U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66-728 PDF 2012

AMERICAN ENERGY INITIATIVE: 

IDENTIFYING ROADBLOCKS TO 

WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY ON 

PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS, 

PART II—THE WIND AND 

SOLAR INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, June 1, 2011 

Serial No. 112-37 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 ........................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona, Prepared statement of ................................................................... 2 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

De Rosa, Frank, Senior Vice President, Project Development, North 

America, First Solar, Inc. ............................................................................. 48 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49 

Gordon, James S., President, Cape Wind Associates, LLC ........................... 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 27 

Lanard, Jim, President, Offshore Wind Development Coalition .................. 28 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Piszczalski, Dr. Martin, Industry Analyst, Sextant Research ...................... 52 

Exhibits submitted for the record ............................................................ 54 

Reicher, Dan W., Executive Director, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy 

Policy and Finance, Stanford University .................................................... 57 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 59 

Reilly, Susan, President & CEO, Renewable Energy Systems Americas 

Inc. ................................................................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Resch, Rhone, President and CEO, Solar Energy Industries Association ... 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Roberts, Roby, Vice President of Communications and Government 

Affairs, Horizon Wind Energy LLC, and Chairman, Siting Committee, 

American Wind Energy Association ............................................................ 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Additional materials supplied: 

Donavin, Chris, President, Energy Dense Power Systems, Statement 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 92 

Wald, Johanna, Western Renewable Energy Project, Natural Resources 

Defense Council; Pamela Pride Eaton, Deputy Vice President, Public 

Lands, The Wilderness Society; and Jim Lyons, Senior Director for 

Renewable Energy, Defenders of Wildlife, Letter submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 88 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ‘‘AMERICAN 

ENERGY INITIATIVE: IDENTIFYING ROADBLOCKS TO WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY ON 

PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS, PART II—THE 

WIND AND SOLAR INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE.’’ 

Wednesday, June 1, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:36 a.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastings, Duncan, Gosar, Labrador, 

Landry, Markey, DeFazio, Napolitano, Holt, Grijalva, Garamendi 

and Hanabusa. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which, under Committee Rule 

3(e), is two Members. 

The Committee on Natural Resources is meeting today to hear 

testimony on an oversight hearing on the American Energy Initiative: Identifying Roadblocks to Wind and Solar Energy on Public 

Lands and Waters, Part II—The Wind and Solar Energy Perspective. Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee. And before I recognize myself for the opening statement, I do want to just 

kind of make some housekeeping observations. 

We have had kind of fits and starts by getting this together. We 

have had to postpone this Committee meeting from past days, and 

then we had to postpone the time of this because the Republicans 

were invited down to the White House to meet with President 

Obama and, of course, that compresses all of the activity we have 

today. So we are then doing something that is again out of order, 

and that is combining the two panels into one. 

So I just wanted to say that sometimes these things happen here. 

The best plans sometimes go awry. But the important part, of 

course, in all of this is the substance of the testimony that our witnesses are giving to this Committee, and that indeed is the 

important part. 

I will ask unanimous consent that all Members who want to submit a statement for the record can do so. And without objection, so 

ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gosar follows:] 

2 

Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Arizona 

I would like to thank Chairman Hastings for holding today’s hearing on roadblocks to wind and solar energy development on public lands. 

The United States’ dependence on foreign oil is one of the gravest national security issues facing our country. If we want to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, 

we must properly utilize all our resources right here in America. This hearing is 

critical to exposing federal policies that are prohibiting the industry’s job creators 

from utilizing public lands and developing renewable energy infrastructure. It is important that this Congress learns from today’s hearing exactly what agencies and 

policies are improperly stagnating our renewable energy development. 

The State of Arizona has some of the most promising areas for solar and wind 

energy development in this country and perhaps in the world. Many of the most 

suitable locations are found on the state’s public lands. Arizona’s First Congressional District, which I serve, consists of almost seventy percent in public land; that 

includes around 2.6 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and 

9.2 million acres of Forest Service land. The federal government must partner with 

industry, small business, and state and local governments to ensure our public 

lands continue to be utilized for diverse purposes such as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, while still protecting 

natural treasures. The mixed use of these lands is a fundamental aspect my state 

of and my district’s economic viability. 

Arizona’s First Congressional District can be a model for energy-driven economic 

recovery in this country. Rural Arizona is rich with natural resources that provide 

for sound extraction and contains a diverse climate that is conducive to all forms 

of energy generation including traditional fossil fuels, hydro-electric, solar, and wind 

power. However, renewable energy development, like other resource use and energy 

sectors, are being plagued by excessive administrative costs, duplicative permitting, 

and lengthy and burdensome lawsuits filed by any or all environmentalist groups. 

New generation pilot and developmental projects are simply not getting off the 

ground. The government is requiring redundant, costly and unnecessary environmental reviews; making inconsistent permit approvals and denials; and in some 

cases, even completely halting the advancement of projects already underway. 

For example, there are 32 pending applications for solar energy projects in the 

State of Arizona alone. If all 32 of these projects were processed and approved 

today, Solar Energy Industries Association estimates that these projects could support nearly 100,000 new jobs within in the next five years. These projects would 

amount to over 18,630 megawatts of power. 

The wind energy business is experiencing very similar struggles. I have met with 

a wide variety of companies doing business in my state, whose projects are in regulatory limbo. This includes an 85 megawatt project which would be the very first 

Native American majority-owned renewable energy project in the country. The unstable regulatory environment is simply unacceptable given the opportunities we 

have in the state. 

Let me be clear, environmental protections are extremely important to me. My 

district is home to some of the most frequently visited destination locations in the 

country, and contains an abundance of other hidden natural treasures. But a careful 

balance between environmental protection and economic activity can be achieved. 

Regulations need to be developed in a transparent and streamlined manner, and 

with consideration for the negative impacts they may impose on our communities 

and the economy. 

Currently, the federal government’s policies are having a disproportionately negative effect on rural communities like mine which depend on public lands for their 

livelihood and continued economic development. At the same time, the federal government expects our communities to meet its obligations as stewards. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses, the industry people who deal 

with these policies on a day-to-day basis. It is important that this committee continues to investigate examples in which the federal government is doing a disservice 

to communities like mine so that we can move forward, implement policies that remove unreasonable barriers to economic development and get people back to work. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will now recognize myself for my opening statement. 

America has been blessed with many kinds, different kinds, of 

natural resources, and there is no doubt that we need to utilize all 

3 

of them to significantly reduce our reliance on unfriendly foreign 

energy. The House Republicans’ American Energy Initiative is an 

‘‘all-of-the-above’’ approach to address our energy needs, working to 

ensure affordable prices and creating good-paying American jobs. 

Renewable and alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, 

geothermal and hydropower, are an integral part of any long-term 

energy strategy, and there is tremendous potential to use our public lands and waters to help foster and expand their development. 

Today’s hearing is the second in a series to identify the roadblocks to wind and solar energy on public lands. On May 13th, the 

full Committee heard from the Obama Administration representatives when we received testimony from BLM Director Bob Abbey 

and BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich. Today we will hear testimony from representatives of the renewable energy industry, who 

are struggling to fight through the red tape that is hindering clean 

energy projects and slowing job creation. 

While the Obama Administration deserves credit for some advances on facilitation of their renewable energy projects on Federal 

lands, significant obstacles exist to renewable energy development. 

Ironically, the bureaucratic delays, unnecessary lawsuits and burdensome environmental regulations impede our ability to harness 

wind and solar energy on public lands. 

As we learned at the last hearing, only 1 percent of BLM’s solar 

energy zones, or SEZs, created from over 120 million acres of BLM 

land is currently being offered for streamlined solar energy production. Often, BLM’s regulatory structure is so complicated and slow 

that companies don’t bother applying, opting instead for private 

land. 

Our public land has specifically been designated as multiple use. 

It simply makes no sense that the ability to access it, including for 

energy development, is so cumbersome and uninviting. Even more 

stunning is that the perpetrators of many of the lawsuits that are 

blocking solar and wind production on Federal lands are often the 

exact same groups that are supposedly the leading proponents for 

renewable energy development. 

Time after time, renewable energy projects that the Obama Administration has highlighted its support for have been canceled, 

held up, or defunded due to their own policies or their inability to 

follow through with the licensing or permitting. The Cape Wind 

project off the Massachusetts coastline is an excellent example of 

an offshore wind project that has suffered from years of setbacks. 

While the Cape Wind project received construction approval in 

April, it was a 10-year process that was subject to numerous bureaucratic delays and red tape. BLM recently announced a request 

for interest from the public and received 11 submissions from 10 

companies expressing commercial leasing interests. However, after 

receiving the submission, BOEMRE announced that it was reducing the leasing area by more than half. 

There is tremendous wind energy potential off the coast of Massachusetts, but this Administration’s decision appears to not have 

been based on any scientific studies with regard to potential for 

wind development in this area. There are clearly abundant opportunities on our public lands and waters for homegrown American 

energy, but until the restrictive government inefficiencies and 

4 

politically driven lawsuits are addressed, they may never reach 

their true energy-production potential. These policies cost American jobs, block clean energy production, and increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy. 

So I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses today to 

learn more about the challenges they are facing and what Congress 

may be able to do to better facilitate the renewable energy production on our public lands. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

America has been blessed with many different kinds of natural resources and 

there is no doubt that we need to utilize all of them to significantly reduce our reliance on unfriendly foreign energy. House Republicans’ American Energy Initiative 

is an all-of-the-above approach to addressing our energy needs, working to ensure 

affordable prices and creating good paying American energy jobs. Renewable and alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower are an 

integral part of any long-term energy strategy and there is tremendous potential to 

use our public lands and waters to help foster and expand their development. 

Today’s hearing is the second in a series to identify roadblocks to wind and solar 

energy on public lands. On May 13th, the Full Committee heard from Obama Administration representatives when we received testimony from BLM Director Bob 

Abbey and BOEM Director Michael Bromwich. Today we will hear testimony from 

representatives of the renewable energy industry who are struggling to fight 

through the red-tape that is hindering clean energy projects and slowing job creation. 

While the Obama Administration deserves credit for some advances on facilitation 

of their renewable energy projects on federal lands, significant obstacles exist to renewable energy development. Ironically, bureaucratic delays, unnecessary lawsuits 

and burdensome environmental regulations impede our ability to harness wind and 

solar energy on public lands. 

As we learned at the last hearing, only one percent of BLM’s ‘‘solar energy zones,’’ 

created from over 120 million acres of BLM land, is currently being offered for 

streamlined solar energy production. 

Often, BLM’s regulatory structure is so complicated and slow that companies 

don’t bother applying, opting instead for private land. Our public land has specifically been designated as multi-use. It simply makes no sense that the ability to access it, including for energy development, is so cumbersome and uninviting. 

Even more stunning is that the perpetrators of many of the lawsuits that are 

blocking solar and wind production on federal lands are often the exact same groups 

who are supposedly the leading proponents for renewable energy development. 

Time after time renewable energy projects that the Obama Administration has 

highlighted its support for have been canceled, held up or defunded due to their own 

policies or their inability to follow through with licensing or permitting. 

The Cape Wind project off of the Massachusetts coastline is an excellent example 

of an offshore wind project that has suffered from years of setbacks. While the Cape 

Wind project received construction approval in April—it was a ten year process that 

was subject to numerous bureaucratic delays and red tape. 

BOEM recently announced a Request for Interest from the public and received 11 

submissions from 10 companies expressing commercial leasing interest. However, 

after receiving the submission, BOEMRE announced it was reducing the leasing 

area by more than half. There is tremendous wind energy potential off the coast of 

Massachusetts but this Administration decision appears to not have been based 

upon any scientific studies regarding the potential for wind development in this 

area. 

There are clearly abundant opportunities on our public lands and waters for 

homegrown American energy, but until the restrictive government inefficiencies and 

politically-driven lawsuits are addressed, they may never reach their true energy 

production potential. These policies cost American jobs, block clean energy production and increase our dependence on foreign sources of energy. 

I’m looking forward to hearing from the witnesses today to learn more about the 

challenges they are facing and what Congress may be able to do to better facilitate 

the renewable energy production on our public lands. 

5 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I now recognize the distinguished 

Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And we welcome you back. We know it has been a difficult couple of weeks for 

you and your family. Our thoughts and our prayers have been with 

you. We are happy to have you back. 

And for part two of this hearing that we are having on renewable 

energy development on public lands, I know that there has been a 

lot of talk about moratoriums here in the Committee, but the Republican majority is ignoring the real moratorium that they protected for years, the Bush-Cheney clean energy moratorium. During the 8 years of the Bush Administration, a grand total of zero 

permits were issued for solar plants, and only five wind projects 

were approved in the entire United States. Renewable energy development was almost exclusively a private-land endeavor, leaving 

untapped some of the best renewable resources on Federal lands. 

Under the Obama Administration, that has changed. The 3,800 

megawatts of wind and solar projects permitted in 2010 alone 

under this Administration is 13 times more than what was permitted during the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration at the 

Department of the Interior. When the Bush Administration was 

blocking these permits and locking up Federal lands to clean 

energy development, where were the Republicans then? Republicans want to criticize the Obama Administration when it was actually Republican policies for 8 years that stymied renewable 

energy development on public lands. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room. 

I am happy to see this recent progress under the Obama Administration, but I am deeply concerned about current Republican policies directly aimed at rolling it back. While the Republicans fight 

to keep each of the oil and gas industry’s eight different tax subsidies, they stand ready to let the highly successful 1603 renewable 

energy program expire in 7 months. That financing program saved 

tens of thousands of jobs during the economic downturn and helped 

put new renewable energy on the grid. 

Demonstrating that there is apparently never an inappropriate 

time to give an assist to Big Oil, the Republican leadership has 

scheduled a vote for later this week in which the critically necessary emergency aid to tornado victims in Joplin, Missouri, is dependent upon defunding a program that helps American companies 

manufacture superefficient and clean-fuel vehicles. This is not an 

‘‘all-of-the-above’’ strategy, but it is an ‘‘oil above all’’ strategy, 

taken straight from the Bush-Cheney playbook that was used for 

8 consecutive years. 

There is much at stake here, and it goes far beyond the environmental and public health benefits of renewable energy. The clean 

energy sector represents one of the most important opportunities to 

generate economic growth and new, good-paying jobs for the next 

generation of Americans. These benefits will not come from subsidizing Big Oil. Despite $485 billion in profits over the last 5 

years, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron reduced their U.S. workVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
6 

force by more than 10,000 people. They reduced their workforce. It 

is not happening with coal. Even with U.S. coal production increasing 600 percent, since 1950 employment in coal mining has fallen 

from 416,000 to fewer than 88,000 coal miners. That is with a 600 

percent increase in production. And those resources are becoming 

more expensive and scarcer with nearly every passing year. 

The trends with renewable energy are in the opposite direction. 

Costs are going down, employment is going up, advanced technologies that utilize the free fuel of the wind, the sun and the 

Earth will ultimately win out. A $12 trillion market awaits the 

technology leaders that can do so most effectively, but we have to 

beat the Chinese, the Germans and the Koreans. We need a plan. 

Using our rich public lands as a launching pad for the clean energy 

sector is about as close to a home run as we get in public policy. 

I am pleased that the Committee is taking a deeper look at the 

issue here today, and I hope that we can find a bipartisan way to 

circle the bases together. And I am sure that the meeting with the 

Republicans in the White House this morning has now got them on 

our side on renewable energy, and I am hoping that that clarifying 

moment did occur. I was not allowed in that meeting. 

Anyway, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

First of all, I’d like to welcome back our Chairman today. I know it has been a 

difficult couple of weeks for you and your family. Our thoughts and prayers have 

been with you, and we are happy to have you back. 

As we heard 2 weeks ago in Part 1 of this hearing, the Obama Interior Department has made renewable energy development on public lands a top priority. 

I know there has been a lot of talk about moratoriums here in this committee, 

but the Republican Majority is ignoring the real moratorium they protected for 

years: the Bush-Cheney clean energy moratorium. 

During the 8 years of the Bush administration, a grand total of zero permits were 

issued for solar power plants and only 5 wind projects were approved. Renewable 

energy development was almost exclusively a private land endeavor, leaving untapped some of our best renewable resources on federal lands. Under the Obama 

administration, that has changed. 

The 3,800 megawatts of wind and solar projects permitted in 2010 alone under 

this administration is 13 times more than what was permitted during the entire 8 

years of the Bush administration. 

When the Bush administration was blocking these permits, and locking up federal 

lands to clean energy development, where were the Republicans then? 

Republicans want to criticize the Obama administration, when it was actually Republican policies that stymied renewable energy development. Talk about ignoring 

the elephant in the room! 

I’m happy to see this recent progress under the Obama administration, but I am 

deeply concerned about current Republican policies directly aimed at rolling it back. 

While Republicans fight to keep each of the oil and gas industry’s 8 different tax 

subsidies, they stand ready to let the highly successful 1603 renewable energy program expire in 7 months. That financing program saved tens of thousands of jobs 

during the economic downturn, and helped put new energy on the grid. 

Demonstrating that there is apparently never an inappropriate time to give an 

assist to Big Oil, Republican leadership has scheduled a vote for later this week in 

which the critically necessary emergency aid to tornado victims in Joplin, Missouri 

is dependent upon defunding a program that helps American companies manufacture super-efficient and clean-fuel vehicles. 

This is not an ‘‘All of the Above Strategy’’ but an ‘‘Oil Above All’’ strategy taken 

straight from the Bush-Cheney playbook. 

There is much at stake here, and it goes far beyond the environmental and public 

health benefits of renewable energy. The clean energy sector represents one of the 

7 

most important opportunities to generate economic growth and new good-paying 

jobs for the next generation of Americans. [CHART] Those benefits will not come with subsidizing Big Oil. Despite $485 billion in profits over the last 5 years, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and Chevron reduced their U.S. 

workforce by more than 10,000 people. [CHART] 

It’s not happening with coal. Even with U.S. coal production increasing 600 percent since 1950, employment in coal mining has fallen from 416,000 to fewer than 

88,000. [CHART] 

And those resources are becoming more expensive and scarcer with nearly every 

passing year. 

The trends with renewable energy are in the opposite direction. Costs are going 

down and employment is going up. Advanced technologies that utilize the free fuel 

of the wind, the sun, and the earth will ultimately win out. A $12 trillion market 

awaits the technology leaders that can do it most effectively. But the Republican 

assault on clean, domestic energy production is making it increasingly likely that 

those technology leaders will not be American, but Chinese, German, and Korean. 

Using our rich public lands as a launching pad for the clean energy sector is about 

as close to a home run as we get in public policy. I am pleased that the committee 

is taking a deeper look at the issue here today, and I hope that we can find a bipartisan way to circle the bases together. 

Thank you. I look forward to our witness’s testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Optimism is contagious. 

I thank the gentleman for his opening statement, and I want to 

welcome the witnesses, our combined panel here. We have Mr. 

Roby Roberts who is the Co-Chairman, Legislative Committee of 

the American Wind Energy Association; Susan Reilly, CEO of RES 

Americas; Mr. James Gordon, President of the Cape Wind Associates, LLC; Jim Lanard, President of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition; Mr. Rhone Resch, President and CEO of Solar 

Energy Industries Association; Mr. Frank DeRosa, Senior Vice 

President for First Solar, Inc.; Dr. Martin Piszczalski—is that 

good? 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. Close. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does anybody ever do your name precisely right 

the first time? 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. There is always a pause. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I had that pause. But thank you. I know 

your background anyway. At least when your name ends in S-KI, that is a dead giveaway. 

And finally, Dan Reicher with the Center for Energy Policy and 

Finance at Stanford University. 

Like all of our witnesses, your written statement will appear in 

total in the record. So we ask you to keep your oral remarks to 5 

minutes if you can do that. Hopefully you can. 

You have to turn on the microphone that is in front of you, and 

when you turn on the microphone at the start, let me explain the 

timing lights. The green light goes on, and that signifies the first 

4 minutes. When the yellow light goes on, you have 1 minute left. 

When the red light goes on, that is the end of your 5 minutes, and 

certainly I ask you to complete your thought. 

So with that, Mr. Roberts, you may begin, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBY ROBERTS, CO-CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE 

COMMITTEE, AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member 

Markey and other members of the Committee, thank you for the 

8 

opportunity to testify today. My name is Roby Roberts and I am 

Vice President of Communications and Government Affairs for 

Horizon Wind Energy. I am testifying on behalf of the American 

Wind Energy Association, AWEA, where I currently serve as the 

Chair of the AWEA Siting Committee and previously served as 

Chair of AWEA’s Board of Directors and Legislative Committee. 

Wind energy is a clean, affordable and homegrown energy resource. It contributes to rural development through property taxes 

that support schools and communities; royalty payments that help 

families stay on their farms or ranches; and good jobs for communities that all too often lack such opportunities. 

Wind energy is also an important part of a diverse energy portfolio. It is commercial, rapidly scalable. And taking into account 

Federal incentives received by all energy technologies, wind energy 

costs have fallen blow the cost of most conventional sources and are 

close to cost-competitive with new natural gas generation. Importantly, wind energy prices can be locked in up front for 20 years, 

which acts as a hedge on volatile fuel prices. 

The wind energy industry currently supports 75,000 people in 

the U.S. The industry has been one of the few bright spots in an 

otherwise difficult economy. In 2010, the industry installed over 

5,000 megawatts, representing 11.1 billion in investments. Total 

cumulative installed capacity stands at over 40,000 megawatts, 

enough to power 10 million homes. Since 2001, wind energy has 

represented 35 percent of all new electric capacity, second only to 

natural gas, and more than nuclear and coal combined. The industry has utility scale wind projects operating in 38 States and more 

than 400 manufacturing facilities in 42 States. 

The biggest roadblock facing the wind energy industry right now 

is a lack of consistent and long-term Federal policy to support renewable energy. Despite bipartisan support, tax credits for renewable energy have been on again, off again. The production tax credit, PTC, expires at the end of 2012. Failure to extend this incentive 

will result in a large tax increase on wind energy. We request that 

Congress extend the PTC for wind energy this year. Given lead 

time for project development, it is critical to act now to avoid a lull 

in development post-2012. Business decisions for 2013 are already 

being made. 

And again, despite bipartisan support, there is no long-term demand signal, such as a renewable or clean energy standard. 

The wind industry is also facing urgent challenges as a result of 

two documents released in February of 2011 by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. I will focus my testimony on the Draft Land-Based 

Wind Energy Guidelines, as Susan Reilly from RES Americas will 

discuss the Eagle Guidance. 

In 2007, the Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne, created a 

Federal Advisory Committee comprised of 22 individuals, primarily 

from State agencies, industry, science and wildlife conservation organizations, to provide recommendations on wind turbine siting 

guidelines, Secretary Salazar extended the Advisory Committee 

charter. The committee submitted consensus recommendations endorsed by every single member in March 2010. Having industry, 

States and NGO’s unite around a single set of recommendations 

was a significant achievement by agreeing to a higher standard for 

9 

wildlife study and protection than any other industry in the country. 

Unfortunately, the draft land-based guidelines issued earlier this 

year by the Service differ in fundamental ways from the Advisory 

Committee recommendations, and are unworkable for the industry, 

and will result in substantial delays or even abandonment of thousands of megawatts of proposed wind projects. 

Among industry key concerns are, number 1, the scope of covered 

species and covered impacts; number 2, the scope and duration of 

pre- and post-construction monitoring; number 3, the role of the 

Service; number 4, questionable science used to justify certain recommendations; number 5, the lack of phase-in prior to implementation; and number 6, mitigation recommendations are neither practical nor proven to be effective. 

I would strongly urge this Committee and the Congress to express support of the Department of the Interior and the Service for 

returning to the consensus Advisory Committee recommendations. 

Finally, in my written testimony, I detailed a handful of policy 

recommendations specific to public lands. In the interest of time, 

I won’t repeat those here. But I do want to emphasize that without 

long-term Federal policies on the tax and demand side, as well as 

making the Service policies more workable, establishing policies 

specifically to make developing projects on public lands more attractive will be of marginal benefit at best. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer 

questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts, for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:] 

Statement of Roby Roberts, on behalf of the 

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and other members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Roby Roberts, 

and I am Vice President of Communications and Government Affairs for Horizon 

Wind Energy LLC (‘‘Horizon’’). I am testifying on behalf of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), where I currently serve as the Chair of AWEA’s Siting 

Committee and previously served as Chair of AWEA’s Board of Directors and Legislative Committee. 

AWEA is the national trade association representing a broad range of entities 

with a common interest in encouraging the deployment and expansion of wind energy resources in the United States. AWEA members include wind turbine manufacturers, component suppliers, project developers, project owners and operators, financiers, researchers, renewable energy supporters, utilities, marketers, customers 

and their advocates. 

Horizon and its subsidiaries develop, construct, own and operate wind farms 

throughout North America. Based in Houston, Texas with 27 wind farms, over 300 

employees and over 15 development offices across the United States, Horizon has 

developed more than 3,600 MW and operates over 3,400 MW of wind farms. Horizon 

ranks third in the United States in terms of net installed capacity. Horizon is owned 

by EDP Renewables, a global leader in the renewable energy sector that develops, 

constructs, owns and operates renewable generation facilities. 

Wind energy is a clean, affordable and homegrown energy resource. It contributes 

to rural development through property taxes that support schools and communities, 

the royalty payments that help families keep on their farms or ranches, and through 

the good jobs, both long-term and short-term, that it brings to communities with all 

too few such jobs. 

Wind energy is also an important part of a diverse energy portfolio. It is commercial, rapidly scalable, and, taking into account federal incentives received by all energy technologies, wind energy costs have fallen below the costs of most new convenVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
10 

1 AWEA’s full comments on the draft land-based wind energy guidelines can be found here: 

http://www.awea.org/issues/siting/upload/AWEA–Comments-on-USFWS–Wind-Energy-Guidelines_May-19–2011.pdf 2 AWEA’s full comments on the draft eagle conservation plan guidance can be found here: 

http://www.awea.org/issues/siting/upload/AWEA–Comments-on-USFWS–Eagle-Guidance-May19–2011.pdf 3 Available at http://www.USFWS.gov/habitatconservation/windpower/ 

wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html. 

tional sources, and are close to cost-competitive with new natural gas generation. 

Because the ‘‘fuel’’ for wind energy is free and inexhaustible, prices can be locked 

in for 20 years, thus acting as a hedge on volatile fuel prices. Deploying wind energy 

domesticates our energy supply and bolsters energy security. 

In short, it is good for our economy, our national security, public health and the 

environment. 

The wind energy industry currently employs 75,000 people in the U.S. The industry has been one of the few bright spots in the otherwise difficult economy. In 2010, 

the industry installed 5,116 megawatts, representing $11.1 billion in investment. 

Total cumulative installed capacity stands at 40,181 MWs, enough to power 10 million homes. Average annual growth for the past five years was 35 percent, second 

only to natural gas and more than nuclear and coal combined. The industry has 

utility scale wind projects operating in 38 states and more than 400 manufacturing 

facilities in 42 states. 

The industry’s potential as a jobs and economic engine is much greater. The U.S. 

Department of Energy released a report in 2008 analyzing a scenario of 20 percent 

of U.S. electricity coming from wind energy by 2030. According to that report, which 

was prepared by the Bush Administration’s DOE, the wind energy industry would 

support 500,000 jobs at that level of deployment, which is achievable with existing 

technology. 

The biggest roadblock facing the wind energy industry right now is the lack of 

a consistent and long-term federal policy to support renewable energy. Despite bipartisan support, tax credits for wind and other forms of renewable energy have 

been on-again, off-again. The production tax credit, which is the key existing federal 

tax incentive for wind energy development, expires at the end of 2012. Failure to 

extend this incentive will result in a large tax increase on wind energy developers 

that will be reflected in the cost of wind power, making it less competitive with competing sources that also receive federal incentives. We request that Congress block 

this tax increase and extend the production tax credit for wind energy this year. 

Given lead times for project development, it is important to act now to avoid a lull 

in development post-2012. Business decisions for 2013 are already being made. 

And, again, despite bipartisan support, there is no long-term demand signal, such 

as a renewable or clean electricity standard. 

Without more stable federal financial incentives and demand-side policies, any 

changes to make developing wind energy projects on public lands more attractive 

will be of only marginal benefit, at best. 

The wind energy industry is also facing urgent challenges as a result of two documents released in February 2011 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘the Service’’). The first document is the Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines and the 

second is the Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. I will focus my testimony 

on the draft guidelines 1 as Susan Reilly from RES Americas will discuss the Eagle 

Guidance.2 I would like to ask that the executive summaries of AWEA’s public comments on both of these documents be made a part of the record for this hearing. 

In 2007, then-Secretary of Interior Kempthorne created a federal advisory committee (FAC)3 comprised of 22 individuals primarily from state agencies, industry, 

academia and wildlife conservation organizations to provide recommendations on 

wind turbine siting guidelines. Secretary Salazar extended the FAC charter. The 

Committee submitted consensus recommendations endorsed by every single member 

in March 2010. Having industry, states, and NGOs unite around a single set of recommendations was a significant achievement. By agreeing to these recommendations, the wind energy industry was voluntarily agreeing to be held to a higher 

standard for wildlife study and protection than any other industry in the country. 

Unfortunately, the draft land-based guidelines issued earlier this year by the 

Service differ in fundamental ways from the FAC recommendations and are unworkable for industry and will result in substantial delays or even abandonment of 

thousands of MWs of proposed wind projects. 

Among industry’s key concerns are: 

• The scope of covered species and covered impacts 

Æ We recommend the narrower scope proposed by the FAC; 

11 

• The scope and duration of pre- and post-construction monitoring 

Æ We recommend duration be based on the risk profile of the site rather 

than the three to five years of minimum study recommended by the Service; 

• The role of the Service 

Æ We recommend a developer-led process as proposed by the FAC rather 

than having the Service in a decision-making role; 

• Questionable science used to justify certain recommendations (for example, 

requiring study of noise impacts on wildlife and studying airspace as habitat); 

Æ We recommend the use of sound science and that topics that are less 

clear be researched rather than evaluated at every project; 

• The lack of a phase-in prior to implementation 

Æ Requiring immediate adherence is not practical, which is why the FAC 

recommended a two-year phase-in; 

• Mitigation recommendations that are neither practical nor proven to be effective 

Æ Mitigation recommendations should be proven and cost-effective, not 

speculative. 

I would strongly urge this Committee and this Congress to express support to the 

Department of Interior and the Service for returning to the consensus FAC recommendations. 

To fully utilize the wind energy resources in our country, we also need to expand 

our nation’s transmission infrastructure. The BLM has an important role to play in 

permitting transmission projects in the west. But, coordination needs to be improved 

among the many field offices working on major transmission projects, including the 

establishment of national project teams, with an individual who has ultimate decision-making authority. 

Finally, I wanted to offer a few other suggestions for changes that could improve 

the ability to pursue projects on public lands. Though, as I noted earlier, these will 

be of only marginal benefit without stable federal policy to support renewable energy and without fixing the problematic draft guidelines and guidance proposed by 

the Service: 

1. Establish reasonable timelines for agency responses. 

2. Allow commercial negotiation of terms of cost-recovery agreements, right-ofway agreements and memorandums of understanding with federal agencies 

such as BLM and the Service, which is a standard practice in the private 

sector, particularly for agreements like those entered into with BLM that 

may last 20 years. 

3. Require that policy changes proposed and implemented through instruction 

memorandums be subject to a public comment process, which would allow industry to challenge recommendations that would make wind energy projects 

on public lands impractical, regardless of whether those came from BLM 

itself or resulted from BLM implementing a recommendation from another 

agency like the Service. 

4. Allow a portion of the revenue paid by wind energy projects on BLM lands 

to be recycled back into the agency for the purpose of improving processing 

of future permits as is already done for oil and gas, geothermal, film production and communications towers. 

5. Provide for categorical exclusions for putting up temporary meteorological 

towers to test wind speeds on public lands. This is already allowed under 

BLM’s wind energy development policy, but is not consistently used. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I will recognize Ms. Reilly for your testimony. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN REILLY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS AMERICAS INC. 

Ms. REILLY. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. My name is Susan Reilly, and I am the President and CEO 

of Renewable Energy Systems Americas. RES is headquartered in 

Colorado, and we are one of the leading renewable energy companies in the United States. We have built more than 10 percent of 

12 

the operating wind farms in the U.S., and we currently have 

approximately 10,000 megawatts of wind and solar projects under 

development, which equates to the amount of electricity used by 

approximately 2.5 million average American homes. 

You have asked us to provide an industry perspective regarding 

roadblocks to developing wind and solar energy on public lands. We 

encounter many obstacles to developing renewable energy projects, 

but the number one obstacle that our industry faces is uncertainty, 

both market uncertainty and regulatory uncertainty. Like any business, what matters to us is the markets, and markets are driven 

by supply and demand. There is seemingly strong and growing demand for renewable energy from the American people, but this is 

not translating into predictable market demand. A national renewable or clean energy standard and predictable tax policy would 

really help fix this problem. 

On the supply side, we face uncertainty on many fronts. Developing projects is a complicated process, and it is much more difficult on public lands, though the process can take twice as long as 

it would on private lands. This is reflected by the fact that under 

2 percent of all wind farms in the U.S. Are sited on public lands. 

My written testimony provides additional detail regarding the 

many issues we have encountered when trying to develop projects 

on public lands. And in particular, I would like to draw your attention to the increasing challenge we face in obtaining permits for 

wind projects. 

A recent example, a major obstacle is the regulatory uncertainty 

created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2011 Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, which I will refer to as the Eagle Guidance. 

The Eagle Guidance is a document intended to provide direction on 

implementation of the 2009 eagle permit final rules. When combined, the guidance and the rules create an eagle regulatory program that is complicated and completely unworkable for our industry. 

Unfortunately, just fixing the Eagle Guidance won’t solve the 

problem because the real problem lies in the underlying 2009 eagle 

rules. All of this uncertainty will make financing projects more difficult and cause buyers to shy away from signing purchase contracts. 

I provide more detail in my written comments as to why the 

Eagle Guidance is so problematic, but I would like just to stress 

the following two issues. Firstly, the Eagle Guidance is, in fact, 

more stringent than the Endangered Species Act, despite the fact 

that neither the bald nor the golden eagle are currently endangered. Under the Eagle Guidance, permits for wind projects can 

only be obtained for 5 years at a time. This is a significant problem 

because wind and solar projects typically have a 20- to 30-year life 

and often need financing for 10 to 15 years. So having a permit 

that expires after 5 years will make financing difficult, if not impossible. By comparison, it is possible to obtain a permit under the 

Endangered Species Act for the life of a project, and that is what 

we need, for the life of the project. 

Second, the 2011 Eagle Guidance focused only on wind, yet modern wind turbines are estimated to cause less than 1 percent of 

13 

eagle mortalities. We don’t see the sense of singling wind out when 

the impact of modern wind farms on eagle populations is so small. 

I would like to emphasize that these are not theoretical problems. My company has several wind projects that are currently 

being directly impacted by this issue, and we believe that the 

changes to the permitting process regarding eagles will ultimately 

impact the majority of our projects, creating delays and millions of 

dollars of additional cost, and that many of our developers are in 

a similar situation. 

We further support reasonable protections for wildlife, but there 

does not appear to be any scientific justification for these onerous 

requirements, nor can it be demonstrated that the requirements 

will help eagles. How could they when we are only causing 1 percent of the problem? 

So how can we fix the problem created by the eagle regulatory 

program? We believe that the most sensible way forward is to suspend the 2009 eagle rules and open a new rulemaking process. But 

this process will likely take another 2 to 3 years, and we can’t put 

our business on hold for that long. Projects won’t get built unless 

we can reduce the level of uncertainty. We need a bridge solution 

for the interim period. So our suggestion is that the Federal Advisory Committee recommendations be used. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate our strong support for regulations to protect wildlife. RES Americas’ business is developing and 

constructing renewable energy projects that benefit the environment. Renewable energy is all we do, and our corporate ethos is 

grounded in sustainability. So this isn’t about cutting corners or 

trying to sidestep reasonable regulations, but the key word is ‘‘reasonable.’’ Both conservation and renewable energy are critical, but 

there has to be a balance between the two agendas. 

The American people want domestically produced, clean, renewable energy, and we want to supply it to them, but our energy faces 

market uncertainty at the national level, and we are thwarted by 

regulatory uncertainty during the development process. In the immediate term, Eagle Guidance combined with the land-based guidelines are significant obstacles to the industry. Renewable energy 

has the power to deliver, to drive investment, particularly in the 

manufacturing sector, and to create tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and the rest of 

Committee, I thank you for your interest in and attention to these 

issues, and I look forward to any assistance you may be able to provide. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Reilly follows:] 

Statement of Susan Reilly, President and CEO, 

Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc. 

Introduction 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on Natural Resources 

Oversight Hearing on ‘‘American Energy Initiative: Identifying Roadblocks to Wind 

and Solar Energy on Public Lands and Waters, Part II—The Wind and Solar Industry Perspective’’. 

My name is Susan Reilly. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc. (‘‘RES’’). RES is one of the leading renewVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14 

1See Appendix I, ‘‘Comparison of the Percentage of Renewable Energy Generation Located on 

Public and Private Lands’’. 

able energy companies in the United States. For more than a decade, RES has developed, constructed, owned, and operated wind farms in North America. RES has 

constructed or is currently constructing more than 5,200 megawatts (‘‘MW’’) of wind 

energy projects, representing some 10% of the operating wind farms in the United 

States, and has successfully developed more than 2,200 MW of renewable energy 

projects in the United States and Canada. 

RES currently holds a development portfolio of approximately 10,000 MW and 

maintains ownership in 226 MW of operating projects. RES is headquartered in 

Broomfield, Colorado, with regional offices in Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. Our Canadian projects are managed from Montre ́al, 

Que ́bec. RES is part of the RES Group, a leading renewable energy developer with 

offices and projects all worldwide. 

RES is somewhat unique in the industry due to the range of activities in which 

it is involved. RES develops, designs, constructs, and operates renewable energy 

projects, and focuses not only on wind, but also on solar, biomass, and energy storage projects. This broad scope of activities means that RES has in-house expertise 

dedicated to understanding the requirements of regulatory agencies, state and local 

governments, investors, landowners, and other stakeholders, throughout project development, construction, and operation. As such, we are well-positioned to comment 

on the obstacles facing the development of renewable energy projects on public 

lands. 

Uncertainty: The Greatest Roadblock to Renewable Energy Development 

on Public Lands 

The Committee seeks an industry perspective regarding roadblocks to developing 

wind and solar energy on public lands. While there are many obstacles to developing 

renewable energy projects, the number one obstacle our industry faces is uncertainty, including both market uncertainty and regulatory uncertainty. 

Like any business, the renewable energy markets are driven by supply and demand. On the demand side, the renewable energy industry faces market uncertainty 

due to the lack of a consistent national energy policy. Unlike many countries, the 

U.S. does not have a national renewable or clean energy standard, feed-in tariff or 

other mechanism for promoting renewable energy; and U.S. tax policy supporting 

renewable energy development has been inconsistent. 

On the supply side, we face both legislative and regulatory uncertainty on many 

fronts. Developing renewable energy projects is a complicated process, and obtaining 

permits—the gating item for so many aspects of the development process, including 

financing—is now particularly challenging. Regulatory uncertainty introduced over 

the past twelve months—including uncertainty regarding required environmental 

studies, the ‘‘useful life’’ of permits and regulatory approvals, the risk of permit ‘‘reopeners’’, and potential requirement to employ undefined adaptive management— 

has had a profound negative effect on the development of renewable energy projects 

on public lands. 

Of relevance to this hearing is the fact that the level of regulatory uncertainty 

is much higher when developing projects on public lands, where the process can 

take twice as long as it would on private lands. As a result, there is a strong incentive to avoid public lands, which is borne out by the fact that only 1.4% of wind 

farms are currently located on public lands.1 Projects developed on public lands are 

subject to many more regulations; compounding the issue, these regulations often 

overlap and lack clarity as to which should take precedence. 

In the immediate term, the biggest obstacle the renewable energy industry is facing when it comes to developing renewable energy projects on public (and private) 

lands is uncertainty relating to permitting, and in particular, the uncertainty created by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s 2011 ‘‘Draft Eagle Conservation Plan 

Guidance’’, or ‘‘Eagle Guidance’’. 

In summary, the key points I wish to convey regarding the roadblocks to developing renewable energy projects on public lands created by regulatory uncertainty 

are: 

1. The process for developing renewable energy projects is complicated, and 

critical steps in successfully completing a project hinge on the permitting 

process. 

2. Adding regulatory uncertainty to the permitting process makes project development more complicated, lengthy, and expensive. . .and therefore more 

risky. 

15 

3. In the past ten months, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have issued several documents that significantly increase the regulatory uncertainty associated with permitting 

wind energy projects. 

a. Among these documents, the Eagle Guidance is the most immediately 

problematic. 

b. The Eagle Guidance is unnecessarily onerous, and unfairly penalizes 

wind energy. 

4. The Eagle Guidance creates a significant roadblock to developing renewable 

energy projects on public lands—RES has some proposed solutions. 

5. The Eagle Guidance is the most immediate issue the industry faces, but it 

is not the only roadblock—there are other reasons why developing renewable 

energy projects on public lands is difficult. 

6. DOI’s ‘‘Fast-Track’’ process is welcome and well-intended, but needs to focus 

more on successful outcomes for wind projects. 

7. This is not a theoretical issue—some of RES’ projects have already been directly impacted by the roadblocks listed above. 

1. RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT IS A COMPLEX PROCESS

To appreciate the challenges that the wind energy industry faces for development 

on public lands, it may be helpful to understand the extensive process involved in 

developing, financing, constructing, and operating a wind energy facility. 

In general, the early stage development process follows these steps: 

• Identify areas with promising wind or solar resources, compatible land uses, 

power markets and access to transmission lines with sufficient capacity; 

• Conduct preliminary siting and environmental screening, followed by initial 

environmental assessments and studies; 

• Establish and maintain relationships with landowners, and negotiate wind or 

solar measurement agreements and/or land leases; 

• Establish and maintain relationships with local stakeholders, including local 

government, public agencies, environmental groups, and community groups, 

among others; 

• Commence preliminary project planning and design; and 

• Commence permitting discussions and planning with regulators. 

The next phase of development usually involves ensuring the project is able to 

interconnect to the grid and has access to sufficient transmission capacity, selecting 

turbines, and finalizing permits. These processes often progress simultaneously, 

which requires complex coordination among multiple parties. 

The final, and most critical stage of development revolves around securing a 

power purchase agreement (PPA), and obtaining financing. The key point to understand is that this critical final phase hinges on the permitting process. This testimony will focus on obstacles to successfully completing the permitting process for 

renewable energy projects on public lands. 

2. How Regulatory Uncertainty Affects Project Development 

Regulatory Uncertainty Further Complicates a Challenging Process 

As outlined above, successful development of a commercial-scale wind energy 

project requires coordination among multiple parties, including landowners, local 

governments, transmission providers, power purchasers, and investors. 

Contractual arrangements among these parties may span 20–30 years, and each 

of these parties seeks assurances that the project will be constructed and operated 

in compliance with law during that timeframe. As such, regulatory uncertainty 

makes the challenging process of coordinating agreements among these parties even 

more difficult, and may even render it infeasible. 

In addition, increased uncertainty, or risk, may also increase the cost of developing, constructing, or operating a project. In doing so, it will almost certainly decrease the profitability of a project and in some circumstances, it may worsen 

project economics to the point that a project cannot be justifiably developed. 

Regulatory Uncertainty Causes Delays, Drives Away Investment Capital and 

Customers 

One of the biggest factors affecting the cost of a wind project is the time required 

to obtain permitting and ensure regulatory compliance. Commercial-scale wind 

farms require investments of hundreds of millions of dollars. Currently, there is significant interest in investing in renewable energy, partly due to a belief that the 

sector is poised for significant growth, and partly because investors are concerned 

about sustainability. 

16 

2This is despite the fact that the Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) provided substantial 

input to the DOI on ways to balance renewable energy development and protection for wildlife. 

The Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) was created by the Department of Interior for the specific purpose of advising the Secretary on wind energy guidelines. The FAC included representatives from state wildlife agencies, conservation organizations, the USFWS and the wind industry. The FAC met regularly for more than two and a half years and produced a set of recommendations that relied on peer-reviewed, sound science. The FAC submitted these broadly 

agreed upon recommendations to Secretary Salazar in March 2010. 3 76 Fed. Reg. 9529 (Feb. 18, 2011). See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance’’ (Jan. 2011), available at http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/ 

ECP_draft_guidance_2_10_final_clean_omb.pdf 4 RES, the American Wind Energy Association (‘‘AWEA’’) and many other interested parties 

filed detailed comments on the Eagle Guidance. I encourage the members of this Committee to 

consider the detailed comments filed by industry participants. 5 In addition to very low thresholds for requiring a ‘‘take’’ permit, the draft Eagle Guidance 

defines ‘‘take’’ as including ‘‘disturbance’’—this is problematic, because a lot of things count as 

‘‘disturbance’’, and if you ‘‘take’’ a golden eagle, it may trigger a permit violation that causes 

the whole project to be shut down. Such an onerous restriction makes it exceedingly difficult 

for the wind industry to operate, much less continue to grow. 

However, wind energy projects ultimately compete with other investment opportunities for access to development and long-term capital. If development costs make 

a project uneconomic, or if permitting delays increase the time, cost and risk of 

projects, development capital will flow elsewhere—either to other projects or sectors. 

Customers—which in the case of the renewable energy industry are often utilities—also seek projects with regulatory certainty, and will typically not sign power 

purchase agreements if a project’s future is in doubt. As described in the case studies provided, RES has experienced firsthand the loss of customer interest due to regulatory uncertainty relating to eagles. 

3. The USFWS and BLM Have Greatly Increased Regulatory Uncertainty 

with Their Recent Issuance of Multiple and Conflicting Directions 

A large proportion of wind energy projects on public (and private) lands has been 

significantly delayed and thrown into regulatory uncertainty due to communications 

and policies recently issued by the BLM and the USFWS aimed at protecting eagles. 

Significantly, these policies were created without industry or stakeholder input, and 

seemingly without regard for the realities of renewable energy development. 2

On February 18, 2011, the USFWS announced the availability for public comment 

of draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (‘‘Eagle Guidance’’).3,4 As described 

below, the Eagle Guidance creates significant regulatory uncertainty for wind energy project developers. 

However, it is important to note that the Eagle Guidance is not the only source 

of regulatory uncertainty—the USFWS has also issued draft Land Based Wind Energy Guidelines and a White Paper on Avian and Bat Protection Plans, and the 

BLM has issued an Instruction Memorandum (IM) intended to provide direction to 

BLM Field Offices for complying with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 

including the implementing regulations. These items are discussed in more detail 

in section 5 below. 

Cumulatively, these actions by the USFWS and BLM have nearly paralyzed what 

was already a lengthy and difficult process for development on public lands. Moreover the detailed requirements within the aforementioned regulations have substantially increased the regulatory uncertainty of the permitting process. 

a. Why the ‘‘Eagle Guidance’’ is Problematic 

The Eagle Guidance introduces significant regulatory uncertainty that RES believes will severely impair wind energy development on public lands in the United 

States. The greatest source of uncertainty is that the fact that the process for obtaining an eagle ‘‘take’’ permit is not yet known, and may not be determined for 

months if not years. 

Further compounding the uncertainty, the Eagle Guidance sets an extremely low 

threshold for projects that will require an eagle ‘‘take’’ permit 5. To this end, it is 

worth noting that the Eagle Guidelines are more stringent that the Endangered 

Species Act, despite the fact that neither bald nor golden eagles are currently considered endangered. 

RES has no doubt that cumulatively, the new regulatory program—as drafted— 

will: 

(i) Provide little to no certainty that adherence to the Eagle Guidance will 

enable projects to avoid regulatory ‘‘surprises’’ imposed by the USFWS 

later in the development and operation of the facility; 

17 

6This analysis excludes data from a few specific projects (such as those in the Altamont region) that utilize obsolete equipment, were constructed many years ago, and where unusual conditions exist. 

(ii) Significantly, and unjustifiably, increase the time and costs required to develop a wind energy facility, thereby increasing development risk/uncertainty; 

(iii) As a result of (i) and (ii) above, create significant barriers to obtaining acceptable project financing. 

For example, the Eagle Guidance: 

• Imposes a five-year permit term for eagle ‘‘take’’ permits, which is far too 

short to cover the 20–30 year life of a typical wind energy project. As a result, 

an eagle take permit for a project would need to be renewed multiple times 

over the life of the project. 

This is problematic because it creates regulatory and compliance uncertainty that 

could make it impossible for projects to secure long-term financing, given the risk 

that the project’s permit might not be renewed. 

Permit renewal could also require environmental analyses under NEPA, which 

would require the investment of substantial time and money by both the USFWS 

and wind project operators. In fact, this could trigger NEPA for wind projects on 

public and private land. 

• Provides that after a project is permitted, project operators may be required 

to modify operations or introduce additional mitigation measures with no certainty that any such requirements will be reasonable, practical, economical or 

technically feasible. 

This is problematic because such modifications or mitigation may abrogate existing contractual requirements, thereby putting a project into default. As such, this 

has the potential to render project financing infeasible. 

• Provides no ‘‘grandfathering’’ or phase-in period for projects that are in the 

middle of the permitting process or are already operational. 

This is problematic because it may abrogate existing contractual requirements 

and put projects into default. 

• Requires unjustifiably lengthy pre-construction surveys in addition to lengthy 

NEPA and permitting processes, and categorizes sites as risky before proper 

analysis has been performed. 

This is problematic because it causes delays, greatly increases costs, and may 

drive away investors. 

b. The Eagle Guidance is Unreasonably Onerous and Unfair to Wind 

Importantly, the Eagle Guidance and the 2010 BLM IM appear to have been 

issued without any regard for the magnitude of impact they would have on the renewable energy industry. The negative effects of the new regulatory program on renewable energy development are appreciably disproportionate to any anticipated 

benefit on eagle populations. 

As described in AWEA’s filed comments on the Eagle Guidance, Tetra Tech, Inc. 

(a prominent environmental and wildlife consulting company) reviewed all known 

eagle mortality data sources and found that 1% or less of all documented eagle fatalities caused by human activity are attributable to modern wind energy facilities.6

For example, Tetra Tech, Inc. found that the leading human causes of eagle mortality are: 

• electrocutions on power lines (with a significant portion of those occurring at 

distribution lines)—50% 

• direct and indirect poisoning—13% 

• shooting and trapping—7% 

• vehicle strikes—6% 

Disproportionate Burden on Wind Industry 

Despite the fact that wind energy accounts for 1% or less of human-caused eagle 

fatalities, the USFWS has proposed eagle-related project criteria, permitting procedures, and mitigation measures that are specific to the wind energy industry while 

failing to propose similar regulatory measures for other industries and practices resulting in significantly greater eagle take. Simply put, regulations comparable to the 

Eagle Guidelines have not been proposed for other industries or sources of eagle 

mortality. 

This approach demonstrates a lack of perspective and proportionality, and it is 

also inconsistent with the stated renewable energy objectives of the Administration. 

Moreover, it ignores the fact that increased deployment of renewable energy reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
18 

7 USFWS Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change, September, 2010. 

8See Memorandum from Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, to Service Directorate, regarding 

‘‘Service White Paper Providing Guidance for the Development of Project-Specific Avian and Bat 

Protection Plans for Renewable Energy Facilities’’ (Aug. 3, 2010). 

sources can help lessen our impact on climate change, which the USFWS itself has 

called one of the greatest threats to our nation’s environment and wildlife.7

4. Proposed Solutions to the Eagle Guidance Problem 

RES suggests the following steps to address the significant roadblock to renewable 

energy development on public lands created by the Eagle Guidance: • Request that the DOI suspend the Eagle Guidance and the associated regulatory program that began in 2009. RES suggests that the USFWS open a 

new formal rulemaking that is open to the public. New regulations would be 

developed in cooperation with the wind and solar industries to sensibly address permitting under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. • Direct USFWS to work with industry to develop a permit program that imposes regulatory requirements that are proportional to the impact of the wind 

energy industry on eagle populations. Such a program must include certain 

core elements necessary for successful project development, including: 

(1) Timely, clear and efficient processes for obtaining a permit; 

(2) Permits for the life of a facility; 

(3) ‘‘No surprises’’ assurances for the life of the project; 

(4) Phase-in periods for projects currently under development; and 

(5) ‘‘Grandfathering’’ for operating facilities. 

As explained above in 3.a., many of these permit provisions are found in other 

regulatory regimes like the Endangered Species Act, which is considered the ‘‘gold 

standard’’ for regulation of impacts on protected species. • Beginning immediately and continuing throughout the period while new industry-specific eagle regulations are being developed, provide the renewable 

energy industry with written assurances that adherence to the Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) Recommendations is sufficient for compliance with the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

Use of the FAC Recommendations as a ‘‘bridge’’ would provide an urgently needed 

solution by removing the current significant regulatory uncertainty and permitting 

delays that have impacted the development, financing and construction of wind en- ergy projects on public lands. The FAC Recommendations would also seem to be a 

strong foundation upon which to develop a new eagle regulatory program. 

5. The Eagle Guidance isn’t the Only Problem 

The Eagle Guidance illustrates a major impediment to renewable energy development on public lands, but it is just one of several recent regulations promulgated 

by BLM and USFWS that contribute to the existing level of regulatory uncertainty. 

July 9, 2010—BLM’s Instruction Memorandum 2010–156 and August 3, 2010— 

USFWS’ White Paper on Avian Protection Plans (APPs) 

The new approach to eagle regulation began when the BLM issued Instructional 

Memorandum 2010–156 on July 9, 2010 (the ‘‘2010 BLM IM’’). The purpose of the 

2010 BLM IM was to provide direction to BLM Field Offices for complying with the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, including the implementing regulations, for 

projects on public lands. 

The 2010 BLM IM primarily addressed golden eagles and requires USFWS approval of wind and solar projects prior to BLM issuing a Record of Decision. Specifically, the IM declared that if a proposed project has the potential to impact golden 

eagles or their habitat, an APP is required as a condition of the right-of-way grant. 

The introduction of this policy created significant uncertainty for renewable energy on public and private lands, including two RES projects as further documented 

below. Projects which were on track to begin construction in 2010 or 2011 were delayed, thereby rendering them unable to take advantage of grant funds available 

under American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). Moreover, some USFWS 

field staff began to impose the new requirements on projects on private land. 

On August 3, 2010, the Service issued a white paper on the development Avian 

Protection Plans for renewable energy facilities.8 The white paper attempts to provide considerations for APPs as required by the BLM’s July 9, 2010 Instruction 

Memorandum while the national APP guidance and template are under development. 

As wind developers began to work with USFWS and BLM staff to work towards 

mutually acceptable APPs, the USFWS issued the 2011 Eagle Guidance, which further changed the regulatory environment. 

19 

9 As with the Eagle Guidance, RES, AWEA, and many other interested parties filed detailed 

comments on the Land-Based Guidelines. I encourage the members of this Committee to consider the detailed comments filed by industry participants. 

February 18, 2011—USFWS’ Land Based Guidelines 

Simultaneously with the USFWS’ issuance of the Eagle Guidance, USFWS announced the availability for public comment of another layer of regulatory requirements in the form of draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (‘‘Land-Based 

Guidelines’’).9 The Land-Based Guidelines were intended to provide developers and 

agency staff with guidelines for selecting sites to avoid and minimize negative effects to fish, wildlife, and their habitats resulting from construction, operation, and 

maintenance of land-based, wind energy facilities. 

The NEPA Process 

On public lands, the ‘‘gating issue’’ for the development of renewable energy is 

completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’) process and obtaining appropriate federal rights-of-way. While the NEPA process is not new, many 

BLM field offices have been ill-prepared to manage the multitude of renewable energy right-of-way applications submitted over the past ten years. NEPA regulations 

prohibit project proponents from preparing their own environmental analysis and 

project proponents are invariably subject to the cost of paying for their internal 

staff, BLM staff time, and BLM’s third-party consultants. 

These challenges combine to create an unbalanced risk-benefit profile to those involved in renewable energy development on public lands, relative to projects on private land. The Eagle Guidance—as proposed—will only exacerbate these BLM resource issues by creating a ‘‘federal nexus’’ for all wind projects, regardless of whether they are sited on public or private lands. Dedication of greater resources to BLM 

state, district and field offices is sorely needed to address these issues. 

6. Additional Comments on ‘‘Fast-Track’’ Projects 

RES supports the renewable energy goals annunciated in the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 and by Secretary Salazar. In particular, the 2009 Department of Interior 

Renewable Energy Fast-Track project list was a well-founded effort by the BLM to 

foster the economic development goals associated with ARRA through renewable energy development. 

As BLM Director Bob Abbey testified on May 13th, the DOI Fast-Track process 

completed permitting of nine solar projects, but only one wind project in the 2010 

calendar year. While we commend the DOI and BLM for their efforts, there is substantial opportunity for improvement particularly with regard to wind energy development. 

In RES’ experience, the roadblocks described in this testimony have played a significant role in the failure of fast-tracked (and other) wind projects to successfully 

complete the permitting process. RES therefore submits that in order to reduce the 

roadblocks to renewable energy development on public lands, there must be a strong 

federal commitment to completing renewable energy projects on public lands. 

Such a commitment would involve not only ensuring a streamlined permitting 

process, but providing regulatory consistency and certainty that is necessary for all 

phases of renewable energy development, including project financing. Just as renewable energy developers partner with local governments, land owners and other 

stakeholders during the entire life of a project on private lands, renewable energy 

development on public lands needs cooperation and coordination with applicable federal agencies that will be sustained for the life of the project. 

This would include directives to all applicable federal agencies prioritizing renewable energy development and imposing appropriate perspective and proportionality 

on conflicting regulatory programs. Further, the industry would benefit from federal 

leadership in identifying and prioritizing lands for wind and solar energy generation 

and transmission corridors. 

RES suggests the active engagement of top leadership within the DOI, BLM, and 

USFWS to seek efficient and effective approaches to permitting that will allow 

projects to be developed, permitted, financed, constructed and placed into operation 

on public lands. 

7. Case Studies: RES Americas’ Projects 

The roadblocks I have described are not theoretical. RES is developing projects 

on public and private lands that are grappling with inconsistent permitting pathways and the lack of compliance certainty. 

20 

10 In stark contrast to the 8 years (and counting) needed to develop the Granite Mountain 

Wind Farm on public lands, consider that RES is about to complete construction of a 227 MW 

project on private land in Oklahoma that started the permitting and development process in 

late 2008. That said, developing projects on private land is in no sense ‘‘easy’’, and involves complex permitting and the involvement of multiple governmental entities and stakeholder groups. 

Granite Mountain Wind Project (CA) 

A case in point is our 60 megawatt Granite Mountain Project located on BLM 

lands in San Bernardino County, California, which has been significantly impeded 

by these roadblocks. Granite Mountain was put on the DOI 2009 Fast-Track project 

list, and RES was encouraged to hasten development of the project so that it could 

qualify for ARRA/Treasury Grant funding. 

RES has been developing the Granite Mountain project for more than 8 years and has spent more than $6.1M in developing the project.10 The original right-of-way for 

wind testing and monitoring was executed by RES in July 2003. RES filed a right 

of way application for wind development with the BLM in December 2006. The 

NEPA process was started in earnest in 2007. 

It is important to note that this project has many of the key ingredients of a successful development, including an executed power purchase agreement, an executed 

interconnection agreement, and a completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The sole missing development asset required to finance the project RES was 

a Record of Decision from BLM. . .which was scheduled to be received by December 

2010. 

However, in late summer 2010, we were notified by the USFWS of a concern regarding potential golden eagle issues. The notification came as a direct result of 

BLM’s July 9, 2010 Instructional Memorandum. Given the new USFWS eagle regulatory program and BLM policies, this left RES in a state of regulatory and permitting uncertainty as to how to advance the project, comply with the new eagle regulations, and BLM policy. 

As a result, this project did not qualify for the Treasury Grant and is clearly a 

missed opportunity for RES and for economic stimulus and job creation. 

While RES is working with USFWS and BLM to conduct additional eagle surveys 

intended to support an ABPP and the project’s Final EIS, the construction of the 

project has been set back by a minimum of twelve months and development costs 

have increased on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The February 2011 

Eagle Guidance casts further uncertainty on the project and will likely result in further delays and additional costs. 

Rock Creek Wind Project (OR) 

The USFWS’ new eagle program has impacted project development beyond just 

public lands. Throughout the spring of 2010, RES negotiated the sale of a 400 MW 

wind energy project with a regulated utility in the Pacific Northwest. The project 

is/was sited entirely on private lands and is adjacent to multiple operating wind 

projects. The investor-owned utility had requested regulatory hearings and petitioned its regulatory authorities to review the transaction. 

Shortly after issuance of the BLM’s July 2010 Instruction Memorandum, local 

USFWS field offices began to provide feedback to developers regarding their projects 

on public as well as private lands. This feedback included the need for additional 

eagle surveys as well as the prospect that proposed projects—if constructed—would 

be at risk under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

Given the concerns raised by USFWS as well as the uncertainty regarding the 

outcome of the USFWS dialogue, the utility withdrew its petition to acquire the 

project and negotiations of the transaction were cancelled. RES continues to develop 

the Rock Creek site, albeit at significantly greater risk and expense. 

Both the Granite Mountain project and the Rock Creek project demonstrate that 

these roadblocks to development have a profound and demonstrable impact on renewable energy development on both public and private lands. It is critical that the 

underlying causes of these roadblocks be addressed as quickly and as efficiently as 

possible so as not to result in further missed opportunities for renewable energy development in the United States. 

Conclusion 

RES has been and continues to be a strong advocate for responsible development 

of renewable energy projects on public and private lands. Renewable energy development, construction and operation is our focus, and our corporate ethos is grounded 

in sustainability and environmental responsibility. We have enjoyed a cooperative 

relationship with the federal agencies that administer public lands and look forward 

to improving that relationship in the future. 

21 

We appreciate the tireless efforts of the BLM and USFWS field office staff and 

appreciate their efforts to process the multitude of applications for right-of-way 

grants for renewable energy projects on federal land as well to comply with regulations promulgated from Washington, DC. 

But there are currently significant roadblocks to renewable energy development 

on public lands that should be rectified before further delay and uncertainty impedes the industry. In RES’ experience, the three biggest roadblocks to development 

of renewable energy projects on public lands are that: 

(i) There is no ‘‘clear path’’ for permitting development on public lands; 

(ii) Issues and concerns in the permitting process lack perspective and proportionality; and 

(iii) Completion of development requires dedicated BLM resources and direction 

that is currently lacking. 

Collectively, these three problems can be summarized as ‘‘regulatory uncertainty’’, 

which as explained above, is anathema to project developers and investors. The cumulative impact of this regulatory uncertainty on the wind industry is severe. In 

the case of the Eagle Guidance and the Land Based Guidelines, AWEA estimates 

that these USFWS policies jeopardize: 

• More than 34,000 megawatts of wind power projects; 

• More than 27,500 jobs; 

• $103 million in potential landowner revenue per annum; and 

• $68 billion in investment. 

On behalf of RES, I would like to thank Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member 

Markey and members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify in the Committee on Natural Resources Oversight Hearing on ‘‘American Energy Initiative: 

Identifying Roadblocks to Wind and Solar Energy on Public Lands and Waters, Part 

II—The Wind and Solar Industry Perspective’’. 

Appendix I: Comparison of the Percentage of Renewable Energy Generation Located on Public and Private Lands 

RES is currently pursuing rights-of-way for the development of renewable energy 

projects on public lands, but such projects are a small portion of our entire development portfolio. In fact, other than a re-powering project over a decade ago, RES has 

never completed the development and construction of a renewable energy project on 

public lands. Only 9% of RES’ current development portfolio is on public lands. I 

submit that RES’ experience is not unique. 

As the tables below demonstrate, only 1.4% of all installed wind capacity and 

2.1% of all wind capacity under construction in the United States from any renewable energy developer is on public lands. These numbers dramatically illustrate that 

public lands is clearly a less attractive option for renewable energy developers. 


66728.001.eps
22 

11Source: AWEA’s 2010 U.S. Wind Industry Market Report. 

National Figures for all developers 11

The CHAIRMAN. I now recognize Mr. Gordon for your testimony. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 


66728.002.eps 66728.003.eps 66728.004.eps
23 

STATEMENT OF JAMES S. GORDON, PRESIDENT, 

CAPE WIND ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and Congressman 

Markey. My name is Jim Gordon. I am President of Cape Wind Associates and Energy Management, Inc., which is the developer of 

Cape Wind. I understand how a diversified energy portfolio can increase our Nation’s energy security and independence, create new 

jobs, and improve our environment, because for the last 35 years, 

our company has successfully developed a number of energy 

projects that have contributed to those important objectives. 

Eleven years ago, our company embarked on developing America’s first offshore wind farm. Coming from the New England area, 

it was always a truism that New England has no indigenous 

energy resources; we have no coal, oil or natural gas. But I am here 

today to tell you that we have an abundant offshore wind resource 

right off our coast that we can harness to create new jobs, increase 

energy independence and create a healthier environment. 

Over the last 11 years, our company worked with 17 Federal and 

State agencies to permit the Cape Wind project. We are proud of 

the fact that we helped to evolve the regulatory framework for offshore wind in the United States. And just a month ago, Secretary 

Salazar at the Charlestown Navy Yard, against the backdrop of the 

USS Constitution, announced that Cape Wind was fully permitted 

and gave the green light for construction. That was a very proud 

moment for our company. We have invested over $50 million to develop this project to date, and every penny of that money has come 

from the senior managers of our company. 

Unfortunately, because of the ability of a small group of project 

opponents that file suit after suit in either regulatory forums or judicial forums, the project has been delayed. We have won 15 of 

those decisions. Every single regulatory or judicial system we have 

won. We were working very closely with the Department of Energy, 

and for over a year we have been working to try to obtain a loan 

guarantee. And a government help through the Department of 

Energy loan guarantee is going to be critically important for commercializing the first of a kind of this innovative project. 

I can tell you that these incentives are very important because 

currently our company is building two of the largest biomass 

projects in the United States. Each one of those companies has over 

400 construction workers on the site, working over a 33-month period, and will create over 500 permanent jobs in the forestry industry. Those projects relied on the crucial investment tax credit and 

30 percent cash grant that was rolled out through the Obama Administration. 

Right now I would ask your panel to consider a couple of important policy recommendations to help expedite the development of 

renewable energy, which all of us in this room and on this panel 

would like. Number one, there needs to be a statutory timeframe 

for permitting these projects. It can’t be endless and open-ended 

where sophisticated parties can manipulate and abuse the process. 

Number two, it is critically important that we have a consolidated and expedited judicial process. 

And number three, the incentives that are being developed to 

incentivize renewable energy projects need to be consistent and coVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
24 

incide with the development cycles and the construction period cycles of these projects. For instance, in 2012, the wind incentives 

end, but the first offshore wind project was only permitted, finally 

permitted, about a month ago. 

With these programs in place, I think we will be able to increase 

the penetration of renewable energy in this country. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] 

Statement of James S. Gordon, President, Cape Wind Associates, LLC 

Introduction 

I appreciate this opportunity to address the Committee. My name is James S. 

Gordon, President of Cape Wind Associates, LLC (‘‘Cape Wind’’). For the last eleven 

years, Cape Wind has been developing the Nation’s first offshore wind generation 

project. The project’s nearest point of land will be approximately 5 miles off the 

coast of Massachusetts. Most of the turbines will be 6—10 miles from the nearest 

shore. It would generate 468 MW of clean and renewable energy, with no fuel requirements and no air emissions. This amount would represent approximately 75% 

of the annual electricity needs of Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha’s Vineyard 

and Nantucket. The Cape Wind project would be located on a shoal that is outside 

of the shipping lanes and would impose no restrictions on current uses of the area. 

Cape Wind enjoys strong support of environmental, consumer advocacy and labor 

groups and the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts voters, and has a grassroots support organization with over 4,000 members. However, it has drawn the opposition of a few wealthy landowners who will be able to see it in the distance. 

The principals of our company have been in the energy business for more than 

thirty years. We have developed and operated some of the most efficient gas-fired 

plants operating in the United States and we are intimately familiar with federal 

and state licensing processes for electric power plants. In direct response to mandates of the New England States for renewable energy, we are now focusing upon 

offshore wind energy development, which is uniquely well-situated to serve the population centers of the East coast. Offshore wind energy technology has now advanced to the point where it is both proven and reliable and can play a much more 

meaningful role in our National supply mix. A study commissioned by the Department of Energy entitled ‘‘A National Offshore Wind Strategy’’ estimates that America’s offshore wind could generate 4,150 GW, approximately four times the current 

generating capacity of the Nation. However, if we are to realize the potential of offshore wind energy, we need to ensure that our National energy and environmental 

policies are implemented in a consistent and timely manner. We know that this 

technology works. Although Cape Wind will be the first offshore wind farm proposed 

in the United States, many projects are operating successfully in Europe, and the 

Chinese, after starting much later than us, have already now deployed their first 

offshore project. 

1. Federal Regulatory Process 

The Federal and state regulatory process for offshore renewable energy is thorough and comprehensive, but often not coordinated. One fundamental defect is that 

it lacks any legal requirements that would limit the duration of the review period. 

As a result, with no required end point, opponents can use regulatory stalling and 

delay tactics to try to financially cripple even a project that meets all statutory 

standards and serves Federal and State policy objectives. 

Cape Wind submitted its Federal permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (‘‘USACE’’) in November of 2001, pursuant to section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act, which governs the placement of structures in Federal waters. The 

Corps considered the project for several years and issued a Draft EIS in November, 

2004. However, pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, The Department of the 

Interior, (MMS now BOEMRE) became the lead federal agency and essentially the 

process had to begin anew. BOEMRE conducted its own multi-year extensive review 

processes and issued a highly positive Environmental Impact Statement in January 

of 2009. The Record of Decision was not issued by DOI for another 15 months, in 

April 2010. Secretary Salazar then issued the first lease for OCS renewable energy 

to Cape Wind in October of 2010 and BOEMRE approved our Construction and Operation Plan (the ‘‘COP’’) in April 2011. The project thus has been undergoing extensive regulatory and public scrutiny for 10 years, and has now received all major permits and approvals. 

25 

The review of Cape Wind’s application was a process that has included the active 

participation of 17 Federal and State participating agencies and afforded exceptional 

opportunities for public involvement. During this process, an exhaustive analysis of 

all potential impacts of the project was conducted, including studies of issues including potential impacts upon existing uses, environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to fish, birds threatened species and marine mammals, protection of Native 

American rights, project aesthetics, cost implications and the energy needs of the 

public. State Regulatory Process 

In addition, there have been extensive state regulatory proceedings. In September 

of 2002, Cape Wind petitioned the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board 

(‘‘MEFSB’’) for authorization of its facilities located within Massachusetts. After an 

exhaustive review, including 20 days of expert testimony, on May 10, 2005, the 

MEFSB approved Cape Wind’s petition based upon its findings that Cape Wind’s 

energy is needed (i) to reliably meet the growing need for power in the region; (ii) 

to stabilize prices to electric rate payers; and (iii) to offset air emissions from fossil 

generators. Moreover, in 2009 the MEFSB issued a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest to Cape Wind and such grant has been upheld on appeal 

by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Most recently, in November of 2010, 

the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities approved Cape Wind’s long-term 

power sales agreement with National Grid, finding that ‘‘it is abundantly clear that 

the Cape Wind facility offers significant benefits that are not currently available 

from any other renewable resource’’ and that the ‘‘benefits outweigh the costs of the 

project.’’ D.P.U. 10–54. 

2. Judicial Appeals. 

Along the way, opponents sought to appeal regulatory decisions to the federal or 

state courts more than ten times, and Cape Wind has won every case to date. Notwithstanding this extensive review and analysis and the appeals we have already 

won, the project now faces multiple appeals of its federal approvals brought by the 

same small, but well-funded, special interest group that has sought to delay the review process at every turn. In light of the past and continuing delays that we have 

experienced, we offer the following three policy suggestions for your consideration. 

3. Policy Recommendations 

A. Limit Time Periods of Agency Review. 

First, national policy objectives would be far better served if the environmental 

review of proposed renewable energy facilities were conducted in a more timely 

manner, perhaps pursuant to specific statutory timeframes that prevent delay tactics from financially crippling important and worthy projects. We recognize and applaud the progress that has been made by BOEMRE (including its ‘‘Smart from the 

state’’ initiative), but firm deadlines applicable to all federal agencies would provide 

certainty to the review schedule. We reference for example the energy facility siting 

acts that have been enacted by many of the New England states, which provide that 

that a thorough environmental review of proposed energy facilities is to be conducted within a statutorily limited time frame, which is limited to 12 months by 

Massachusetts law. 

B. Consolidate and Expedite Judicial Review. 

Second, renewable energy projects often require multiple federal approvals, each 

of which is subject to judicial review, processes which can consume additional years 

and substantial funds. Renewable energy projects that require federal approvals 

would be expedited significantly if all such reviews were consolidated in a single appellate proceeding in which the court is encouraged to expedite its decision. 

There is ample precedent for such a provision in recent energy legislation. The 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2003 at section 720e provides for expedited consideration and exclusive review in the D.C. Circuit of any order or action of any federal agency or any challenge under NEPA related to the authorities in the Act. 

Similarly, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, section 313, provides for development of 

a single consolidated record and for exclusive jurisdiction and expedited consideration by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review any Federal agency or state 

agency actions pursuant to Federal law relating to construction of certain natural 

gas facilities. 

If Congress is serious about encouraging the development of renewable energy resources, streamlining the judicial review process would be a most effective mechanism for getting such facilities on line, and would do so without modifying any substantive rights of review by any aggrieved party. 

26 

C. Coordinate Duration of Investment Incentives with Permit Review Timelines. 

Third, Congress should address the fact that federal investment incentives for 

long lead time renewable energy projects (such as offshore wind, geothermal and 

biomass projects) are typically put in place for time periods far shorter than the 

time required for permitting, environmental review and construction. For example, 

current provisions for the Investment tax Credit (‘‘ITC’’), the Production Tax Credit 

(‘‘PTC’’) and the Section 1705 Federal loan guarantee program are set to expire in 

2012 and 2011, respectively. These time frames are just too short to develop and 

construct an offshore wind, geothermal or biomass project. 

The result is an untenable situation where investors in proposed projects must 

proceed without knowing whether crucial incentives will still be in effect when such 

projects are placed in service. These incentive durations may be workable for 

projects that take only one or two years to develop, but they are not workable for 

types of projects that take much longer (which, by their nature, provide greater economic stimulus and longer-term employment). To be effective, tax and other incentives for long lead time projects must be in place for at least 5 years. We thus suggest a long-term extension for offshore wind and other long-lead renewable projects, 

for both the ITC (to at least 2016) and the DOE loan guarantee program, in order 

to provide a more certain and dependable signal to the investment community. 

With these changes, I am certain that America can catch and pass the current 

world leaders in offshore wind development, with massive reductions in oil imports 

and emissions. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

[The response to questions submitted for the record by Mr. 

Gordon follows:] 

27 


66728.013.eps 66728.014.eps
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Next, Mr. Jim Lanard, President of the Offshore 

Wind Development Coalition. 

STATEMENT OF JIM LANARD, PRESIDENT, 

OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT COALITION 

Mr. LANARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Markey. My name is Jim Lanard, and I am President of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition. We represent offshore wind developers and the entire supply chain that will be involved in creating jobs and manufacturing opportunities here in the United 

States in the offshore wind industry. 

The technology for offshore wind is not new. In fact, offshore 

wind has been operating successfully in Europe since 1991. And 

the European Wind Energy Association projects that by the year 

2030, there will be 215,000 people working in the offshore wind industry, more than those workers that are working on the landbased side in Europe. 

Now China is in the mix. They are operating 102 megawatts of 

offshore wind energy right now, with more than 2,300 megawatts 

under construction. 

To put it very bluntly, the United States is losing the intellectual 

property race for creating a new industry for the offshore wind industry here in the United States. And I will give you just one very 

blatant example of that. We have a U.S.-owned company based in 

Seattle, Washington, that is developing plans for a floating turbine, 

offshore turbine, foundation. They had no place to go in the United 

States for funding to prepare this demonstration project, but the 

country of Portugal offered them their shipyard and their financial 

support, and right now they are building a floating foundation in 

Portugal shipyard and will be beta testing that off the Portuguese 

coast this summer. The United States is losing the intellectual 

property rights. We need to catch up. 

Now, other than Cape Wind, the offshore wind industry started 

really in 2005 when President Bush passed after you guys enacted 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That was a very important piece of 

legislation that gave the Department of the Interior the jurisdiction 

to oversee the Outer Continental Shelf for renewable energy. The 

Obama Administration is really picking up the pace, devoting very 

significant resources and making great progress with offshore 

wind. 

We look at this industry as a job creator and manufacturing sector, and that is how we approach all of our policy and advocacy perspective. We will need accelerated domestic production of offshore 

wind equipment if this industry is to succeed. And the reason for 

that is the high cost of installing offshore wind must be offset by 

the benefits that our developers can bring by attracting manufacturing to the United States. 

If I may, I would like to just quote Governor Christie from New 

Jersey just last Thursday when he said, quote, We are going to 

make New Jersey number one in offshore wind production. Last 

year I signed the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act to provide financial assistance and tax credits to businesses that construct, manufacture, and assemble facilities that support offshore 

wind projects. And we have accelerated the development of offshore 

29 

wind projects by working closely with the U.S. Department of the 

Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation 

and Enforcement to speed the implementation of 1,100 megawatts 

of power. 

There are three policy issues primarily that we would like to address before the Committee for your consideration and for Congress’. On the Federal legislative front, as Jim said from Cape 

Wind, we need the investment tax credit. It is probably the most 

fundamental tax incentive that can support this industry. We think 

it is fair because it helps to level the playing field with all of the 

benefits that the Ranking Member talked about in his opening 

statement that the fossil fuel industries are enjoying and have been 

enjoying for over a century. 

We need to extend the placed-in-service date for offshore wind, 

and all of this is because of long lead times that it takes to permit 

and develop these projects. We would like to be treated similar to 

solar, to our colleagues in solar, where they have an ITC that runs 

to 2016, and we hope that the Congress will consider such an extension. 

We also very strongly support loan guarantee extensions. We are 

disappointed that the DOE was forced to defund some of the loan 

guarantee programs for offshore wind developers. It is essential to 

create jobs. And we also support a credit subsidy for those loans. 

We congratulate the Department of the Interior for its Smart 

from the Start programs. It has reduced the permitting timeline by 

2 years, but still at 5 to 7 years it is too long. Even Director 

Bromwich at your testimony at the hearing on May 13th commented that he is still working to reduce that timeline. 

We also need to overcome market barriers. We need a market for 

our product, and the Federal Government can help looking at Federal procurement by the Department of Defense, by the Department of Energy, and we are having those conversations with those 

Departments. We would love for you to help us with that. 

And on the State level—of course, we also support research and 

development initiatives. On the State level, we want the States to 

continue to collaborate and coordinate with the Federal Government. Market creation is essential. New Jersey has done this by 

creating a revenue stream for up to 1,100 megawatts of power if 

the benefits will exceed the costs. 

And we also need to incentivize manufacturers. When we do this, 

we will have the energy security and the energy independence and 

the national security that this Congress and this Nation needs as 

we progress. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanard follows:] 

Statement of Jim Lanard, President, Offshore Wind Development Coalition 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to you today on the topic: 

‘‘American Energy Initiative: Identifying Roadblocks to Wind and Solar Energy on 

Public Lands and Waters, Part II—The Wind and Solar Industry Perspective’’. My 

name is Jim Lanard, President of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition. The 

Offshore Wind Development Coalition represents offshore wind developers, service 

30 

providers to the industry including turbine manufacturers, cable manufacturers, 

submarine cable installers, other supply chain businesses, offshore submarine transmission providers, environmental consulting firms, and law firms. Our founders include seven offshore wind developers and the American Wind Energy Association 

(AWEA) has a seat on our Board of Directors. 

Technology to generate electricity from offshore wind farms is not new and has 

a proven track record. In fact, the first modern day offshore wind farm became operational in 1991 off the coast of Denmark. There are now more than 40 offshore wind 

farms operating in European waters for a total of 2,396 MWs of power generation. 

There are sixteen more projects under construction, for an additional 3,972 MWs of 

installed capacity. 

And let’s not forget China, which is currently the world’s largest generator of 

wind energy and is quickly becoming a world leader in offshore wind, too. China 

has clearly demonstrated that it values wind energy. For the year 2010, 46% of the 

world’s newly installed wind energy capacity was in China, while the US accounted 

for 14.3% of the world’s new wind energy facilities. Regarding offshore wind, China 

now has 102 MWs of offshore wind operating and 2.300 MWs of offshore wind is 

under construction. China’s wind energy programs are supporting that country’s efforts to achieve energy security, economic development and emission reductions. 

Yet in the United States, no offshore wind farms have been built. But this will 

soon change. Change, in fact, began here in the US in 2005, when Congress passed 

and President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 

2005). EPAct 2005 gave the Secretary of the US Department of the Interior leasing 

and permitting jurisdiction for renewable energy projects proposed for the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS). 

Background 

While the efficacy of offshore wind energy technology has been demonstrated in 

Europe, this technology and regulation of it is new to the United States. Federal 

and state regulators have had to draft regulations and learn about all aspects of 

developing, constructing, operating and decommissioning offshore wind farms. And 

they have had to consider more than 20 federal laws and Executive Orders that 

apply to offshore wind farms. This has been a steep learning curve for all parties, 

admirably begun under the prior administration and continuing at an even faster 

pace now. It is hard to imagine that anyone associated with offshore wind doubts 

the commitment and efforts that federal and state officials are continuing to make 

to establish this industry and its potential to employ tens of thousands of people 

in good paying jobs. We applaud President Obama, US DOI Secretary Ken Salazar, 

US DOE Secretary Steven Chu, and their staffs for their leadership on the continuing development of the offshore wind industry. 

Momentum in the development of offshore wind is evidenced by the surge of interest demonstrated by developers. What began with Cape Wind’s leading role a decade 

ago, when it first proposed an offshore wind farm for Massachusetts, has now 

turned into a very robust offshore wind industry. For example, state initiatives in 

Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island provided offshore wind developers opportunities to propose projects in the Atlantic Ocean. In 2006, Delaware held a competitive process to select a generation source to be located in-state. One offshore wind 

developer competed against two other power sources—one a gas-fired power plant 

and one a coal gasification plant. The offshore wind developer won that competition. 

Then, in 2007 and 2008, two states, New Jersey and Rhode Island, held competitions just for offshore wind developers. Five offshore wind developers bid in the New 

Jersey competition and then seven competed in Rhode Island. 

And, with the advent of the federal government’s OCS leasing program, we have 

seen even more interest in developing offshore wind. In 2010, eight offshore wind 

developers bid to lease land on the OCS off the coast of Maryland. Earlier this year, 

ten offshore wind developers bid in the leasing process for federal waters off of Massachusetts and, just next month in June 2011, it is expected that 20 or more offshore wind developers will respond to the federal government’s Call for Nominations 

on the OCS off of New Jersey’s coast. 

This rapidly increasing level of interest is a significant signal that the offshore 

wind industry and the great benefits it can offer to our country is about to become 

a reality. Offshore wind provides clean, renewable energy that will support US efforts to reduce reliance on foreign energy sources and increase our country’s quest 

for energy independence. In a sentence: Offshore wind can—and will—play a significant role to help the United States meet our national and energy security goals. 

31 

Job Creation and Manufacturing 

Moreover, offshore wind has the potential to become one of our nation’s newest 

manufacturing sectors and could employ tens of thousands of workers in good paying, clean tech jobs. In Europe, the European Wind Energy Association projects that 

‘‘by 2030, more than 375,000 people should be employed directly in the sector— 

160,000 onshore and 215,000 offshore.’’ (Emphasis added.) And President Obama, in 

an Earth Day speech on April 22, 2009 said, 

‘‘It’s estimated that if we fully pursue our potential for wind energy on land and 

offshore, wind can generate as much as 20% of our electricity by 2030 and create 

a quarter-million jobs in the process—250,000 jobs in the process, jobs that pay well 

and provide good benefits. It’s a win-win: It’s good for the environment; it’s great 

for the economy.’’ 

Some commentators have compared the jobs and manufacturing history of the development of the land-based wind industry with what we can expect from the offshore sector. We think US-based jobs and manufacturing for offshore wind farms 

will develop quicker than what has occurred in the land-based wind industry. 

As background, it should be noted that domestic content of turbine-related materials for land-based wind farms, in their early years, was low. Prior to 2005, less 

than 25% of land-based turbines (based on cost) were manufactured in the U.S. Five 

years later that percentage has doubled so that in 2010, domestic content of U.S.- 

deployed turbines has reached 50%. According to the AWEA, more than 75,000 people work in the land-based wind industry and there are over 400 wind-related manufacturing plants in 43 states that support the manufacture of the 8,000 components of a typical wind turbine. 

Offshore wind developers and state economic development officials expect—and 

the latter likely will demand—higher domestic content much earlier in the development cycle for the offshore wind industry. One driving force for domestic content 

of offshore wind equipment is that the cost of installing offshore wind farms is considerably higher than for land-based wind farms. Hence, there are sound public policy arguments for the case that offshore wind developers and their state counterparts should be able to demonstrate economic benefits—job creation and establishment of manufacturing centers—early in the development stage of this new industry. These economic benefits can thus offset the higher costs for installation of offshore wind farms. And those benefits must be enjoyed by residents in states where 

offshore wind power is being sold. 

The question we are often asked is whether offshore wind can achieve the economies of scale necessary to support state and federal policies that promote the establishment of this multi-billion dollar industry. The answer is yes, economies of scale 

can be achieved for offshore wind farms. First, the use of larger turbines will result 

in a reduction of the number of foundations that need to be installed in the ocean 

while at the same time increasing per unit energy output. Second, developers have 

begun to propose larger wind farms; i.e., more turbines per wind farm. Several offshore wind developers planning to compete for the right to sell power in New Jersey 

have reported that they plan to propose wind farms scaled at 1,100 MWs each— 

and that 5- and 6–MW turbines are being considered. These wind farms are likely 

to cost more than three billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) each, which represents significant manufacturing and job creation potential for New Jersey and other states 

that embrace this new-to-the-US economic engine. 

Offshore wind is a bipartisan issue. In addition to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

that President Bush signed, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a leader at the 

state level. Just this last Thursday, May 26, Governor Christie said: 

We’re going to work to make New Jersey number one in offshore wind production. Last year I signed the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act 

to provide financial assistance and tax credits to businesses that construct, 

manufacture, and assemble water access facilities that support offshore 

wind products. The DEP has completed the first of its kind, two-year baseline study that identifies optimal sites for offshore wind turbines. This 

study combined with the strong policies I’ve spoken about is going to be instrumental and has been instrumental at the Department of the Interior 

recognizing New Jersey in its Smart from the Start program as a wind energy area. That provides us the opportunity for expedited federal permitting 

in this area, and we’re going to try to take advantage of it. We’ve joined 

with the federal government and other East Coast states to establish the 

Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium to promote commercial wind development on the outer continental shelf. And we’ve accelerated the development of offshore wind projects by working closely with Interior and the 

Bureau of Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement to speed the 

implementation of 1100 MW of wind turbines. Since the call for interest 

32 

last month we will be receiving applications for more than 3,000 MW of 

projects within the next two weeks. 

So the interest in New Jersey in wind power is significant, because of the 

laws that this administration has helped to put into place and we are going 

to continue to pursue that. 

With these introductory and background comments, I will now address the Federal and State roles that are necessary to make the offshore wind industry and its 

manufacturing and job creation potential a reality. 

The Federal Role in Offshore Wind 

Legislative Priorities 

The Offshore Wind Development Coalition has two major federal legislative priorities. The first is a long-term extension of the Investment Tax Credit. The second 

is restoration of the US DOE Loan Guarantee program. 

1. Long-term extension of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) 

Extension of the ‘‘placed-in-service’’ date applicable to the investment tax 

credit for offshore wind energy facilities is a very high priority for offshore 

wind developers. The ITC is the most fundamental federal tax incentive for 

renewable energy. The ITC imposes a strict deadline of December 31, 2012 

for wind farms to qualify, whether onshore or offshore. This is in sharp contrast to the placed-in-service dates for all other renewable energy projects, 

which range from 2013 for marine and hydrokinetic facilities, biomass, geothermal, municipal solid waste and qualified hydropower to 2016 for solar 

energy projects. Although the 2012 deadline may create some difficulties for 

onshore wind, it imposes a near impossible barrier for offshore wind due to 

the long lead time required for development. In its current form, the ITC 

may not be available to any of the projects being developed and permitted 

off the Atlantic Coast or in the Great Lakes. 

The unavailability of the ITC will make it hard to finance offshore wind 

projects and will thwart development of an enormous indigenous offshore 

wind resource, one that the DOE estimates could reach 54 GW by 2030. 

Equally troublesome, if the ITC is renewed only for short periods just before 

it expires, as is often the case with other ‘‘extenders’’, it may never be usable 

for offshore wind. 

A long-term extension of the ITC is consistent with US policies that applied 

for coal, oil and gas powered generation when those facilities were first coming on line. Offshore wind developers hope to be given the same consideration. With a level playing field, and achieving the economies of scale discussed above, offshore wind will be a competitive power generation source. 

According to AWEA (www.PowerofWind.com): 

• The Congressional Research Service notes that for more than 90 years 

fossil fuel industries have taken subsidies via tax breaks. • The Government Accountability Office, during President Bush’s administration, concluded that fossil fuels continue to receive nearly five times 

the tax incentives as renewable energy. (Federal Electricity Subsidies, 

Government Accountability Office, October 2007) 

The Offshore Wind Development Coalition strongly supports an ITC extension to at least 2016, the date that currently applies to solar facilities. Such 

an extension will signal the markets that projects can be developed and financed. 

2. Restoration of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program 

The US DOE Loan Guarantee program for renewable energy projects was 

established when the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted into law. The 

loan program exists to support debt financing for innovative energy projects, 

including first-mover offshore wind farms. Recent Congressional action on a 

Continuing Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2011 has essentially eliminated 

funding for these loan guarantees for our members’ projects. Several offshore wind farm developers were recently informed by the US DOE that 

their applications for loan guarantees were put on hold until additional resources are made available to the program. These loans, which would have 

reduced the cost of electricity to consumers, are essential to support job creation and economic development opportunities in many states. The loans 

would also begin to balance the substantial subsidies other sources of electricity generation receive from various federal tax incentive provisions. The 

elimination of federal loan guarantees presents a significant problem for offshore wind developers, since these guarantees significantly lower the cost of 

borrowing funds for an offshore wind farm. The cost to the US government 

is not high: The availability of eight billion dollars of federal loan guaranVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
33 

tees, which could support several first-mover projects, would require an appropriation of just $80 million. 

An additional aspect of the loan guarantee program, provided for in the 

2009 Recovery Act, had been its funding of a credit subsidy fee, which would 

otherwise have to be paid by an offshore wind developer at the loan closing. 

This credit subsidy payment provided for by the Recovery Act would have 

required offshore wind developers to reach loan closing by September 2011, 

an unrealistic date, considering the current federal permitting process 

timeline. 

The Offshore Wind Development Coalition respectfully asks Congress to restore and fully fund the US DOE Loan Guarantee program as quickly as 

possible. 

Regulatory Priorities 

1. The US DOI’s Smart from Start Initiative 

The Offshore Wind Development Coalition and our member companies 

worked hard to make the case that the seven-to-nine year permitting 

timeline for offshore wind, as originally contemplated by the DOI’s Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE, previously the Minerals Management Service—MMS), was too long to support 

the establishment of this new industry. Secretary Salazar’s Smart from the 

Start initiative has begun to address this long lead time for permitting and 

has already reduced the timeline by up to two years. This is a significant 

accomplishment and sends the right signals to offshore wind developers and 

their investors. 

2. Continued Refinement of the BOEMRE Permitting Process for Offshore 

Wind Farms 

In his May 13, 2011 remarks to this Committee on Part I of this hearing, 

BOEMRE Director Bromwich said that his agency continues to work with 

other federal and state agencies to improve the permitting process for offshore wind. We think this coordination and collaboration is essential. The 

Offshore Wind Development Coalition and our member companies have had 

opportunities to discuss the offshore wind permitting process with federal officials and we appreciate the efforts they have made to reduce the permitting timeline. While the timeline still needs to be reduced some more, we 

believe BOEMRE is heading in the right direction. We will continue to work 

with BOEMRE and federal officials in other agencies to find additional reductions in the time it takes to permit an offshore wind farm. 

Overcoming Market Barriers 

State-driven policies, discussed in the last section of this testimony, will play a 

significant role to identify opportunities for offshore wind developers to sell their 

power into the grid. There is a federal role, too, and that includes federal procurement of power produced by offshore wind farms. To that end, the Offshore Wind Development Coalition has begun conversations with the US Department of Defense 

and the US Department of Energy to assess whether—and how—the federal government can help meet renewable energy goals set for the government’s electricity use 

by purchasing energy produced from offshore wind farms. 

Research and Development 

The US DOE has taken a leading role to identify research and development programs that can support fast-track improvements for offshore wind technology, ranging from more efficient turbines to removal of market barriers to new offshore wind 

turbine designs. The Offshore Wind Development Coalition and our member companies have an excellent working relationship with DOE officials and its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). We will continue to work with DOE 

and EERE on these and other research and development initiatives. 

State Role in Offshore Wind 

State Support for Federal Government Programs 

The US DOI has made cooperation and collaboration with state officials a cornerstone of its approach to offshore wind. We support these initiatives. Two programs 

stand out: the Federal—State Task Forces that have been formed in most states 

along the Atlantic and the establishment of the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium. As New Jersey’s Governor Christie said, his state will continue to work 

closely with the US DOI and BOEMRE to ‘‘speed the implementation’’ of offshore 

wind development in his state. To support the Governors’ efforts to develop offshore 

wind off of their coasts, the Offshore Wind Development Coalition works closely 

34 

with state officials affiliated with the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium 

and we have plans to reach out to Governor’s offices in the Great Lakes states and 

Gulf of Mexico (primarily Texas) so that we can serve as a resource for all coastal 

states interested in offshore wind. 

Market Creation 

An important challenge that the offshore wind industry is continuing to address 

is the need for there to be markets for the power generated by our wind farms. 

State policies will play a significant role in the creation of these markets. A costbenefit analysis associated with proposals to locate offshore wind farms in New Jersey is now required by law; this analysis will be carefully reviewed by that state’s 

utility commission (the NJ Board of Public Utilities) and if the benefits of a specific 

project justify the costs, that project will be approved. Maryland Governor Martin 

O’Malley has proposed legislation expected to be considered in the next session of 

his state’s General Assembly that would require a similar cost-benefit analysis. 

These analyses will look to the job creation and economic development commitments 

offshore wind developers can make to the states in which they hope to sell their 

power. 

Economic Incentives for Manufacturers of Offshore Wind Equipment 

States along the Atlantic Coast, the Great Lakes and Texas would all welcome 

the establishment of manufacturing facilities and the jobs associated with the soonto-be-created offshore wind industry. Manufacturers of offshore wind equipment are 

being actively courted by the economic development agencies in many of these 

states. While there clearly will not be a ‘‘winner takes all’’ outcome in regard to 

which states are able to attract new manufacturers of offshore wind equipment, first 

mover states will reap the early—and likely more valuable—benefits. 

Conclusion 

The Offshore Wind Development Coalition appreciates the opportunity to present 

this written testimony for the Committee’s consideration and for the opportunity to 

make an oral presentation of a summary of our written comments. We look forward 

to working with all Members and Staff of the Committee. And we hope that you 

will consider us as a resource as you deliberate on the value of offshore wind and 

the job creation and manufacturing opportunities that it offers our nation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we will go to what was the other panel, the 

solar panel, and we will recognize Mr. Rhone Resch, President and 

CEO of Solar Energy. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RHONE RESCH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. RESCH. Thank you. I have a PowerPoint presentation which 

should come up. OK. Great. 

Mr. Chairman, it is great to have you back. I am glad you are 

feeling better. 

Ranking Member Markey, great to see you and the rest of the 

members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on roadblocks to solar energy development on public lands. 

I am Rhone Resch, the President and CEO of the Solar Energy 

Industries Association, and I am testifying on behalf of our 1,000 

member companies and 100,000 Americans employed by the solar 

industry. SEIA, my organization, represents the entire solar industry, encompassing all major solar technologies, including 

photovoltaics, which you see up on the screen now, concentrating 

solar power, and solar heating and cooling. 

Let me first thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member 

Markey for their leadership and support of solar energy. We are 

grateful that the Committee recognizes the important role that our 

public lands play in the development of solar. Even in the 

35 

struggling economy, the solar industry has become an energy and 

jobs powerhouse. The solar industry grew by 67 percent last year. 

Let me repeat that. The industry grew by 67 percent last year, and 

employs Americans in all 50 States, and is now one of the fastestgrowing industries in the Nation. 

Solar is an energy source available in every U.S. congressional 

district. Given our vast solar resources, we could easily lead the 

world in solar development. Solar also enjoys overwhelming public 

approval; 94 percent of Americans support solar overall, and 75 

percent are in favor of building solar power plants on public lands. 

Last year, 956 megawatts of solar electric capacity was installed, 

enough to power 200,000 homes. This phenomenal growth is a result of private investment, technological innovation, a maturing industry, and smart Federal and State policies. The Federal Government has received a strong return on its investment of public dollars with benefits to our economy that far exceed the costs. 

Like most products, the costs of solar energy decreases as more 

solar is installed. The policies and incentives in place yield dividends now and also act as a catalyst for driving down future costs. 

Just to give you a sense, last year the cost of solar install costs decreased by 20 percent across the country. With increased deployment of solar energy, solar manufacturing and supply chain productions have followed. 

This slide here shows the location of solar companies across the 

United States, with some examples like REC Silicon, which produces solar-grade polysilicon in Moses Lake, Washington. They expanded production last year to meet growing domestic demand, and 

the facility now employs 550 people in your district. 

Abengoa Solar is constructing a 280-megawatt concentrating 

solar power plant in Gila Bend, Arizona, employing up to 2,000 

people in Representative Grijalva’s district. It looks like he just 

left. Through supply chain purchases from other companies, the 

plant supports hundreds of jobs throughout the entire country. 

In early 2011, a 19-megawatt PV plant, the largest solar plant 

in Colorado, came on line in Representative Tipton’s district. That 

plant now powers nearly 4,000 homes, and a larger 30-megawatt 

plant is under construction nearby and will be operational later 

this year. 

Last year was also a noteworthy year as the Bureau of Land 

Management issued the first-ever permits for construction of utility-scaled solar power projects on public lands. And by the end of 

last year, nine permits had been approved by BLM. Today work is 

under way at three of these sites, and several other solar power 

plants are under construction on private land in the Southwest, 

employing hundreds of workers from the region. 

Here you can see a worker building the frame for a power block 

at BrightSource Energy’s Ivanpah project. And the next slide, here 

you can see a worker that is working through the night to construct a molten salt storage plant at Abengoa Solar’s Solana Power 

Plant in Arizona. 

Still, there is room for improvement. Developers face many hurdles in bringing a solar project to fruition, whether on public or private lands. Our industry needs stable, predictable policies for continued growth. Today we propose several steps that will keep solar 

36 

1For more information on each of these solar technologies, see http://seia.org/cs/ 

solar_technology_and_products. 

growing and surmount some of the hurdles that make it harder to 

locate utility-scale solar on public lands. 

Specifically we are seeking, as you heard from the wind industry, 

a multi-year extension of the 1603 Treasury program. Plain and 

simple, this program is the most effective mechanism available for 

deploying renewable energy while providing a strong economic return for the taxpayer. 

Second, we need maximum flexibility for solar developers to site 

projects on public lands without being restricted to zones. 

Third, the section 10 consultation process performed by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service must include a cost-recovery mechanism and 

consistent timeframes to speed up the processing. 

Fourth, BLM must employ a solar rent policy that is comparable 

to private-land prices. 

And finally, continued support for the DOE loan guarantee program is critical, as is the creation of the new Clean Energy Bank 

to provide long-term, low-cost financing for solar. 

Again, thank you for inviting SEIA to submit this testimony. We 

look forward to working with the Committee to remove roadblocks 

to the development of solar energy on public lands. And I am 

happy to answer your questions at the appropriate time. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Resch. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Resch follows:] 

Statement of Rhone Resch, President & CEO, 

Solar Energy Industries Association 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on roadblocks to solar energy 

development on public lands. I am Rhone Resch, the President and CEO of the Solar 

Energy Industries Association (SEIA). I am testifying on behalf of our 1,000 member 

companies and 100,000 American citizens employed by the solar industry. SEIA represents the entire solar industry, encompassing all major solar technologies 

(photovoltaics, concentrating solar power and solar water heating 1) and all points 

in the value chain, including financiers, project developers, component manufacturers and solar installers. Before I begin my testimony, let me thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey for their leadership and support of solar energy. 

We are grateful that the Committee recognizes the important role that our public 

lands play in the deployment of solar energy. 

I. Introduction 

Established in 1974, the Solar Energy Industries Association is the national trade 

association of the U.S. solar energy industry. Through advocacy and education, 

SEIA and its 1,000 member companies are building a strong solar industry to power 

America. As the voice of the industry, SEIA works to make solar a mainstream and 

significant energy source by expanding markets, removing market barriers, 

strengthening the industry and educating the public on the benefits of solar energy. 

We have an opportunity—and perhaps an obligation—to craft policies today that 

will guarantee a clean energy future for tomorrow, one in which our energy comes 

from renewable, domestic sources. Today’s hearing is an important step in securing 

that future. Developers face many hurdles in bringing a solar project to fruition, 

whether on public or private lands. Below we make recommendations for ensuring 

the long-term policy certainty needed to make solar energy a substantial part of our 

energy supply in the United States: 

• Retain maximum flexibility for solar developers to site projects on public 

lands without being restricted to zones. 

37 

2See PV Resources chart at Attachment 1, comparing the United States to Germany and 

Spain. 3 2010 SCHOTT Solar BarometerTM. See details at http://seia.org/cs/news_detail? 

pressrelease.id=1061. 

• Establish a cost recovery mechanism and consistent timeframes to expedite 

the Section 10 consultation process performed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

• Extend the 1603 Treasury Program, which allows solar and other renewable 

energy developers to receive a direct federal grant in lieu of taking the investment tax credit, which is already in place. 

• Continue support for the DOE Loan Guarantee Program and/or establish a 

Clean Energy Bank to provide long-term, low-cost financing to those deploying solar. 

• Grant long-term clean energy contracting authority for federal agencies to 

reap the benefits of solar energy. 

II. Overview and Recent Highlights of the U.S. Solar Industry 

At a time of high unemployment and difficult economic conditions, the solar industry has become the fastest growing U.S. energy sector and one of the fastest 

growing industries across the entire economy. In 2010, the solar industry grew at 

a rate of 67 percent and now employs Americans in all 50 states. Last year, 956 

megawatts (MW) of photovoltaics (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies were installed, as well as 2.4 million square feet of solar water heating collectors. This phenomenal growth is the result of private investment, technological 

innovation, a maturing industry and smart federal and state policies. The federal 

government has received a strong return on its investment of public dollars, with 

benefits to our economy that far exceed their costs. 

Solar is an energy source available in every U.S. Congressional district.2 At this 

time, Germany leads the world in solar installations with a solar resource equivalent to that of the state of Alaska. Given our vast solar resources, we could easily 

lead the world in solar deployment. The vast majority of Americans would no doubt 

support such a goal: 94% of Americans think it is important for the nation to develop and use solar energy.3

Solar energy has many benefits, including the ability to be tapped in a variety 

of circumstances—in power plants, in residential and commercial applications, and 

even off-grid in remote areas where no other electric infrastructure exists. Solar also 

generates electricity during peak demand, when we need it most and electricity is 

most expensive. 

The solar industry is maturing rapidly. Major companies like GE, Dupont and Applied Materials have solar divisions. Utilities from Florida Power & Light to PSEG 

and Arizona Public Service Company own solar assets in their generation fleet. 

Other energy players are increasingly investing in solar, such as NRG Energy, 

AREVA and Westinghouse. Even Google is making a major play, putting a 1.6 MW 

distributed solar generation system on its Mountain View, California campus and 

investing $168 million in the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, a solar 

power plant which uses BrightSource Energy’s proprietary power tower technology. 

Like most products, solar energy’s costs decrease as more and more solar is installed. The policies in place today to incentivize solar deployment not only yield 

dividends now, they act as a catalyst, driving down future costs. The right policy 

underpinnings can shave years off of the organic price drops analysts expect. 

With increased deployment of solar energy, solar manufacturing and supply chain 

production have followed. For example: 

• In 2010, REC Silicon, which produces solar-grade polysilicon in Moses Lake, 

Washington, expanded capacity and production to meet growing domestic demand. The facility produces 27% of all solar-grade polysilicon in the U.S. and 

employs 550 people in Chairman Hastings’s district. 

• A 280 MW concentrating solar power plant is under construction in Gila 

Bend, Arizona, employing up to 2,000 people in Representative Grijalva’s district during construction of the facility. Through supply chain purchases from 

companies around the country, the plant supports hundreds of jobs in every 

region. 

• Early in 2011, a 19 MW PV plant, the largest solar plant in Colorado and 

one of the largest in the country, came online in Representative Tipton’s district. The plant produces enough clean solar energy to power nearly 4,000 

homes, and this is just the beginning. A larger 30 MW plant is under construction nearby, and is expected to become operational later this year. 

38 

4While the PEIS is intended to set policy for all lands managed by BLM, the six states studied were Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. 5SEIA’s full comments on the Draft PEIS are available at http://www.seia.org/galleries/pdf/ 

Final_PEIS_Comments_5.2.11.pdf. 6 Indeed, BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Draft PEIS takes approximately 77 million acres 

off the table for solar energy development and puts forth rules for the remaining lands. 7Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–58) establishes a goal for DOI of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy projects on public lands by 2015. 8 View poll details at http://seia.org/cs/news_detail?pressrelease.id=769. 

More solar energy highlights by Congressional district can be found at Attachment 2. 

Last year was also a noteworthy year for the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) solar efforts: it issued the first nine permits for construction of utility-scale 

solar power projects on public lands in the entire history of the agency. Today, work 

is underway at three of the sites and several other utility-scale solar power plants 

are under construction in the Southwest, employing hundreds of workers from the 

region. In addition, the supply chains behind each of those facilities are turning out 

highly reflective mirrors, precision-crafted receiver tubes, steel posts and thousands 

of other components in Alabama, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee 

and Virginia. 

As you can see, 2010 was an exciting year for the U.S. solar industry. But we’re 

not stopping there: the SEIA Board of Directors set out a goal for the industry to 

install 10 gigawatts—10,000 MW—annually by 2015. 

III. Solar Power Plant Developers Face Persistent Challenges 

Solar power plant developers face persistent hurdles in bringing a project to completion, whether the solar plant is sited on public or private lands. In the public 

lands arena, the Department of the Interior (DOI), thanks to the leadership of Secretary Salazar, prioritized the permitting of renewable energy projects, and SEIA 

commends DOI, BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for their efforts. 

The overarching challenge for any industry is policy certainty. When companies 

are deciding where to build their next manufacturing facility, when and where to 

spend $1 billion constructing a new power plant or how many employees to add this 

year, they need a high degree of confidence in the future. This is true for public 

lands policy as well as tax, finance and energy policies. 

A. Public Lands Policy: The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Solar Energy 

In 2008, BLM initiated a major undertaking studying and preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for solar development in six 

Southwest states.4 When final, the PEIS will establish policy for solar development 

on public lands for the next two decades. As part of the study process, BLM proposed and analyzed 24 ‘‘solar energy study areas’’ on existing public lands which 

could be codified as ‘‘solar energy zones’’ and which would encourage solar energy 

development within their boundaries. BLM released the Draft PEIS in December 

2010 and the public comment period recently closed.5

A fundamental policy decision to be made in the final PEIS is whether solar energy development will be allowed across 22 million acres of public lands in the 

Southwest, with benefits accruing to those projects located within the solar energy 

zones, or if solar development will be restricted to only lands within the identified 

zones. Recognizing that not every acre of BLM-managed land is appropriate for 

solar development,6 the solar industry is nevertheless concerned that permitting development exclusively within the solar energy zones is overly restrictive, would 

thwart development and would undermine the renewable energy goals Congress set 

out for BLM in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.7

Our public lands have been used for a wide variety of economic and recreational 

activities over the last century, and solar must be one of those acceptable uses. In 

fact, three out of four Americans approve of solar energy development on public 

lands.8 BLM should not adopt the solar energy zone-only alternative presented in 

the Draft PEIS. Instead, BLM should adopt the Preferred Alternative identified in 

the Draft PEIS and work to make the solar energy zones themselves more attractive 

to project developers. 

Much more needs to be known about the solar energy zones to make them a useful option for solar energy developers. Only a cursory review of the zones has been 

conducted, and neither BLM nor a developer can affirmatively state that a solar 

power plant belongs within any of the zones. Not enough is known regarding the 

biological and cultural resources within these zones. As a result, a developer that 

39 

9SEIA’s full comments to USFWS regarding the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance are enclosed here as Attachment 3. 10See IM 2011–003, available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2011/IM_2011–003.html. 11The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits anyone from committing a ‘‘take’’ (kill, injure, 

harass, etc.) of any listed species without appropriate authorizations from the USFWS. 16 

U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. However, Section 10 of the ESA provides exceptions to this rule, such as 

permits, when a ‘‘take’’ is likely to occur during a proposed activity. Id. at § 1539(a)(1)(B). Obtaining a permit can be a long and arduous process for projects without a federal nexus as it 

requires the permit applicant (and not USFWS) to determine the effects of the project on endangered species and their habit, design a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), provide a long-term 

commitment to species conservation, and request a consultation with the USFWS. During consultation, the Service and the applicant discuss the proposed project and the species likely to 

be affected as well as mitigation and conservation measures for habitat maintenance, enhancement, and protection, coincident with development. There is no formal timeline associated with 

Section 10 consultation. However, preparation of and agreement by all parties involved in the 

HCP can take several years. In addition, it can take months to years for the USFWS to review 

and approve the HCP and issue an incidental take permit. 

seeks to site a power plant within such a zone will still expend a great deal of effort 

and money studying the site in order to receive a permit for development. The solar 

energy zones were intended to ease the way for development, providing a sort of 

‘‘pre-approval’’ that such acres are suitable for solar power plants. But in their current state, the solar energy zones do not provide real incentives for solar development within their boundaries. 

B. Public Lands Policy: Early Stakeholder Input is Preferable when Crafting New 

Policies 

In 2010, the Department of the Interior faced the daunting task of permitting 

solar energy projects at a pace the department had never before attempted, while 

simultaneously crafting the policies necessary to carry out such permitting. Even 

now there are many new policies coming out of BLM and USFWS in Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) format. The pace of these releases is challenging for both developers and field office staff to react to and the regulatory continuity between the field 

offices is not consistent. In many cases, guidance has been crafted based on policies 

from other industries that BLM oversees, with limited applicability to solar energy. 

As a recent example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance for wind developers. Just after this document’s release, 

some regional USFWS staff began requiring solar developers to comply with the 

guidelines contained therein. Such a standard is wholly inappropriate, given that 

the guidance was written for another industry and is only in draft form. A solar 

developer cannot reasonably be expected to comply with guidance for wind development.9 USFWS should ensure that no regional or field offices are applying any aspect of this guidance to solar power projects. In addition, USFWS should have to 

make a threshold determination of a project’s adverse impact on eagles prior to applying any Eagle Guidance to a renewable energy project. Without a threshold finding, USFWS has no way of knowing whether the proposed Guidance is applicable 

or appropriate for a given project. Moreover, without an initial understanding of a 

project’s impact, USFWS cannot determine whether the Guidance will even be effective at monitoring and protecting eagles and their environment. 

Similarly, BLM’s Instruction Memorandum establishing performance and reclamation bond requirements for solar energy projects 10 relies heavily on the requirements for the mining industry. A solar power plant’s footprint and potential 

impact on public lands are far different than mining and other extraction activities, 

and that should be recognized by the agency and reflected in policy decisions. 

Finally, the rent policy BLM established for solar energy produces excessive 

charges to developers. In some instances, the BLM rent is double what a developer 

would pay for nearby private land. Developing on public lands also comes with other 

costs to the developer not seen for private lands: increased processing time, mitigation fees, restoration and revegetation bonding. Each of these extra costs will deter 

solar development on public lands, contrary to the goals of the Administration and 

Congress. In addition, charging high rents by BLM will lead to higher rents in the 

private sector, which will further damage the economics of future solar projects. 

C. Private Lands Policy: Section 10 Consultations from USFWS Are Not Timely 

A perennial challenge faced by solar developers (and many others) is that of securing a timely Section 10 consultation 11 from USFWS. Many in the solar industry 

are developing projects on private lands and, due to biological considerations, need 

permits to be issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to proceed with their 

40 

12Section 10(a) of the ESA requires preparation and approval (by USFWS/NMFS) of a Habitat 

Conservation Plan before USFWS can authorize the project or issue an Incidental Take Permit. 13http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/consultations.pdf 14See 43 U.S.C. § 1764 (‘‘The Secretary concerned may. . .require an applicant for or holder 

of a right-of-way to reimburse the United States for all reasonable administrative and other 

costs incurred in processing an application for such right-of-way. . .’’) and 43 CFR § 2804.14, 

which dictates that an applicant pay ‘‘full reasonable costs’’ for certain applications. 

project.12 Projects without a federal nexus (i.e., projects that are not funded, authorized, or carried out by a federal agency) may linger for years at the back of the 

queue while USFWS staff provides Biological Opinions and incidental take statements (if needed) to other applicants whose projects are on public lands or otherwise 

have a federal nexus (e.g., a recipient of a Department of Energy loan guarantee). 

This is not a matter of undue preferential treatment, but of insufficient staff resources. Indeed, in Fiscal Year 2010 alone, USFWS performed over 30,000 consultations with federal agencies under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, leaving 

little time for staff to provide Section 10 consultations.13 To address this staffing 

challenge, SEIA recommends establishing a cost recovery mechanism through which 

applicants could reimburse USFWS for contracting independent, non-biased scientists and permit experts to expedite the consultation and review and process. This 

process is used today by BLM in processing right-of-way applications.14 In addition, 

we recommend that USFWS establish a consistent timeframe for Section 10 

consultations, enabling solar projects on private lands to move forward in a timely 

fashion. 

D. Tax Policy: Recent Success Demonstrates the Value of Certainty 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created tax incentives for solar energy. Specifically, 

the measure provided a 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for commercial and residential solar energy systems. Congress subsequently improved and extended the 

ITC through 2016. The multiple-year extension of the residential and commercial 

solar ITC gave entrepreneurs the policy certainty needed to invest in solar energy 

projects. As a result, the industry has grown by 800% since the ITC was implemented in 2006. Cumulative solar capacity in the U.S. now exceeds 2,600 MW, 

enough to power more than a half million homes. 

The 2008 economic crisis rendered solar and other renewable energy tax incentives of little immediate value. Prior to the financial crisis, many large renewable 

energy projects relied upon third-party tax equity investors to monetize the value 

of federal renewable energy incentives. The economic downturn drastically reduced 

the availability of tax equity, severely limiting the financing available for renewable 

energy projects. 

In response to the dramatic decline in available capital, Congress enacted the Section 1603 Treasury Program. This program allows solar and other renewable energy 

developers to receive a direct federal grant in lieu of taking the ITC that is already 

in place. This simplifies financing for renewable energy projects and provides access 

to capital at a time when project developers’ tax burdens are inadequate to capitalize on tax incentives and tax equity financing is both scarce and expensive. 

By any objective measure, the Section 1603 Treasury Program has been a resounding success. Due in large part to the liquidity provided by this important incentive, the solar industry grew 67% in 2010, making it one of the fastest growing 

industry sectors in the U.S. economy. Due in large part to reliable, consistent federal policy, solar costs continue to decline. Last year, installed costs fell by 20%, and 

from the year 2000 to the present, the per-watt price of photovoltaics has declined 

by 40%. Solar is a diverse technology, and costs will continue to drop as the industry 

achieves greater efficiencies and economies of scale. 

E. Energy Policy: Long-Term Commitments to Renewable Energy Are Vital 

Solar power plants are sizable assets that have a useful life of 30 or more years. 

In order for a proposed solar project to be built, it needs a long-term buyer of its 

electricity (typically through a bilateral contract with a utility called a power purchase agreement or PPA) and a long-term loan from a bank, financing the project 

at a reasonable interest rate. Federal policies are needed to provide certainty regarding the financial underpinnings of projects. Such policies include the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program or a Clean Energy Bank. Statelevel renewable portfolio standards have incentivized utilities to sign long-term contracts with solar providers. Federal agencies face similar RPS goals for the energy 

they use, but lack the authority to similarly enter into long-term contracts with 

solar providers. Long-term clean energy contracting authority should be granted so 

the federal government can enjoy the same benefits of solar energy that utilities and 

homeowners do. 

41 

15See 10 U.S.C. § 2922a. 16Department of Defense Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan FY2010, page I–5. 

DOE’s loan guarantee program was initially created by the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 in recognition of the great challenges that large nuclear, renewable and other 

low-carbon energy projects face obtaining affordable long-term financing in the commercial marketplace. In today’s economic climate, these programs are critical to attract investment in nuclear, clean coal and renewable energy projects. Until the financial community witnesses the successful completion of several of these projects, 

it will continue to charge substantial premiums or not lend to those projects at all. 

In addition to reducing component costs, access to long-term debt at a low interest 

rate is key to ensuring that solar power plants are cost-competitive with other electricity sources. We urge Congress to provide sufficient funding to the Section 1703 

DOE Loan Guarantee Program in Fiscal Year 2012 to continue the timely processing and reward of loan guarantees to all of the projects deserving of DOE support. 

Another way to accomplish this goal would be to establish a Clean Energy Bank 

or Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). As envisioned in H.R. 2454 

(2009), CEDA could directly provide loans to an applicant that deploys a clean energy technology. CEDA would also continue to provide loan guarantees, similar to 

the current DOE Loan Guarantee Program. 

On the purchasing side of the ledger, only the Department of Defense currently 

has the authority to enter into contracts of longer than 10 years with energy providers.15 However, most solar energy projects require a 20- to 30-year contract in 

order to be financially viable and provide electricity at a rate at or below the retail 

price. Unlike other sources of electric generation, solar power plants mainly consist 

of the up-front cost of installing the infrastructure and solar equipment. Ongoing 

operations and maintenance costs are quite low, and the fuel is free. Therefore, the 

longer the term of the contract, the cheaper the electricity is on a per-unit basis. 

If a buyer wants a 10-year contract, the entire cost of the power plant must be amortized and recovered over only 10 years. If the buyer can sign a 30-year contract, 

however, the equipment costs are spread over 30 years instead. 

Nellis Air Force Base, outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, illustrates the potential of 

long-term clean energy contracting. There, the U.S. Air Force contracted for electricity via a 14 megawatt solar PV installation. In addition to providing 25% of the 

electricity needed annually for base operations, the solar project is saving the base 

over $1 million each year in lower electricity costs.16 Solar projects can similarly 

save other federal agencies millions on their utility bills over the next several decades, but these solar projects cannot move forward until civilian agencies have the 

authority to sign a long-term contract. Extending the contracting authority to match 

the life of the solar project would benefit solar companies and the public by securing 

long-term sources of clean energy. 

IV. Conclusion 

Again, thank you for inviting SEIA to submit this testimony. We look forward to 

working with the Committee to establish long-term, stable policies which remove 

roadblocks, promote job creation and ensure the deployment of solar energy technologies on public lands. 

42 

ATTACHMENT 2 

SOLAR INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 

Alaska, At-Large—Rep. Don Young 

• There are 15 companies providing solar jobs in Alaska 

• Alaskan owned and operated Polar Wire Products manufactures ‘‘arctic 

grade’’ wire and electrical equipment used extensively in alternative energy 

systems 

Arizona, 1st District—Rep. Paul Gosar 

• Solargenix’s Saguaro Solar Power Plant, a 1–MW CSP Trough Plant in Red 

Rock is online 

• Arizona Public Service built the Prescott Solar Power Plant, a 3–MW PV 

Plant in Prescott 

• Global Solar Energy built the Springerville Generation Station Solar System, 

a 5–MW Thin-Film PV Plant in Springerville 

Arizona, 7th District—Rau ́ l Grijalva 

• Abengoa is constructing its Solana Project, a 280–MW trough CSP plant, in 

Gila Bend 

• First Solar is constructing the 17–MW Paloma Solar thin-film PV plant in 

Gila Bend 

• Solon is constructing the Cotton Center, a 17–MW PV plant in Gila Bend 

California, 4th District—Rep. Tom McClintock 

• SunEdison, a global solar developer, has an office in McClellan 

• SolarRoofs.com, a solar water heating and cooling manufacturing company, is 

headquartered in Carmichael 

• United Natural Foods is installing a 1.19 MW solar PV array on its roof in 

Rocklin 


66728.005.eps
43 

California, 10th District—Rep. John Garamendi 

• SolarBOS, a designer and manufacturer of electrical ‘‘Balance of System’’ 

products for the solar industry is based in Livermore 

• Amerimade, also based in Livermore, manufactures a variety of PV systems 

and parts 

California, 19th District—Rep. Jeff Denham 

• 10 companies in California’s 19th Congressional district are creating solar 

jobs 

• MRL Industries, Inc. manufactures solar industry-related heating products 

and services in its Sonora factory 

California, 20th District—Rep. Jim Costa 

• Cleantech America Inc.’s CalRENEW–1 5–MW Thin-Film PV Project in 

Mendota is online 

• There are 1,053 companies creating solar jobs in California 

California, 38th District—Rep. Grace Napolitano 

• The Los Angeles Unified School District is partnering with SunPower Corporation to install a 1 MW solar panel array on top of its General Stores 

Warehouse in Pico Rivera 

Colorado, 3rd District—Rep. Scott Tipton 

• SunPower’s Greater Sandhill Solar Plant, a 19–MW PV plant is online in 

Alamosa County 

• SunEdison’s Alamosa PV Solar Plant, an 8–MW PV plant is operational 

• SunPower and Iberdola are constructing the 30–MW PV San Luis Valley 

Solar Ranch in Alamosa County 

Colorado, 5th District—Rep. Doug Lamborn 

• Three Phases/Green Rock Capital built a 2–MV PV plant on Fort Collins 

Army Base 

• Diamond Wire Material Technologies, a diamond wire cutting technology 

manufacturer serving the global solar industry, is headquartered in Colorado 

Springs 

Colorado, 6th District—Rep. Mike Coffman 

• Douglas County School System began construction this year on a 3.1–MW 

solar system 

• ProtoFlex Corporation, a thin film coating manufacturer is headquartered in 

Centennial 

Florida, 2nd District—Rep. Steve Southerland II 

• There are 8 companies creating solar jobs in Florida’s second Congressional 

district 

• There are four utility-scale solar power projects online in Florida, two projects 

under construction, and 6 projects under development 

Florida, 25th District—Rep. David Rivera 

• There are 236 companies creating solar jobs in Florida 

• Cuantum Solar America, LLC, a PV module manufacturer, is headquartered 

in Miami 

Georgia, 10th District—Rep. Paul Broun 

• US Battery, a solar battery manufacturing company, has a branch in Augusta 

• The ROOKER company, an industrial real estate firm, is constructing a 115- 

kW PV system 

Hawaii, 1st District—Rep. Colleen Hanabusa 

• Sopogy’s 5–MW concentrating solar power project in Oahu is under construction 

• Hoku Corporation, headquartered in Honolulu, manufactures solar grade 

polysilicon 

Idaho, 1st District—Rep. Rau ́ l Labrador 

• Voodoo Solar, a residential solar installer, is headquartered in Cocolalla 

Louisiana, 3rd District—Rep. Jeff Landry 

• An AGC Flat Glass Inc commercial glass fabrication facility is in nearby 

Baton Rouge 

44 

Louisiana, 4th District—Rep. John Fleming 

• Another of AGC Flat Glass Inc’s commercial glass fabrication facilities is in 

Opelousas 

Maryland, 1st District—Rep. Andy Harris 

• PowerUp Corporation, a solar PV project distributor, has an office in nearby 

Chase, Maryland 

Maryland, 3rd District—Rep. John Sarbanes 

• Constellation Energy installed a 750-kW PV system on a Millersville government building 

• Constellation Energy installed a 500-kW PV system on Coppin State University’s rooftop 

Massachusetts, 5th District—Rep. Niki Tsongas 

• Rivermoor Energy is constructing a 1–MW PV plant in Haverhill 

Massachusetts, 7th District—Rep. Edward Markey 

• 1366 Technologies in North Lexington is commercializing a new manufacturing process for PV wafers 

• Practical Solar, based in nearby Boston, manufactures and supplies solar 

heliostats 

Michigan, 1st District—Rep. Dan Benishek 

• Phoenix Navigation and Guidance Inc. in Munising is building solar 

turbogenerators 

• SES Flexcharge USA, based in Charlevoix, manufactures custom PV systems 

• The world’s largest manufacturer of polycsrystalline silicon used in solar panels is Hemlock Semiconductor located in the district next door 

Michigan, 5th District—Rep. Dale E. Kildee 

• 79 Michigan companies are creating solar jobs, six are in the fifth Congressional district 

• Mersen USA Ultra Carbon Division, a manufacturer of advanced materials 

and solutions for high temperatures, is based in Bay City 

New Jersey, 3rd District—Rep. Jon Runyan 

• The east coast regional office of SunPower Corporation, a large designer, 

manufacturer and distributor of solar PV panels, is located in nearby Trenton 

• There is one utility-scale solar power plant operating in New Jersey, four 

plants under construction, and seven plants under development 

New Jersey, 6th District—Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. 

• America Capital Energy is constructing 5–MW PV Yardville Solar Farm in 

Hamilton 

• Aston Solar, headquartered in Piscataway, is a solar energy product manufacturer, distributor, system integrator, and services provider 

New Jersey, 12th District—Rep. Rush Holt 

• American Capital Energy and SunEdison are constructing the Trenton Solar 

Farm, a 1 MW ground-mounted PV system in nearby Trenton 

• 201 companies are creating solar jobs in New Jersey; 28 are in the 12th district 

New Mexico, 1st District—Rep. Martin Heinrich 

• First Solar’s 2–MW thin film PV facility in Albuquerque is online 

• 60 companies are creating solar jobs in Arizona; 23 are in the first Congressional district 

• Schott Solar, Inc., a global PV receiver tech manufacturer, is headquartered 

in Albuquerque 

New Mexico, 3rd District—Rep. Ben Ray Luja ́n 

• Chevron’s 1-MW concentrating PV plant is operating in Questa 

• First Solar’s 30–MW thin film PV facility is online in Cimarron 

Ohio, 6th District—Rep. Bill Johnson 

• New Harvest Ventures/Agile Energy are developing the 50–MW PV Turning 

Point Solar Project in Cumberland 

• There are 65 companies creating solar jobs in Ohio, and 3 are in the sixth 

district of Ohio 

45 

Ohio, 13th District—Rep. Betty Sutton 

• Akron Metro Regional Transit Authority’s 480-kW rooftop PV project in 

Akron is online 

• Westlake Metals Company, in North Ridgeville, manufactures metal for solar 

projects 

Oklahoma, 2nd District—Dan Boren 

• 19 companies are creating solar jobs in Oklahoma 

Oregon, 4th District—Rep. Peter DeFazio 

• 94 companies are creating solar jobs in Oregon. Pacific Metal Fabricators, 

LLC, a sheet metal manufacturer for solar power projects, is headquartered 

in Eugene 

• Industrial Finishes and the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company have each installed 

two of the largest PV projects in the Northwest on their Eugene facilities’ 

rooftops 

Pennsylvania, 5th District—Rep. Glenn Thompson 

• 288 companies are creating solar jobs in Pennsylvania, and five are in the 

fifth district 

• There is one utility-scale solar power project online in Pennsylvania, three 

projects under construction and three projects under development 

South Carolina, 3rd District—Rep. Jeff Duncan 

• Ulbrich, in Westminster, supplies copper wire used in solar panels. 

South Dakota, At-Large—Rep. Kristi Noem 

• Ellsworth Air Force Base is installing PV systems through its $7.2 million energy initiative 

Tennessee, 2nd District—Rep. John Duncan, Jr. 

• Efficient Energy of Tennessee built a 1–MW PV Plant in Knox County 

• ATAS, a roof and PV system installer, has an office in Maryville 

Tennessee, 3rd District—Rep. Chuck Fleischmann 

• Wacker Chemical is investing 1.5 billion in a polysilicon manufacturing plant 

near Cleveland. The plant will create 650 jobs. 

• 39 other companies are creating solar jobs in Tennessee 

Texas, 1st District—Rep. Louie Gohmert 

• PowerUp Corporation, a solar PV project distributor, has an office in Tyler 

Texas, 17th District—Rep. Bill Flores 

• Connexa Energy, a renewable products manufacturer/distributer, is in nearby 

Boerne 

• The Cameron Park Zoo in Waco will be installing a 6,000 square foot PV 

panel system 

Utah, 1st District—Rep. Rob Bishop 

• Salt Lake City is one of the Department of Energy’s Solar America Cities 

• Utah has a goal of installing 10 MW of new solar PV power in Salt Lake City 

by 2015 

• Applied Materials, a global provider of equipment, services and software for 

manufacturing PV products has a research, development and manufacturing 

facility in Salt Lake City 

Virginia, 1st District—Rep. Robert Wittman 

• There are 91 companies creating solar jobs in Virginia, and 6 are in the first 

district 

• Infinite Energy Resources, a renewable energy facilities developer, is based 

in Fredericksburg 

Washington, 4th District—Chairman Doc Hastings 

• Infinia Corporation, the manufacturer and supplier for Stirling-based solar 

power generation systems, is headquartered in Kennewick 

• Teanaway Solar Reserve is developing a 75–MW PV project in Cle Elum 

American Samoa, At-Large—Del. Eni Faleomavaega 

• American Samoa has 616 kW of distributed solar operating at 25 government 

and commercial buildings 

46 

Guam, At-Large—Del. Madeleine Bordallo 

• A new 250-kW solar PV system installed at Guam Naval Base will produce 

an estimated 411,000 kWh of renewable power per year, reducing electricity 

costs by $106,050 

Northern Mariana Islands, At-Large—Del. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan 

• 160 SCHOTT 280-watt PV panels are being installed at Southern Saipan 

High School thanks to a grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 

Puerto Rico, At-Large—Resident Commissioner Pedro R. Pierluisi 

• Walmart and SunEdison are building the biggest solar power project in Puerto Rico on five Walmart-owned stores. The program could expand to 23 stores 

over five years. 

Virgin Islands, At-Large—Del. Donna M.C. Christensen 

• The largest solar-powered electricity system in the territory is being installed 

at King Airport in St. Thomas. The PV panel system is expected to generate 

450 kW, supplying 15 percent of the airport’s energy needs. 

ATTACHMENT 3 

SEIA Comments to USFWS on Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance 

May 19, 2011 

Mr. Jerome Ford 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Attn: Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance 

4401 North Fairfax Drive; Mail Stop 4107 

Arlington, VA 22203–1610 

TRANSMITTED VIA E–MAIL 

RE: Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance 

Dear Mr. Ford: 

On behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and its 1,000 members, I would like to express our appreciation for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(USFWS) ongoing efforts to support the deployment of solar energy projects. The 

United States has some of the richest solar resources in the world and we should 

not miss an opportunity to create jobs and generate clean, reliable energy with this 

inexhaustible, domestic resource. USFWS can simultaneously encourage renewable 

energy development and protect eagles and their habitat. SEIA and its members 

would like to meet with USFWS to discuss these critical issues and develop strategies consistent with the dual purpose of protecting wildlife and increasing solar 

power generation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on these guidelines for the 

wind industry. We believe that these guidelines should not apply to the solar industry. We are eager to work with the USFWS to create eagle conservation guidance 

that facilitates solar power project development. 

Best Regards, 

Daniel M. Adamson 

Vice President of Regulatory Affairs 

Contacts 

Katherine Gensler, Solar Energy Industries Association, 

575 7th Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 682–0556 — kgensler@seia.org 

Emily J. Duncan, Solar Energy Industries Association, 

575 7th Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 682–0556 — eduncan@seia.org 

These Guidelines Should Not Be Applied to the Solar Industry 

SEIA appreciates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) efforts to develop 

Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. When developed in collaboration with stakeVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
47 

1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, ‘‘Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance,’’ at p. 8 (Jan. 2011). 

SEIA is also concerned that USFWS may apply this Eagle Guidance to condors and raptors 

generally. 2 16 U.S.C. § 668 (2011). 

holders and narrowly defined to achieve the conservation goal without unnecessary 

or inappropriate burdens on regulated entities, guidance of this nature can be beneficial to all parties. To achieve this goal, however, the Guidance should set forth 

clear standards that will result in improved efficiency for government action, reduced costs and delays to project developers, and clarity on procedures for the involvement of third parties. 

As discussed in these comments, SEIA appreciates the intent of the Guidance to 

achieve these objectives. As currently proposed, the Guidance does not provide an 

effective mechanism for screening out projects affecting eagles and also includes numerous recommended measures that are expensive, burdensome, and unnecessary. 

While the draft Guidance applies to wind project development, SEIA is concerned 

that the Guidance will severely hamper, rather than aid, renewable energy development in general, and may specifically adversely affect solar energy projects now and 

in the future. This is because, as USFWS states, many of the concepts and approaches outlined in this Guidance ‘‘can be readily exported to other situations.’’ 1

Thus, SEIA is concerned that many, if not most, of the costly and burdensome 

guidelines the USFWS is recommending for the wind industry could be applied to 

the solar industry as well. In fact, SEIA has already heard anecdotes from member 

companies that USFWS Field Offices have been applying this wind Guidance to 

their solar power projects. USFWS should ensure that no Regional or Field Offices 

are applying any aspects of this wind Guidance to solar power projects. 

Application of the USFWS Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, formulated in large 

part to address the impacts of wind power facilities, to the solar industry is inappropriate for many reasons. First, the solar industry employs different equipment and 

technologies, and utilizes land differently than the wind industry. Second, the solar 

industry has fundamentally different impacts than other energy industries. Both of 

these factors make it doubtful that solar power plants will directly impact eagles. 

For instance, eagle mortality due to direct strikes into panels or mirrors is extremely unlikely. Indeed, extensive deployment of solar power is a key element of 

the overall effort to address climate change, a phenomenon that threatens both eagles and their habitat. SEIA appreciates that the USFWS is extremely busy and developing guidance can be a lengthy process. However, guidelines that may be applicable to one industry are often inappropriate or impossible to implement for another 

industry. Thus applying the same Guidance to both wind and solar projects is unreasonable. 

SEIA and its members would appreciate the opportunity to meet with USFWS to 

discuss these important issues before a decision is made to develop guidelines that 

would be applied to solar projects. Below are just a few examples of the many concerns that SEIA has with this Guidance. 

USFWS Should Make a Threshold Determination Prior to Applying any 

Guidance 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act states that anyone who ‘‘knowingly, or 

with wanton disregard for the consequences of his act take, possess, sell, purchase, 

barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or 

in any manner any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof’’ may be subject to punishment under the Act.2 As such, USFWS should have to make a threshold determination of a project’s adverse impact on eagles prior to applying any Eagle Guidance 

to a renewable energy project. Without a threshold finding, USFWS has no way of 

knowing whether the proposed Guidance is applicable or appropriate for a given 

project. Moreover, without an initial understanding of a project’s impact, USFWS 

cannot determine whether the Guidance will even be effective at monitoring and 

protecting eagles and their environment. We believe that threshold criteria of this 

nature would make it clear that solar projects are unlikely to affect eagles. In the 

rare situation where some impact could occur, any guidance that would apply to 

solar projects should make it clear that compliance would satisfy all legal requirements for take authorization and absolve the applicant of all liability under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In addition, whether in the draft Guidance 

for wind projects, or guidance for ‘‘other situations’’ the problems discussed below 

that result in excessive cost and delay should be avoided. 

48 

3Guidance at p. 11. 

Pre- and Post-Construction Monitoring Is Unnecessarily Burdensome 

The Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance provides that most wind projects undertake an initial site assessment; perform site-specific surveys; predict initial eagle fatalities; develop and apply advanced conservation practices and compensatory mitigation; and evaluate post-construction impacts. These multiple steps are extremely 

expensive and burdensome and most of this cost would be expended at the outset 

of a project’s timeline, requiring developers to spend significant money with little 

or no confidence that USFWS will issue a take permit. In addition, this Guidance 

would further extend an already extremely long permitting process for renewable 

projects by requiring three years of pre-construction studies and two to five years 

of post-construction studies for each project, a regulatory burden faced by no other 

industry. Costly and lengthy monitoring should only be required in situations where 

the facts dictate. 

Furthermore, USFWS expects all projects, regardless of their size or their category, to undertake the pre- and post-construction monitoring. Thus, a small renewable energy project would be required to perform the same initial site assessment 

as a much larger utility-scale renewable power plant. Also, a ‘‘category 3’’ project 

that is defined as posing minimal risk to eagles would still have to pay for and conduct the same pre-construction and post-construction surveys as a category 1 or 2 

project that poses a high or moderate risk to the eagle population. Pre- and postconstruction monitoring and surveying should be tailored to the size and characteristics of a project and should be implemented only for those projects that could seriously harm the eagle population. 

Finally, as USFWS has acknowledged, ‘‘effects [of energy facilities on eagles] and 

how to address them at this time is limited.’’ 3 Thus, it is unclear whether these 

multiple studies and surveys would be effective or provide a scientifically accurate 

picture of the proposed energy installation’s impact on eagles. As such, this Guidance and the costly and burdensome steps therein should be applied only after the 

USFWS has made a threshold determination that the application of the Guidance 

is necessary. SEIA is eager to work together with USFWS and other interested parties to develop the specifics of such a threshold determination. Establishing a reasonable threshold for application of the Guidance will focus the efforts of USFWS, 

the renewable industry and others on areas where significant impacts may occur. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next I recognize Mr. DeRosa, Senior Vice President for North American Project Development, First Solar, Inc. You 

are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. DeRosa. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK DeROSA, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

FIRST SOLAR, INC. 

Mr. DEROSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Markey 

and members of the Committee. I am Frank DeRosa, Senior Vice 

President for Project Development for First Solar. Our mission is 

to deliver clean, affordable and sustainable energy. We developed 

the technology here in the United States that has made us one of 

the largest photovoltaic manufacturers and developers of solar 

energy in the world. We are headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, and 

manufacture panels in Perrysburg, Ohio. We will soon begin construction on a second manufacturing facility in Mesa, Arizona, that 

will employ 600 employees. We have 2,400 megawatts of power 

under contract with electric utilities in the United States. That is 

the equivalent capacity of almost three nuclear power plants. 

Solar energy generated by First Solar technology keeps energy 

dollars here in the United States by using American technology 

and equipment built by American workers, and, of course, there is 

no imported fuel. We have three large solar projects in advanced 

development on BLM land as well as projects on private land. 

49 

The Committee asked about roadblocks, but I would like to start 

with a few successes first. Congress, DOI and BLM have adopted 

policies over the last few years that are expediting permitting for 

solar. First Solar’s 50-megawatt project in Primm, Nevada, is a 

good example. The BLM Las Vegas office permitted this project, devoted resources and qualified staff. I want to point out the work of 

one staff person, Greg Helseth, who kept this project on schedule, 

and as a result, we are now mobilizing to start construction of this 

project, and it will be the first solar project to operate on BLM 

land. 

But I need to raise two critical issues. The first is the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement process that is being 

run by the BLM, and the second is the impact on private—development on private land regarding endangered species. My written 

statement includes some other provisions that—other issues that I 

won’t go into here. 

In March 2011, BLM released the PEIS for public comment. It 

lists solar energy zones that could receive expedited environmental 

review. The preferred alternative encourages development in the 

zones, but allows development outside the zones. And that is critically important to us. Not restricting development to just the solar 

energy zones, which only comprise less than 1 percent of Federal 

land, is important because many projects, some of ours, have been 

in development well before the PEIS process started. 

So we urge the BLM to, first of all, revisit the zones; to look at 

not only land compatibility, but technical and commercial feasibility of these projects, things like electric transmission access and 

the locational objectives of utilities. The second is to adopt a policy 

that allows development outside of these solar energy zones. And 

the third is to grandfather projects that are in advanced development, but are outside of these zones. One of our projects is an example of that as well. It was not included in the solar energy 

zones, but it has a power purchase agreement, and it has a position 

on the transmission queue. In other words, it is commercially viable and in a location that the utilities want. 

My second point concerns the impediment on private land of 

projects that have to receive permits because of endangered species 

concern. There is an inconsistency between basically a prudent review schedule on Federal lands versus the 4 to 6 years that it takes 

on private lands, and we would ask the Committee to address this 

inconsistency and have one policy for both processes. 

With that, I thank you for your time, and I will address any 

questions at the right time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. DeRosa, for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeRosa follows:] 

Statement of Frank De Rosa, Senior Vice President, 

Project Development, North America, First Solar 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. 

Introduction and FS Background 

I am Frank De Rosa, First Solar Senior Vice President for North American Project 

Development. Our mission is to deliver clean, affordable and sustainable energy. We 

developed the technology here in the U.S. that has made us one of the largest photovoltaic (PV) panel manufacturers and developers of solar energy in the world. 

50 

We are headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, and manufacture solar modules in 

Perrysburg, Ohio. We will soon begin constructing a second U.S. manufacturing facility in Mesa, Arizona that will employ 600 people, which will bring our U.S. employment to over 2,000 employees. This is part of a global workforce of approximately 7,000. We are a net U.S. exporter of our solar energy modules. 

Solar energy generated by First Solar’s technology keeps dollars here in the U.S. 

by using American technology, equipment built by U.S. workers, and the ‘‘fuel’’ from 

the sun. Jobs are created and dollars stay in our economy. 

First Solar has three large solar projects in advanced development on BLM land. 

Achievements 

The Committee asked about roadblocks, but I would like to start with some suc- cesses. Congress, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Land Management 

have adopted policies over the last few years that are expediting permitting, removing obstacles, and streamlining interagency coordination, without sacrificing thoroughness. 

First Solar’s 50 megawatt Silver State North Project in Primm, Nevada is a good 

example. BLM’s Las Vegas field office dedicated qualified staff and resources to the 

project. Greg Helseth, in particular, kept the project on schedule. We are mobilizing 

our crew to start construction for this project which is the first solar project on federal land in Nevada. 

BLM took another significant step in April to support solar development on public 

lands with its rule proposing to allow the temporary segregation of lands in a pending or future solar generation right of way (ROW) application. This much needed 

rule will prevent the use of specious and speculative mining claims to slow down 

or prevent the development of solar energy projects on public lands. 

Areas of Concern 

But I’ll raise two primary areas of concern as well as several areas of regulatory 

oversight that require continued consultation with industry. Of primary concern, the 

BLM’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for solar energy development, or PEIS, and the impact of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on solar development on private lands. 

PEIS 

In March 2011, BLM released the PEIS for public comment. It lists ‘‘Solar Energy 

Zones’’ that could receive expedited environmental review. The ‘‘preferred alternative’’ of the PEIS encourages development in the Zones but does not prohibit development in other BLM areas. Not restricting development to just the Solar Energy 

Zones (which comprise less than 1% of the land under federal management) is important because there are many projects that began development well before BLM 

instituted its PEIS process. Plus, it is not clear how many of the Zones have all of 

the necessary attributes for a successful project, such as transmission capacity. 

We strongly urge the BLM to: 

1. Revisit the Zones not for just land use compatibility but for technical and 

economic feasibility of solar development, with particular attention to factors 

such as proximity to transmission and the needs of the local electric utility 

buyer; 

2. Adopt a policy that allows development outside the Solar Energy Zones. Such 

development would still be subject to the stringent requirements of NEPA, 

so environmental oversight will be maintained. 

3. Grandfather existing projects that are in advanced development. For example, First Solar’s Silver State South Project was not included in a Zone but 

has a Power Purchase Agreement and a transmission interconnection position. 

Businesses require a predictable, transparent set of rules when making multihundred-million dollar decisions. The BLM must not undermine viable, near term 

projects that were sited several years ago and remain subject to rigorous scrutiny 

under NEPA. 

Endangered Species Act 

I would also like to address a second federal policy issue that seriously impedes 

development of utility-scale solar projects on private land. If a proposed solar project 

on private land has the potential to adversely affect a listed (endangered) species 

or critical habitat, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service requires the solar developer to 

prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the Service preparing a Biological 

Opinion and issuing an Incidental Take Permit. Unfortunately, for projects with no 

Federal nexus (Federal funding, license or permit) under the current process it can 

51 

take from three to five years to receive the required permits versus four to six 

months to complete the permitting process for either projects on Federal land or 

with a Federal nexus. As a result, projects with no Federal nexus are typically abandoned or not undertaken at all. 

In order to encourage solar development on private land, we recommend an approach that provides similar review timelines as followed for projects with a Federal 

nexus. One way to harmonize deadlines for preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan, 

Biological Opinion and issuance of an Incidental Take Permit would be to give the 

Service authority to enter into cost reimbursement agreements to augment its staff 

who review solar projects. Cost reimbursement agreements would allow the Service 

to hire third party resources to work under its direction to prepare the Habitat Conservation Plan and could also include provisions to augment funding for preparation 

of the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Permit. Congress previously authorized BLM to enter into cost reimbursement agreements under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This authority has been very successful in improving the 

processing of BLM right of way grants. 

Finally, I recommend that the Committee consider a recommendation put forth 

by Senator Feinstein that Secretary Salazar establish a group of Service staff dedicated to permitting renewable energy projects on private land. 

Stakeholder Engagement 

Before concluding, I would like to make an observation related to stakeholder engagement by the BLM and the Service. Whether the topic is solar zones, solar rental 

policy, mitigation fees, reclamation bonding or a host of other regulated areas, the 

industry should be brought to the table as early as possible in the development of 

rules and regulations the impact solar development. The track record on early engagement in the rulemaking process is mixed, but we believe that improving transparency and predictability in the regulatory process should be a goal we work toward together. 

Several recently released policies illustrate why industry involvement in the formation of guidance documents and policies applicable to solar projects is absolutely 

critical. The reclamation bonding policy released by BLM in October, 2010 provides 

an example. 

The bonding policy requires the solar industry to comply with many of the bonding requirements designed for mining projects even though they are not directly application to solar development. For example, provisions to address mine clean-up 

when mines are abandoned because they are no longer profitable. Solar projects are 

secured over their lifetime by a valuable power purchase agreement and constructed 

using recyclable materials that have recognized reclamation value. If the solar industry had been involved earlier in the development of the bonding policy, we believe we could have created a better policy that offered a broader set of bond instruments and required more reasonable bond amounts. 

We would welcome the opportunity to review the bond instruments currently accepted by BLM and expand the policy to include financial assurance mechanisms 

that are accepted for decommissioning other types of industrial projects. 

The Solar Energy Interim Rental Policy issued by BLM on June 10, 2010 was 

likewise developed without sufficient industry involvement. The rents established by 

the policy appear to have been based largely on the value of irrigated agricultural 

lands, which have a higher value than the non-irrigated lands on which most 

projects are proposed. Inflated rents are obviously an obstacle to development. Additionally, to the extent that rents on BLM lands are higher than rents on similar 

private lands, the rental policy may inflate the costs of mitigating project impacts 

on special-status species as the value of private lands will increase. 

As a final example, BLM’s 2010 memorandum on golden eagle protection measures for renewable energy projects could have also benefited from industry involvement in its development. The policy requires the Service’s approval of an Aviation 

Protection Plan as a precondition to the issuance of a Record of Decision and places 

no conditions on the rationale of the Service in the event that it decides to reject 

such plans. Given that the rejection of a plan can result in a requirement to redesign the site late in the project approval process, the Service’s unfettered discretion 

on this topic creates significant uncertainty for developers. 

Some of this uncertainty should soon be resolved. BLM’s golden eagle policy is a 

temporary measure and will be replaced when the Service establishes criteria for 

programmatic golden eagle take permits. The Service recently issued Draft Eagle 

Conservation Plan Guidance for wind projects, which is expected to serve as a model 

for programmatic golden eagle take permits in other contexts. We look forward to 

working with the Service when it turns to the development of eagle conservation 

guidance for solar projects because the protection measures needed at wind farms, 

52 

where even temporary contact with the facility operations could result in a take, are 

not necessarily required for utility scale solar projects. If structured correctly, these 

proceedings could serve as a model for how to engage industry stakeholders in other 

policy-making proceedings. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. To summarize: • We appreciate DOI’s and BLM’s commitment to opening federal lands to 

American renewable energy supplies that will reduce imports and create jobs. 

We applaud their progress. • We urge BLM not to restrict solar development to specified Solar Energy 

Zones and to recognize the considerable effort and expense that companies 

have invested in existing projects. • We ask the Committee to address the inconsistency in the treatment of private lands with and without a federal nexus. • We look forward to partnering with Congress, the Department of the Interior 

and related agencies as solar policies evolve to meet the needs of a growing 

industry. 

I ask that my written testimony and a copy of Fist Solar’s formal response to the 

PEIS be added to the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. And now Dr. Piszczalski. And if you can state 

your name so we will all know the correct way in case we run 

across you again someplace. 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. It is pronounced Piszczalski. So it doesn’t look 

as daunting as it is. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you 

very much. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN PISZCZALSKI, INDUSTRY ANALYST, 

SEXTANT RESEARCH 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. Thank you, Chairman Hastings and the full 

Committee. Again, my name is Martin Piszczalski, and I am an industry analyst with Sextant Research. I will be giving you a perspective of how the industry is, I believe, leading to a rather disappointing performance. 

If we look at the number of agencies involved, and look at the 

number of regulatory issues that they are—over land use, habitat 

disturbance and so forth, that it makes it overwhelming for the developers to move forward in many respects. And before I go too 

much farther, I would like to point out that of the 60 Federal and 

State agencies that regulate renewable energy, I have not encountered officials that are obstructionists. Indeed they are advocates of 

renewable energy. But let us look at what they are facing. 

For a single renewable energy project, there can be 30 agencies 

over that 1 project, and these 30 agencies, the lineup changes if 

you go to another site. There is not a standard uniform process, sequences and so forth, that these agencies do. Consequently, developers are surprised, caught off guard and hitting these uncertainties. 

For instance, imagine how many permits and approvals you believe are necessary for one project. We can see right now we are 

hitting 100 permits per project, and the number is going up. Let 

us say the developer anticipates 50 of these permits. I think they 

would be doing a pretty good job. That means they did not anticipate another 50. These lead to delays. If a delay is only 2 weeks, 

multiply that times 50, and you have a project that is a couple of 

years behind schedule. 

53 

Unfortunately officials are not terribly sensitive to the delay 

issue. Nevertheless, the time value of money is very significant. In 

the early stages this is high-risk money. In the later stages we 

have debt service levels for the term, for the construction loans. 

And consequently, we have companies that are reeling under the 

financial burden. 

Can I have the next slide, please? 

This shows BLM’s timeline internally for the many permits and 

approvals that BLM alone requires. I would like to applaud BLM 

for even providing developers with this timeline chart. Most agencies, you are pretty much on your own. You are even on your own 

to determine which agencies you have to get in the mix. 

Could I have the next slide, please? 

Consequently, the developer is scaling a mountain of regulatory 

hurdles that are vague, contradictory, uncertain and ambiguous. 

If I could have the next slide, too, please. 

Earlier this month, we heard Director Abbey stress that the BLM 

is not denying projects. And he said, we just delay them. And as 

I indicated here, delays don’t kill the project, they kill the company. 

An example of this would be the solar that ran out of money. So 

we have projects that have one owner after another owner, and unfortunately the new owner might not be able to take advantage of 

the previous permitting work, and then the clock starts over again. 

I would like to just kind of move forward in terms of what would 

a good regulation look like where it completes all permitting in just 

18 months. So not just BLM. Remember, if we have 100 approvals, 

all of them must be approved, or you might as well not have any 

of them approved. So let us get all permitting approved in 18 

months. We protect the environment. We have what I will call a 

deterministic transparent finish line. We know what permits we 

need. If we do those steps, we will get our permits, and we will operate. 

And last, we don’t need an army of lawyers, and court time is 

routine for those companies in our industry. And I hope that you 

can see, looking at the scope of the problem, that we need something that will massively simplify the overall process. And I would 

be happy to go into what some of those solutions might be through 

your questions. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate the honor to be here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Piszczalski. I will get 

it right here. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Piszczalski follows:] 

54 

Dr. Martin Piszczalski 

Industry Analyst 

Sextant Research 

Testimony on ‘‘American Energy Initiative: Identifying Roadblocks to Wind 

and Solar Energy on Public Lands and Waters, Part II—The Wind and 

Solar Industry Perspective’’ 

June 1, 2011 


66728.006.eps
55 

Exhibit 3, Which Agencies Participate? Some Factors 

• Geographical location of project (which state, county. . .) 

• Owner(s) of the resources (Federal, private, State, tribal,. . .) 

Æ Which Federal agency is owner? 

• Specific owner for each right: mineral, surface, and water at the site 

• Agency funding the development 

• Particular technology 

• Cultural, Native-American issues 

• Endangered, threatened species 

• For geothermal: depth of well, water temperatures, resource chemistry 

• Power plant size 


66728.007.eps
56 

• Etc. 

Source: Martin Piszczalski, (734) 657.0018 Martin@sextantresearch.com 

Exhibit 5 ‘Permitting Risk,’ A Definition 

I define ‘‘permitting risk’’ as all things that unexpectedly delay getting approval. 

From a developer perspective these include all the unexpected i.e., after the project 

is well underway: 

• new study ordered 

• new set of regulations that must be met 

• a new form or application that must be submitted 


66728.008.eps
57 

• unexpected mitigation • A regulatory requirement takes much longer than planned or expected • another agency that must give an approval (i.e., an agency which the developer had not known was part of the process) • learning that the submitted application is incomplete • uncertain if agency has regulatory authority to issue permit/approval (hence, 

agency may not act) • discovering that the expected process, procedure or sequence is different than 

what is actually required by an agency • learning that one agency’s approval is contingent on the action/approval of 

another agency • surprised by new stakeholders that previously had not been identified • a citizen court challenge either to the developer or challenging one of the regulatory agencies • miscalculating the time, effort, cost to secure approval 

In the most severe form, permitting risk is getting denied the necessary approval(s). Alternately, it could have approval contingent on conditions so onerous 

that they knock the project out from being commercially viable. 

My definition of ‘‘permitting risk’’ is not intended to blame anyone. Rather permitting risks are mainly delays. They negatively impact financing. They impact the 

time value of money and greatly increase debt service costs. Some developers have 

a ‘‘burn rate’’ alone of $2 million/month. 

Considering that one project was recently cited as requiring 100 permits and approvals, it should be easy to see how multiple delays occurred, that cumulatively 

added years to the project. Those delays add millions of dollars to project costs. For 

instance, Bronicki of Ormat said a geothermal project takes ‘‘6 or more years & half 

of that is taken up in permitting.’’ 

Source: Martin Piszczalski (734) 657.0018 martin@sextantrearch.com Martin 

Piszczalski© 2011 

The CHAIRMAN. Our final witness on this panel is Mr. Reicher, 

who is with the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAN W. REICHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

STEYER-TAYLOR CENTER FOR ENERGY POLICY AND 

FINANCE, STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

Mr. REICHER. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey and 

members of the Committee, I am Dan Reicher, Director of Stanford 

University’s Steyer-Taylor Center and a faculty member of the 

Stanford Law and Business Schools. Prior to Stanford, I was Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives at Google, had senior 

roles in energy technology at investment firms, and had served as 

Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy at DOE. 

In my written statement, I review the many obstacles to a longsought goal: the successful deployment of renewable energy at 

large scale and reasonable cost. Let me emphasize that siting 

renewable energy projects on public lands, the focus of today’s 

hearing, is an obstacle to large-scale renewable energy deployment, 

but it is a relatively modest one that to a large extent Secretaries 

Salazar and Vilsack are effectively addressing. 

What I worry about more than siting renewable energy projects 

on public lands is successfully navigating the complicated road that 

takes the renewable energy technology from the first gleam in a 

scientist’s eye all the way to the routine construction of hundreds 

of full-scale commercial plants on all kinds of lands, private and 

public. In this regard, I am concerned that we are increasingly getting beaten by the EU and Asia, particularly China. Thus, while 

58 

in 2004 the U.S. had approximately 20 percent of total global clean 

energy investment and China just 3 percent, in 2010 China had 20 

percent of that investment and the U.S. 19 percent, with this gap 

widening rapidly. 

And, Mr. Chairman, the stakes are enormous, with the International Energy Agency forecasting that over $5.7 trillion will be 

invested in renewable energy globally over the next two decades. 

2010 alone saw more than $127 billion in renewable energy project 

financing. Unfortunately, it is looking less and less likely that investment will be here in the U.S. As one investor recently put it, 

we are not only seeing companies start here in the U.S. And then 

move overseas, but we are increasingly seeing companies start 

overseas and stay overseas. 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to take stock of the major obstacles we face in our Nation’s regaining its lead in renewable energy. Siting renewable energy projects on Federal lands is worth a 

look, but if that is where you stop, you will be seriously shortchanging U.S. national security, competitiveness, and environmental protection. 

My written statement highlights four critical obstacles. The first 

is inadequate R&D funding. The good news is that the U.S. has led 

the world over the last several decades in energy R&D. The bad 

news is that Federal R&D spending in Fiscal Year 2008 accounted 

for just 2.6 percent of total Federal nondefense R&D spending, a 

tenfold decline from its peak of approximately 25 percent in 1980. 

R&D spending has increased modestly since then, but we still have 

a long way to go to where our government is investing adequately. 

To make things worse, U.S. energy companies currently spend little 

on R&D compared with many other industry sectors, while our 

competitors ramp up their spending aggressively. 

The second obstacle is technology demonstration, where small, 

generally underfunded startup companies work to move a technology out of the lab to a point where it is ready for initial commercialization. The good news is that clean tech venture capital investors are spending billions each year to make this happen. The bad 

news is these startups often have a difficult time breaking into 

markets dominated by large utilities and regulated by public utility 

commissions. 

The third obstacle and probably the biggest is commercialization. 

It involves crossing the colorfully but accurately named ‘‘Valley of 

Death,’’ where companies, having demonstrated that a technology 

works in a pilot plant, now have to prove that it works at full commercial size. 

In the energy investment firm where I worked, I first peered into 

the Valley of Death, seeing there the remains of many abandoned 

energy projects that died trying to get to commercial scale. We and 

most other firms simply couldn’t shoulder the investment risk in 

the scale-up of an energy technology where a single project can cost 

hundreds of millions, or, in the case of nuclear plants, even billions 

of dollars. In the end we made our biggest investment in corn ethanol plans, well proven for decades at large commercial scale. 

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has helped 

to bridge the Valley of Death, having issued as of May commitments to 27 projects representing nearly $30 billion in financing. 

59 

This is a good program, but it is subject to annual appropriation 

and therefore lacks the certainty the financial community needs to 

commit to long-term investment in higher-risk projects. 

Far better is the bipartisan proposal to create a Clean Energy 

Deployment Administration, or CEDA, that would have an array of 

financial tools to accelerate private-sector investment. Funded with 

$10 billion, CEDA could become a self-sustaining entity, that is no 

additional appropriations, based on its authority to take financial 

stakes in projects. And while CEDA would nominally sit within 

DOE, it would enjoy significant independence with its own Administrator and Board of Directors. 

The Senate Energy Committee adopted CEDA in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis with broad support, including the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce, The Nuclear Energy Institute and renewable energy trade groups, and the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee added a version of CEDA to the Waxman-Markey bill 

by a 51-6 vote. 

The final obstacle is cost competitiveness, where technology has 

been proven to work at commercial scale, but where it often can’t 

yet fully compete with traditional technologies. This is where Federal tax incentives come in. Unfortunately, these incentives have 

often been available for only short periods of time, causing a boomand-bust cycle. Of particular concern today is the incentive for 

wind that will expire in 2012 unless extended. And even where 

these incentives are in place, companies often can’t use them if 

they lack taxable income. Congress created an effective alternative 

providing companies with a cash grants in lieu of a tax credit, but 

this program will expire in December unless extended. 

In closing, I spent the last 4 years at Google. Coming from the 

energy sector, I was struck by how R&D, investment and policy 

come together so effectively to build an entirely new industry, the 

Internet. We must take a similarly coordinated approach between 

the private sector and the government to seize the opportunity in 

clean energy. While siting projects on public lands needs some attention, it is the other—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Director, I have to ask you to summarize and 

close, if you wouldn’t mind. 

Mr. REICHER. Just one sentence. If we don’t get our act together, 

countries like China and Germany will be the winner of this marathon with a prize worth literally trillions of dollars and millions of 

jobs hanging in the balance. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reicher follows:] 

Statement of Dan W. Reicher, Executive Director, Steyer-Taylor Center for 

Energy Policy & Finance at Stanford University, and Professor, Stanford 

Law School, Lecturer, Stanford Graduate School of Business 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Markey, and members of the committee, my 

name is Dan Reicher and I am pleased to share my perspective on obstacles to renewable energy deployment on public lands. I am Director of Stanford University’s 

Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance and a faculty member of the 

Stanford Law School and the Graduate School of Business. I also chair the board 

of directors of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) and serve on 

the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems of the National Academy of 

Sciences and the board of directors of the American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE). 

60 

Prior to my role at Stanford, I was Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives at Google. Prior to Google, I was Co-Founder and President of New Energy 

Capital, a private equity firm that invests in clean energy projects and Executive 

Vice President of Northern Power Systems, a venture capital-backed renewable energy company. 

Prior to my roles in the private sector, I served in the Clinton Administration as 

Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy, and Department of Energy Chief of 

Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff. Earlier in my career I was a staff member of President Carter’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island and an Assistant 

Attorney General in Massachusetts. 

In my testimony I will review the many obstacles to a long-sought goal: the successful deployment of renewable energy at large scale and reasonable cost in our 

country, with all the resulting economic, security and environmental benefits. Let 

me emphasize that siting renewable energy projects on public lands—the focus of 

this particular hearing—is indeed an obstacle to large-scale renewable energy deployment. But it is a relatively modest one and an obstacle that, to a large extent, 

the Department of the Interior under Secretary Salazar and the Department of Agriculture under Secretary Vilsack are effectively addressing. 

What I worry more about more than siting renewable energy projects on public 

lands is successfully navigating the long and complicated road that takes a renewable energy technology from the first gleam in a scientist’s eye and an early pilot 

project all the way to the routine construction and operation of hundreds of fullscale commercial plants with low-cost financing and good paying jobs on all kinds 

of land—private and public. And in this regard I am concerned that we are increasingly getting beaten in the race down this road by the European Union and Asia, 

in particular China. Thus, while in 2004 the U.S. was the focus of approximately 

20% of total global clean energy investment and China accounted for just 3%, in 

2010, China saw 20% of that investment and the U.S. 19%—and this investment 

gap is widening rapidly. 

And Mr. Chairman, the stakes are very large. The International Energy Agency forecasts that over $5.7 trillion will be invested in renewable energy globally over the next two decades. 2010 alone saw over $127 billion invested globally in renewable energy project financing. Unfortunately, it is looking less and less likely that 

investment will be here in the U.S. As Will Coleman, a venture capital investor in 

clean energy companies, said in a recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee hearing: ‘‘We are not only seeing companies start here in the U.S. and 

then move overseas, but we are increasingly seeing companies start overseas and stay 

overseas.’’ And as we cede our competitiveness in renewable energy we are also losing the national security benefits that come with their development and deployment 

in our nation. As U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Ret’d Dennis McGinn told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence last December: 

[W]ithout comprehensive clean energy legislation, market enhancing policies and decisive action by our nation, fierce global competition, instability 

and conflict over dwindling supplies of fossil fuels and increasing global 

warming will be a major part of the future strategic landscape. Moving expeditiously toward clean and sustainable energy choices can greatly lessen 

that danger, improve global and national economic security and help us to 

confront the seriously growing challenges of global climate change and energy insecurity. 

I would note that Admiral McGinn recently became President and CEO of the 

American Council on Renewable Energy. 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to take a walk down this road to get a real 

sense about what it will take to put the U.S. back in the leadership position it once 

had in renewable energy. There is some merit in taking a look at renewable energy 

siting issues on federal lands and waters—the focus of this hearing—but if that is 

where you begin and end you will be seriously short-changing U.S. national security, 

competitiveness, job creation, and environmental protection. And as you look at renewable energy development on public lands and waters, let me make a critical 

point: deployed significantly and well, renewable energy technologies can actually 

be central to protecting these important public resources from the impacts of climate 

change such as habitat loss and species decline. Put simply, addressing climate 

change—through careful but significant development of zero carbon renewable energy sources on public lands and waters—offers a new strategy for stewardship of 

these public resources. 

Mr. Chairman, your May 13 hearing on the subject we are addressing today saw 

several committee members and witnesses emphasize that the real problem for renewable energy development is not so much Interior Department permitting—which 

61 

is being improved—but instead obstacles to getting a renewable energy project built 

and operating like a power purchase agreement, adequate financing, the availability 

of transmission, and reliable tax incentives. I would echo this conclusion The testimony that follows explores these and other obstacles to the successful deployment 

of renewable energy at large scale and low cost including inadequate R&D funding 

and the serious challenges of technology demonstration, commercialization, and cost 

competitiveness. I conclude by providing my perspective on the siting of renewable 

energy projects—solar, wind, and geothermal—on public lands and waters. 

1. Obstacle: Inadequate Funding of Research and Development 

The first step on the road to the successful deployment of renewable energy at 

large scale and low cost begins with research and development: a scientist or engineer pushing the boundaries of an existing technology, inventing an entirely new 

one, or advancing the basic science which underlies both. R&D funding by the U.S. 

government has played a pivotal role in energy technology innovation for decades, 

probably more than any other single source globally. As a 2010 National Academy 

of Sciences (NAS) Study concluded, ‘‘[f]ederally funded basic R&D provides the 

starting point for many (if not most) significant energy-related innovations, and federally funded assistance for technology development often is the catalyst for turning 

technological innovations into practical products that are sought in the marketplace.’’ With these practical cost-effective clean energy products come many benefits 

starting with significant job creation. They can also greatly reduce the price needed 

to control carbon emissions. And they can enhance national security by cutting dependence on foreign oil. 

The good news is that U.S. has led the world over the last several decades in 

basic and applied research—both public and private—leading to major progress in 

a broad array of renewable energy technologies from solar, wind and hydropower 

to geothermal and biomass. The bad news is that more recently we have been increasingly starving U.S. federal energy R&D, while private sector energy R&D funding has also been declining. Measured in multiple ways we have a seen dramatic 

overall reduction in the federal commitment to energy R&D funding. The 2010 NAS 

study found that measured across different key research areas, federal R&D spending on energy in FY 2008 was approximately one-twentieth federal R&D spending 

on health, one-sixth of federal R&D spending on space, and one-fifth of federal R&D 

spending on general science. Compared across time, the study found that energy 

R&D spending in FY 2008 accounted for approximately 2.6 percent of total federal 

(nondefense) R&D spending, a 10-fold decline from its peak of approximately 25 percent in FY 1980. 

In 2008, total U.S. RD&D spending on low-carbon energy technologies amounted 

to less than $2.5 billion, with just $500 million assigned to R&D for renewables. In 

contrast, the National Institute of Health (NIH) received federal R&D funding worth 

close to $30 billion. Over the past fifty years, such generous funding for innovation 

in the health sector has created vast economic growth and jobs, ensuring U.S. global 

leadership in related technologies. It is time the energy sector followed this example. 

Compared internationally, the NAS study found that U.S. spending on energy 

R&D as a share of GDP is considerably lower than that of several other leading industrialized countries. As an example, since 1990, Japan’s energy R&D spending as 

a share of its GDP has remained at about 0.08 to 0.10 percent. In contrast, U.S. 

spending as a share of GDP continued to fall until about 1997, eventually leveling 

off at between 0.02 and 0.03 percent. It is worth noting that, from 1992 to 2007, 

Japanese government spending on energy R&D also exceeded U.S. federal spending 

on an absolute basis, even though Japan’s GDP is about one third that of the United 

States. And the big new player on the block is China where in just the last couple 

of years government energy R&D funding has not only surged but U.S. companies 

are opening new research facilities. As an example, the Applied Materials Corporation, the world’s largest supplier of the equipment used to make semiconductors, 

solar panels, and flat-panel displays, recently opened its newest and largest research lab in China. 

All of this suggests that energy R&D is less of a national priority in the United 

States than in other industrialized nations. And while the 2009 American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act provided a significant one-time increase in federal energy 

R&D expenditures, this is simply not the kind of sustained change in federal R&D 

spending that would indicate advanced energy technologies to be a high national 

priority. President Obama’s recently released budget request for FY 2012 would provide $3.2 billion for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a 44% 

increase over Fiscal Year 2010 and, within that, $1.1 billion for renewable energy 

programs, an increase of about $430 million over FY 2010. It would also provide significant funding for the offices of electricity, fossil energy and nuclear energy. If enVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
62 

acted, this budget would provide a significant increase in total spending in DOE energy programs—to about $5.5B—at a time of fiscal austerity but, as emphasized 

above, the potential returns from energy R&D are very large. And by comparison 

with federal R&D spending in other areas this spending level would still be relatively modest. The American Energy Innovation Council, a group of current and 

former CEO’s from major American companies like GE, Lockheed Martin and Microsoft recently recommended that federal energy R&D spending should be increased 

to something on the order of $16 billion. 

One particularly deserving recipient of federal R&D funding is the recently created Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E). DOE’s ARPA–E has the 

potential to mirror the success of DARPA, within the Department of Defense. Designed to pursue an entrepreneurial approach to energy R&D, ARPA–E focuses on 

‘‘out-of-the-box’’ transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or 

will not support due to its high risk but where success would provide dramatic national benefits. Without adequate federal funding, however, the institutional promise of ARPA–E will not be realized. At present, ARPA–E is significantly underfunded, with current budget allocation under the recently passed Continuing Resolution of $180 million. This represents about 0.6% of NIH’s annual funding and 6% 

of DARPA’s annual budget. As a result, in its first year of operation, ARPA–E was 

able to support only 37 of the 3,700 proposals it received. President Obama has requested $550 million in the FY12 budget for ARPA–E. 

In addition to public sector funding of energy R&D, transforming the U.S. energy 

sector to be more secure, competitive, and clean will also require a significant increase in private sector R&D. Compared with other U.S. industries, the U.S. energy 

sector currently spends very little on R&D as a ratio of sales, a standard measure. 

The NAS report, cited above, concluded: ‘‘Private-sector funding of energy-related 

R&D is also critical for achieving the innovations needed to reduce GHG emissions 

on a large scale. Here too, however, the current picture for U.S. industries appears 

rather bleak.’’ 

Data suggest that the current rate of R&D spending by U.S. energy industries is 

far below that of other industries. In 2006–2007, R&D spending for all U.S.-based 

companies in the top 1,400 global R&D performers was 4.5 percent of sales, while 

firms in 11 research-intensive U.S. industries spent an average of 6.5 percent. Three 

industries showed especially high percentages: pharmaceuticals and biotechnology 

(16.7 percent), software and computer services (10.6 percent), and technology hardware and equipment (9.6 percent). By comparison, R&D spending by top U.S. utilities (among the top 1,400 global R&D performers) averages 0.7 percent of sales. And 

utility R&D managers have reported that, due to deregulation, utilities were shifting their R&D focus from collaborative projects benefiting all utilities to proprietary 

R&D and from long-term advanced technology R&D (e.g., gas turbines and fuel 

cells) to short-term projects that would be profitable and provide a near-term competitive edge. 

The level of private sector spending on R&D is motivated mainly by its value to 

a firm’s profitability. The NAS study concluded that ‘‘substantial increases in [private sector] energy-related R&D expenditures will occur only if government policies 

create conditions under which firms anticipate that such spending is likely to yield 

attractive financial returns in the foreseeable future.’’ These include the federal government’s own commitment to energy R&D spending as well as policies that can 

help move R&D results down the road to successful commercialization 

2. Obstacle: Demonstration of Technologies 

We have seen a serious increase in recent years in venture capital investment in 

clean energy technology with $7.8 billion invested in 2010 alone. This investment 

generally moves energy R&D from the lab to a point where a technology is demonstrated at pilot scale and ready for initial commercialization and subsequent 

broad-scale deployment. There are a number of challenges in moving venture-backed 

clean energy technologies out of the lab to this point. A recent hearing in the Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee considered global investment trends in 

clean energy technologies and the impact of domestic policies on that investment. 

Will Coleman, a partner at Mohr Davidow, a venture capital firm, discussed four 

obstacles that energy technology start-ups face in demonstrating their technologies 

are ready for initial commercialization. 

First, energy markets are often difficult to enter for a new player because they 

are either heavily regulated or dominated by incumbents, and in the case of electricity markets we often have both. The patchwork of state and federal regulations 

is often difficult to navigate for any company, in particular a small start-up. Second, 

Coleman stressed that in the case of renewable energy technologies that generate 

electricity, the only road to market is often through utilities—and the public utility 

63 

commissions that oversee them—both often risk averse. Market entry for these gridbased based technologies can often take five to ten years in the pilot stage and small 

deployments before a state public utility commission will typically approve cost recovery for broad technology deployment. This timeframe seriously dampens interest 

among many venture investors in renewable energy start-ups who often need to see 

growth much more rapidly. 

A third challenge for most energy technology start-ups is that without operating 

track records, they are unable to get access to low cost capital to advance their technologies toward commercialization and full-scale deployment. This means that they 

typically need to raise higher cost equity or some combination of equity, mezzanine 

financing, and debt to build early plants. Often the latter two sources of lower cost 

capital are not available at this high-risk stage. And Coleman notes that this can 

have a perverse effect: ‘‘if venture capital firms don’t anticipate low cost capital 

being available to move these technologies to scale, then they are unlikely to invest 

in the early technology development in the first place.’’ 

The fourth obstacle is that even where there are incentives and tax credits to support new technologies, many of them are not designed for small emerging companies. Startups do not have the balance sheets or track records of larger corporations 

and have trouble securing and monetizing the credits, incentives, and loans that 

have been made available. This often forces start-ups to enter into awkward third 

party relationships or go to market through the big incumbents, which can have 

dramatic impact on their value and, importantly, investor interest. 

Coleman concluded in the Senate hearing: 

‘‘If time didn’t matter, if we were not in a race to remain competitive in 

the global economy, if the private market valued our national security, the 

domesticity of our products, and the health and environmental impacts, 

then ideally we would let the market work to adopt the best solutions. Unfortunately, time does matter and the market does not value these national 

strategic interests. For these reasons, whether we like it or not, our government must play a proactive role in encouraging clean energy development.’’ 

3. Obstacle: Technology Commercialization—The ‘‘Valley of Death’’ 

Moving down the renewable energy road, the step from R&D and venture capitalbacked demonstrations to full-scale commercial projects and products may well be 

the biggest obstacle of all in the successful deployment of renewable energy at large 

scale and low cost. This part of the road involves crossing the colorfully but accurately named ‘‘Valley of Death’’ that sits between the early stages in the research 

and development of an energy technology and its full commercial deployment. 

Earlier in my career I helped form and lead a private equity firm to invest in 

clean energy projects. We worked with bankers, engineers, and construction firms 

to get real energy projects financed and built. It was at this firm that I reached the 

toughest point along the road to large-scale cost-effective deployment of renewable 

energy. Day after day we received investment proposals for energy projects with 

profiles that simply exceeded the risk threshold of our capital. Had the underlying 

technologies been proven in a lab? Generally yes. Had they operated in a pilot 

plant? Sometimes. Had they operated at commercial scale? Rarely. There were relatively few proposals that fit our investment profile. In the end, we used the biggest 

chunk of our capital to finance corn ethanol plants—a technology well proven at 

large commercial scale for decades. 

It was at this firm that I first peered into the Valley of Death, seeing there the 

remains of hundreds of abandoned energy projects: based on exciting technologies 

supported by DOE or venture capital-firms; that worked well in pilot plants but died 

trying to get to commercial scale; from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal, to advanced coal and natural gas, transmission and distribution, nuclear power and beyond. We and most other private equity firms simply couldn’t shoulder the risk in 

the commercial scale-up of an energy technology, where a single project can cost 

hundreds of millions or, in the case of nuclear plants, even billions of dollars. 

It was interesting landing next at Google, where engineers spend months writing 

computer code for a new software product, test it, and then one day, in my simple 

terms, push a button and it’s deployed. Google engineers make improvements to the 

product and then launch a new version. There are certainly tough engineering challenges and products that fail. It’s just that with software, products generally succeed 

and fail faster and more cheaply than in the energy world. In the energy technology 

world, months turn into years, and years into decades, and billions can be spent on 

a single technology before even one commercial plant or factory is operating. In the 

Valley of Death companies struggle to obtain the financing needed to deploy their 

technologies at commercial scale—ironically, the very point at which their techVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
64 

nologies could begin to have a meaningful impact on job-creation, energy security, 

and environmental protection. 

The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program, to its credit, has been working hard to address the investment challenges of the Valley of Death for renewable 

energy and other technologies. As the program’s director Jonathan Silver said in a 

recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing: 

The Department of Energy’s loan programs were designed to address these 

impediments and fill this financing gap. Loan guarantees lower the cost of 

capital for projects utilizing innovative technologies, making them more 

competitive with conventional technologies, and thus more attractive to 

lenders and equity investors. Moreover, the programs leverage the Department’s expertise in technical due diligence, which private sector lenders are 

often unwilling or unable to conduct themselves. 

The DOE loan program office administers the Section 1703, Section 1705, and 

ATVM loan and loan guarantee programs. The 1703 program, created as part of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, supports the deployment of innovative energy technologies. As a result of the recently passed 2011 Continuing Resolution, the program 

currently has $18.5 billion in loan guarantee authority for nuclear power projects, 

$4 billion for front-end nuclear projects, $8 billion for advanced fossil projects, $1.5 

billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, and $2 billion in mixed 

authority. In addition, and for the first time, the 1703 program, historically a ‘‘self 

pay’’ credit subsidy program, now has $170 million in appropriated credit subsidy, 

which will support a small number of loan guarantees for renewable energy projects. 

The Section 1705 program was created as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to jump-start the country’s clean energy sector by supporting 

energy projects having difficulty securing financing in a tight credit market. Under 

the 1705 program, the credit subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees are 

paid through funds appropriated by Congress. Additionally, to qualify for 1705 funding, projects must begin construction no later than September 30, 2011. 

The ATVM program issues loans in support of the development of advanced vehicle technologies to help achieve higher fuel efficiency standards and reduce the nation’s dependence on oil. Congress funded this program with $7.5 billion in credit 

subsidy appropriations to support a maximum of $25 billion in loans. 

In the recent Senate Energy Committee hearing noted above, Jonathan Silver 

commented on the loan program’s results to date explaining that between 2005, 

when the program began, and 2009, DOE did not issue a loan or loan guarantee. 

Mr. Silver said that since March 2009, the Department had issued conditional commitments for loans or loan guarantees to 27 projects, 16 of which have reached financial close. This represents nearly $30 billion in financing to these 27 projects, 

which have total project costs of nearly $47 billion and include an array of clean 

energy technologies, such as wind, solar, advanced biofuels, geothermal, nuclear, 

transmission, and battery storage. The projects include the world’s largest windfarm, two of the world’s largest concentrating solar power facilities, the first nuclear 

power plant to begin construction in the United States in decades, the world’s first 

flywheel energy storage plant, and a biodiesel refinery that will triple the amount 

of biodiesel produced in the United States. Project sponsors estimate that these 27 

projects will create or save over 61,000 direct jobs and hundreds of thousands more 

indirect jobs, and generate enough energy cumulatively to power over two million 

households. 

President Obama’s FY 2012 request would provide $200 million in credit subsidies 

to support approximately $1 to $2 billion in additional loan guarantees for renewable energy and other technology deployment. It would also provide up to $36 billion 

in additional authority to loan guarantees for nuclear power projects. 

Those of us watching from the outside have been impressed with the recent 

progress and professional skills of the DOE team, but continue to be concerned 

about the intricate multi-agency review process in the loan guarantee program and 

the great uncertainty of the yearly budgeting cycle. I and many others across the 

energy technology spectrum—from renewables to fossil to nuclear power—believe 

that as long as the loan guarantee program remains as currently structured inside 

DOE, it will continue to be subject to these challenges. And I and many other observers of the global clean energy race believe that our country would be better 

served by taking a new approach to the critically important task of energy technology commercialization. 

We support significant FY 2012 funding for the DOE Loan Guarantee Program 

to continue its important work in the near term. Congress should substantially increase the funding for credit subsidies to support renewable energy and other 

projects. Something on the order of $1.5 to 2.0 billion in credit subsidies, versus the 

$200 million requested, would support a good proportion of projects currently in due 

65 

diligence. However, over the longer term, supporting the financing of capital-intensive 

energy projects with serious scale-up risks—in close collaboration with the private 

sector—is not a good match for the current structure, oversight, risk tolerance, and 

financial tools of the Department of Energy. 

Commercializing energy technology requires a new more effective approach—and 

that approach is the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). CEDA, in 

strong partnership with the private sector, could more effectively support the scaleup of clean energy technologies—and U.S clean energy competitiveness—than the 

current approach. CEDA, as developed over the last couple of years in the Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee—on a bipartisan basis—would have an 

array of tools, such as loan guarantees, insurance products, and bonds to accelerate 

private sector investment. Initially funded with an appropriation of $10 billion, 

CEDA could become a self-sustaining entity—that is no additional appropriations— 

based on mechanisms in the bill that would allow it take financial stakes in 

projects. Also, while CEDA would be established as an agency within DOE it would 

have an administrator and board of directors, and enjoy an important degree of 

independence, like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an independent arm 

of the DOE. As one expert in clean energy finance put it: ‘‘CEDA is the current loan 

guarantee program with more tools and less fuss.’’ 

In the Senate, CEDA enjoys bipartisan cosponsors and was adopted in the last 

Congress by the Senate Energy Committee on a bipartisan basis. The Senate bill 

has broad support including renewable energy trade associations, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In the House, a version of 

CEDA was added by a 51–6 vote of the House Energy and Commerce Committee 

to the Waxman-Markey bill. 

Mr. Chairman let me emphasize that one way or the other—creating CEDA and/ 

or making additional funding available for the loan guarantee program—we need 

to ensure that we provide a serious financing mechanism for moving U.S. clean energy projects through the Valley of Death. Opponents of these mechanisms are concerned about ‘‘the government setting industrial policy,’’ ‘‘picking winners and losers,’’ etc. These are understandable issues but they do not recognize several key 

facts. First, virtually all our nation’s economic competitors, including China, are providing major help to companies facing the Valley of Death. Congress, in part recognized this fact, when it created the loan guarantee program. Second, U.S. agencies, 

like the Export-Import Bank (ExIm) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) regularly provide help that is not terribly different from the loan guarantee program and CEDA for U.S. companies wanting to build projects in other 

countries. Mr. Chairman, it simply can’t be that Congress intends to make it easier 

to help finance energy projects in India than Indiana. 

Third, and most importantly, if the DOE loan program office finds itself without 

additional funding next year, if the Section 1603 Grant program is not renewed (see 

below), and if the enactment of CEDA stalls, the federal government could find itself 

with almost no tools to help with the financing of higher risk energy projects, involving renewables and other technologies. This would be a terrible blow to one of the 

highest potential areas of U.S. economic growth—and job creation—over the next 

two decades. 

4. Obstacle: Cost-competitiveness 

Proceeding down the renewable energy road we now reach the stage where a technology has been proven to work at commercial scale but where it often can’t yet 

compete fully because of higher costs than traditional technologies. The good news 

is that renewable energy costs have come down significantly over the last two decades with technology improvements and expanding manufacturing and deployment. 

At the same time, many of the renewable energy technologies still have some distance to go in terms of cost. This is where federal tax incentives, financing help, 

and related support have been so critical to the deployment of renewable energy in 

our country. It is also where state renewable energy standards have helped lower 

the cost of renewable energy and drive deployment. 

Federal tax incentives help lower the delivered cost of a project or the energy it 

produces. There are two general categories: Investment Tax Credits (ITC) and Production Tax Credits (PTC). The ITC and PTC enhance renewable energy project economics, complement state renewable energy policies, and as such have been a major 

driver of growth. Yet these policies are incapable of sufficiently scaling renewable 

energy development for two main reasons. First, is the generally short-term nature 

of these tax credits and uncertainty surrounding their extensions. This has resulted 

in a wax and wane cycle for wind and solar development. For example, in 1999, 

2001 and 2003 when the PTC expired, new U.S wind capacity decreased by over 

66 

75% from the prior year. This ‘‘on again, off again’’ behavior creates strong market 

uncertainty and causes abrupt changes in business investments and R&D spending. 

The other significant drawback of the ITC and PTC is that they force renewable 

energy development to be calibrated around the projected availability and size of the 

tax equity market. Only investors with sufficient capacity to ‘‘monetize’’ the tax 

credit, i.e. with sufficient taxable income to off-set, can take advantage of them, forcing many renewable energy project developers to rely on third party ‘‘tax equity investors.’’ This raises financing costs, driving up the delivered cost of energy and 

driving down the public benefits the tax credits produce in terms of megawatts of 

renewable energy delivered. 

The risks of tax-based incentives were seen in the recent ups and downs of the 

Investment Tax Credit for solar. The good news is that it was extended for eight 

years in 2008, providing an attractive degree of certainty for project investors. The 

bad news is that during the recent financial crisis and recession the renewable energy tax equity market shrank by 83%, from $6.1 billion in 2007 to $1 billion in 

2009 

To promote economic recovery, stimulate private investment, and maintain market momentum, the ‘‘Section 1603 Grant in lieu of tax credits’’ program (‘‘Section 

1603 Grant’’) was adopted in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to 

specifically address insufficient tax equity in the market and corresponding inability 

to take advantage of the PTC and ITC. The Section1603 Grant allows project developers eligible for the ITC and PTC to elect to obtain an equivalent grant from the 

Treasury Department in lieu of these credits. It has provided certainty for tax equity financing and boosted insufficient tax equity supply to meet developer demand. 

It originally required projects to begin construction by December 31, 2010 but in 

2010 Congress extended this date to December 31, 2011. 

As of May 2011, $7 billion in grants have been awarded to 2601 renewable energy 

projects leveraging approximately $22 billion in private sector investment. There is 

a rising view that the Section 1603 Grant is a more cost-effective approach to providing incentives for renewable energy projects than tax credits. A study conducted 

by Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated the 19,000 megawatts of wind installed in the U.S. between 2005–2008—costing the government $10.3 billion via the 

PTC—could have been achieved with $5 billion in Section 1603 Grants. 

There are a number of other market-based policy mechanisms that can help lower 

the cost of and drive private sector investment in renewable energy technology. 

Under a ‘‘feed-in tariff,’’ eligible renewable electricity generators are paid a premium 

price for renewable energy they produce. Typically regional or national electric utilities electric are obliged to take the electricity. Feed-in tariff policies have been enacted in more than 60 countries and 12 U.S. states with impressive results in driving scale and cost reduction. 

Another policy mechanism is a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) that typically places an obligation on electric utilities to produce a specified fraction of their 

electricity from renewable energy sources. RES programs are often implemented 

through utility renewable energy systems or bidding processes for independently developed generation. In the latter approach, certified renewable energy generators 

earn certificates for every unit of electricity they produce and can sell these to utilities. The utilities then pass the certificates to a public utility commission to demonstrate their compliance with their regulatory obligations. RES programs can promote significant competition and innovation allowing renewable energy to compete 

with cheaper fossil energy sources. RES-type mechanisms have been adopted in 29 

U.S. states as well as several countries. 

Congress has been considering a national RES for several years. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee adopted an RES in 2009 in the American 

Clean Energy Leadership Act. The Waxman-Markey bill, enacted by the full House 

in 2009, contained an RES. More recently, President Obama proposed a broader 

Clean Energy Standard requiring that the nation derive 80 percent of its electricity 

from a broad array of clean energy technologies by 2035. The Senate Energy Committee is considering the proposal. 

5. Obstacle: Siting 

Having moved a renewable energy technology to a point where it works at full 

scale and where the energy it produces can be sold competitively, at least with attractive financing and some reliable incentives, the issue of siting now is worth a 

look. Public lands hold significant potential for renewable energy development. The 

Interior Department estimates that more than 23.000 megawatts of utility-scale 

solar is reasonably foreseeable to be developed on public lands in the desert southwest. Offshore, DOE’s National Renewable Energy Lab estimates that the wind potential off the coasts of the lower 48 states exceeds the entire U.S. electricity generVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
67 

ating capacity. And U.S. geothermal potential, using traditional and advanced technologies, is estimated at roughly half of U.S. electricity generation. Although not 

without some challenges, the Obama Administration has stepped up well to siting 

renewable energy on public lands. 

In May, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture issued a major report—‘‘New 

Energy Frontier: Balancing Energy Development on Federal Lands’’—that reviews 

issues associated with the development of both renewable and conventional energy 

on Federal lands, both on and offshore. The report emphasizes that these lands 

have: 

‘‘[V]ast potential for renewable energy production from wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass that—together with conventional energy 

sources—can contribute to the Nation’s energy security and to the clean 

economy of the future. However, the development of these energy resources 

must be carried out in balance with many other uses and values that serve 

the public interest and support the quality of life American citizens enjoy.’’ 

Both Secretaries Salazar and Vilsack have developed strategies to advance renewable energy development while balancing these other important interests. These 

strategies include: developing research, policy and management tools to minimize 

impacts of energy development; supporting key agencies like the Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and relevant state agencies; and involving interested stakeholders. The May report from the two Departments emphasizes that: 

‘‘[T]he renewable energy strategies of both the DOI and USDA are guided 

by the fundamental belief that renewable energy for America will allow us 

to diversify energy sources and ultimately reduce our reliance on fossil 

fuels. The development of new renewable energy sources need not come at 

the expense of our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage. If promoted and 

sited in a thoughtful way, new energy development can, instead, contribute 

to conservation and protection of the environment.’’ 

Two of the biggest renewable energy siting issues on public lands have involved 

solar projects on desert lands and wind farms off the Atlantic coast. Siting issues 

around geothermal energy projects—an important renewable energy technology with 

a vast resource and 24/7 operation—is also worth consideration. 

a. Desert Solar 

Some of the best solar resources in the world are located on public land overseen 

by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. Federal agencies have developed 

extensive processes to authorize use of these lands for a variety of purposes, including recreation, grazing, mining, and energy development. There is also great potential for these lands to produce safe, clean solar energy, yet limited agency action 

has delayed the permitting of solar projects for years. By contrast, over the past 20 

years, federal agencies approved about 74,000 oil and gas drilling permits. 

In June 2009, Interior Secretary Salazar moved to ‘‘fast-track’’ development of 

solar energy projects on federal lands. First, by secretarial order, he withdrew from 

other development activities 670,000 acres in 24 potential solar energy zones that 

had been identified through a number of different processes. At the same time, Interior kicked off a long-term planning process based on a Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) to designate priority areas for development in 

the longer term, beginning with the study of the 24 zones. 

At the time of these announcements, BLM had already received 155 applications 

for solar installations. Since existing statutes provide specifically for leasing federal 

land for oil, gas and geothermal activities but not for solar energy, these applications were received under the authority of a grant of a federal Right of Way under 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Secretary Salazar announced that when the SPEIS was completed, that document would guide considerations of applications going forward but that pending applications would be evaluated based on interim standards. 

The Secretary also announced that a set of fourteen large projects, which had 

greater potential to be permitted and begin construction by the end of 2010, would 

be given special ‘‘Fast Track’’ status. These projects would not be subject to less 

stringent environmental analysis, but they would receive priority attention from federal regulatory officials. This December 2010 date was critical because, at the time, 

the Section 1603 Grant Program (see above) could only be claimed for projects that 

started construction by December 31, 2010. For many of these large projects, the 

ability to monetize tax credits was critical to their ability to secure financing because the recession froze—and continues to negatively affect—credit markets and 

available tax equity. 

68 

Under California law, concentrating solar thermal power projects (which use mirrors to boil water, create steam, and drive a turbine to generate electricity) are 

treated as power generation facilities and must be permitted, like all other power 

plants, by the California Energy Commission, even if they are located on federal 

land. (Solar photovoltaic facilities, however, do not fall under the California power 

plant jurisdiction and only need Interior Department approval.) Thus, solar thermal 

projects have to move through two separate regulatory processes and two separate 

environmental analyses, one under the federal National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and one under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To avoid 

this duplication, and to make certain that the State and federal agencies were fasttracking the same projects, Interior Secretary Salazar and then California Governor 

Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a Memorandum of Understanding in October 2009 

to integrate the two processes. 

As a result of this more coordinated and focused program, nine large solar 

projects were approved by the BLM prior to the end of 2010, seven using concentrating solar technology and two using solar photovoltaics, comprising a total of 

about 3650 MW. Six of these projects are in California and three in Nevada. In addition, the California Energy Commission permitted an additional 1100 MW of solar 

thermal capacity in 2010 that is not on federal land. 

Looking ahead, the further development of utility-scale solar in the Southwest 

faces some challenges. These include finalizing the SPEIS which, done well, can 

help provide predictability and speed in the permit process by steering solar development into Solar Energy Zones (SEZ) where the solar resource is high, which are 

near existing transmission (or to which transmission will be constructed), and where 

there are few environmental conflicts. Solar project developers have raised concerns 

that the Solar Energy Zones (SEZ), as currently conceived, do not adequately evaluate the suitability of the proposed zones from a technical, environmental, transmission, and cultural perspective and therefore make planning more difficult. Further, some of the developers have stated that successful application of the SEZ approach will likely require a larger universe of solar zones than is described in the 

draft SPEIS and flexibility in expanding the zones. 

A broad group of solar developers and environmental organizations have joined 

together to suggest establishing Areas of Facilitated Development (AFDs) for utilityscale solar development. AFDs would be established, based on: technical criteria 

(e.g. insolation, slope); low conflicts with biological, cultural, and other resources; 

and access to transmission and proximity to load. Solar developers have said that 

AFDs could provide real incentives for development within their boundaries, such 

as project-specific Environmental Assessments instead of broader Environmental 

Impact Statements and assurance of transmission interconnection. AFDs could also 

be large enough to allow for siting flexibility, and BLM could establish a clear process for expanding AFDs and adding new ones. 

As indicated above, to a large extent, issues related to the permitting of solar on 

public lands are being addressed by the Interior Department in coordination with 

developers and environmental organizations. The current challenges in solar energy 

development have little to do with permitting issues, but instead the current unpredictability of federal incentives, financing help, and other programs. If there is one 

refrain we hear constantly from industry it is this: ‘‘We need a consistent long-term 

energy policy from the federal government.’’ As discussed above, the Section 1603 

Treasury Grant program’s deadline for start of construction was extended in November 2010 but only for one year. Also, as noted, important components of the federal 

loan guarantee program added by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, 

which have been instrumental in promoting solar energy development, will expire 

September 30, 2011 unless extended. These challenges will likely cause many 

projects to be delayed. 

Added to these policy and market uncertainties is the balkanized jurisdictional 

system in the U.S. for making needed upgrades to the transmission system to improve access to renewable generation and simultaneously enhance grid efficiency 

and reliability. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and a 

number of state public utility commissions are struggling with these issues, there 

is a pressing need for more regional multi-state/federal cooperation—and for Congressional attention—to address these problems. This industry cannot flourish without multi-state and federal cooperation on transmission issues in the southwestern 

states. 

It is the lack of predictability and consistency of federal incentives and financing 

help, and the need for greater federal leadership on regional transmission planning, 

which are the major barriers to the growth of the utility-scale solar industry today. 

Federal permitting of solar projects on federal lands needs continued attention, and 

must be further improved, but that effort is on course. 

69 

b. Offshore Wind 

Although existing law governing energy development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf was designed for oil and gas, not for offshore wind or wave energy, the Obama 

Administration has moved expeditiously to design and streamline the permitting 

process and help build an offshore wind industry. First, for years there had been 

serious and unresolved disputes among federal government agencies about jurisdiction over off-shore wind and wave development, particularly between the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Interior’s Minerals 

Management Service (MMS). The Obama Administration settled this dispute 

through a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies signed in 

March 2009. 

Second, in April 2009, MMS issued a final ‘‘Renewable Energy Framework’’ rule 

specifying the steps necessary to permit an offshore wind farm. Third, shortly thereafter MMS announced a decision to issue ‘‘limited leases’’ for five years for sites off 

Delaware and New Jersey, based on its own completed environmental analysis. 

These leases would allow developers to erect meteorological towers to test wind conditions and do other studies for potential wind farms. MMS issued four leases to 

three different companies later that year. These sites had been narrowed down from 

40 initial nominations and 16 areas chosen for potential study. 

In the spring and summer of 2010, considerable uncertainty was generated by 

how the environmental analysis required under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and other environmental statutes would be integrated with various 

stages of the permit process. Concerns were also raised by several states eager to 

go forward with off-shore wind about the federal process, in particular about the 

Cape Wind project in Massachusetts that had struggled for nearly a decade to secure the nation’s first off-shore wind permit. 

In response to this uncertainty, the Department of Interior, which had already 

worked with coastal state governors on joint state-federal planning for off-shore 

wind development, resolved the Cape Wind issues, and issued a permit. In November 2010, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE), the successor agency to MMS, announced the ‘‘Smart From the Start’’ 

program to streamline the permitting and NEPA requirements for off-shore wind. 

BOEMRE announced: that it had identified targeted areas off North Atlantic states 

as zones for off-shore wind farms that had local support and few environmental conflicts; that coordinated environmental studies including Environmental Assessments 

(EAs) under NEPA would be performed by the federal and state governments for 

these targeted areas; and that within a year thereafter leases could be advertised 

and entered into by developers. 

Earlier this year, Secretaries Chu and Salazar announced the first joint departmental ‘‘National Off-Shore Wind Strategy’’ including final designation of the targeted zones off Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia that would be the 

subject of accelerated environmental analysis leading to prospective leases. At the 

same time, DOE announced $50 million in grants aimed at improving turbine blade 

design for increased efficiency, reducing market barriers, and supporting research 

into ‘‘next generation’’ drive trains. Gearless or ‘‘direct drive’’ wind turbines now 

under development are expected to have many fewer maintenance requirements 

than current products, which is important for off-shore facilities because of the high 

cost of accessing these machines. 

The principal barriers that now confront the development of offshore wind off the 

Atlantic Coast today are not permitting and NEPA barriers, they are market barriers. The Cape Wind project off Massachusetts has its permit, but must still negotiate a power purchase agreement for the second stage of the project under less favorable market conditions than when it signed its first agreement, and then find 

financing. As discussed above, the future of the DOE loan guarantee program is 

highly uncertain, the Section 1603 Grant program is expected to expire at the end 

of this year, and tax equity investors are still scarce. The large capital investment 

required, low natural gas prices leading to lower off-take prices, and the lead-time 

required for a project all combine to make it more difficult to successfully develop 

an offshore wind facility today. 

If we are to see significant development of offshore wind, with substantial associated domestic manufacturing, we need to ensure predictable and sustained demand 

at a reasonable level. This can be done through federal policy and, perhaps more 

expeditiously, through the federal government promoting and supporting regional 

and state efforts to procure offshore wind. This may include the federal government 

encouraging Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, such as the PJM Interconnection, the NYISO, and ISO New England to plan 

for large-scale transmission that will facilitate the development of significant offshore wind projects rather than rely on individual developers to plan and pay for 

70 

separate tie lines for each offshore project. The lack of coordinated federal policy 

that addresses all barriers to creating an industry will leave a valuable clean energy 

resource—in the vicinity of large population centers—largely untapped. If we want 

to encourage a robust offshore wind industry, like that which has developed in Europe and now is expanding rapidly in China, further incremental streamlining of 

permitting and related environmental processes would be helpful, but this is only 

a small piece of the interrelated set of factors inhibiting growth of the industry. 

c. Geothermal 

Geothermal energy is a 24/7 resource providing clean base-load power in utilityscale quantities. The federal government figures prominently in the future of geothermal energy in the U.S. First, approximately 90% of known hydrothermal resources lie under Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture lands. Second, as of 2005, approximately half of US geothermal production occurred on federally managed lands and many of the 7,000 megawatts of geothermal projects currently under development will be developed on federal lands. Third, much of the nation’s advanced geothermal resources such as Enhanced Geothermal Systems and 

Geo-Pressured Geothermal—which exceed 500,000 megawatts of potential—lay beneath federal lands in the west. 

Compliance with NEPA and other federal and state environmental laws add complexity throughout the development cycle. After a lease has been acquired, completing the necessary permitting for even initial exploration drilling can take well 

over a year—adding cost, risk, and time to project development. The good news is 

that BLM is stepping up to the plate as an active development partner. In 2008, 

the BLM, as well as the U.S. Forest Service opened over 190 million acres to geothermal exploration and leasing, potentially facilitating an additional 11,100 

megawatts of hydrothermal development by 2025. And the Obama Department of 

Interior has moved aggressively to accelerate geothermal development on federal 

lands including: 

• Leasing dozens of parcels of land in California, Idaho, Colorado, and Nevada; 

• Approving the 236-mile ON Line transmission project connecting Las Vegas 

to geothermal zones in northern Nevada; 

• Fast tracking over 200 megawatts of geothermal projects in Nevada for approval; 

• Reaching an agreement with Colorado to accelerate geothermal permitting. 

Additionally, the Department of Energy has reinvigorated the Geothermal Technologies Program, investing in badly needed new technologies and demonstration 

projects. 

Conclusion 

Wrapping up, I spent the last four years at Google helping to develop and implement the company’s approach to energy policy, investment and technology. Coming 

from the energy sector, I was struck at Google by how innovation, investment and 

policy came together so effectively to help build an entirely new industry—the Internet—that has fundamentally transformed life as we know it and created vast numbers of good paying U.S. jobs. The federal government had a large role in the creation of the Internet, providing early R&D support and becoming one of its initial 

users. Critical policy decisions by Congress, a series of Democratic and Republican 

Administrations, and regulatory bodies like the FCC, set smart rules of the road for 

development and use of the technology. Trade policy has helped ensure opportunities for U.S. companies in advancing the Internet across the globe. 

We must take a similarly coordinated approach between the private sector and 

the U.S. government in order to seize the opportunities in clean energy technology. 

We face declining federal R&D funding, inadequate financing mechanisms, unreliable incentives, and a lack of transmission capacity. While siting of renewable energy projects on public lands needs some continuing attention, it is this broad array 

of other obstacles that really cry out for help. 

And arguably, cooperation between industry and government is even more critical 

in clean energy technology than the development of the Internet as the stakes are 

higher in terms of our nation’s security, competitiveness, health, and environment. 

We tend to measure progress in information technology in months or years. In contrast, we measure progress in energy technology in decades. If we don’t get our act 

together between our government and the private sector, other countries, like China 

and Germany, that are taking the long view when it comes to clean energy technology, will be the winners of this marathon. A prize worth trillions of dollars and 

millions of jobs hangs in the balance—to say nothing of our national security and 

the future of the planet. 

71 

The CHAIRMAN. And I want to thank all of you on the panel for 

your testimony. We will start the round of questioning, and I will 

begin. But before I do, I just want to make an observation. 

It is very interesting hearing the tone of what you are all saying, 

at least from some commonality, and you are asking this Committee to consider what I think any, any, any energy production 

committee would ask for, whether you are talking about renewables or fossil fuels or whatever, and that is certainty so that you 

can proceed forward from whatever, whether it is regulatory or 

statutory. And I certainly hear that loud and clear, and I just want 

to make that observation. 

By full disclosure, I should say, too, that my district has a lot of 

diversity in its energy. I come from an area where hydropower is 

the primary source of energy. But as Mr. Resch alluded to, I have 

a manufacturer of solar components in my district. There is going 

to be a solar facility in one of my counties that is in the planning 

stage, and I understand my district is the 15th largest wind producer in the country. So I am very much in favor of an ‘‘all of the 

above’’ energy plan, as I mentioned in my opening statement. 

But there is always one caveat that I think we always have to 

take in mind as policymakers, and that is that the ultimate purchaser of our energy is going to be the consumer, and they want 

the best possible price that they can get, and that is something I 

know you are all striving for. But we should never lose sight of 

that. That is why I think an ‘‘all of the above’’ energy plan is so 

important. 

Now, I have just one question, and this is alluded to by virtually 

all of you in your testimony. The question may answer itself, but 

I think it has to be asked from the standpoint to get it directly on 

the record. All of you in one way or the other alluded to problems 

you had with permitting and so forth. So my question to all of you 

is this: Do you believe that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, and BLM, Bureau of Land Management, has an efficient and effective process 

for reviewing and approving permits and plans in a timely fashion 

right now? 

Mr. Roberts, I will start with you and just go down the panel. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I don’t. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. You don’t have to elaborate if you don’t want 

to, because that is what we are trying to find out. 

Go ahead. Ms. Reilly? 

Ms. REILLY. I would say that these bureaus are full of people 

who are very well intended and people who care about the environment. I think we heard that from one of the other speakers today. 

But we need much improving and streamlining in the efficiency of 

the bureaus. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. I think under Secretary Salazar’s leadership, he 

has come in and he is making reforms and trying to expedite the 

review process for offshore wind with the Smart from the Start initiative. It is going to take a lot of work. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is not efficient and effective right now then? 

Mr. GORDON. It could be more efficient, sir. 

72 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lanard. 

Mr. LANARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When I started in the offshore wind industry 5, 6 years ago, the 

permitting timeline under the Federal Government looked like it 

was 7 to 9 years. Under Director Bromwich and Secretary Salazar, 

we have cut 2 years off of that. We are now 5 to 7. 

Director Bromwich testified recently before your Committee and 

talked about the fact that the permitting process still needs to be 

refined more. So we do agree with him. We would like to see that 

refinement. We are satisfied that the agency is committed and 

working very hard to find those time savers, and I think we will 

see them in the next 6 months to a year as we move forward with 

leasing for the Outer Continental Shelf. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Resch. 

Mr. RESCH. Two quick points. There has been great improvement, as everybody has said so far, and I certainly concur with 

that, and we hopefully are going to see that continue, and hopefully 

it will continue along the lines of what other energy industries 

enjoy. 

And just to kind of give you a quick example, the oil and gas industry received 1,308 permits to drill on Federal lands last year, 

and we were ecstatic to get 9 in the solar industry. So the technology and the emphasis that the Bush Administration focused on 

expediting oil and gas permits, I think, can be applied directly to 

renewable energy permits as well, and we can see it move faster. 

The other competing issue, of course, is the fact that you have 

not only a permit process through BLM, but you also have these 

Federal tax policies that expire and create a tremendous amount 

of stress on everything within that system. So if we had extension 

also of the tax policy, I think it would streamline and make things 

easier at BLM as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. DeRosa. 

Mr. DEROSA. We have had a positive experience with BLM. I 

mentioned our Silver State North project that was permitted with 

alacrity, and we have other projects that are in the fast track of 

BLM’s designation that are proceeding through the process. So we 

applaud the dedication that BLM has given to this sector, to this 

permitting. 

The CHAIRMAN. I heard you say it, Mr. DeRosa, but you also 

pointed out one individual, and I would just simply say if the success of any project is reliant on one individual, that is not good policy. 

Mr. DEROSA. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Clearly I want to make that point. 

Mr. DEROSA. I appreciate that. I wanted to give credit where 

credit was due there. But on the other hand, we want to make sure 

that the policy going forward is an expansive policy, that there are 

not prohibitions. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time is about running out. I asked the question if you think it is efficient right now, and I am hearing generally from you that there could be improvements, and some need 

a lot of improvements. 

Mr. DEROSA. Yes. 

73 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Dr. Piszczalski. 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. Within the current structure, I think BLM is 

doing fine, and I hope that I conveyed that it is a structural problem. We still have—for a typical project half the time is being spent 

on permitting. That means there is a lot of room for improvement. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Mr. Reicher. 

Mr. REICHER. Chairman, I think we have seen significant improvement in the programs. Obviously, like all programs, they can 

be improved further. But I would emphasize that permits without 

adequate policy, financing incentives and the like aren’t a very useful device. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. Markey, you are recognized. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

In the Republican budget they kept in the $20 billion for loan 

guarantees for nuclear power projects, but zeroed out the money for 

loan guarantees for wind and solar. Can we go down? We will give 

each one of you a chance to answer yes or no. 

Would you like to see the line guarantees for renewables restored? I will make it a positive for you so you don’t have to say 

no. You can each say yes, if you would like. 

Mr. ROBERTS. From an industry perspective, yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, good. Thank you. 

Ms. Reilly? 

Ms. REILLY. Yes, we would. We think that a level playing field 

would be tremendously helpful. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Good. You would like them restored. Yes. 

Mr. Gordon? 

Mr. GORDON. Absolutely, yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Yes. 

Mr. LANARD. Mr. Markey, in bold, 72-font, underlined, yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. RESCH. Absolutely. A critical program. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. DEROSA. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. Yes, the incentives do make a big difference. 

Mr. REICHER. Loan guarantees with credit subsidies absolutely, 

and let us get on to a more reliable program, which would be the 

Clean Energy Deployment Administration. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, we are ready for question number 2. You are 

too smart for Congress. We are going to break it down a little bit. 

Let us move on here. He is the kid with his hand up right from 

the first grade, you know? 

The Republican budget also cut the clean energy programs, you 

know, the alternative to oil programs, by 70 percent. Would you 

like to see that money restored for the clean energy programs that 

was cut out of the Republican budget? Yes, sir? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I am not familiar with those programs. 

Mr. MARKEY. Good. Thank you. You should familiarize yourself 

with them. I think that would be a good idea. It is the clean energy 

part of the Federal budget. 

Ms. Reilly? 

Ms. REILLY. Yes, we would. 

74 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, we would. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. LANARD. Yes, we would. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. RESCH. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. DEROSA. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. I would say yes, with better targeting, too. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, good. 

Mr. REICHER. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, thank you. 

And, more predictably, would you like it all to be more predictable for a 4- to 5-year period on all of these tax and loan guarantee 

programs for your industries? We will go down again. A yes is the 

preferred answer. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, predictability is really important. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Thank you. Yes. 

Ms. REILLY. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. GORDON. Yes. 

Mr. LANARD. As the Chairman said, it certainty is very 

important, yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. RESCH. Yes. And just to put it in perspective, we are 1 

gigawatt today. We expect to be 10 gigawatts annually by 2015 if 

we can keep these programs in place. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. That is great news. 

Mr. DEROSA. Yes. And let me just say it is that predictability of 

those programs. 

Mr. MARKEY. I have other questions. Yes. Next? 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. I would say yes, especially because the financing is so hard to handle. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Reicher? 

Mr. REICHER. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Now, in the Republican appropriations bill for 2012, they actually are $4 billion below the President’s program for the Department of the Interior, and we heard here at this table 2 weeks ago 

from the Director of the BLM, from the Bureau of Land Management, that those kind of draconian budget cuts will slow down 

their ability to be able to deal with all of the kind of the technical 

issues that you would like to in your testimony have a telescoped 

timeframe to deal with so we can move more quickly toward permitting of wind and solar projects. But if they have much fewer 

personnel, it is going to be a lot harder for all of them because of 

all the projects you have planned all an across the country. 

Ms. Reilly, would you say that $4 billion less for the Department 

of the Interior will likely increase or decrease the amount of time 

it takes for the Department of the Interior to deal with those permitting issues that you were referring to in your testimony? 

75 

Ms. REILLY. The reduction in the budget is clearly going to put 

more strain on the operations within those agencies. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can we just go down? Do you all agree this is not 

the time for us to be decreasing the budget in the areas where you 

are trying to have an expedited dealing with all of these very sophisticated issues of environment and ESA and wind and solar 

issues all now combined really for the first time? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Cutting the DOI’s budget will increase the permitting time and is not in the national interest. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. 

Ms. REILLY. The good news is the BOEMRE budget was not decreased significantly, perhaps because the focus was more oil and 

gas, but we would like them—— 

Mr. MARKEY. No, BLM I am talking about. You are an offshore 

guy. OK, good. BLM. 

Mr. GORDON. I concur that the programs that have been put in 

place by Secretary Salazar need to be funded in order to see the 

results that the country is really requesting. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. DeRosa? 

Mr. DEROSA. I agree. 

Mr. MARKEY. Good. Thank you. 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. Yes, in the current structure, they will lead to 

more delays. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, good. Thank you. 

Mr. REICHER. Having been a bureaucrat for 8 years, when our 

budgets got cut, we could do less on the regulatory side. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. I appreciate it, and I thank all of you 

for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have just been advised that a vote is 

imminent on the Floor, so that will probably disrupt where we are. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana Mr. Landry. 

Mr. LANDRY. Since Mr. Markey has done such a wonderful job 

of training you all how to answer, if you could just stay in that pattern. 

Wouldn’t you all, if you would, if any of you all have children, 

wouldn’t you like your children to have the same opportunity or a 

better opportunity than you have had in today’s America? And do 

all of you all work under budgets, meaning you can only—revenue 

comes, and you spend that revenue? I just want to make sure we 

level the playing field as to why maybe some of these cuts are here. 

I do understand, and I am just shocked at the constant problem 

of permitting and uncertainty. I think it is Dr. Piszczalski’s slide— 

if you wouldn’t mind, I would like to borrow that and make it a 

yard sign for the White House and the Capitol, the guy climbing 

up the hill with the permitting process, because we have that in 

all of the industries. In fact, I think it was—I can’t see the names 

over there. Where are my names? One of you said that you are 

having problems in the judicial process. 

So my question to each of you would be wouldn’t you all support 

an across-the-board reform of the judicial process and the permitting process in the Federal Government, across-the-board meaning 

for all industries, whether it be solar, wind, nuclear, oil and gas? 

76 

Mr. ROBERTS. Congressman, getting certainty around siting and 

permitting is extraordinarily important. So if we could figure out 

a way to protect the environment and yet make a timely, efficient 

process, that would be extraordinarily important. 

Mr. LANDRY. Regardless of the industry, it should be that for 

every industry. 

Ms. REILLY. Yes. Certainty in the process is paramount. But also 

a focus—the fast-track program that we have heard about today 

has been very successful for solar so far. We haven’t seen that for 

wind. We think that there needs to also be a focus on getting 

things on a fast track, but also getting them out at the other end. 

So a focus on outcomes and delivery is also helpful. 

Mr. LANDRY. For all industries. 

Ms. REILLY. For all industries, business and government, everywhere. The focus on the outcome is important. 

Mr. LANDRY. Great. 

Mr. GORDON. I think any time we can cut unnecessary delays 

and procedures across a wide range of industries is a good thing. 

Mr. LANARD. Congressman, I can only speak to the offshore wind 

industry perspective on this. I can’t speak to the industrywide 

question that you have raised. We work with lots of different stakeholders, and there are a number of groups, mostly national environmental groups, that have concerns about the National Environmental Policy Act. They feel that it is a very important component 

of their role in protecting the environment and endangered species, 

and they would have perhaps wanted a better understanding of 

how we get to that certainty and we work closely with them. So 

we would want to work with those national groups to have a better 

understand of how judicial reform and some of the other certainty 

questions that you are asking would apply. 

Mr. LANDRY. Who had the problem with the eagle? 

Ms. REILLY. I did. 

Mr. LANDRY. You understand? Look, you all can be nice and sugarcoat this over here, or you can just say it as it is, and that is 

we are having a problem with uncertainty in any industry. And I 

think it is fair to say that regardless of what industry, whether it 

is the solar, or the wind, or the oil and gas industry, or the nuclear 

industry, we should be out here, this Federal Government should 

be out here, getting the message that we need to create certainty 

in all of the industries. It is not fair for us to create certainty in 

your wind industry and solve the problem of the eagles for you to 

build your wind farm, when there may be a snail that is inhibiting 

the Chairman’s ability to build a hydrodam. 

What I am saying is everyone has to be on the same level playing field, and that is what I am trying to get you all to tell me is 

whether you support everyone being on the same playing field or 

not in the permitting and the judicial process. 

Mr. RESCH. Before I came to the solar industry, I worked in the 

natural gas industry, a lot of time on lands issues, very similar 

kinds of issues that the solar industry is facing today. So I can say 

pretty clearly that both industries would be able to substantially 

lower costs to the consumer for their products if you had a streamlined regulatory and permitting process, yes. 

77 

Mr. DEROSA. Yes. I agree. There needs to be common standards, 

certainty and predictability. 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. As part of my work, I see what other countries 

are doing. So for instance, the Netherlands does have a much more 

standardized permitting process for shopping centers, everything. 

At the same time, we have to have the guts to be able to kill these 

projects too. Right now we let them drag on and just whack at 

them with a dull knife. If it is a bad project, I think we need to 

kill it as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Answer real quickly. We have a vote going. So 

answer real quickly. We want to get these questions in before the 

vote ends. 

Go ahead, Mr. Reicher. 

Mr. REICHER. Certainty certainly helps, but I think we have to 

strike the right balance between the speed of development and 

other key issues like environmental protection. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. Holt, I just want to advise Members that there is a vote on 

the Floor right now. We will try to get these questions in as quickly 

as we can. 

Mr. Holt, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. 

Of course, there is much to be said about—and not enough time 

to say it—about the cuts in the research and development, the cuts 

in the DOI budget, that will affect permitting, adding loopholes for 

Big Oil while making it harder for the alternatives. 

Mr. Roberts, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about tax policy. 

We deployed something on the order of 10,000 megawatts of wind 

a couple of years ago; and then less, about 7,500 the following year; 

and then last year it was less, down to about 5,000. It seems to me 

there is a relationship between the number of years left on the tax 

credits and the number of megawatts we are able to deploy. Do you 

see a connection there? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Again, it is all about long-term uncertainty, and it 

is extraordinarily difficult on the manufacturing side. We have had 

great success bringing over 400 manufacturers just for wind alone 

into this country. And lack of long-term stable policy—— 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. 

It is worth pointing out that in 2005, the Congress, we passed 

a law regularizing the regulatory guidelines, and they were not implemented by the last administration. So following Mr. Landry’s 

comments, I would like to point that out. 

We should be talking about jobs here. Let me ask Mr. Roberts 

and Mr. Resch, how many jobs today in your industries—defined 

broadly, how many jobs are associated with the projects that you 

think are reasonably on line or could move ahead promptly? And 

need we compare this with the Big Oil companies that, despite 

hundreds of billions of dollars of profit, actually are employing 

10,000 fewer people? 

Mr. RESCH. I will give it a shot. It is a little bit tricky because 

the policy we are talking about really affects the entire industry regardless of whether you are distributed generation or—— 

Mr. HOLT. OK. How many jobs today in the industry? 

78 

Mr. RESCH. We have about 100,000 jobs. We did a census this 

time last year. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. And define reasonable projects some way or another. 

Mr. RESCH. If we look at the utility-scale projects that we consider reasonable, there is about 25,000 megawatts of those projects. 

About 20,000 new jobs will be created by those projects on site at 

the facilities. And then you have all the secondary jobs, manufacturing, around them. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Roberts? 

Mr. ROBERTS. In a study by the previous Administration, it was 

estimated that if we hit our 20 percent goals on wind, that there 

would be close to 400,000 to 500,000 new jobs. So the question, I 

think, ultimately is how do we continue to build off of the success? 

Right now we have 75,000 jobs in our industry. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Reicher, you spoke about research and development and some of the cuts in store there in a rather small percentage of both revenues or—by any measure, the small investment in 

research and development. What kinds of innovations in wind capture and energy transmission might be in store there, and what 

would be a reasonable investment in research and development, 

private sector, public sector? 

Mr. REICHER. In terms of technologies, Mr. Holt, there is an extraordinary array of opportunities with wind turbines, moving from 

turbines that use gears to turbines that don’t use gears, to so-called 

direct-drive wind turbines that would improve the efficiency, lower 

costs, lower the need for service. So that is one thing. Offshore 

wind turbines, we heard earlier, lots of revolutionary things can be 

done to build those better, cheaper, faster than we do today. 

In terms of funding, I am just floored that we are spending 

roughly one-tenth of what we were in 1980 in the energy R&D 

area. We were at 25 percent of Federal R&D spending in 1980. We 

are at a tenth of that today. 

Mr. HOLT. Let me get a quick question in, if I may, for Mr. 

Lanard. Does the government have a role to do a better job in characterizing the offshore wind out there, or will private industry be 

able to do it? 

Mr. LANARD. Congressman, I listened to your question to the last 

session on this as well, and I think that the industry can do it. 

There are still some proprietary techniques that the industries are 

using for competitive advantage, so right now our recommendation 

would be to at least leave that to the developers. There is plenty 

for the Federal Government to do with the permitting process. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. Gosar is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. GOSAR. I am going to try to keep this brief, and I hope you 

would keep your answers brief. I am a businessman; I am a dentist. I am also from Flagstaff, so I have seen innovative industries. 

Motor Excellence is one reinventing how we look at electric engines, and Southwest Wind Power, all at our back door, all in our 

backyard and garages. So the business model I have got to concentrate, I have heard the complementary aspects from the Democratic side talking about lack of funding. 

79 

Let us go back to the business model. Real quickly, in a percentage of your budgets, how much goes to administrative aspects and 

judicial aspects within your businesses toward permitting? 

Let me give you a real quick question or analogy. The Army 

Corps of Engineers gives the Flagstaff city a grant of $3 million, 

yet 60 percent of that is lost in administration. I want to make 

sure we are talking efficiency here. 

So how much money out of your budgets goes to the permitting 

process having to deal with the justice—and, oh, by the way, I also 

want you to talk to me also about how much money or have any 

of you had to deal with lawsuits from equal access to justice accounts? So give me a number. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I am not aware specifically industrywide exactly 

that number. Unfortunately, it is relevant to us, and it does seem 

to be increasing in a lot of projects. 

Dr. GOSAR. Would you say it is 50 or 60 percent? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I don’t think it is that high. 

Dr. GOSAR. Really. OK. 

Ms. REILLY. I don’t have a number that I can give you, but it is 

a significant part of the development costs, and quite a lot of what 

our company does is development and construction. But in the development phase of a project, a large part of the spend is focused 

on permitting. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Gosar, the Massachusetts Bar Association has 

voted me client of the year for the last 10 years in a row. I would 

say that over 70 percent of our investment in the Cape Wind 

project, which I mentioned before, has gone to permitting and judicial. But here is the saddest part of it all: The judicial is driven 

by basically one opponent. And although the project has the support of over 86 percent of Massachusetts citizens, the national, 

local, regional environmental organizations, labor, health advocates, the Massachusetts Legislature, the Patrick Administration, 

the congressional delegation, one small group can tie you up in 

knots for many years. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. 

Mr. LANARD. I don’t want to contradict my colleague here, the client of the year, so I will just pass. I agree with him. 

Mr. RESCH. We represent large-scale and small-scale solar, and 

I think that the biggest problem is not necessarily the percentage, 

but how it becomes a fundamental barrier for small businesses to 

enter in and actually have a business, where you can’t spend the 

$10 million or the $20 million to get from concept to contract. And 

that, I think, is a huge barrier for frankly what is the backbone of 

the American economy, small business. 

Mr. DEROSA. Representative Gosar, I will give you some numbers. First of all, we have a small project in your district. But these 

larger projects, utility scale, we might spend $20 million in the development of those projects, and I would say roughly $5 million of 

that goes to the permitting process. 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. I think that it is difficult to put your finger on 

the figure. For instance, if there is a delay that can have the company not hit its contracted delivery date of the power, and hit penalties there, because the utility doesn’t get the power when they exVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
80 

pect it. But to give you one number, for instance, SunRun of San 

Francisco spends 33 percent of their costs on permitting. 

Mr. REICHER. I am going to take a different view. There are development costs in a project, and there are finance costs. I was in 

the project finance business for a number of years. You can face a 

significant percentage of development costs for permitting. The big 

costs in a project, the vast proportion of costs, are in the project 

finance, the equity and the debt. We just heard 5 of 20 million, but 

this could be a solar project that costs hundreds of millions to ultimately bill. 

You have to be careful when we say that it is a high percentage. 

It could be a decently high percentage of the small, relatively 

small, development costs. It will be a very small percentage of the 

total project costs. 

Dr. GOSAR. However, each time that you have a delay, that is 

running money. 

Mr. REICHER. No doubt. But, again, let us be careful here. When 

you are talking about these projects that are measured in hundreds 

of millions and billions of dollars, permitting costs are a very small 

piece of that. 

Dr. GOSAR. When you start looking at the processes in my district, when we are talking about a NEPA process now going on to 

6 years, and we are looking at these lawsuits, we got projects on 

the Native Americans that they go through another step. They go 

through the BIA, which is another hurdle. How absurd is this? 

Some of these projects will never, ever see fruition because of the 

agencies. 

Thank you. 

Mr. REICHER. Those absolutely need to be fixed. No doubt. I just 

want to correct the math. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Unfortunately, we are going to have to break. We only have 2 

minutes on this vote, and we have two Members that want to ask 

questions. So we only have one vote. We will recess so the Members can go over and vote and come back. Let us try to set a target 

time of 1:20 to try to reconvene. 

The Committee stands in recess subject to the call of the Chair, 

which we hope will be around 1:20. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. [presiding.] The Committee will come back to 

order, please. 

Thank you for your patience while we took a vote recently. I will 

be filling in as Chairman now for the remainder of this hearing. 

Thank you for being here today. I know a couple have had to get 

to the airport. Thank you also for your indulgence. Because of the 

meeting at the White House, which wasn’t anticipated until maybe 

even yesterday, that pushed everything back for our schedule 

today. So sorry for any inconvenience, but we appreciate your finishing up the hearing. 

I believe the next person in line to ask questions is Representative DeFazio of Oregon. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For Mr. Roberts with AWEA, the AWEA sent out a press release 

on May 17th that refers to nitrogen levels in the Columbia. The 

81 

controversy is that we have perhaps what one can say is too much 

of a good thing, too much wind, too much hydro. BPA has curtailed 

as much thermal as they can curtail and is at this point having to 

curtail wind, and the wind energy is upset because they—even 

though their customers still get their electricity, as you know, you 

don’t get your subsidies through the tax system. 

So, you are purporting to say that we could spill more water, depending upon Save Our Wild Salmon. And I am a bit curious, are 

you an attorney? 

Mr. ROBERTS. No, Congressman, I am not. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right, you are not an attorney. Good, because 

I am not either. So we are off to a good start. 

But the point here is that the judge, who is both an attorney and 

a Federal judge and lord and master, has said EPA must comply 

with the Washington State standards. That judge has ruled that. 

Save Our Wild Salmon doesn’t like that, and, you know, if we followed the lead of Save Our Salmon, we would kind of incur the 

wrath of the judge. So I would suggest that you might look for 

other practical ways of addressing this issue. But that is not one, 

given Judge Redden’s position on this issue, which is quite firm, 

that we cannot increase the dissolved gas levels. 

So since spill is not possible, I guess I would like to ask, the implication here is that—I mean, first off, it seems to be—as I said, 

it is not preventable, but second, are there things we could do so 

that you could continue to produce and get your tax subsidies while 

we have high-water years? And I think, yes, there are a couple of 

things. 

One would be improved transmission. BPA is looking at improving the DC line. It would be phenomenally expensive. Would the 

wind energy producers be willing to share in the cost of improving 

transmission if they could be given more assurance that they could 

transmit their power and get their tax subsidy during periods of 

high water? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Congressman, on the nitrogen levels, I agree with 

you that this is a very thorny issue. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Look, we are done with nitrogen levels. I mean, the 

judge has ruled. The judge has ruled. I agreed with a lot of what 

the judge has done, as has Doc Hastings, but that is where we are 

at. So let us get on to the other issue. 

If we could look at other ways of allowing you to continue to 

produce electricity so you can get your subsidies—even though your 

customers are always held harmless in this condition, but so you 

could continue to get your subsidies—in order to get those subsidies, would you be willing to pay some of the costs of upgrading 

transmission to your customers in California? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Congressman, of course we would. I mean, to make 

a more flexible system. One point I do want to disagree just slightly is we have contracts, and those contract obligations potentially 

will not be met. It is more than subsidies. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, your obligations are met in that these people 

are getting their power. California has some very perverse rules regarding what is renewable and what isn’t, and they don’t seem to 

like hydro, so therefore these people aren’t meeting their renewable 

82 

energy requirements. I would say that that is a problem you have 

with the State of California and not with the Northwest region. 

I mean, the bottom line for me is our ratepayers are not going 

to subsidize you since taxpayers already are, and if you want to 

bump us off the system somehow, that is a problem and a concern. 

I represent the Northwest, I represent Northwest ratepayers, and 

we are looking for a way out of this. To me, that would be enhanced transmission, and I am pleased to hear you would be willing to negotiate some additional cost to the industry to looking at 

upgrading the DC line, which might be a solution that works for 

both. That way, other ratepayers could avoid that part of the cost, 

could benefit you, and then your customers could still get their 

electrons, which apparently are labeled with a W as opposed to an 

H down there in California so that they can meet their obligations 

for the State. But I think the State might sort of rethink some of 

their bizarre rulemaking down there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Now Mr. Duncan of South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Chairman having this hearing. 

The first time I saw wind power was over in Germany. I was fascinated with the windmills. Then I was out in the Chairman’s 

hometown, Pasco, Washington, and saw some windmills out there, 

and actually were able to drive up and stand right under them, and 

sort of looking into the wind industry at the Hanover trade fair in 

Germany as well. So I appreciate the industry being here to talk 

with us about this. 

You know, sitting on this Committee, I can tell you, most of us 

are all about a complete and comprehensive energy policy for this 

country, which includes renewables of wind, solar, hydrogen, algae 

production for fuel. We just saw the Blue Angels, I believe, fly on 

algae jet fuel. So we will continue down that comprehensive energy 

policy, but we cannot ignore the fossil fuels, the hydrocarbons and 

also nuclear power. So I want to make that statement. 

But what we see out of this Administration is them saying one 

thing and doing something completely different; saying that they 

are all about renewables, about increasing opportunities there, but 

then they tie your hands with the regulations, and they tie your 

hands with areas that they are going to allow some of this wind 

farms or solar fields to be implemented. 

Last week, Mr. Chairman, we discussed in the Subcommittee the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the amount of land they are wanting 

to continue to buy, and they can’t maintain what they have now. 

They are asking for more money. It was very obvious they can’t 

maintain the new structures that were being built with stimulus 

money. 

Looking at this map, and thinking about the Western States 

where the solar possibilities are, and thinking about how much 

Federal land is owned in Utah and Arizona and New Mexico, and 

wondering how much in this darkest circle here could possibly be 

used for solar power. It is ungodly, the amount the Federal Government owns. I know the Western Caucus has been talking about 

83 

this, trying to reverse that trend and put some of that land back 

in private hands. 

Another Committee hearing we had, Mr. Chairman, we talked 

about the secretarial order that Secretary Salazar, I think, signed 

in December to expedite the designation of wilderness areas from 

wilderness study areas. Only Congress has the ability, I believe, to 

designate wilderness area, but the Bureau of Land Management is 

implementing what the Secretary, their boss, told them to do. 

So we are having properties being taken off the table designated 

as wilderness areas, and once they are designated as wilderness 

areas—and I have been to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area in 

Montana. I know what you can and cannot do there. You can hike 

or go on horseback, and the only other means of transportation 

going in there, hiking and horseback. You take everything in that 

you need, and you pack it all back out. There are no telephone 

lines, no power lines, no cell towers, no roads, no bridges. And so 

once these properties are designated as wilderness areas, they are 

off the table for good, and you won’t be able to put a wind farm 

or a solar field there at all. 

So, anyway, I want to change the line of questioning here and 

tell you from South Carolina, we might have a little wind off our 

coast. There is one little area off Georgetown that might be a possibility. And the reason that is the only possibility is that is the closest area to the grid. 

Having access to the transmission lines are one of the biggest obstacles, I think, to wind power in this country. You can simply ask 

T. Boone Pickens, who was running down that track and realized 

that was the number one obstacle. It would be the biggest cost hurdle for him in developing solar. Then you had the fuel prices 

change. I think that helped out a little bit, or stymied him a little 

bit. 

So the questions I have, first off, is what do we need to do to increase access to the grid? Is that an issue? Because I haven’t heard 

it, and I haven’t been sitting here the whole time. 

Then the second thing I want to ask is about the golden eagles. 

I would like to find out from Mr. Roberts, how many golden eagles 

have been killed in the last 20 years? I am going to ask you that 

one first because that is an easy one. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Congressman, I defer this to Ms. Reilly, because 

she has been working on that issue. 

Ms. REILLY. Sir, we recently have a report on the mortalities 

with the golden eagles, and if you look at the mortality rate of eagles killed by human sources, the wind industry accounts for less 

than 1 percent. In the last 24 years, 24 years, we calculate about 

12. 

Mr. DUNCAN. When you say less than 1 percent, is that from 

wind, or is that from all human sources? 

Ms. REILLY. No. The wind industry, modern wind turbines account for less than 1 percent of mortalities of eagles caused by 

human causes, like buildings or traffic. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We are going to stymie a whole industry over less 

than 1 percent of the man-made kills, which I think are 5 or 6 in 

the last 20 years. It hasn’t been that many. 

84 

So I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. If we are going to 

have a second round of questioning, or I can continue. 

Mr. LAMBORN. First let us take Representative Napolitano from 

California, and then we will see what the witnesses want to do. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Am I next? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Yes, I meant to recognize you. Please continue. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I have a great interest in wind, but more than that in solar, photovoltaic production, and the questions that I have are going to be 

mostly related to that, although I have one specific one to the Federal Advisory Committee guidelines. 

The guidelines used are significant, the adverse impacts or effects, contrasted with the February 2011 guidelines that use merely adverse impacts. Projects that pose low risk to wildlife with potential insignificant adverse impacts thus would require the same 

level of assessment and efforts as higher-risk projects, using significant adverse impact as a threshold, well established under both the 

NEPA and ESA. 

Could you indicate, any of you, what your comment is on that? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Congresswoman, the issue is that—— 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Now, I have 5 minutes, so please be very, very 

precise. 

Mr. ROBERTS. The industry worked with advocates and stakeholders on creating a process called the Federal Advisory Committee. It started with the last Administration and was accepted by 

this Administration. These rules changed that process. What this 

does is—one of the biggest problems is the proportionality thing in 

Utah. A site that we all know is not a problem we have to do the 

same amount of research on. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I have other questions, sir. Thank you. 

Anybody else, real quickly? 

No. OK. 

I want to focus a little bit more on the Native American issue 

that I have a great concern about, because none of you talk about 

placing on Native American land any of the wind or solar. I am involved with two organizations, IBW and NECA, that are doing this 

and California tribes. How would that affect what you do, or how 

can we continue to push forward? Because the budget in the BIA 

and the operation of Indian programs is dismal, to say the least, 

to be able to help them. 

This would build on site many factories of solar panels, training 

Native Americans in IBW, the electrical engineers, to become engineers. So you produce not only training, but job programs and 

economy. Is anybody looking at that? 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. I could comment a little. Doing power projects 

on tribal lands is even more difficult than on public lands that are 

nontribal. So that certainly has been a major holdup. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I would like to talk to you about that, sir, because we are trying to get through with Secretary Salazar in the 

last year to develop some kind of guidelines to expedite these 

things. 

Dr. PISZCZALSKI. OK. I could talk to you off line on that. 

Mr. DEROSA. If I could speak to that, we have some firsthand experience with that, and some tribal land in the Southwest is excelVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66728.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
85 

lent solar land. And First Solar, we are working with tribal entities—it is not public, so I can’t say with whom, but we are working 

hard on that. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I would love to talk with you about it, sir. 

Then are you doing any partnering with R&D universities and 

then universities that are doing a lot of the research to help with 

explanations and comments on some of the projects that you have 

been working on, whether solar or wind, or geothermal for that 

manner? Nobody? 

Mr. DEROSA. We work on the local project level. Like in southern 

California we work with some of the community colleges on education and job training. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. No, I am talking specifically on some of the research they are doing on water and things that they are finding out 

about new technology, and even such dumb things as the elimination of the quagga mussel. 

Mr. DEROSA. I would have to look into that one. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Mr. RESCH. There are certainly partnerships between the solar 

industry and a variety of different universities, Arizona State in 

particular is one that has really stepped forward and brought together their business school, their law school, their engineering departments and created some very robust decisionmaking programs. 

And their Decision Theater at ASU is really world class in helping 

identify multiple issues that would prevent solar—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, the Department of the Interior finds 

some 30-some universities to do R&D, and we are not asking them 

to focus on specific issues. So maybe that is when we begin to 

throw some ideas their way. 

Then the last question I have is public-private partnerships, setting up a fund or being able to work and being able to bring those 

folks in, especially those from Wall Street, any others that are interested in a sure thing, because this is a technology that is 

evolved already. It is just assistance with the funding. The same 

thing in transportation. We find that we don’t have the ability to 

go out and do it ourselves, or the locals don’t. So public-private 

partnerships are going to be critical. 

Has anybody begun to ask who, where, when and how of being 

able to formulate bringing them in? 

Mr. LAMBORN. [presiding.] Can anyone answer that in 25 words 

or less? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Or in writing, for that matter. 

Mr. REICHER. I would simply say that smart developers of renewable energy projects, solar and wind, increasingly know to go where 

there are big resources available and where there is support at the 

public level. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It is like the university. They do a lot of research, and only they know—they put it on their Website, but nobody knows what the Website is. So we have to be a little more 

transparent in being able to get the information so people can use 

it, really can get to it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. All right. Thank you. 

And rather than ask your indulgence for a second round of questions, even though there are only a handful of people here, I am 

86 

going to just wrap up this round, and that will be it. I am the last 

person, but I am going to give my time and yield to the gentleman 

from South Carolina, who will finish us up. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to finish the 

line of questioning about the transmission before I ask my final 

question. And I guess the Wind Association would be the person to 

ask. 

A transmission is an area that you don’t hear that much about. 

You hear about the sound of the windmills, and the flash, and the 

killing of the eagles and that sort of thing. But I understand transmission lines being a big obstacle. Can you touch on that for me 

and what we are doing about that? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. It is a big obstacle. It is very important to our 

industry to deal with. On the public lands we can do some more 

streamlining, and we really encourage the Federal agencies to work 

with the regulatory commissions and work with the legislators to 

help us make siting of transmission faster and easier. And that is 

some work that can be done. 

On a national level, of course, we need to work with the FERC, 

with the regional planning groups, et cetera, to create a strategy 

to reinvest in our transmission system, and we have a long way to 

go there. It has been woefully invested in for the past 50 years, and 

we have some catching up to do. So that is a high priority for the 

industry and something that leadership from this Committee and 

from this Congress would be greatly appreciated. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is that a big hang-up with offshore areas, too, 

where you are limited? 

Mr. LANARD. Mr. Duncan, let me just talk about the offshore for 

1 second, if I may. Thanks. 

Congressman, we work a lot with Santee Cooper. They are doing 

some really thoughtful, progressive work on assessing wind resources and how to move forward in South Carolina for offshore 

wind. 

The question on transmission for us is looking at possibly the opportunity for an offshore back—I would defer to you, Dan. I think 

you are going to talk about that. The Atlantic Wind Connection is 

one of our members proposing a project that will go from northern 

New Jersey down to Virginia, and it could possibly even go further 

if those States demonstrate an interest and create the demand for 

offshore wind. So we do have—and what would be interesting there 

is we would be bringing power from the east to the west, which 

doesn’t occur in the United States generally along the coast. It has 

always flowed the other way in a radial feed situation. So this type 

of transmission system improves reliability. It is much greater than 

just serving the offshore wind industry; it is serving the ratepayers 

by having a more reliable and more robust system. 

Mr. REICHER. Can I just add that when I was at Google, we 

made an investment in this Atlantic Wind Connection, the offshore 

backbone transmission line that would run from New Jersey to Virginia, And it is a great project, Mr. Duncan. It would avoid a lot 

of individual lines having to be built from each wind farm to the 

grid on the East Coast, and it would improve the efficiency of the 

transmission system on the East Coast. It would allow wind turbines to be sited further offshore so permitting is easier, and there 

87 

would be less objection from residents along the coastline, and it 

would add to the security, frankly, of the East Coast grid. So it is 

a real win-win, and I think it is one of those projects that, if it 

works its way successfully through permitting, it is a great one to 

build. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

We often hear—last question—about the impacts of budget cuts 

and regulation on industry development. And so in your opinion, do 

you think budget cuts or regulation have a bigger impediment to 

renewable energy development on public lands? I ask each one of 

you there. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chair, good question. I think it is a combination of both. I mean, if we had a simpler process and a more 

streamlined process, we could get away with less staff. But with 

the existing regulations and not change them and cutting staff 

would be very harmful to us getting our permits done in a timely 

fashion. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Ms. Reilly. 

Ms. REILLY. To repeat what we said earlier, we need efficiency 

in the process. And we think we can make savings if we have more 

efficiencies and people are focused on getting outcomes. 

The other thing I would just mention is that the industry has offered to help with the cost of processing permits in a more expeditious fashion, and we would ask that to be considered. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Just the rest of you, just regulation or budget impacts, which do you think? 

Mr. LANARD. Budget impacts for offshore wind, and the investment tax credit, and loan guarantees are critical for our industry 

right now. 

Mr. RESCH. Absolutely, budget impacts for solar as well. We have 

great systems in place; we just need the staff to make sure they 

are administered and processed. 

Mr. DEROSA. Yeah, I agree. But we have to be careful not to cut 

off our nose to spite our face. There are laws on the books. If a permitting process is not done thoroughly, it just opens a project up 

to lawsuits. So in our terminology, a project needs to be bulletproof 

in its permitting effort. 

Mr. PISZCZALSKI. I guess I would weigh in on the regulatory side 

in that it is then given too little attention. 

Mr. REICHER. I would just say healthy budgets and effective regulation, we need both. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And thank you, each member of the 

panel who came here to testify today. We appreciate your testimony. We appreciate you making yourselves available to answer 

questions. And please remember that there may be additional questions that members of the Committee submit to you in writing, and 

we would ask you to respond to those. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And as a final piece of business, I ask unanimous 

consent to add two additional pieces of testimony to the record. If 

there is no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LAMBORN. If there is no other business, then, without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

88 

[Whereupon, at 1:51 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A letter submitted for the record by Johanna Wald, Western 

Renewable Energy Project, Natural Resources Defense Council; 

Pamela Pride Eaton, Deputy Vice President, Public Lands, The 

Wilderness Society; and Jim Lyons, Senior Director for Renewable 

Energy, Defenders of Wildlife, follows:] 


66728.009.eps
89 


66728.010.eps
90 


66728.011.eps
91 


66728.012.eps 66728.005.eps
92 

[A statement submitted for the record by Chris Donavin, 

President, Energy Dense Power Systems, follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by Chris Donavin, President, 

Energy Dense Power Systems 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for today’s 

hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee. My name is Chris Donavin, 

and I am President of Energy Dense Power Systems (EDPS), a privately held company headquartered in Owings, Maryland that was established to develop unique 

battery-based power management product solutions. Our products have been integrated into a variety of applications requiring remote power across many industries, 

including the scientific, military, marine, and telecommunications industries. 

Our products are safe, rechargeable Lithium-Ion power systems that are lightweight, rugged, and portable. One of the most exciting features of our technology 

is the ability to store and manage input power from renewable sources such as 

solar, fuel cells and wind generator as well as conventional generators and the grid. 

We are currently providing our product to the Department of Defense to meet 

very specific needs for smaller, lighter, and more energy dense power solutions. We 

are also reaching out across the federal agencies to offer this unique product as a 

strategic capability to help the federal government generate and store power more 

efficiently, and to make better use of alternative and renewable energy sources. 

While today’s hearing is focused on large scale efforts to harness renewable resources on federal land, I believe that it is also important to discuss the opportunity 

for the federal government to more broadly utilize products such as those developed 

by EDPS in order to reduce their own reliance on fossil based fuels. 

About EDPS 

Energy Dense Power Systems LLC specializes in high energy density scalable 

power solutions ranging from small portable applications (<12OO Watt-hours) up to 

larger fixed installations (>25 kWatt-hours). Our power management technology 

generally is used to provide primary and backup energy storage, to power electronics, medical and telecommunications equipment, provide UPS backup as well as 

provide power to a variety of other DC and AC appliances. Our system is extremely 

scalable to accommodate almost any power requirement. In general, our installation 

base includes systems with energy densities between 65–200 Watt-hours per kilogram. (30–90 Watt-hours per lbs). The system readily accepts and manages input 

power from renewable sources including solar and wind.SE I63 

We believe that EDPS is currently the only US manufacturer of a patented energy 

dense lithium-ion, scalable power management system. In addition we believe EDPS 

is the only company currently that complies with the DOT–UN transport requirements for lithium ion batteries transportable as non-hazardous cargo. 

Department of Interior Need for Portable Power 

The Department of Interior, with expansive land in remote areas, has a significant need for renewable and portable power. In fact, the Agency has posted numerous requests for proposals to provide portable power solutions to the Agency. In my 

experience, the Agency often posts very prescriptive and specific solicitations for 

portable power that offer limited opportunities for creative technology applications. 

For example, in November 2010, the National Park Service solicited bids for a renewable energy system for the Bechler Ranger Station (Solicitation Q1574110004). 

As outlined in the solicitation, EDPS has several products that could have fulfilled 

the needs of the National Park Service that would have been both environmentally 

friendly, and cost effective. 

Unfortunately, our product is a Lithium-Ion based system and, as a result, was 

not eligible under this solicitation. As President of EDPS, I reached out to the contract officer to share the features of our safe, rechargeable Lithium-Ion power system. Specifically, I shared the fact that the EDPS product would be a lighter, more 

cost-effective and more environmentally friendly alternative to the lead acid system 

that the National Park Service was soliciting. I also highlighted the tremendous life 

cycle cost savings that the Park Service would benefit from as well as reduced 

logistical costs associated with a battery system that is roughly half the weight of 

comparable lead acid systems. The life cycle of lithium based systems is up to 3000 

charges at 80% DOD. That eclipses lead acids capability of roughly 300 at 50% 

DOD. 

We believe that the EDPS product could provide dramatic cost and energy benefits not only for the Bechler Ranger Station, but for any facility within the Department of Interior that has a need for portable and energy dense renewable power. 

93 

We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our product not only with the National Park Service, but also with the Bureau of Land Management and other Department of Interior agencies. As the Department of Interior continues to examine 

its power needs, however, we do urge the Agency not to include overly prescriptive 

requirements that preclude specific technologies. 

Conclusion 

One of the great challenges facing increased utilization of renewable power 

sources such as solar and wind power is the difficulty in capturing and storing the 

power. There is a nearly infinite supply of power that could be generate by sun and 

wind. But we are limited in our ability harness that energy, and deliver it to consumers in a cost-effective manner. 

As the federal government discusses opportunities to dramatically increase the 

scale on which we generate this type of renewable power, we believe it is also important to examine the mechanisms that exist to distribute this power to consumers. 

EDPS has developed a product that can help both government and industry to harness and utilize renewable power. We stand ready to assist with this technology as 

our nation struggles to become less dependent on fossil based fuels. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to submit testimony for today’s hearing. I look forward to 

continuing to work with you. 

Æ