Level of Environmental Protection

Under NEPA, environmental impact must be analyzed for major federal decisions, including solar facility siting. A good process goes beyond simply analyzing environmental impact and seeks to only approve applications that minimize impact while providing appropriate environmental mitigation measures.

1. Use of the NEPA Process
While use of the NEPA process provides a set of options in its environmental analysis it also provides strong environmental protection. In constructing the EIS for a facility, a full environmental analysis is conducted, addressing impacts to threatened and endangered species, species habitats, ecological processes, water use, and visual resources, among others. While the most environmentally protective alternative does not have to be selected under NEPA, completing the EIS and allowing public input throughout the process ensures that environmental impacts are considered.

2. Effects of the Combined BLM-CEC Environmental Analysis
As directed in the August 2007 MOU between the CDD and the CEC, the two agencies must conduct a joint environmental review of solar projects.¹ The MOU stipulates that the BLM is responsible for preparing an analysis of NEPA alternatives and Purpose of Need. However, the CEC is responsible for preparing an assessment that addresses air quality impacts, biological resources, cultural resources, water resources, land use, visual resources, and facility design engineering among others. An environmental group categorized the use the CEC CEQA equivalent process to fulfill NEPA requirements as a weakness, as the CEC process has a shorter time frame and does not fully analyze alternatives. The CEC must complete their entire AFC process within 12 months whereas the BLM has no legislated timeline to complete a ROW or NEPA process. In order to complete the process in the short 12 month timeframe the CEC process has shorter public commenting periods. An environmental assessment is also completed more rapidly in the CEC process, which has led to concerns about short-cuts and completeness of impact and environmental studies. In addition to the time frame, the CEC process does not require a full analysis of alternatives, which is required by the NEPA process. To resolve this issue between the two processes the BLM will identify the alternatives and CEC will conduct the analysis. However, the CEC has not previously conducted full analyses on alternatives and it is unknown how comprehensive the analyses will be.

3. Undefined Environmental Mitigation
Undefined environmental mitigation standards have contributed to making the BLM process unclear for developers and the lack of defined environmental mitigation standards is concerning to environmental groups, since the BLM could potentially require a different level of environmental mitigation for each project.

4. “Fast Track” - Too Fast?
In the CDCA there are 10 projects that are self-identified as “fast track” projects. “Fast track” status may help developers take advantage of grant funding in lieu of tax credits from the U.S. Treasury Department as part of the ARRA. In order to be eligible for the grant, the projects must begin construction by December 31, 2010. The BLM has pledged to complete EISs for each of the projects by the deadline to ensure the projects receive the funding (provided a ROW permit is also approved). However, in order to complete the NEPA process for these projects the BLM truncated the timeline, and the fast track projects are not required to wait for the Solar PEIS to be completed.    The BLM conducts an individual EIS for each project, and without the guidance of the PEIS, these projects will lack clear best management practices and a standardized set of mitigation requirements, possibly reducing the level of environmental protection provided.

1 California Energy Commission, Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management California Desert District and the California Energy Commission Staff. Concerning the Joint Environmental Review for Solar Thermal Power Plant Projects, 2007, http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/mous.html.