Consideration of a Robust Set of Options

An effective process considers a robust set of options, promoting choice beyond simply whether or not to site the facility. Considering multiple alternatives allows for an evaluation of tradeoffs and encourages a more informed decision-making process.

1. Use of the NEPA Process
Much of the solar facility permitting process falls under the NEPA process. Citizen and environmental groups refer to this as a strength of the process as NEPA laws were created to protect the environment, provide public participation opportunities, and require multiple alternatives to be considered. Additionally, many organizations, stakeholders, and the public are familiar with this process. Therefore, they know what to expect and have the opportunity, as required under NEPA, for public participation through commenting at many stages throughout the process.

2. Effects of First-come, First-serve
The BLM must process the first application for a given location fully before second or third applications for that same location can be considered. There are currently 19 second- and third-in-line applications in Barstow and Palm Springs Field offices.¹ While the first-come, first-serve system may seem fair, it restricts the ability of the BLM to analyze multiple proposals for the same location at the same time and choose the one that minimizes water use and impact to environmental, cultural and historical, recreational, or visual resources, maximizes electricity produced per acre of land developed.

3. Consideration of Limited Alternatives
The current right-of-way process does not allow for a wider range of alternatives to be considered during the NEPA process. The facilities to be constructed in the rights-of-way are proposed by private developers, so the alternatives the BLM can consider are essentially limited to (1) approving the right- of-way and corresponding facility as proposed, (2) approving the right-of-way and corresponding facility at a smaller scale or different layout than proposed, and (3) a “no action” alternative of simply denying the right-of-way.² The BLM cannot analyze and consider as an alternative a more efficient technology type for the facility, granting the right-of-way at an alternate location, or some level of distributed generation.³ Distributed generation has been identified by both citizen’s groups and environmental organizations as a favorable alternative to utility-scale solar facilities, but BLM cannot consider development it has no jurisdiction over this alternative.

1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 2, Personal Communication, February 17, 2010.

2 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 2, Personal Communication, July 29, 2009.

3 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 1, Personal Communication. July 27, 2009.