments work better
with the, uh, the lands on which they're cited.
- So let's zoom out, um,
and talk about how solar leasing on public
lands works right now.
Is that process similar to oil and gas leasing?
- Yeah. Yeah. It, you know, it's, it's,
it's pretty different from oil and gas leasing.
Um, you know, the, I mentioned
before that there was a 2012, uh, programmatic, um,
environmental impact statement that,
that guided development towards, uh, towards priority areas.
They're called designated leasing areas
or solar energy zones, which are both terms of art.
Um, but you know, essentially in,
in those designated leasing areas,
there are competitive auctions
because those are areas that have been pre-screened, um,
to avoid conflict
and also areas known to have high solar potential.
Um, and then, and,
and so there's a competitive leasing process for those,
but then there's also about 19 million acres
of variance areas currently.
And those are places where renewable energy companies can
apply for rights of way, um, which are different rights
of WAY grants, which are different from
rights of way leases.
Um, and those are not pre-screened.
Um, so there, there's a,
there's a slightly different process for,
for these variance lands than there are
for these designated leasing areas.
Um, but in those designated leasing areas, it is, you know,
roughly analogous to how it's for, for oil and gas.
- You mentioned that this is an update
of the Obama era plan was put in place 10 years ago.
This is expanding this to cover several more states,
but give us us also a sense of
how the renewables space has changed
and evolved in the last decade.
What do we know now and how is both the industry
and America's power grid different than it was 10 years ago?
- Yeah, that's a great question, Aaron.
Um, and, um, some of the, uh, one, one, and,
and I think there's one component of the, the 2012 plan
that's illustrative of, of how the technology's changed.
Um, and one of the,
the resource-based exclusion criteria back in 2012, um, that
excluded areas from even being considered
for development was, um, insulation.
Um, so this is not insulation like you insulate your house,
but rather, um, you know how much sunlight a certain parcel
of land gets.
Um, and, and there was a, you know, in the 2012 plan,
there was, um, you know, certain lands
that got less than a certain threshold of sunlight in a,
in a given year were excluded from development.
And because of those very, uh, technological, um, you know,
advancements that have happened in the last 10 years
that you, you referenced, um, you know, you can get more
with less with today's photos, voltaic, uh, solar panels,
um, then, then, then you were able to with, you know,
concentrated solar back in 2012 or,
or the panels that we were dealing with back then.
Um, so this plan at hand gets rid of
that specific exclusion criteria,
and that's also, you know, in part why you're seeing,
you know, more interest and, um, you know,
potential availability in, in states further north.
- So Justin, I think you may have touched on this,
but why are they redoing the plan right now
with they being the BLM?
- Yeah. Um, so there are, there are a number of goals
that have been either congressionally mandated
or, uh, put forward by the Biden administration.
One is, is a goal of achieving, uh,
permitting 25 gigawatts of onshore renewable energy
by 2025.
Um, and another is decarbonizing the electricity sector
by 2035.
Um, and ultimately in order to meet those goals,
especially the second goal, um, we just need to do more
to make public lands part of the climate solution.
And that includes, um, citing more so solar panels and,
and developing more renewable energy on public lands.
Um, and you know, one thing I'll point to in, in,
in the plan that's at hand here is that, uh,
ultimately the goal is to, is not
to develop 22 plus million acres of public lands for solar,
but, but rather to, to, you know,
get about 700,000 acres of solar over the next 20 years.
Um, and you know, in the programmatic EIS itself, the,
the Bureau of Land Management states that, um, that will,
uh, really get us a lot closer to that 20,
that 100% carbon free electricity grid by 2035.
And in particular, the, the solar energy added
by those 700,000 acres
of panels will avoid roughly 123 million
metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035,
which is really, it's the equivalent of taking 27 million
passenger vehicles off the road every year,
which is just a huge bite out of the climate crisis.
- And so, just doing that quick math, that means,
of these 22 million acres, ultimately BLM would like
to see about three, three
and a half percent of it developed.
That's correct. Is that right? Yep.
- Over the next 20 years. That's right.
- S so just to summarize that, the goal here is to sort
of speed up, um, renewable development on public lands.
- That's right. That's right.
And, and do so in a responsible manner that,
that involves stakeholders at,
at very early in the decision process.
That that's ultimately what this landscape level plan is,
is giving folks the opportunity to weigh in on, you know,
what'll what'll be available.
Right. Um,
and there's a 90 day pop comment period for folks to, to,
to be engaged for the Bureau of Land Management, to consult
with communities and with, uh, tribal stakeholders
and with, uh, cooperating agencies across the west, um,
and, uh, ensure that, you know, that kind of
ramp up of renewable energy that we really need
to see is done, um, you know, without leaving folks behind.
- So I think that brings us to the $64,000
64 gigawatt question, uh, which is how are they doing, uh,
are they avoiding conflict so far?
Are there big concerns?
Are there little concerns around the edges of this thing?
What kind of feedback are you hearing?
- I a lot of people are concerned about public lands
and landscapes and ecosystems.
They care about being taken over by solar and say,
and, you know, we agree that that's why we need
to do this type of landscape level planning.
Um, you know, we at the Wilderness Society really don't
wanna see kind of, um, haphazard development
of our treasured public lands.
Um, so that's why we're engaging so much on this process
to ensure that, um, you know, our public lands are developed
with care and that solar energy is cited responsibly
and with extensive community and stakeholder involvement.
Um, so that's, that's one concern that I've heard is just
that the character of the public lands will change.
And, and this is, you know, we're, we're trying
to do everything that we can to ensure that it doesn't.
Um, and, you know, another concern that I've heard is just,
it seems like a lot of folks think that, um, and,
and I don't think some of the headlines have helped,
but, you know, they think that this will equate
to 22 plus million acres of public lands being developed.
And that's simply not the case.
I mean, we, we just went over it.
The ultimate goal is about 700,000 acres over the
next 20 years.
Um, so, um, just want to do everything that I can from,
from my soapbox to, to point folks to that, to that fact.
- Um, so Justin, I think you've mentioned transmission,
but how does this plan affect transmission?
This is more about building out
so large solar arrays, correct.
Or is transmission wrapped up in this too?
- Yeah, there, there isn't, there isn't a ton of overlap.
Um, but, you know, one thing that we want to ensure,
and one thing that we think that this plan does, uh,
you know, in the alternatives that,
that have been proposed is, you know,
guiding solar development to where transmission already is
or where transmission has been proposed.
Um, so we think that's, that's really smart.
Uh, we think that's important.
That's been a bit of a roadblock for some
of the solar energy zones, um, that we've seen, you know,
not get developed since 2012.
Um, so, you know, I, in that sense,
transmission is very important, but it,
but it is only tangentially related in that sense.
- You mentioned that after the Obama plan,
there were some state, uh, additions that happened.
Uh, one of those I believe was the D-R-E-C-P in California,
the Desert Renewable Energy and Conservation Plan.
Were there lessons learned from D-R-E-C-P
that went into this REGIONWIDE plan?
Um, and from what you can tell, was that process, uh,
successful so far now a couple years past
D-R-E-C-P implementation?
- Yeah, no, those are great questions.
Aaron and the DRC, the D-R-E-C-P,
the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan is something
that, you know, I know the Wilderness Society has advocated
really heavy heavily on.
I will say that a lot of that work in, in fact, all of
that work predates me.
Um, but I , but I'm happy
to talk a little bit more about it.
Um, so one thing that's really great about the D-R-E-C-P is,
you know, not only is it working,
but it also struck a really important
and delicate balance, uh,
and was signed off on by a diverse group of stakeholders
that included conservation organizations, um, uh, tribes,
state agencies, um,
and, you know, renewable energy companies.
Um, and these same stakeholders, uh, you know,
have consistently urged the Bureau of Land Management not
to adjust it.
I mean, I say that with some reservations considering we
have heard the renewable energy industry does wanna open
up additional acreage.
Um, but, uh, you know, I will also say
that some tribes in the area, particularly the, the CRIT,
uh, have expressed concerns with the D-R-E-C-P
that it didn't do enough to avoid impacts
to cultural properties and landscapes.
Um, but that's, you know, what I will say about that is
that, um, you know, the D-R-E-C-P,
like the plan at hand here is, is imperfect.
And that site specific analysis, that second step,
when you look at a specific parcel of land,
whether it's going to be developed once an application has
been submitted, um,
that site specific analysis is just so important.
And tribal engagement, community engagement really has
to happen there too, um, to ensure that, you know, any sort
of decisions made at the programmatic level don't, um,
you know, uh, don't over influence
what happens at the project level.
- All right. So we've talked a lot about the benefits
of planning where solar goes as opposed
to just giving developers a free for all.
Um, obviously that's a good thing.
Um, we're all in support of that.
How well would you say the BLM has been following
the existing Obama era solar plan,
and how well has that, um, avoid has helped, has
that helped BLM avoid, um, uh, what's the word for it?
Um, conflicts such
as like the Sun Zia transmission line? Yeah,
- That's a great question.
Um, and I've, I know that I've mentioned that there were,
there were, um, you know, just, just under 300,000 acres of,
of prioritized areas, um, priority areas that came out
of the 2012 plan,
and then about 19 million acres of, of variance areas.
Um, and, you know, that was, that,
that pres presented a bit of a problem.
Um, you know, uh, there's been a lot
of interest in those variance areas.
Um, and I will say about the variance areas
that they didn't have the same level
of environmental analysis that went into them.
Um, and, uh, you know, there,
there've just been more conflicts there as a result.
Um, you know, we, in the programmatic EIS we've seen,
uh, you know, the Bureau of Land Management points
to about 17 projects that have been cited
and permitted in solar energy zones versus about 17
in variance areas.
Um, so, you know, that shows that there's some
interest in these priority areas.
Um, and one that I'll, I'll point out in particular, um,
that show us like kind of the model for how this can work
and how this has worked over the last 10 years is the Dry
Lake Solar Zone, um, which was designated, um, uh,
you know, back in 2012 that's in Nevada.
Um, so in Nevada,
the 2012 Western Solar Plan established the
Dry Lake Solar Zone.
It's a designated leasing area on lands
that were already impacted by development.
Um, you know, it was in a, a solar energy zone, meaning
that it had already been analyzed for, for conflicts.
Um, and ultimately, uh, the permitting time for
that project was less than half
of the average permitting time for, for projects, uh,
you know, not in priority areas in those variance areas.
So, you know, the Obama plan has showed us that, you know,
when, um, when industry applies to build in
an area that's been pre-screened for conflict,
the process can just go so much faster.
Um, and that's, that's really kind of
the quintessential example of, uh, of, of
how this can and should work.
- So take us down the road six months, you know,
past this comment period,
and as we look towards it being finalized,
and then let's say six years down the road,
how will you know if this has been a success
or a failure or halfway in between?
- I'd say a good metric for the success of this is
the pace of the projects that, that, uh,
that are permitted over, you know, the next five, 10 years,
and the degree to which you see opposition
to these projects on the ground.
Um, it's, it's going to be extremely important for,
for these projects to be done.
Right. I, I think that, um, the last thing
that we wanna see is, uh, you know, false narratives about,
about solar, uh, you know, prop proliferate. Um, so
- Let's dive in there.
The, I i I, so you're talking about measuring success by
minimizing conflict or opposition,
and then you do mention these false narratives.
Uh, can you give some examples there of what may be
more real valid concerns about the effects of solar,
say, on, on water supplies, uh, or on wildlife
and more concerns that you might fall, uh,
you might might put into the NIMBY category of folks
who just don't want to see
solar projects within their view shed?
- Yeah, no, we, we've, I,
there's some extremely valid concerns about, about, uh,
about renewable energy generally on public lands.
You know, we've, I, I think there's a,
a really good example, um, you know,
it's in the transmission space,
but I think it carries over here of, you know, when you,
when you really start doing the project level outreach
and analysis, you know, in, in Sun Zia specifically,
you know, there's been a lot of, um, a lot
of opposition from, from, you know, tribal partners who, um,
have raised concerns about infrastructure, uh, in
negative imp, negatively impacting cultural resources.
Um, you know, those are extremely valid concerns,
and that's not something that you can necessarily put on a
map, um, at the programmatic stage.
And that's something you just need
to dive into at the, like, on the ground. Um,
- Yes.
Uh, right there, there, and,
and it's, well, it's not always an either or.
There's a, a gradient there between, you know,
obviously the concerns on the San Pedro with the,
with the Sun Zia project,
very real environmental concerns about what happens to, to,
uh, to a, a, a riparian area in the desert.
And on the other hand, there are folks
who don't like looking at solar panels, and Yeah.
How do you, how do you balance that?
How do you work with folks who might fall more on
that latter side?
- Yeah, no, that's, it's, it's a great question
and it's, it's a, it's a tough one to answer, you know,
I mean, one, one thing that I, I think is, it kind
of puts renewable energy at a disadvantage is the fact that,
you know, with, with oil
and gas, you have a royalty rate, um, which is a percent
that, you know, is the companies have
to pay when they produce oil
and gas on federal lands, half of which goes back
to the American taxpayer,
and half of which goes back to the state on which the,
the land is, uh, the production is happening.
Um, that that doesn't happen with, uh,
with renewable energy projects.
You know, there, there are rents
and there are megawatt capacity fees,
but that all goes straight back into the federal coffer.
It doesn't go back to communities in the same way.
So it's, it's, uh, it's, it's a really tricky balance,
or it, it's a it's a really
tricky issue, I should say.
Um, because, you know, that requires legislation.
That's not something that can be solved via, via regulation
or via the, this programmatic EIS
and, um, you know, so it,
it would be a lot easier to be able to reach out to those,
those communities with those types of concerns with,
you know, something substantial like revenue.
Um, and I know that one thing that
that could be considered in the programmatic design features
is, uh, something called a community benefit agreement.
Um, which, uh, is, you know, a a way
for renewable energy companies to work with communities
to ensure that they also benefit from the production
that occurs from the po the panels next
to their communities, instead of it just being shipped,
you know, across state lines, for instance.
- Um, Justin, thank you so much for your thoughts.
I do have, I, one more question for you, which is,
it sounds like this solar plan is, is a good step forward,
if not the most comprehensive step ever.
Um, do you have any other thoughts you wanna share on solar
development at large, sort of, um,
beyond the, just this plan? I,
- Yeah.
Thank you for the question, Kate.
And, and I, you know, one thing that,
that I hear a lot from folks is, you know,
we should develop on, uh, we,
we should put solar panels on rooftops and over parking lots
and, um, you know, over previously disturbed sites
that are not necessarily federal land or, um, you know,
and XY, z, other places that are not, um, not public lands.
And we should invest in energy efficiency.
And, you know, I think it's all of the above, right?
Like building on building rooftop solar is an
important part of the equation.
And working on energy efficiency is part of the equation.
And we, at the Wilderness Society also believe that
our nation's treasure federal public lands should be part
of the climate solution, um, by accommodating,
uh, solar and wind in geothermal, um,
and that they have vast, uh, resources
that can help power our renewable energy future.
So it's not just either or, it's, it's, and um,
and, uh, we're just really invested in making sure
that it's done right and responsibly
and with the involvement of all the people
who would be affected by it.
Um, you know, either directly or, or indirectly.
- I think that's a great place to leave it.
Justin Muse, director of Government Relations for Climate
and Energy at the Wilderness Society.
Thank you so much for your time today.
- Thank you.
- Well, we've got some good news this week.
It is new polling from the Colorado College
State of the Rockies Project.
It shows that a vast majority
of Western voters support conservation of public lands,
and they are more worried than ever about the loss
of habitat and natural areas.
There were a ton
of important numbers in this 14th annual state
of the Rockies conservation in the West Poll.
Here are just a few of our favorites,
and maybe even you could say most important
numbers to pay attention to.
First of all, the 30 by 30 goal to protect 30%
of America's land and water.
By the end of the decade, 83% of Utah voters
say they support the 30 by 30 goal that is tied, uh,
for a high along with voters in Colorado.
Uh, really just a, a stunningly large number
and really highlights the gap
between Utah voters on conservation
and Utah politicians across the mountain West.
70% of voters say they would prefer their member of Congress
to focus on protecting air, water,
and habitat, rather than maximizing energy
production on public land.
85% of Westerners support the creation
of new protected areas on public lands.
That is also the same number, 85% who say
that environmental issues are important to how they vote.
And finally, for now, over 70% of Western voters say
that climate change is a serious problem in their state.
Three quarters of them
say they think we can develop renewable energy sources while
also preserving wildlife habitat.
They do not see it as an either or situation.
- We'll link to that poll in the show notes,
and we'll be talking to the pollsters
who conducted it in the next episode of the landscape.
So tune in for that show if you want to learn more,
and send us your questions for the pollsters,
that's podcast@westernpriorities.org.
You can also send other feedback, like compliments
or episode ideas to that address.
We love hearing your thoughts.
- We even love hearing your complaints.
It's okay if you wanna complain too.
Uh, thanks again to Justin for chatting with us today,
and thank you for listening to the landscape.