Clarity of Process
A process whose steps, requirements, and other components are well understood by the applicant, regulatory agencies, interested stakeholders and the public reduces uncertainty and ultimately adds to the efficiency of the process.
1. CEC & BLM Collaboration
The integration of the CEC and BLM processes resulted in an inefficient process largely due to the unfamiliarity with the combined processes. The unfamiliarity with the joint process also leaves stakeholders, solar developers, and regulatory agencies unsure about process steps and agency responsibilities.
2. Undefined Environmental Mitigation
A major weakness identified by the BLM state and district offices as well as by environmental and citizens’ groups is the lack of a clear set of standardized mitigation measures for solar facilities. The lack of defined environmental mitigation standards is concerning for solar developers who face uncertainty and lack clear direction for how and what to include for environmental mitigation in their PODs. A BLM staff member stated that, “When we come to making a mitigation decision it’s not just the BLM; we have to make the mitigation decision with other agencies as well, which involves staffing and coordination issues along the way.”1 The Solar PEIS may include policies and best management practices that provide mitigation requirements or guidelines for solar projects.
3. Undefined Land Rental Rate
Traditionally, ROW grants are assessed an annual land rental rate based on the fair market value of the land. However, as a ROW has never been granted for a solar facility, which requires more land than traditional uses such as road or transmission corridors, the rental rate is undetermined. One BLM employee stated, “The Washington [DC] Office is still in the middle of developing policy for rental for solar.”2 Only one solar project has progressed far enough in the process to request an appraisal, which is still under review.3 The lack of a defined rental rate leaves the financial investment required of solar developers uncertain. The Solar PEIS may include a standardized policy for assessing a rental rate for solar facilities.
4. Inconsistency and Lack of Thoroughness of BLM Guidance
As noted above, there is a lack of consistent and thorough guidance provided by the BLM to solar developers, which has created inefficiency in the process. This lack of guidance contributes to the uncertainty faced by solar developers.
5. Unclear BLM-Developer Initial Contact
When a solar developer applies for a right-of-way grant for siting a solar facility on BLM land, they commonly meet with BLM staff to discuss their proposal. However, there is no consistency with which office they contact first because the process is not clearly defined. As one BLM staff member noted, “Some of them come to the state office because they think if they get on the state director’s radar that they’ll get more attention, while others will go to the field office because they know the field office is the one doing the work.”4 Other developers contact the district office first. In a process that has yet to be executed to completion, developers may be given less information on expectations or status of the lands they are interested in if they do not contact the field office first, which creates inconsistency with application materials.
6. Established Process Applied to New Energy Development
The right-of-way process is well established and familiar within the BLM. However solar energy development presents a new use of the land surface for which the impacts of the technologies at the scale proposed are still unknown because similar facilities do not exist. According to a BLM staff member, “What's difficult is that we're not that familiar with large-scale projects of this size.”5 In the CDCA, most ROW grants are used for roads, electrical transmission corridors, communication towers, and wind energy projects. These uses differ from solar as they still allow for multiple use of the land and do not take a large portion of land away from public use.
1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, July 27, 2009.
2 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 2, Personal Communication, July 29, 2009.
3 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 10, Personal Communication, July 30, 2009.
4 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 1, Personal Communication. July 27, 2009.
5 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 3, Personal Communication, July 30, 2009.