Coalition Comments on Bureau of Land Management Idaho Renewable Energy Strategy

Similar to the Solar Plan, the Idaho Strategy should “exclude categories of lands from utility-scale energy development and identify specific locations well suited for utility-scale production of solar energy, where the BLM would prioritize development.” As explained in the ROD (p. 37), “[t]he identification of exclusion areas allows the BLM to support the highest and best use of public lands by avoiding potential resource conflicts and reserving for other uses public lands that are not well suited for utility-scale [renewable] energy development. Due to the size and scale of utility scale [renewable] energy development (typically involving a single use of public lands), the BLM is excluding a broader set of categories than would be identified in a land use plan for other types of ROWs.” The Idaho Strategy should include a comprehensive list of “exclusions” that is closely similar to those listed in Table A-2 on pp. 38-40 of the ROD.

Similar to Table A-2, BLM Idaho should exclude renewable energy projects in, near, or adjacent to special protected areas such as units of the National Park System and National Trail System, designated wilderness, National Historic and Natural Landmarks, properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), Native American sacred sites, units of the BLM National Landscape Conservation System, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). In the relatively stark, open landscapes that are typical of public lands in Idaho, visual resource impacts of renewable energy projects are a prominent concern, especially with wind energy projects because of the size/scale of modern wind turbines. As a result, BLM should also exclude renewable energy projects in all VRM Class I, II, and III areas. In addition, BLM should establish standard set-back distances (i.e., exclusion zones) around the various special protected areas listed above to ensure avoidance of impacts occurs. We recommend a minimum 10-mile exclusion zone around all special protected areas for solar energy projects and 20 miles for wind energy projects. Avoidance of conflicts with other resources and uses should be the first priority of the Idaho Strategy; and these exclusions would ensure that avoidance actually occurs.

2. Identify “priority areas” (or development zones) for renewable energy projects that are well suited for utility-scale renewable energy production – The Idaho Strategy should identify specific locations or zones that are well suited for utility-scale renewable energy production in locations that are not in conflict with exclusion areas. In principle, “priority areas” would be locations where the BLM has prioritized development because they have high potential for renewable energy development and low potential for significant conflict(s) with the protection of other resources and uses. These “priority areas” could be generally referred to as “renewable energy zones” (or REZs) or specifically as “solar energy zones” (SEZs) and “wind energy Zones” (WEZs).

If BLM truly intends to promote the use of “priority areas” with high potential for renewable energy generation and low potential for resource conflicts, then BLM needs to establish a suite of effective incentives to encourage such use. As the old saying goes, “time is money, and money is time.” In this case, we believe the most effective incentives relate to either time, such as how long it takes to process an application or conduct a NEPA review; or to money, such as how much are project fees or acreage rental rates for priority vs. low priority projects.

BLM should consider the following incentives:

a. Expedited and streamlined NEPA reviews of projects proposed in “priority areas.” In principle, “priority areas” should be pre-identified and pre-screened locations with “high potential for renewable energy generation and low potential for resource conflicts.” This should allow for less complicated and time-consuming NEPA reviews.
b. Projects outside of “priority areas” should be prohibited or at least strongly discouraged through disincentives.
c. Projects located in “priority areas” should have a lower right-of-way (ROW) grant application processing fees, lower acreage rent and megawatt (MW) capacity fees, and lower performance and reclamation bonds compared to projects in “variance areas,” if such development is even allowed. (See comment # 3 below.) Charging lower fees for projects located within priority areas is reasonable given that such locations will have already been determined as having a “high potential for renewable solar energy generation and low potential for resource conflicts” compared to variance area locations, if allowed.
d. Lastly, projects, if allowed outside of “priority areas,” should have more extensive post-development monitoring and reporting requirements than those located in the “priority areas.”

3. Minimize the use and expansiveness of “variance areas” that are potentially available for utility-scale renewable energy development outside of “priority areas” – The Western Solar Plan (Plan) identified a third category of zoning referred to as “variance areas” that are located outside of both exclusion areas and priority energy development areas. The designation of “variances areas” was apparently intended to provide developers with increased flexibility in their site selection options. However, a significant problem with the Western Solar Plan is that the majority of energy project applications have actually occurred in “variance areas” rather than in “priority areas.” As a practical matter, the designation of “priority areas” (or “zones”) for energy development can only accomplish their intended objective if developers actually use them. Instead, under the Western Solar Plan, BLM has allowed so much development of solar energy projects in “variance areas” that it has become the “norm” and not the “exception” one would expect a “variance” to be. We therefore urge BLM to limit the use and expansiveness of any “variance areas,” if such a concept is included in the Idaho Strategy – after all, there are undoubtedly good reasons why these areas were not identified as “priority areas.”

4. Establish mandatory programmatic and location-specific design features and mitigation measures for renewable energy development on public lands to ensure the most environmentally responsible development and delivery of renewable energy – We recommend that BLM Idaho consider, update, and adapt to its own circumstances the programmatic and location-specific design features for solar energy projects that are described in Western Solar Plan Table A-4 (Programmatic Design Features) and Table A-5 (Solar Energy Zone-Specific Design Features). Unfortunately, BLM’s 2005 Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)² https://windeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/maintext/vol1/vol1complete.pdf, does not include a concise description or list of programmatic or site specific design features or mitigation measures for utility scale wind energy projects. We recommend that BLM Idaho collaborate with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to consider, update, and adapt appropriate guidance for wind energy design features in Idaho. However, please understand that while effective design features and mitigation measures are important, they cannot compensate for the impacts of a poorly sited utility-scale project such as Lava Ridge.

It is far more important that BLM make good siting decisions in the first place through the identification of exclusions areas and priority development areas as described in Items # 1 and # 2 above.

In addition to the above, BLM Idaho should reconsider its definition of “utility scale” renewable energy projects. A review of available information indicates that the definition of “utility-scale solar” is typically determined by size based on the amount of energy generated. However, definitions vary widely and there is no generally accepted definition of the term “utility-scale” with regards to renewable energy projects. For example, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)³https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=8 considers “utility-scale electricity generation” to be electricity generation from power plants with at least 1 megawatt (MW) of total electricity generating capacity. Similarly, the Solar Energy Industries Association⁴https://www.seia.org/initiatives/utility-scale-solar-power defines a solar project as “utility-scale” if it has a generation capacity of 1 megawatt (MW) or larger⁵https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51137.pdf. In contrast, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has defined “utility-scale” solar energy projects as being 5 megawatts (MW) or larger . To add to the confusion, the Department of Energy defines “utility-scale renewable energy projects as those 10 megawatts or larger”⁶https://www.energy.gov/scep/slsc/renewable-energy-utility-scale-policies-and-programs#:~:text=Utility-scale%20renewable%20energy%20projects%20are%20typically%20defined%20as,to%20address%20and%20overcome%20potential%20barriers%20to%20implementation.

BLM’s current definition of utility scale projects as being those that “generate 20 MW or more” is clearly outdated and inflated compared to definitions used by federal energy agencies, as well as that used by the solar energy industry. In principle, the Idaho Strategy should apply to all commercial renewable energy projects proposed for development on public lands. We therefore recommend that BLM redefine the term as follows: “In the context of the Idaho Renewable Energy Strategy, “utility scale means any project capable of generating with at least 1 megawatt (MW) of electricity that is delivered into the electricity transmission grid.”