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

66-362 PDF 2012

AMERICAN ENERGY INITIATIVE: 

IDENTIFYING ROADBLOCKS TO 

WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY ON 

PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS, 

PART I—DOI OFFICIALS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Friday, May 13, 2011 

Serial No. 112-31 

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 Friday, May 13, 2011 .................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

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

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 4 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Abbey, Hon. Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 43 

Bromwich, Hon. Michael R., Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the 

Interior ........................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Additional materials supplied: 

Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, Letter submitted for the record to President Obama from 

various environmentalists, conservationists, and clean energy advocates 

in support of development of offshore wind along the Atlantic Seaboard 

dated March 7, 2011 .................................................................................... 34 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ‘‘AMERICAN 

ENERGY INITIATIVE: IDENTIFYING ROADBLOCKS TO WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY ON 

PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS, PART I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICIALS.’’ 

Friday, May 13, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:28 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn, 

[Acting Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Bishop, Thompson, Tipton, 

Labrador, Fleischmann, Runyan, Markey, Holt, Costa, Sablan, 

Luja ́n, and Pierluisi. 

Chairman LAMBORN. The Chairman notes the presence of a 

quorum, which under Rule 3(e) is two Members. The Committee on 

Natural Resources is meeting today to hear testimony, and before 

I talk about the specifics there, a couple of points of personal 

privilege. 

I would like to say first of all that our thoughts are with Chairman Doc Hastings, who is laid up back in Washington, and not 

feeling well, but I think he is improving. He had some medical 

issues. So that is why he could not be here today, and he would 

want to, and that is why I an filling in. 

And I want to thank also our two important witnesses for being 

here. We wanted to start right on time, but we had votes interfering with our schedule, and so thank you for your patience and 

being here right now. 

OK. The hearing today is titled ‘‘American Energy Initiative: 

Identifying Roadblocks to Wind and Solar Energy on Public Lands 

and Waters, Part One—Department of the Interior Officials.’’ 

Now, under Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to the 

Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee. However, I ask 

for unanimous consent to include any other Members opening 

statements in the hearing record if submitted to the Clerk by close 

of business today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

And now I recognize myself for five minutes. 

2 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Chairman LAMBORN. This week the House took important action 

to expand American energy production by passing three bipartisan 

offshore drilling bills. These bills will unlock our oil and natural 

gas resources that have been placed off-limits by the Obama Administration, create 1.2 million jobs, and reduce foreign imports by 

one-third. 

There are different perspectives on it, and maybe that will be 

part of our discussion here today, but that is my perspective. These 

bills represented the first important steps. However, our work on 

this Committee is just beginning. 

As Chairman Hastings has repeatedly said, there will be an 

array of energy bills coming from this Committee as part of the 

House Republican’s American energy initiative that will focus on 

expanding all types of energy production, including renewable. 

The Obama Administration has taken steps to increase production of both wind and solar power, and we recognize that. However, 

there are significant questions about the implementation of these 

policies, and today we will examine roadblocks to the development 

of wind and solar power on public lands. 

Our Federal lands are intended to be multiple-use lands, open to 

recreation, energy production, and other types of job-creating 

activities. Yet, too often we have seen attempts by Congressional 

Democrats and the Obama Administration to place our public lands 

off-limits to any type of economic activity. 

This costs jobs and blocks crucial American energy production. I 

understand that the Obama Administration has an inherent distrust and opposition to conventional fossil fuels, and that environmental concerns, even highly speculative, unprovable speculations 

about the climate of the future, seem to trump the everyday concerns of average Americans here and now, such as jobs, affordable 

gasoline, and lessening our reliance on foreign sources. 

I disagree totally with that perspective, but I understand it. 

What I don’t understand is how catering to environmentalists has 

even seemed to put the brakes on alternative sources of energy, 

like solar and wind power. 

The United States has some promising areas, especially in the 

West, for solar energy development. The Obama Administration 

claims that solar energy production is one of its highest priorities. 

Yet, only a tiny fraction of public land is even being considered for 

this use, and almost nothing has actually been made available. 

The Bureau of Land Management has created 24 solar energy 

zones on public lands in six western States. However, of the 120 

million acres of BLM land in these States, only 674,400 acres have 

been identified by the Administration as proposed solar energy 

zones. 

This means that the Interior Department is offering less than 

one percent of this land for streamlined solar energy production. 

Access to public lands is not the only hurdle facing renewable 

energy projects. 

Regulatory confusion, lawsuits, and permitting delays are also 

stifling wind and solar development. For example, Bright Source 

3 

Energy’s solar project in California was halted by the BLM over 

last minute concerns regarding tortoises. 

This suspension of the project came after the company had 

already invested millions of dollars, and had gone through the 

required permitting process. In 2010, BLM issued new policy 

requiring approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service on specific 

plans for addressing eagles. 

This sudden change in policy resulted in significant delays to numerous wind projects, and the wind industry estimated that this 

rule cost $68 billion in wind power investment. 

The Obama Administration has launched a ‘‘Smart From the 

Start’’ wind initiative for Federal waters in the Atlantic. As part 

of this initiative the Department issued a request for interest on 

the potential for wind development in an area located off of Massachusetts. 

Despite receiving 11 submissions from 10 companies expressing 

interest in leasing this area, the Administration decided to reduce 

the area size by half. These are all examples of what appear to be 

unnecessary roadblocks to renewable energy production. 

If changes need to be made to ensure these projects are more 

than just talk and actually become reality, the Natural Resources 

Committee is prepared to act. It quite frankly boggles the mind 

that some of the biggest so-called proponents of renewable energy 

are often the same people filing lawsuits blocking renewable development. 

But just because the environmental communities are actually 

very fractured, and riddled with inconsistencies, doesn’t mean that 

Federal agencies should be paralyzed and ineffective. 

Steps should be taken to reduce the regulatory uncertainty, expedite the permitting process, and remove roadblocks in order to appropriately expand the development of energy projects on public 

lands. 

I do thank again Director Michael Bromwich and Director Bob 

Abbey for taking the time to be here today. I look forward to your 

testimony, and exploring ways that we can work together to overcome obstacles to renewable energy production on Federal lands. 

And at this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member 

for five minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Subcommittee Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources 

This week the House took important action to expand American energy production 

by passing three bipartisan offshore drilling bills. These bills will unlock our oil and 

natural gas resources that have been placed off-limits by the Obama Administration, create 1.2 million jobs and reduce foreign imports by one-third. 

These bills represented the first important steps, however our work on this Committee is just beginning. As Chairman Hastings has repeatedly said, there will be 

an array of energy bills coming from this Committee as part of House Republicans’ 

American Energy Initiative that will focus on expanding all types of energy production—including renewable. 

The Obama Administration has taken steps to increase production of both wind 

and solar power, and we applaud them for that. However there are still questions 

about the implementation of these policies and today we’ll examine roadblocks to 

the development of wind and solar power. 

Our federal lands are intended to be multiple-use lands—open to recreation, energy production and other types of job-creating activities. Yet too often we’ve seen 

4 

attempts by Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to place our 

public lands off-limits to any type of economic activity. This costs jobs and blocks 

crucial American energy production. 

The United States has some of the most promising areas, especially in the West, 

for solar energy development. The Obama Administration claims solar energy production is one of its highest priorities, yet only a tiny fraction of public land is even 

being considered for opening and almost nothing has actually been made available. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has created 24 ‘‘solar energy zones’’ on 

public lands in six Western states. However, of the 120 million acres of BLM land 

in these states, only 674,400 acres have been identified by the Administration as 

proposed solar energy zones. This means that the Interior Department is offering 

less than 1 percent of this land for streamlined solar energy production. 

Access to public lands is not the only hurdle facing renewable energy projects. 

Regulatory confusion, lawsuits and permitting delays are also stifling wind and 

solar development. For example: 

• BrightSource Energy’s solar project in California was halted by the BLM over 

last minute concerns regarding tortoises. This suspension of the project came 

after the company had already invested millions of dollars and had gone 

through the required permitting process. 

• In 2010, BLM issued new policy requiring approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service on specific plans for addressing eagles. This sudden change in policy resulted in significant delays to numerous wind projects and the wind industry estimated that this rule cost $68 billion in wind power investment. 

• The Obama Administration has launched a ‘‘Smart from the Start’’ wind energy initiative for federal waters in the Atlantic. As part of this initiative, the 

Department issued a Request for Interest on the potential for wind development in an area located off of Massachusetts. Despite receiving 11 submissions from 10 companies expressing interest in leasing this area, the Administration decided to reduce the area size by half. 

These are all examples of what appear to be unnecessary roadblocks to renewable 

energy production. 

If changes need to be made to ensure these projects are more than just talk and 

actually become reality, the Natural Resources Committee is prepared to act. It 

quite frankly boggles the mind that some of the biggest so-called proponents of renewable energy are of often the exact same people filing lawsuits blocking renewable development. 

Steps should be taken to reduce the regulatory uncertainly, expedite the permitting process and remove roadblocks in order to quickly and efficiently expand the 

development of energy projects on public lands. 

I want to thank Director Michael Bromwich and Director Bob Abbey for taking 

the time to be here today. I look forward to your testimony and exploring ways we 

can work together to overcome obstacles to renewable energy production on federal 

lands. 

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

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman, and first of all, as we turn 

our attention to renewable energy, I hope that Chairman Hastings 

is successfully renewing his health back home in Washington. Our 

thoughts and prayers are with him for a speedy recovery. 

America’s public lands and waters are a virtually untapped clean 

energy reserve, holding some of the world’s best wind and solar resources. Yet, in the first five months of this Congress, renewable 

energy has been an invisible issue with the Republican majority. 

The majority claims to be for ‘‘All ’of the Above,’’ yet have been 

entirely subsumed by their ‘‘Oil Above All’’ approach. This Committee has now passed three bills on the House Floor, and not one 

includes anything on wind. Not one includes anything about solar, 

or geothermal, or hydropower, or anything but oil. 

This is a continuation of the energy policy under President Bush. 

Now, during the eight years of the Bush-Cheney Clean Energy 

5 

Moratorium, the Interior Department issued more than 40,000 permits to drill for oil and gas on public lands. 

But of the more than 300 applications to build solar facilities 

that came in during that time of the Bush Administration, up until 

January 20th of 2009, exactly zero applications were approved for 

solar, and only five wind permits were approved. 

Fortunately, as we will hear today, leveraging America’s 

renewable resources on public lands has become a top priority at 

the Interior Department under the Obama Administration because 

they have now lifted the permit moratorium on wind and solar on 

public lands. 

The largest solar power plant in the world, the first offshore 

wind farm in America, and up to 10,000 megawatts of other renewable energy projects, will soon commence construction, all on America’s public lands and waters. 

The 3,800 megawatts of wind and solar projects permitted just 

last year under the Obama Administration is 13 times more than 

what was permitted during the entire eight years of the Bush Administration. 

I commend the Interior Department and our witnesses here 

today on this progress, but I do believe that much more must be 

done. The permitting time for wind and solar is measured in 

months, and sometimes years, while the time for oil and gas drilling permits is measured in weeks. 

And you don’t need a blowout preventer on a solar panel. Wind 

turbines don’t spill anything but wind. To even the playing field, 

the Department needs to work with stakeholders to complete the 

planning activities that will put the wind and solar project permitting schedule on par with oil and gas. 

This will take a greater budgeting commitment than we have 

seen thus far from the majority. Earlier this week, the Republican 

Appropriators set a funding mark for Interior and the Environment 

that is nearly $4 billion short of the President’s request. That will 

not help get wind and solar projects online faster. 

Beginning with the voyage of the Pilgrims in 1620, millions of 

people have ridden the strong winds of the North Atlantic to my 

home State of Massachusetts, in search of greater freedom and 

opportunity. 

Today, those same winds are attracting investors, driving technology development, and creating good-paying jobs. Later this year, 

the Cape Wind project plans to begin planting 130 turbines, totaling 468 megawatts into the waters off the shores of Massachusetts. 

It will ultimately produce 75 percent of the power for Cape Cod, 

Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket. At this point, Cape Wind won’t 

be held back by a permit from the Interior Department, or a power 

purchase agreement with the utility. 

But it could be scuttled by a lack of financing. Like many firstof-their-kind energy projects, financing support will be critical to 

help Cape Wind secure the necessary private investment. 

Yet, under Republican budget plans, the only technology worthy 

of Federal financing support is nuclear power. The Republican 2011 

spending plan in H.R. 1 actually rescinded the $25 billion in loan 

guarantees authority for solar, and wind, and Smart Grid, and effiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66362.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
6 

ciency, while keeping $22.5 billion available for nuclear power. 

That is unbelievable. 

It is ill-conceived policy decisions such as these that can keep 

America from fully leveraging wind and solar power. This is a very 

important hearing that we are having today, and I hope the first 

of many on the subject. I thank the witnesses for being here. I 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

First of all, as we turn our attention to renewable energy today, I hope that 

Chairman Hastings is successfully renewing his health back home in Washington. 

Our thoughts and prayers are with him for a speedy recovery. 

America’s public lands and waters are a virtually untapped clean energy reserve, 

holding some of the world’s best wind and solar resources. Yet in the first 5 months 

of this Congress, renewable energy has been an invisible issue with the Republican 

majority. 

Republicans claim to be for ‘‘All of the Above,’’ yet have been entirely subsumed 

by their ‘‘Oil Above All’’ approach. This committee has now passed three bills on the 

House floor, and not one includes anything on wind. Not one includes anything 

about solar, geothermal, hydropower or anything but oil. 

This is a continuation of the energy policy under President Bush. During the 8 

years of the Bush-Cheney Clean Energy Moratorium, the Interior Department 

issued more than 40,000 permits to drill for oil and gas on public lands. But of the 

more than 300 applications to build solar facilities that came in during that time, 

exactly zero were approved. And only 5 wind permits were approved. 

Fortunately, as we will hear today, leveraging America’s renewable resources on 

public lands has become a top priority at the Interior Department under the Obama 

administration. 

The largest solar power plant in the world, the first offshore wind farm in America, and up to 10,000 megawatts of other renewable energy projects will soon commence construction, all on America’s public lands and waters. 

The 3,800 megawatts of wind and solar projects permitted just last year under 

the Obama Administration is 13 times more than what was permitted during the 

entire 8 years of the Bush administration. 

I commend the Interior Department and our witnesses here today, Director Abbey 

and Director Bromwich, on this progress. But I do believe much more must be done. 

The permitting time for wind and solar is measured in months and sometimes 

years, while the time for oil and gas drilling permits is measured in weeks. And 

you don’t need a blowout preventer on a solar panel. Wind turbines don’t spill anything but wind. 

To even the playing field, the Department needs to work with stakeholders to 

complete the planning activities that will put the wind and solar project permitting 

schedule on par with oil and gas. 

This will take greater budgeting commitment than we’ve seen thus far from the 

majority. Earlier this week, the Republican Appropriators set a funding mark for 

Interior and the Environment that is nearly $4 billion short of the President’s request. That will not help get wind and solar projects online faster. 

Beginning with the voyage of the Pilgrims in 1620, millions of people have ridden 

the strong winds of the North Atlantic to my home state of Massachusetts in search 

of greater freedom and opportunity. Today, those same winds are attracting investors, driving technology development, and creating good-paying jobs. 

Later this year, the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts plans to begin planting 

130 turbines, totaling 468 megawatts, into the waters off the shores of Massachusetts. It will ultimately produce 75 percent of the power for Cape Cod, Martha’s 

Vineyard, and Nantucket. 

At this point, Cape Wind won’t be held back by a permit from the Interior Department or a power purchase agreement with a utility. But it could be scuttled by a 

lack of financing. Like many first-of-their-kind energy projects, financing support 

will be critical to help Cape Wind secure necessary private investment. 

Yet under Republican budget plans, the only technology worthy of federal financing support is nuclear power. The Republican 2011 spending plan in H.R. 1 actually 

rescinded $25 billion in loan guarantee authority for solar, wind, smartgrid, and efficiency while keeping $22.5 billion available for nuclear power. 

7 

It is ill conceived policy decisions such as these that could keep America from fully 

leveraging wind and solar power. 

This is a very important hearing we’re having today and, I hope, the first of many 

on the subject. I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward to their 

testimony. 

Chairman LAMBORN. And thank you, Representative Markey, for 

your comments, and now we will launch into witness statements. 

As you probably already are aware, you are very experienced at 

this, your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing 

record. 

So we ask that your oral statements be limited to five minutes. 

You need to hit the microphone switch before you talk, and once 

again I will just say we have The Honorable Bob Abbey, Director 

of the Bureau of Land Management, and The Honorable Michael 

R. Bromwich, Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Thank you again, and Mr. 

Abbey, you may start. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss renewable energy development on America’s public lands. Since the beginning of his tenure, 

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has made the development of 

renewable energy one of his top priorities. 

As the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, I share this 

goal and am pleased to report that the BLM is making great 

strides in this effort. We are ensuring environmental stewardship 

of our public lands, while fulfilling America’s potential for our future powered by renewable energy. 

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress established a goal of 

permitting 10,000 megawatts of non-hydropower renewable energy 

on public lands by the year 2015. It is the goal of this Administration to permit this amount by 2012, three years ahead of schedule. 

In 2009, the BLM instituted a ‘‘fast track’’ process that identified 

existing renewable project applications that were far enough along 

in the permit approval process to be completed by the end of 2010. 

By year’s end, the BLM had approved nine solar, one wind, and 

two geothermal projects. Together, these 12 projects have a permitting capacity of almost 4,000 megawatts. 

The BLM has positioned itself to build on last year’s successes. 

In March of this year, the BLM announced 20 projects on the 2011 

priority list; 10 solar, 5 wind, and 4 geothermal. In total, these 20 

projects represent over 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy potential. 

All renewable energy projects proposed for BLM managed lands 

will receive the full environmental review required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and include opportunities for public involvement. 

The BLM and our partners within the Department of the Interior 

engage in ongoing coordination and consultation throughout the 

priority project process. The aim is to effectively identify potential 

conflicts with projects early in the process in order to focus permitVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66362.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
8 

ting efforts on projects that have the fewest conflicts, and are the 

most likely to be approved. 

In order to achieve the goals set by Secretary Salazar, we have 

implemented a number of policies and engaged in program level 

environmental analysis designed to ensure that renewable energy 

development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner, and 

that the American people receive a fair return for the use of their 

natural resources. 

The BLM has successfully used a programmatic environmental 

impact statement process to evaluate BLM wide programs for geothermal and wind energy, and we are now in the process of completing one for the solar energy development program. 

These programmatic EIS documents examine a range of alternatives for establishing renewable energy programs on suitable 

BLM managed lands, and amend resource management plans necessary first step before the BLM can authorize specific projects. 

The BLM and the Department of Energy jointly published the 

draft programmatic EIS for solar in December of 2010. The public 

comment period for the solar programmatic EIS closed on May 2, 

after two extensions to encourage greater input. 

The BLM is currently reviewing comments and will use the 

public’s input to help determine the best path forward. We have 

also recently implemented a number of policies regarding renewable energy development. 

These policies clarify NEPA documentation requirements and expectations. They streamline the project application review and approval process, and strengthen plan of development and due diligence requirements. 

We have established our renewable energy coordination offices 

throughout the Western United States. These offices have facilitated the efficient processing of applications for large scale solar, 

wind, and geothermal projects. 

Finally, there are also a number of BLM, State, and local land 

use planning efforts underway to facilitate the future development 

of renewable energy, including the BLM’s Arizona Restoration and 

Design Program, which is evaluating and analyzing the potential 

of previously disturbed or contaminated lands for solar energy development. 

In closing, we are proud of the work that we have accomplished 

in order to stand up a renewable energy program, and a portfolio 

of projects that reflect the incredible resource potential of America’s 

public lands. Can we do better? You bet we can, and we intend to 

do so. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions that 

the Committee Members may have at the appropriate time. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:] 

Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Director, 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear here today to discuss renewable energy development on America’s public 

lands. Since the beginning of his tenure, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has 

made the development of the New Energy Frontier on America’s public lands one 

9 

of his top priorities. As Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), I share 

that goal and I am pleased to report that the BLM is making great strides in this 

effort—approving renewable energy projects on public lands that will power millions 

of American homes, as well as instituting ‘‘smart from the start’’ policies that ensure 

environmental stewardship of our public lands while fulfilling America’s potential 

for a future powered by renewable energy. 

The BLM is leading the nation toward the New Energy Frontier with active solar, 

wind, and geothermal energy programs. In 2010, the BLM approved the first nine 

large-scale solar energy projects on public lands. These projects will have an installed capacity of 3,600 megawatts, enough to power close to 1 million homes, and 

will create thousands of jobs. Additionally, the BLM has 29 authorized wind energy 

projects on the public lands with a total of 437 megawatts of installed wind power 

capacity. Geothermal energy development on the public lands, meanwhile, with an 

installed capacity of 1,275 MW, accounts for nearly half of U.S. geothermal energy 

capacity. 

The BLM is working with local communities, state regulators, industry, and other 

Federal agencies to build a clean energy future by permitting the environmentally 

responsible development of renewable energy on public lands. The BLM’s 

groundbreaking work reflects a policy approach that focuses on environmentally-responsible development of renewable energy resources on the public lands with a fair 

return to the American people for the use of their resources. 

In his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, President Obama charged the nation 

to make itself ‘‘more secure and control our energy future by harnessing all of the 

resources that we have available and embracing a diverse energy portfolio.’’ That 

call to action specifically mentioned the accomplishments of the BLM and the DOI. 

This testimony describes not only how far we have come in two short years to answering this call, but also how we have laid the groundwork necessary for a secure 

energy future powered by the nation’s renewable energy resources. 

Renewable Energy Authorizations & Priority Project List 

Promoting renewable energy on public lands is one of this Administration’s and 

this Department’s highest priorities. In Section 211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPAct), Congress declared that before 2015 the Secretary of the Interior should 

seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy projects (solar, wind, and 

geothermal) on public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts 

of electricity. It is the goal of this Administration to meet this goal by 2012—three 

years ahead of schedule. 

In 2009, the BLM instituted a ‘‘fast track’’ process that identified existing renewable project applications that were far enough along in the permit approval process 

to be completed by the end of 2010. These projects underwent full and comprehensive environmental review and public comment periods before the BLM made permitting decisions. While the BLM did not permit every project, in 2010, the BLM 

approved 9 solar projects capable of generating 3,600 megawatts of electricity. Additionally, in 2010 the BLM approved one wind project and two geothermal projects 

through the ‘‘fast track’’ process with a combined capacity of over 200 megawatts. 

The BLM has positioned itself to build on last year’s successes and continues to 

move toward the goal of approving 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy projects 

by the end of 2012. In March of this year, the BLM announced 20 projects on the 

2011 priority project list—ten solar, five wind, and five geothermal projects. To be 

a priority project, an applicant must demonstrate to the BLM, among other things, 

that the project has progressed far enough to formally start the environmental review and the public participation process. A 2011 priority project must also have 

the potential to be cleared for approval by the end of 2011. The BLM is working 

to identify those projects that are sited in areas that minimize impacts to the environment. 

All renewable energy projects proposed for BLM-managed lands will receive the 

full environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and 

include opportunities for public involvement. 

In total, these 20 projects represent over 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy 

potential: 2,950 megawatts for the ten solar projects; 1,000 megawatts for the five 

wind projects, and 500 megawatts for the five geothermal projects. The first of these 

projects, the 62-megawatt Coyote Canyon geothermal project in Nevada was approved in March of this year. Potential output on some of these projects may change 

depending on the analysis and review of each project. 

The priority list was developed using a collaborative process that emphasized 

early consultation. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service provided input to the priority list. Additionally, the BLM and its partners within the 

Department of the Interior engage in ongoing coordination and consultation 

10 

throughout the priority project process. This coordination and consultation is 

achieved in part through the Department’s renewable energy coordination group, 

which meets on a weekly basis to discuss current projects and potential cross-jurisdictional issues that arise with these complex authorizations. This group has been 

effective in identifying potential conflicts with projects early in the process in order 

to focus permitting efforts on projects that have the fewest conflicts and are most 

likely to be approved. 

‘‘Smart from the Start’’ Policies 

In order to achieve the goals set by Congress and Secretary Salazar, the BLM has 

implemented a number of policies and engaged in program-level environmental 

analysis designed to ensure that renewable energy development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner and that the American people receive a fair return 

for the use of their natural resources. 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements 

The BLM has successfully used the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process to evaluate BLM-wide programs for geothermal and wind energy, and is in the process of completing one for solar energy development. A PEIS 

evaluates the environmental impacts of broad agency actions, such as the development of major programs or the setting of national policies. These PEIS documents 

examine a range of alternatives for establishing renewable energy programs on suitable BLM-managed land and amend resource management plans (RMP), a necessary first step before specific projects can be authorized on BLM-managed lands. 

The BLM published the Wind Energy PEIS in 2005.The Record of Decision 

amended 52 RMPs and identified over 20 million acres of BLM-managed land as 

being suitable for wind energy development. The decision also established policies 

and best management practices for the administration of wind energy development 

activities and established minimum requirements for mitigation measures. 

The BLM published the Geothermal PEIS in 2008.The Record of Decision amended 114 RMPs and allocated about 111 million acres of Bureau-managed public lands 

as open for geothermal leasing. An additional 79 million acres of National Forest 

System lands are also open for geothermal leasing and administration by the BLM. 

The BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) jointly published the Draft 

Solar Energy PEIS in December of 2010. The Draft Solar Energy PEIS estimates 

that up to 214,000 acres of public land could be needed over the next 20 years for 

solar energy projects. Under the study’s Preferred Alternative, the BLM would establish a new Solar Energy Program that would standardize and streamline the authorization process and establish mandatory design features for solar energy development on BLM lands. Under this proposal, the BLM would establish Solar Energy 

Zones (SEZ’s) within a larger area of approximately 22 million acres that would remain open to solar energy right-of-way applications. The proposed SEZs studied in 

detail in the Draft PEIS included about 677,400 acres preliminarily identified as 

areas most appropriate for development, containing the highest solar energy potential and few known environmental and resource conflicts. The analyses of the proposed SEZs presented in the Draft Solar Energy PEIS shows that some, but not all 

of those areas, would be good places for solar projects. The BLM intends to prioritize 

solar energy development within SEZs carried forward in the final record of decision, and projects located in those areas would benefit from a more efficient, streamlined permitting process. After two thirty-day extensions designed to encourage 

greater public input, the public comment period for the Solar PEIS closed on May 2. 

The BLM is currently reviewing comments and suggestions and will use the public’s 

input to help determine the best path forward. 

Renewable Energy Program Policies 

While the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements provide the overall 

framework for the BLM’s renewable energy programs, the BLM has also recently 

implemented a number of policies regarding renewable energy development. This 

field guidance clarifies National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation 

requirements and expectations; streamlines the project application review and approval process; and strengthens Plan of Development (POD) and due diligence requirements. Additionally, the interim final rules on segregation (discussed below) 

will allow the BLM to temporarily protect lands that are being considered for wind 

or solar development from new mining claims. The following is a summary of recent 

BLM policy guidance that will ensure responsible development of the nation’s public 

land renewable energy resources: 

• Solar & Wind Energy Applications/Pre-Application & Screening—The 

BLM believes it is important for all parties to engage in early coordination 

before committing significant resources to processing solar and wind energy 

11 

development right-of-way applications. Under this guidance, the BLM will not 

accept a solar or wind energy development right-of-way application without 

holding pre-application meetings. Early coordination and review helps screen 

out projects with the most serious potential environmental conflicts and helps 

give priority to applications with the highest likelihood of success in the permitting process. The BLM follows a screening and prioritization process that 

will help direct development to low-conflict areas such as previously disturbed 

sites, areas adjacent to disturbed sites, and locations that minimize construction of new roads and/or transmission lines. (BLM Instruction Memorandum 

2011–61) • NEPA Compliance for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Right-of-Way 

Authorizations—Certain renewable energy projects (e.g., concentrated solar) 

on public lands are somewhat distinct from many other types of rights of way 

authorizations due to their intensity of land use and the resulting potential 

for significant resource conflicts. This guidance is designed to help BLM field 

managers conduct NEPA analysis for these utility-scale renewable energy 

projects. The policy includes examples and guidance applicable to renewable 

energy right-of-way applications that supplement information in the BLM’s 

NEPA Handbook, and will assist offices that are analyzing externally-generated, utility-scale renewable energy right-of-way applications. (BLM Instruction Memorandum 2011–59) 

• Solar & Wind Energy Applications/Due Diligence—The due-diligence requirements of right-of-way applicants for solar and wind energy development 

projects on BLM-managed public lands are updated in this guidance. There 

have been some instances where land speculators have filed applications for 

solar or wind energy rights-of-way, in effect, blocking applicants with serious 

interests in the potential development of solar or wind energy resources on 

the public lands. The BLM can reduce the effects of speculation by applying 

the applicant qualification requirements of the right-of-way regulations and 

requiring the timely submittal of a POD consistent with the requirements of 

the regulations. This policy also emphasizes the review of pending applications and the rejection of any applications where the applicant cannot demonstrate the technical or financial capability required by the regulations. Requiring a proof of due diligence by the applicant through the timely submittal 

of an acceptable POD ensures that applicants are not holding lands for extended periods and precluding other applicants with serious interests in potential development of the public lands. (BLM Instruction Memorandum 

2011–60) 

• Renewable Energy Project Segregation Rules—In April 2011, the BLM 

published two rules—a proposed rule and a temporary interim final rule—to 

help resolve land use conflicts that arise when mining claims are located in 

a renewable energy project right-of-way application area after the application 

is submitted but before the application can be evaluated and acted upon. The 

two rules grant the BLM authority to temporarily remove lands included in 

a renewable energy ROW application and lands offered for wind or solar energy development from land appropriations such as mining claims. Under the 

two published renewable energy segregation rules, lands with ROW applications for solar or wind energy development could be segregated to ensure no 

new resource conflicts will arise with respect to mining claims. Such segregations would only be authorized as needed and would not necessarily cover all 

lands where renewable energy ROW applications have been filed. The rules 

would also provide for termination of the segregation by the BLM upon the 

issuance of a decision to issue or not issue a ROW for the wind or solar proposal. (Federal Register Docs. 2011–10017; 2011–10019) 

Other Renewable Energy Program Initiatives 

The BLM continues to build the framework necessary for an onshore renewable 

energy program, including initiatives beyond the PEIS and recent policy developments. The BLM’s establishment of its Renewable Energy Coordination Offices 

(RECOs) in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming and teams in Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Oregon/Washington has facilitated the efficient processing of applications for large-scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service staff are co-located in many 

of the RECOs to expedite coordinated review of renewable energy projects. These 

offices play an integral role in the processing and approval of renewable energy 

project applications on BLM-managed lands. 

BLM–Arizona’s Restoration Design Energy Project, funded under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, supports the goals of building 

12 

America’s renewable energy resources and protecting and restoring treasured landscapes. The purpose of this initiative is to evaluate and identify disturbed, contaminated, and isolated lands in Arizona that also have high renewable energy potential. 

The project’s draft environmental impact statement is anticipated to be completed 

in late 2011. The final environmental impact statement is expected in fall 2012. The 

EIS will evaluate different types of disturbed lands, including landfills, mines, and 

brownfields. Land use planning efforts are also underway by BLM in other states 

to facilitate the future development of renewable energy. These efforts include the 

Wyoming Wind and Transmission Study, the California Desert Renewable Energy 

Conservation Plan, and the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation and Land Use Plan in California. 

The Department of the Interior is working closely with other partners to facilitate 

and encourage the development of renewable energy development. On July 8, 2010, 

Secretary Salazar and Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu signed an interagency 

Memorandum of Understanding to develop a Solar Demonstration Zone on federal 

lands in Nevada to demonstrate cutting-edge solar energy technologies. The Solar 

Demonstration Zone will be located in the Nevada National Security Site, withdrawn public lands administered by DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration. The MOU will enable the DOE to support the demonstration of innovative 

solar energy technologies at a scale fully representative of the next generation utility-scale Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems. These projects will serve as 

proving grounds for new CSP technologies, providing a critical link between DOE‘s 

advanced technology development and full-scale commercialization efforts. 

Finally, the BLM is striving to provide access to remote renewable sources and 

to enhance the national electricity grid to ensure reliability as sources of renewable 

energy are brought online. The BLM is meeting these challenges through its land 

use planning processes and through improvements to project siting and permitting 

reviews. The BLM continues to work closely on these efforts with other Federal 

agencies, tribes, states, and other entities. 

Conclusion 

The Department of the Interior and the BLM are proud of the work we have accomplished in order to stand up a renewable energy program and a portfolio of 

projects that reflect the incredible resource potential of America’s public lands. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you so much. Director 

Bromwich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. BROMWICH, DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION 

AND ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. BROMWICH. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Markey, 

and Members of the Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to 

appear here today. I want to discuss the renewable energy program 

of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, and our efforts to expedite the development of the Nation’s offshore wind energy resources. 

BOEMRE manages the energy and mineral resources of the 

Outer Continental Shelf. The Department of Energy estimates that 

the total offshore wind potential is enormous, and the Nation’s vast 

offshore wind resources are located close to our largest electricity 

demand centers. 

Offshore wind energy is capable of providing significant energy 

and environmental benefits, and it would also produce considerable 

direct and indirect economic benefits. 

Government estimates suggest that offshore wind development 

would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt 

installed in United States waters, including economically depressed 

13 

port areas that could become important in fabrication and staging 

areas for wind turbines. 

The Obama Administration has established ambitious, but 

achievable, goals for offshore wind energy development in the 

United States that require focusing on three central issues. Number one, technology development. Number two, market barrier removal; and number three, advanced technology demonstration. 

BOEMRE is working closely with other Federal agencies, State, 

local, and tribal governments, and other stakeholders, to establish 

an effective process for locating and permitting offshore renewable 

energy projects. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to administer an OCS renewable program. 

This authority was delegated to BOEMRE, and then the Minerals 

Management Service in March of 2006. 

And in April of 2009, BOEMRE’s final OCS renewable energy 

regulatory framework was issued. The regulatory framework is a 

comprehensive approach to managing the full scope of OCS renewable energy activities, including an initial study and leasing, site 

characterization and assessment, project construction and operation, and cessation and decommissioning. 

The framework reflects a renewable energy program based on 

the following principles. First, consultation and coordination with 

stakeholders of all kinds. Second, application of the regulatory 

framework in the context of interagency planning activities. Third, 

focusing on the multiple uses of the OCS, and fourth, achievement 

of our program goals. 

This framework and our process require us to work with a wide 

array of stakeholders. Our most valuable consultation and coordination tools have been a State-by-State intergovernmental task 

forces. 

They bring together all interested government parties to facilitate information sharing, and informed decision making. We have 

nine task forces on the Atlantic Coast, and one on the Pacific 

Coast. 

Since 2009, we have ought to streamline our location and permitting processes for wind leasing, and development, and have 

launched initiatives to support those efforts. The central initiative 

is the ‘‘Smart From the Start’’ Program, which was announced by 

Secretary Salazar on November 23, 2010. 

‘‘Smart From the Start’’ in the offshore context is designed to expedite commercial wind lease issuance on the Atlantic OCS by 

doing several important things; streamlining processes, including a 

more efficient NEPA compliance review; identifying wind energy 

areas to stimulate investment in Atlantic OCS wind leasing and 

development, and processing transmission line proposals on a parallel, but separate, track from generation projects. 

We are identifying as WEAs, areas that have high wind resource 

potential, and relatively low risk of potential conflicts and use. 

BOEMRE will conduct an environmental assessment to analyze potential impacts and effects associated with issuing leases and conducting site characterization and assessment activities. 

If the WEA leads to a finding of no significant impact, we will 

be able to issue leases promptly, and will not have to prepare an 

14 

1 A National Offshore Wind Strategy, Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the 

United States, February 7, 2011. 

environmental impact statement at that stage. This will allow developers to acquire leases on an expedited basis and enable them 

to more easily finance their projects. 

BOEMRE will conduct a full EIS when the lessees submit a construction and operations plan for review. BOEMRE has already 

began this process offshore at New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, 

and Virginia. 

A regional WEA is being prepared and consultations are being 

conducted to address the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of lease issuance and site characterization surveys, and site assessment activities. 

In addition, BOEMRE has repeatedly engaged non-government 

organizations, individually and in groups, to obtain feedback. We 

conducted several stakeholder information gathering sessions while 

we were developing the framework, as well as workshops on the 

draft and final regulations. 

All of these initiatives are helping us to identify areas with relatively few impediments to offshore wind development, and move 

forward quickly and efficiently to promote the establishment of an 

offshore renewable energy industry. 

In sort, the Obama Administration has set ambitious, but achievable, goals to move forward with the development of domestic renewable energy. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here, and it will be my 

pleasure to answer any questions that you or other Members of the 

Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bromwich follows:] 

Statement of Michael R. Bromwich, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear here today to discuss the renewable energy program of the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) and our efforts to facilitate and expedite the development of the Nation’s offshore wind energy resources. 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Wind Resources and Energy Development 

Goals 

BOEMRE manages the energy and mineral resources of the OCS, which comprises some 1.7 billion acres of submerged lands generally located between 3 and 

200 nautical miles off the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the total offshore wind potential is over 4,000 

gigawatts (GW) for areas up to 50 miles from shore with average wind speeds of 

7 meters per second or greater at 90-meter elevation. This estimate includes the resources of the Great Lakes and the coastal submerged lands under state jurisdiction, which are not managed by BOEMRE. However, OCS lands constitute the vast 

majority of what DOE considers ‘‘offshore’’ in its wind energy estimate. 

According to a report prepared and issued jointly by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and BOEMRE earlier this year, each average GW of 

wind power capacity can generate 3.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity 

annually.1 This amount of power would replace the use of 1.7 million tons of coal 

or 27.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas and reduce the carbon emissions associated 

with those fossil fuels by 2.7 million metric tons. The Nation’s vast offshore wind 

resources are located close to our largest electricity demand centers, allowing offshore wind to compete directly with fossil fuel-based electricity generation. Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic coastal states especially can benefit from OCS wind resources to meet ambitious renewable portfolio standards and related policy goals 

15 

calling for the use of a stable and clean supply of energy resources for electrical generation. 

In addition to these energy and environmental benefits, offshore wind energy development would have considerable direct and indirect economic benefits. The National Offshore Wind Strategy suggests that offshore wind development would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters. 

Many of these jobs would be located in economically depressed port areas that could 

become important fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture, installation, 

and maintenance of offshore wind turbines. 

The National Offshore Wind Strategy addresses these goals and discusses three 

focus areas that are central to achieving them—(1) technology development, (2) market barrier removal, and (3) advanced technology demonstration. BOEMRE is working closely with DOE and with other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, and other stakeholders to establish an effective process for siting and permitting offshore renewable energy projects. 

OCS Renewable Energy Regulatory Framework 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to administer an OCS renewable energy program. This authority, including 

the mandate to promulgate necessary regulations, was delegated to BOEMRE (then 

the Minerals Management Service) in March 2006. In early 2009, at the start of the 

Obama Administration, a draft rule had been issued, but a final regulatory framework was not yet promulgated. On taking office, Secretary Salazar addressed the 

remaining issues, leading to the publication of BOEMRE’s final OCS renewable 

energy regulatory framework on April 29, 2009. 

The regulatory framework is a comprehensive approach to managing the full life 

cycle of OCS renewable energy activities, from initial study and leasing, through 

site characterization and assessment and project construction and operation, ultimately to cessation and decommissioning. The regulatory framework reflects a renewable energy program based on the following principles: 

• consult and coordinate with federal, state, local, and tribal governments and 

other stakeholders; 

• apply the regulatory framework in conjunction with interagency-led planning 

activities; 

• focus on multiple use of the OCS; and 

• work within current authorities and responsibilities to achieve program goals. 

With over 20 existing laws and Executive Orders that apply to the OCS, consultation and coordination is critical to a successful renewable energy program. As 

BOEMRE strives to facilitate sustained development of a domestic offshore wind industry, we are working with a wide array of stakeholders to work together to find 

ways for offshore wind projects to proceed with minimal adverse effects on other 

uses and resources. Our most valuable consultation and coordination tools have 

proved to be the state-by-state intergovernmental task forces that we have established. These bodies bring together all interested and affected government parties 

to facilitate information sharing and foster informed and efficient decision-making. 

To date, we have nine task forces on the Atlantic coast that are helping BOEMRE 

to proceed with commercial wind energy leasing, as well as one on the Pacific coast 

that is working on marine hydrokinetic energy from waves, currents and tides. 

Since the OCS renewable energy regulatory framework was established in 2009, 

Secretary Salazar and BOEMRE have sought to outline, refine, and streamline our 

siting and permitting processes for wind leasing and development. We have 

launched several initiatives to support our efforts that I will summarize briefly. 

Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium 

In early 2010 Secretary Salazar invited the governors of the Atlantic coast states 

to join with the Department of the Interior in an Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy 

Consortium (AOWEC) for the purpose of facilitating federal-state cooperation and 

coordination for the efficient, expeditious, orderly, and responsible development of 

wind resources along the Atlantic coast. On June 8, 2010, the Secretary and 11 governors signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the scope and objectives of the Consortium and establishing working groups charged with formulating an action plan addressing issues relating to (1) siting and permitting, (2) data 

and science, and (3) investment in infrastructure. DOE is serving an advisory role 

to BOEMRE by assessing national infrastructure investment requirements as described in the National Offshore Wind Strategy. The action plan was completed in 

February of this year, and BOEMRE is considering its recommendations, which relate to improving coordination, implementing pilot projects, revising existing statuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66362.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

tory and regulatory authorities to streamline permitting, and improving data acquisition and sharing. 

Smart from the Start Atlantic Wind Initiative 

On November 23, 2010, Secretary Salazar announced Smart from the Start, a program to expedite commercial wind lease issuance on the Atlantic OCS. This initiative has three main elements: • streamlined processes, including more efficient National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) compliance review, for renewable energy lease issuance; • identification of Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) followed by information gathering to stimulate investment in Atlantic OCS wind leasing and development; 

and • processing of OCS energy transmission line proposals on a parallel but separate track from generation projects. 

This approach will identify as WEAs those areas of the OCS that have high wind 

energy resource potential and relatively low potential use conflicts. BOEMRE will 

then conduct an environmental assessment (EA) to analyze potential impacts associated with issuing leases and conducting site characterization and assessment activities. If the EA leads to a finding of no significant impact, we will be able to issue 

leases and will not have to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). This 

will allow developers to acquire leases on an expedited basis and enable them to 

acquire necessary financing of their projects. BOEMRE will conduct a full EIS when 

the lessee submits a construction and operations plan for review. 

Smart from the Start also calls for enhanced coordination on offshore wind within 

the federal government. The Department of the Interior has led the formation of the 

Atlantic Offshore Wind Interagency Working Group—which includes executive level 

officials of DOE, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality and other federal agencies— 

to facilitate the sharing of relevant data. 

Smart from the Start has been well received by federal and state stakeholders and 

the offshore renewable energy industry. 

Additional Cooperation with Other Federal Agencies 

BOEMRE is also working with interested federal agencies to establish agreements 

to facilitate coordination on OCS renewable energy development. For example, we 

have in place an MOU with DOE to facilitate and expedite OCS wind and 

hydrokinetic development. Consistent with this MOU, DOE is making available up 

to $50.5 million over 5 years to develop offshore wind technology and to reduce specific market barriers to its deployment. We also have an established MOU with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and a 

MOU with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the leasing and 

licensing of marine hydrokinetic projects. Other MOUs in development are with the 

Department of Defense (Secretary), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. 

Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

We are confident that these inter-agency groups will ultimately streamline permitting processes and promote efficient and effective decision-making. 

BOEMRE Research and Studies 

BOEMRE has two main scientific research programs. The Environmental Studies 

Program (ESP) has completed numerous research projects and has several more 

that are planned or ongoing to determine and evaluate the effects of OCS activities 

on natural, historical, and human resources and the appropriate monitoring and 

mitigation of those effects. For example, the ESP has completed or is conducting a 

number of scientific studies that explore the potential effects of offshore wind 

projects on birds, marine species, and other aspects of the environment. BOEMRE 

and DOE co-fund a number of studies within the Environmental Studies Program 

and also partner on research efforts led by the International Energy Agency. Pursuant to the MOU mentioned above, DOI and DOE have also formed an interagency 

working group with other federal agencies including NOAA, Department of Defense 

(DoD), US Army Corps of Engineers (US ACOE), and the Department of the Navy 

which will facilitate an integrated national network for characterization of offshore 

wind resources and design conditions. 

BOEMRE’s Technology Assessment and Research (TAR) Program also conducts 

research associated with operational safety, engineering standards, and pollution 

prevention. 

One noteworthy research project just completed under our TAR program is on Offshore Wind Energy Turbine Structural and Operating Safety. BOEMRE asked the 

National Research Council’s Marine Board to conduct a study relating to the structural safety of offshore wind turbines. The study addresses three specific areas: (1) 

17 

standards and guidelines for design, fabrication and installation of offshore wind 

turbines; (2) expected roles of third-party entities, called Certified Verification 

Agents (CVA), in overseeing the design and construction of offshore wind turbines 

and identifying standards for monitoring, inspection and compliance verification; 

and (3) expected qualifications to be considered a recognized CVA. BOEMRE received the final report on April 28, 2011, and will analyze the recommendations to 

determine whether to modify the relevant offshore renewable energy regulations. 

The National Ocean Policy’s Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning 

BOEMRE is implementing the OCS renewable energy program in accordance with 

Executive Order 13547, which President Obama issued in 2010 to establish a comprehensive and integrated national policy for stewardship of the oceans, our coasts 

and the Great Lakes, including a framework for coastal and marine spatial planning 

(CMSP). We fully understand and support the need to work together with all OCS 

users and regulators, and we look forward to coordinating with the National Ocean 

Council and leading and participating in regional planning bodies undertaking 

CMSP. We believe our intergovernmental task forces are a valuable vehicle for informing these efforts. We will use an integrated interagency marine information system, developed in collaboration with the National Ocean Council, to implement Executive Order 13547. Part of this system will be the Multipurpose Marine Cadaster, 

which provides legal, physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common geographic information system framework. This tool was created in partnership with 

NOAA to comply with a mandate in section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Outreach to Non-government Stakeholders 

BOEMRE has repeatedly engaged non-government organizations (NGOs)—individually and in groups—to obtain feedback on its regulatory framework and associated processes. During promulgation of our renewable energy regulatory framework 

rule, we conducted several stakeholder information gathering sessions, as well as 

workshops on the draft and final regulations. Since the final framework was issued, 

we have continued meeting with NGOs and stakeholders, including The Nature 

Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Mariners Advisory Committee and have had valuable information exchanges. We have also communicated 

with representatives of fishing interests through the special working groups established by Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as the regional Fisheries Management Councils. BOEMRE also has continued its dialogue with industry representatives, primarily through the Offshore Wind Development Coalition. Based on 

all of our conversations with stakeholders, we have identified regulatory revisions 

that we will pursue to bring more clarity and efficiency to our processes. Our first 

such revision—designed to simplify the leasing process for offshore wind in situations where there is only one qualified and interested developer by eliminating a 

redundant and therefore unnecessary step—has been published and received comment. BOEMRE plans to complete this final rule and to propose other revisions in 

the near future. 

Status of OCS Wind Development 

All of the initiatives I have just discussed are helping BOEMRE to identify areas 

where there are relatively few impediments to offshore wind development and move 

forward quickly and efficiently to promote the establishment of an offshore renewable energy industry. 

Our efforts have already resulted in significant accomplishments in offshore wind 

development: • We have issued 4 short-term leases that permit the installation of data collection facilities to inform planned commercial wind development activities (3 off 

New Jersey and 1 off Delaware). These leases were issued in 2009 under an 

interim policy initiated while the OCS renewable energy regulatory framework was being developed. We anticipate the first data collection facilities to 

be constructed this summer. • Interior issued the first ever U.S. offshore commercial wind energy lease in 

October 2010 for the Cape Wind Energy Project in Nantucket Sound off Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, the lessee submitted a construction and operations plan, which BOEMRE approved on April 18, 2011. The lessee hopes 

to begin construction later this year. The Cape Wind Energy Project proposal 

contemplates building 130 wind turbine generators, 3.6 megawatts each, with 

the maximum capacity to produce about 468 megawatts. The average expected production from the wind facility could provide about 75 percent of the 

electricity demand for Cape Cod and the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and 

Nantucket. At average expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough 

energy to power more than 200,000 homes in Massachusetts. 

18 

• BOEMRE announced the first four WEAs—off the coasts of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia—established under Smart from the Start on February 9, 2011, in a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Wind Energy Areas. We have determined that there is 

no competitive interest in leasing the area made available off Delaware and 

will complete a noncompetitive process in response to NRG Bluewater Wind’s 

commercial wind lease request. We hope to make a final decision on lease 

issuance by the end of this year. By contrast, we have determined that there 

is competitive interest off Maryland, and we believe there will also be competitive interest off New Jersey and Virginia. BOEMRE plans to complete 

competitive processes for these three states by early 2012. We will continue 

to consult with our intergovernmental task forces on all of these leasing processes. • BOEMRE intends to designate a second set of WEAs—off Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, New York, and North Carolina—by the end of this year. We 

have already received numerous expressions of interest off the coast of Massachusetts, and we will be soliciting nominations and other relevant information 

in the other three areas in the coming months. We will continue to consult 

with the intergovernmental task forces in these states. • BOEMRE will consult with the established Maine intergovernmental task 

force concerning possible future deepwater wind leasing and development and 

anticipates establishing new task forces in Georgia and South Carolina later 

this year. The University of Maine’s DeepC wind program, funded in part by 

DOE, is working on developing new technologies, including floating wind turbines for use in deep waters. BOEMRE will work with Maine in the event 

that any entitities are interested in pursuing leasing opportunities offshore 

Maine. We also have received an application for a short-term lease for data 

collection off Georgia under the interim policy. • BOEMRE also received a request for a right-of-way for a 750-mile backbone 

transmission line running about 10 miles offshore from New York to Virginia. 

The developer has ambitious plans for this transmission line, believing that 

it can link future Atlantic OCS wind energy installations in a manner that 

can facilitate efficient interconnection to the onshore electrical grid. We will 

consult and coordinate with federal, state, local, and tribal governments and 

other stakeholders in processing this request. 

Conclusion 

As I stated at the outset, we has set ambitious but achievable goals to help the 

U.S. make development of domestic sources of clean, renewable energy a reality. 

The combination of streamlined processes along with the increased involvement of 

our state and federal partners is helping BOEMRE make good strides in reaching 

those goals. We are excited to have a prominent role in the nation’s renewable 

energy future, and we look forward to working with stakeholders to develop a thriving domestic offshore wind industry that is coordinated and supports Executive 

Order 13547 and the national policy for stewardship of the oceans. 

Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement. Thank you again for the opportunity 

to appear here. It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you also, and thank you both 

for your statements. We will now begin questioning. As you can 

see, we have a smaller than usual number of Members here because we are done with the votes for the week, and many people 

have started their trek to the airport already. 

But with that smaller number, I am hopeful that you would be 

able to stay for a second round if Members are so desirous. Is that 

something that you would consider? 

Mr. BROMWICH. Yes. 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you so much. I will start in, and 

then we will go to the Ranking Member second. Director Abbey, in 

2010, the Administration placed 34 projects on a fast track list for 

expedited permit approval, primarily in order to qualify for stimulus funding that expired in December. 

19 

As BLM made decisions on which projects would be placed on the 

fast track list, can you tell me what the criteria BLM used to determine which projects were to be placed on that list? 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes, I would be happy to. We did have 34 or so applications that we were reviewing, and that we thought were far 

enough along in the permitting process, but there were several reasons why some of those applications for projects were at least delayed. 

And not all of them were related to our own review process. 

Some of those projects were delayed because of the lack of financing, or the inability of the companies themselves to provide us with 

all the information that we needed to perfect those applications 

and do the thorough review that was appropriate. 

So what we focused on, Mr. Chairman, was those projects that 

were far enough along, and that had perfected applications, and 

that were located in areas that had the fewest risks. 

Our intent was to move forward aggressively in reviewing those 

projects, and to evaluate each of those projects in the manner that 

they deserved, and then to the best of our ability to approve those 

if we were able to mitigate the potential impacts from those 

projects. 

Our track record demonstrates that we were successful. Of the 

nine solar projects that we ended up reviewing and putting through 

that fast track project, all nine projects were approved, and they 

were approved because of the early consultation and coordination 

that took place, with not only within the Department of the Interior, as with agencies like the National Park Service, or the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, but also with other stakeholders and tribal 

governments. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Well, on that last point, did BLM review with outside groups or individuals which projects were considered advanced enough to qualify for expedited permitting, and did 

you accept outside comments for or against projects? 

Mr. ABBEY. I am sorry, but we always are receptive of public 

input anywhere in our process. The value of public comments certainly during the scoping process helps us identify what are the 

likely issues that would need to be addressed through our review, 

and again all of those projects, or at least many of the projects that 

were identified, or all of the projects that were identified on the 

fast track list did go through that public scoping process to determine what were the issues, and how best we could evaluate those 

issues, and potentially mitigate those issues. 

So again the public did have a say during that scoping process. 

If at the end of the day it was our decision to go forward with those 

projects that we believed had the best chance for success. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Now, were the companies who had 

been making the investments leading up to this consideration, were 

they aware of this process, and the criteria that were going to be 

used for the expedited approval? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, they were certainly aware of the criteria that 

we were using to evaluate their own applications. We maintained 

a close working relationship with all proponents of such projects, 

and really all projects that are being proposed for public lands. 

20 

We want to understand what the proposal is, and what are the 

likely consequences and the timelines that the proponents are anticipating that they need in order to get the approvals for their 

projects. 

So even though we have delayed some of those projects, that 

doesn’t mean that we have denied those projects, and that we are 

currently continuing to review all applications that are before us to 

determine the merits of each proposal. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Now, do you think that your willingness to process permits could impact the financing that applicants 

are working toward on these various projects? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, some of those applications that we reviewed as 

potentially fast track projects fell out because they were unable to 

get financial assurances. So again no doubt that some of our actions do impact the abilities of some of the companies to go forward 

and get the financing that they require for their projects. 

But again that is no surprises as far as the timelines that we require in order to conduct a thorough evaluation of each of those 

projects. 

Chairman LAMBORN. Well, now I am trying to figure out which 

is first, the chicken or the egg. Did there lack of financing mean 

that they were not high up on the priority list, or were they not 

able to get a permit and they had lost their financing after that? 

Mr. ABBEY. No, they never evidently had—and I can’t speak to 

all of the projects or applicants, but I can speak to some of those 

that we were reviewing for the potential to place on the priority 

list. 

Some of those projects did not have financing in place for them 

to assure us that they would be able to construct in a timely manner those projects that we were interested in approving. 

So, again, without that financial capacity, that was one of the criteria that we took into account in identifying the projects that we 

ended up placing on the fast track list. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. I realize that my time is 

up. If the Committee has additional questions about this process 

would you commit to working with us to answer questions or concerns that we might have? 

Mr. ABBEY. We would welcome that and would certainly do so. 

Chairman LAMBORN. Thank you very much. Ranking Member, 

Representative Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Director 

Abbey, it takes so much longer to permit wind and solar than it 

does to permit oil and gas, which I think that people would like to 

know what is the reason for that? 

Why does it take just so much longer, and what can we do to 

shorten that time framework so that we deploy in a way that really 

helps to deal with these imported oil issues, and the climate change 

issue, and the job creation issue? You know, this is a real make it 

in America opportunity for us. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, I really don’t know whether or not it 

takes a lot longer time. However, I will say this, in our oil and gas 

program, there are different layers of review and evaluation that 

are conducted. 

21 

For example, we prepare a land use plan which would identify 

public lands that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

that would be available, or could be available for leasing for oil and 

gas resources. 

Prior to conducting any leases of those lands consistent with the 

land use plan decisions, then we would also conduct an additional 

NEPA evaluation of the areas that are being proposed for leases, 

and after that NEPA is completed, and a decision is made relative 

to going forward with such areas for leasing, then we also after 

issuing those leases, we conduct an environmental assessment of 

applications for permits to drill. 

So there is really a kind of a three-tier program for authorizing 

of the drilling on public lands. We have the land use planning process, and then the NEPA that is required for leasing, and then the 

NEPA that is required for processing applications for permits to 

drill. 

I will say this though. In 2009, the Bureau of Land Management 

leased 1.9 million acres of public lands for oil and gas, and in 2010, 

we leased 1.4 million acres of public lands for oil and gas. 

In 2009, we issued almost 4,500 applications for permits to drill 

on public lands, and in 2010, we issued 4,000 applications for permits to drill. So if you look at the amount of effort going into the 

oil and gas program, versus what we are doing in the renewable 

energy program, there is a lot more that we can be doing in the 

wind and the renewable energy program than what we have done 

in the past, and we intend to improve our performance. 

Mr. MARKEY.—below what President Obama has asked for, what 

would those cuts do to your ability to speed up the deployment of 

wind and solar on public lands? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, we are still reviewing what—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Would it hurt? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, no doubt. We have requested—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Would it hurt significantly your ability to get the 

work done? 

Mr. ABBEY. It would hurt, and it would certainly slow things 

down, Congressman, and we have proposed as part of the Presidential budget a funding level that we believe that we need in 

order to maintain the emphasis that we have placed on—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me go to Director Bromwich. Would these budget cuts that the Republicans are proposing, $4 billion, hurt 

your ability to deploy offshore wind in this country? 

Mr. BROMWICH. They would not hurt our ability, because we are 

one of the few agencies as you know that did not suffer significant 

budget cuts. So the request that we made for offshore have largely 

been granted. But could we use additional increments? Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Let me go back to you then, Director 

Abbey. How many wind and solar permit applications are currently 

active at your agency? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, we have over 200 at last count for solar. I don’t 

have the number for wind at this point in time. For 2011, we are 

evaluating 20 such projects, 10 solar, and five wind, and five geothermal. We will be announcing projects for Fiscal Year—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, how many—well, let me ask you this. How 

many of those would you say would be churning out power right 

22 

now if the Department of the Interior had granted a permit the 

same day that they applied for it? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, Congressman Markey, let me just give you my 

assessment of some of those applications. Many are speculative in 

nature. The number of applications that we have for solar are 

again over 200 at last count. 

In our review of some of those applications, we believe that they 

are speculative in nature, and not necessarily ready to go forward 

and do a thorough evaluation and assessment. But having said 

that—— 

Mr. MARKEY. So what are the real hurdles then to building wind 

and solar on public lands right now? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, there are several impediments. First, it is financial. Second is transmission. Third is the lack of power purchase agreements with some of the companies, and a source where 

they can market their power if they were to develop such power. 

And then no doubt the permitting process also creates some 

delays in getting some of these projects in place. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what about the timely tax credit extensions? 

Is that a factor? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, it would enhance their abilities to move forward with their projects if such a program continued. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. I thank the Ranking Member. Now, 

let’s go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for five minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Thank you for coming and for testifying. I really very much appreciate that. It is a very important topic. Both of you have been talking about and reflecting on the permitting process, and certainly 

that is something that sometimes takes time, frustrating amounts 

of time, and a lot of unnecessary litigation, and it often times 

frankly only serves to muddle the permitting process and slow 

down the approvals. 

I wanted to pursue a little more about how you are working to 

streamline the permitting. ‘‘Smart From the Start’’ sounds like a 

good approach, and looking at that, and building some efficiencies 

into that process. Frankly, are there other things that you are looking at, that the agencies are looking at, or what can Congress do 

to help make this permitting process more efficient and less wasteful? 

Mr. BROMWICH. You are right, Congressman, in that the ‘‘Smart 

From the Start’’ Program will make much more efficient the permitting process, because we are doing at the outset environmental 

assessments rather than full scale environmental impact statements. 

We are waiting until the stage where companies file a construction and operations plan before we do a full EIS, and that was specifically designed to shrink the period of time through which companies had to go through the entire process. 

We are continuously thinking about ways to further shrink that 

process, because there is consensus in the Department, and certainly in my agency, that the current timeline is too long. So we 

are actively and continuously engaging with industry, and with 

23 

other stakeholders to try to figure out ways to cut further time off 

the process. 

There are certain parts of the process, including public comment, 

and including environmental reviews, that simply have to be done. 

Those are irreducible. But we are going to continue to work to find 

ways to further cut down on the permitting process time. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I want to congratulate you for looking at 

that. I think that is a good approach. Director Abbey, my question 

is from the lessons learned with this, because it seems like you roll 

this out specifically with wind, are there other opportunities? Are 

these concepts something that can be applied to all forms of energy 

permitting on Federal lands? 

Mr. ABBEY. Certainly we have learned as we go, no doubt. The 

Bureau of Land Management, and certainly those that we have 

worked with within the Department of the Interior have shown 

over the last two years that extraordinary progress can be made in 

conformance with NEPA, and in coordination with State agencies, 

and tribal groups, and local governments, and other entities. 

You know, our successes in permitting the solar projects in California and in Nevada, the first nine solar projects ever built on 

public lands, are truly showing us the way forward for approving 

utility and renewable energy programs on public lands. 

So it is not just how they could apply to the solar projects, but 

also to the wind projects as well, the large scale wind projects that 

we have had under review. We have had a successful track record 

for a number of years in the geothermal program. That is a leasing 

program. 

It is done under different authorities, but again geothermal is 

another renewable resource that we have ample supplies of in this 

country, and we need to take advantage of that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. How about applying this more efficient process 

to oil, natural gas, coal, all the other resources that we have on 

public lands? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, we try to be as efficient and as effective 

as we can in the processes that we have in place. As I mentioned 

earlier, do we continue to learn, and is there opportunities for us 

to continue our performance? Yes, there are. 

We work very closely to try to make sure that the people who 

we need to be consulting, and those that we need to be coordinating 

with prior to expending a great deal of effort on any of these 

projects, whether they are oil and gas leasing proposals, or solar, 

or wind, that we have the full information before us so that we can 

go forward as expeditiously as possible and address the many 

issues that each of these project proposals bring before us. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sure. What are some of the—and specifically just 

focusing on wind, and it sounds like you will get another opportunity to talk about solar, but what are some of the specific objections that you find that are raised by those who live in the areas 

where these projects are going in, or frankly what are some of the 

environmental concerns that are being identified through the 

NEPA analysis, and the other environmental analysis? Let’s just 

start with wind for the short period of time that I have left here. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, I think that as we look across these renewable energy projects, these are large scale footprints on public 

24 

lands, and while everybody talks about being for renewable energy 

development, I have to admit that almost every project that we review, there are opponents of each project. 

But as we go forward, it is a matter of again working with the 

proponent when it is through our own land use planning process, 

which is a public process, and identifying the best locations that 

would have the fewest risks to sensitive resources that we also 

manage for, including wildlife habitat, for threatened and endangered species, and also to take into account what are the likely consequences of the decisions if we make to approve projects, and how 

best we can mitigate for any impact from those projects. 

As we look to wind, we certainly have challenges in dealing with 

some of the bald and golden eagle habitat. We are working very, 

very closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

They have been an excellent partner to the Bureau of Land Management in helping us use the best science, the best information 

possible, as part of our analysis, and potentially mitigation measures. 

Mr. THOMPSON. OK. Thank you. 

Chairman LAMBORN. Thank you. Now, the gentleman from New 

Jersey. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses. 

I would like to focus on offshore wind, particularly in the Atlantic. 

So I would like to ask you, Director Bromwich, how would you 

characterize the offshore wind capacity in the Middle Atlantic 

States? 

Do you have some numbers or the number of city sized electric 

equivalent power plants? 

Mr. BROMWICH. I don’t have those with me, Congressman. I 

would be happy to supply those. I do know that it is considered by 

all of the experts that have reviewed it to be an enormous potential 

source of power, and I have certainly seen figures suggesting that 

what is available in the Atlantic equals the capacity that we currently have for electricity generation country-wide. So that is an 

enormous potential. 

Mr. HOLT. I would like to ask you to repeat that for the record, 

because I think that there are few people in the United States who 

really understand. 

Mr. BROMWICH. My understanding is that the potential that Atlantic wind holds for supplying electricity to this country equals 

what current exists nationwide for all sources, in terms of what 

currently provides electricity. That is my understanding, Congressman. 

Mr. HOLT. Now, it is worth noting, of course, that that electricity, 

if it were generated even in-part would be close to the uses of obviously the Eastern Seaboard, which would be about the most densely populated part of the country, and has a lot of electricity use 

there. 

So this would be convenient to the use, and perhaps would have 

less transmission line site problems? 

Mr. BROMWICH. That is absolutely right. 

Mr. HOLT. And, again, since I think people in the Congress, or 

people around the country and their representatives here in Congress, often hear that wind is intermittent, and really can’t be a 

25 

reliable energy source. So you have any information about the consistency and strength of the wind offshore? 

Mr. BROMWICH. My understanding is that the more wind farms, 

and the larger the network you have of wind turbines offshore, that 

becomes much less of a concern, and you can equalize the load and 

provide a steady stream of electricity from numerous wind farms 

that would be located off the Atlantic Coast. 

Mr. HOLT. So you have now characterized this as an enormous 

source of energy that has some attractive features certainly and I 

would argue many attractive features. What does the Bureau and 

the Department in general need to do to help characterize this resource so that the developers who might be interested have what 

they need to move forward? 

Mr. BROMWICH. I think we are on the right track. I think the 

‘‘Smart From the Start’’ Program, which is designed to shorten the 

process, shorten the environmental reviews up front as they look 

at potentially promising wind areas, find out what the level of interest is among developers in the specific locations that have been 

identified. 

And as you know, one of the ones that has already been identified is off New Jersey, and to just continue to move that process 

forward so that we can find out who is interested, and find out 

whether there are financially, legally, and technically qualified to 

hold leases, make those determinations, and get those leases 

awarded so that we can move forward. 

Mr. HOLT. Are you leaving it to the developers themselves to 

characterize the resource, or is the Department doing more to characterize the resource? So specifically what are you spending this 

year or next year to measure the wind, to characterize its consistency, and to make those data available to—— 

Mr. BROMWICH. We are working more on doing the preparatory 

work that goes in advance of awarding the leases. We are not doing 

insofar as I know a lot to look at the kinds of issues that you are 

talking about, in terms of figuring out how much wind power is 

available in a particular place. 

Mr. HOLT. Is that because you are leaving it to the developers 

to do that work? It seems to me that there is an appropriate thing 

for our Federal Government to be doing, to characterize. 

Mr. BROMWICH. It may well be, but my understanding, Congressman, is that we have not been spending our resources to do that. 

It is certainly possible that if we had more that we would be in a 

position to do that. But insofar as I know, we have not. 

Mr. HOLT. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. The Gentleman from Tennessee. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen. I 

have enjoyed this very much, especially the discussion of these alternate forms of energy. Thank you for being before us today. 

I represent the Third District of Tennessee, and solar energy has 

grown considerably, and very, very popular in my district. We have 

had manufacturers of components come in, very large manufacturers, and we welcomed them to Tennessee. 

I am interested to know, Director Abbey, why there are 95 solar 

permit applications currently pending under the Bureau of Land 

26 

Management’s supervision, and what factors are preventing these 

permits from being approved, sir? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, I believe there may be even more applications 

than what you listed. Again, we moved forward, and in the authorization process, we close coordinate with other Federal agencies to 

determine the appropriateness of where the applications have been 

filed, and which lands the applications have been filed on, and 

what potential conflicts we might encounter as we go forward in 

that review. 

We have placed our emphasis and our limited capacity on reviewing those applications that we believe have the best chance of being 

approved. That is a track record that we are very proud of. 

Since 2009, it is an area of focus that will continue, and we will 

continue by the way to also work proponents in those other areas 

to perfect their applications, and maybe even offer some alternatives for their consideration. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Director Abbey, and Director 

Bromwich, this is a question for both of you. Reportedly, there have 

been wind and solar energy projects canceled or delayed under the 

supervision of your respective departments. 

Can you please explain to the Committee the criteria for canceling or delaying both onshore and offshore wind and solar energy 

projects, and what kind of factors must be present for these 

projects to be delayed, and how you go about determining what 

these factors are, and then in fact if they are present? 

Mr. BROMWICH. I can go first because my answer will be short. 

We have not had any cancellations, and the only delays have involved litigation relating to the Cape Wind project, and those were 

totally out of our control. 

Mr. ABBEY. And then I would add to Director Bromwich’s answer, that as it relates to public lands managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management, we have had applications that have been delayed for a number of reasons. 

Again, the inability of the companies to enter into a power purchase agreement, and therefore, what is the need for that project 

until they get such an agreement in place. That is a factor in considering how we place and prioritize such a project. 

Another factor would be as we go forward in this scoping process 

of an application in preparation for doing the analysis, the environmental analysis, if we identify issues, and if we are unable to work 

with the proponent to identify measures that we could mitigate 

those environmental issues, then we continue to work closely with 

the proponent to perfect an application to look at it various alternatives, and even different locations for their projects. So that in 

and of itself sometimes will delay a potential project. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you. Director Abbey, this year the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, have apparently given 20 wind, solar, and geothermal projects a priority status. 

We are midway through the year and only one of these 20 have 

been approved. Mr. Director, would you be able to explain to the 

Committee why the other 19 have yet to be approved, and perhaps 

give us a timetable as to when we might expect them to be approved, sir. 

27 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, because of the early coordination and 

consultation with both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the National Park Service, among other entities, we anticipate 

that many of those 20 projects will be completed this calendar year. 

All those projects are likely to be approved if we do not run into 

obstacles like issues that cannot be mitigated. You know, we are 

still conducting the Environmental Impact Statements on each of 

those projects, and so I don’t want to sit here and tell you that they 

all will be approved, and if they are not approved, it won’t be because we did not give it the attention that each of those projects 

deserved. 

And that we will allow our analysis to determine whether or not 

all of the projects could be approved, or which ones cannot be approved. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Director. I yield back. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. Now the Gentleman from 

New Mexico. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I am glad 

that we are having this important discussion to see what truly can 

be done across the country, especially with our public lands, to encourage and provide certainty to be able to develop renewable generation, and make sure that this is something that this great Nation of ours is truly embracing, and not pushing away or discouraging. 

Director Abbey, you have mentioned power purchase agreements 

a few times. Can you tell us what they are and why they are so 

important? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, they are important because all of a sudden it 

gives legitimacy to the projects for energy that can actually be sold, 

and delivered to the market, and so the proponents for renewable 

energy, and other sources of energy, need to have a market in 

order to go forward and compensate for the costs that they are investing in each of those projects. 

So it is market driven. They consult and work out agreements 

with the power provider. Those agreements then became part of 

the business plan, and used to get financing in some cases, but 

more importantly, provide assurances that the energy that they 

could produce from their project being approved and constructed 

will go on to the market, and there is a return for their investment. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I appreciate that, Director Abbey, because as we 

have talked about the importance of providing the certainty around 

public utility commissions across the country having the certainty, 

really incentives, that would encourage utilities to engage in these 

discussions, and to actually talk to these developers, and to bring 

these PPAs to fruition, and provides the certainly necessary so that 

when we talk about the financing, we now have the ability to bring 

together those that are going to build this generation, and bring 

the project to fruition, and work with that utility company, or that 

small municipality, whatever they may be, so that they can buy the 

power that is going to be produced. 

It is a simple idea. It is one that sadly in many parts of the country, I don’t think we have the strong incentives that are needed, 

and this Congress, I think that we could do something about that. 

28 

Secretary Salazar recently said that when he was talking about 

‘‘Smart From the Start,’’ which I want to applaud your efforts on, 

as we talked about some of the barriers that exist with where some 

of these projects have been held up, and providing certainty associated with ‘‘Smart From the Start,’’ and the planning necessary to 

be able to designate areas where you can have an accelerated 

NEPA process, and make sure that you are working in these areas 

so that that does not slow things down. 

But the Secretary warned us, the lawmakers, that investors will 

need dependable incentives, and regulations to continue building. 

So we heard a lot from Ranking Member Markey about the tax incentives, and tax extenders, that should be extended. 

I hope that we as a Congress have the will and the courage to 

move those forward, and create some certainty for not one year, but 

maybe for five years. But that we also act to establish a renewable 

electricity standard, which is something that Congressman Udall, 

when he served, was a big proponent of it here in the House, and 

it was included in some legislation going forward. 

So that way when we talk about providing the incentives necessary to help drive this market, you provide the certainty to the 

regulators, to public utility commissions, to utilities, to those that 

are going to bring the financing necessary to build these renewable 

energy generation projects on our public lands. 

And you also incentivize those that are going to provide the 

transmission conductivity required. So while I appreciate that this 

hearing is centered around what we can do to look at our hurdles 

that sometimes exist on the permitting process with our public 

lands, that there is a whole other round that could provide the incentives necessary to help us drive this forward. 

And I am looking forward to being able to further that conversation as well. One hat that I wore before I came to Congress was 

that I actually served on New Mexico’s equivalent of the Public 

Utility Commission. I was honored to chair that body for three 

years. 

I certainly served on it for four years, and so understanding the 

complexities that are sometimes associated with helping to change 

legislation in New Mexico, we established a renewable portfolio 

standard, and we saw an acceleration associated with those that 

were coming to the State to develop more generation. 

And in New Mexico, we actually worked with our rural electric 

cooperatives to find a path forward for their generation and transmission company to have some certainty on the financing so that 

we can get renewable projects also with our rural co-ops, and it fits 

into the mix. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we are going to have a 

second round of questions because I know that I really wasn’t able 

to delve into some of the questions that I have around the term of 

the contracts. 

But this is an important conversation, and I think one that we 

can find a lot of common ground on in order to get people to work 

here in the country. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. And I thank you, and I would remind 

all the Members that we can get the best focus and the best bang 

29 

for the buck out of our witnesses when we concentrate on issues 

that our Committee has jurisdiction over. 

There are a lot of important issues out there, but that would be 

something that I think would be the most focused use of our time. 

OK. The Gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I 

would like to make a general statement and then ask Mr. Abbey 

to relate my concerns and my statement back to the Secretary, Secretary Salazar, as well as the Assistant Secretary Balboa, that I 

am one who supports our country’s efforts to accelerate the deployment and application of wind and solar energy on public lands. 

And so I am urging you to enhance and expedite that effort as 

much as possible, both of you actually. This potential is particular 

important to the island territories, including my home, Puerto Rico, 

where opportunities abound. 

The report recently issued by the White House Task Force on 

Puerto Rico validates that Federal and local interest in developing 

wind and solar energy in Puerto Rico, and especially in Vieques, 

the nearby Island of Vieques. 

I should note that my constituents pay over twice the national 

average for kilowatt hour for their electricity, and that recent 

prices have soared to 26 cents a kilowatt hour. A home to over 3.7 

million American citizens, and with a struggling economy, energy 

costs are a major obstacle to Puerto Rico’s economic growth. 

Therefore, I hope that future Interior Department budget requests and efforts across the Administration will address the wind 

and solar potential in Puerto Rico and the other territories. 

Now, referring to Vieques specifically. I advocated for a green 

plan for Vieques, and that got the attraction of the White House 

and this task force. They basically adopted that and they are proposing that in the report that was recently issued. 

Now, what happens in Vieques is that most, if not all, of the land 

owned by the Federal Government there constitutes the Vieques 

National Wildlife Refuge, and I know that you are here today to 

speak to the Bureau’s role in facilitating solar and wind projects on 

your land. 

However, can you generally address how the Department might 

be collaborating on citing such projects on other Interior lands, 

such as those within the refuge system. I want to see your reaction 

there. 

I know that the Fish and Wildlife Service delegates authority to 

determine compatible use to each of its refuge managers. I know 

that. And that energy projects are addressed in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

But if there is one message that you can take back to the Department, it is that we are looking for flexibility and support from the 

Department in evaluating wind and solar energy projects on Federal land in Vieques. 

And let me put it just in plain words. When you go to Vieques— 

and I have been there many times—you see that it has got a lot 

of potential. Consistent winds for windmills. And the sun exposure 

is so amazing as well, and I am one who wants this refuge to be 

preserved, and taken care of. 

30 

But it makes all the sense in the world, and it is so big, the area, 

to be able to locate some of this power projects there, and that is 

what I am telling you, and if you can relay that back to your colleagues in the Department, and I will really appreciate that. And 

if you have anything to comment or say about this, I am all ears. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, we are fortunate to have a very good 

working relationship with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and a Secretary of the Interior that is a proponent of renewable energy development. 

I will pass on your comments to the Secretary, as well as to Dan 

Ashe, who is the designee, or the nominee for the Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. I thank the gentleman. Now, we will 

start a second round. Thank you again for agreeing to do so. Mr. 

Bromwich, a general question, and then a specific question. 

In general, does ‘‘multiple use’’ mean that existing uses have a 

higher priority than a new use, such as wind energy, which is fairly recent? 

Mr. BROMWICH. No. We look at all the potential uses and we try 

to strike a balance, taking into account the importance of the various uses, and making decisions about whether the new use can 

move forward. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you very much. Now, let me ask 

you specifically. In December of 2010 the Bureau announced a request for interest from the public regarding the potential for wind 

development in a 7,700 square kilometer area off the coast of Massachusetts. 

The Bureau received 11 submissions from 10 companies expressing commercial leasing interests in the area. A clear indication that 

the area is of significant interest to wind development, and would 

likely be a promising wind development zone. 

However, recently, BOEMRE announced the closure of more than 

half the original area as a result of comments from the fishing industry, State politicians, and marine biologists. Can you tell me 

what guidance the Bureau used from industry in advance of that 

closure, and what scientific studies had been done, or what scientific research the Bureau was relying on when they decided to 

apparently permanently close this obviously promising area? 

Mr. BROMWICH. Well, a cornerstone of our process is consulting 

with all of the affected communities and people. That includes 

elected representatives of the State, but it also includes representatives of industries that are affected, and in this case the fishing industry. 

There was an extremely strong multi-part opposition to opening 

up the part of Massachusetts, offshore Massachusetts, that we 

have now decided to withdraw, and as a response to Federal agencies, and taking into account all the comments that we got, from 

the Governor of Massachusetts, down through fishing interests, we 

determined that that was the appropriate balance to strike in that 

case. 

So it is not to say that that is the same decision that we will 

make in every case, and each case is different. The expressions of 

31 

concern and the other interests affected will necessarily be different in every case, and we simply try to make the best decisions 

that we can. 

We have seen in the saga of Cape Wind that has dragged on for 

10 years that litigation can tie up these projects to a tremendous 

degree. So we thought among other things that we took into account, we don’t want to provoke litigation if we can avoid it. 

So in this instance, where there was strong opposition to the part 

offshore Massachusetts, we decided to take it off the table for now, 

and we thought that was clearly the right decision in order to move 

these projects forward. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. Now, I am going to ask you 

to make a little bit of a prediction here. By the end of next year, 

at the end of 2012, besides the Cape Wind project, which as you 

say was 10 years in the words, and counting, apart from that, will 

the American people see any single offshore wind project under 

construction? 

Mr. BROMWICH. I don’t know the answer to that. I am not a great 

predictor, but I can predict this. That we will award almost surely 

a non-competitive lease this year, and we will almost surely award 

multiple competitive leases next year. 

In terms of when the construction begins, that is largely out of 

our hands, and I certainly can’t read the minds of the developers 

who were responsible for the construction. 

But I can comment and make predictions based on our process, 

which is now far more expedited than it was before, and that we 

will push forward the day that we can award these leases, both 

non-competitively and competitively. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. Thank you for your answer, and once 

again for being here. And I yield to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Thank you. Just to go back to this Massachusetts decision. It is my understanding that you did permit though, 

or approve an area that would be able to generate 4,000 megawatts 

of wind off of the coast of Massachusetts; is that correct? 

Mr. BROMWICH. There is a substantial area that still exists, yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is correct, and just so everyone has knowledge, in New England, we need about 30,000 megawatts of capacity 

on a daily basis. We only use about 23,000 of it. 

Massachusetts, of the six States, consumes maybe 13,000 of it. 

So if you found an area where 4,000 megawatts can come in—— 

Mr. BROMWICH. It would be a big contributor, yes. 

Mr. MARKEY.—on the Massachusetts coastline over the next 20 

years, that is pretty much all we are going to need. We don’t need 

more than 4,000 by the year 2030. So, just so we all know that 

your decision accommodates our fishing industry and our wind industry, and our wind industry endorses the decision that you made. 

Mr. BROMWICH. That is right. 

Mr. MARKEY. Because we just don’t need more than that. So, 

thank you. We still have Seabrook, and we still have Pilgrim, and 

we have all of the other nuclear power plants, and all the other 

electrical generating capacity. 

Now, yesterday, the Department of Energy decided not to extend 

the loan guarantee to Cape Wind, which is a big decision, and it 

has been an especially big decision because Wall Street is already 

32 

scared, and we need government support in order to make sure 

that we can get this project off of the line. 

So what are the implications, Mr. Bromwich, of that decision yesterday in terms of all of the other projects along the coastline of 

the United States? 

Mr. BROMWICH. I think that remains to be seen. I think that 

Cape Wind will continue to try to get financing, and try to get the 

loans that it needs, but there is no question, Congressman Markey, 

that that is a very significant blow. 

And I share your view that the kind of loan availability, including governmental loan availability, is an important factor in getting this very important industry off the ground. 

So I think that it is a significant problem, and I can’t predict 

what the impact will be on other interested developers, but I would 

think that it can’t be positive. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. So the combination of the Republicans and 

their budget zeroing out loan guaranteed money, combined with 

then this decision, really does create a chilling effect going up and 

down the coastline if other developers are looking at Cape Wind as 

the first of its kind in our Nation. Would you not agree with that? 

Mr. BROMWICH. Yes, I would agree with that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, and so we are at a real inflection point here, 

and I would call upon the Republicans to reconsider their decision 

to zero out loan guarantees for wind and solar in their budget, and 

to keep in $20 billion for nuclear power. 

After Fukushima, it is going to be hard to find anyone that 

wants to build a nuclear power plant, but we have hundreds of applications for renewables that are out there, where the loan guarantee program can help to ensure that we move in that direction. 

And I know for one that Massachusetts wants to be the leader. 

We have been out trying to get this done, and this was a final 

stage, but the more that this funding is put in jeopardy is the more 

difficult that it is going to be in order to really create a longer term 

vision. 

So this is an incredible day where the Republicans are defending 

$4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies out on the House and 

Senate Floor, at the same time that they are zeroing out the loan 

guarantee programs for wind and solar. 

One industry is reporting the greatest profits in the history of 

the world, and by the way the oil industry only invests one-half of 

one percent of their funding into research, and semi-conductors, 17 

percent of their revenue goes into research, and biotech, it is 19 

percent of their revenues. 

And the oil industry is not investing in solar or winds for the future. They are investing in manufacturing that god already created, the oil under the ground. So that is their manufacturing tax 

credit, and this is our way of helping these other industries. 

So on page seven, Mr. Bromwich, of your testimony, you note 

that your agency has received a request for a right-of-way for 750 

mile backbone transmission line that would run about 10 miles offshore from New York to Virginia. 

What is your timetable for processing this request, and making 

the consultations that you need to do in order to make this happen? 

33 

Mr. BROMWICH. I asked that question this morning. I don’t have 

a specific time for you. We know how potentially important it is. 

We are supportive of the project, and we now have it as of the last 

day of March, I think. We have the application and we will move 

as quickly as we can to go through all the reviews that are necessary. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Well, Google is ready to go, and time is of the 

essence, and I would urge you to put it on a fast track. 

Mr. BROMWICH. It is on a fast track, Congressman. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is on a fast track. OK. And what is a fast track? 

How fast is a fast track? 

Mr. BROMWICH. It is as fast as our people can review all of the 

things that they need to review. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is that in months or years? 

Mr. BROMWICH. It is not in years. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is not in years, and so it could be done by the 

end of this year? 

Mr. BROMWICH. Oh, I hope it is, yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Then I think that should be our goal. 

Mr. BROMWICH. I agree. 

Mr. MARKEY. You need to give hope to investors that there is 

something, and to these companies who are sticking their neck out, 

or necks out, that there is an end in sight to their hopes to be able 

to contribute to a new energy vision for our country. I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LAMBORN. Well, the Ranking Member had some interesting news and predictions that you are bringing to our attention, 

including that apparently the Republican budget will pass the Senate. Now, the Chair would recognize the Gentleman from New Jersey. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. First, let me ask the Chair for permission 

to include in the record a report issued by the National Wildlife 

Federation, entitled, Offshore Wind In the Atlantic: Growing Momentum For Jobs, Energy Independence, Clean Air, and Wildlife 

Protection. 

And also to include in the record a letter, dated March 7 of this 

year to the President, signed by a hundred or so organizations and 

individuals from a dozen different Eastern States, having to do 

with offshore wind. 

Chairman LAMBORN. Without objection. 

[The letter to the President follows:] 

34 


66362.001.eps
35 


66362.002.eps
36 


66362.003.eps
37 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. And just to follow on Mr. Markey’s very 

good comments, this transmission line backbone that would go up 

the Atlantic Coast, if it is going to carry anything other than coal 

generated electricity, we are going to have to have more incentive, 

more support, for developing this enormous attractive resource of 

wind offshore. 

Mr. Markey talked about the loan guarantees that I think are 

necessary for that, and I realize that is not your department, but 

we will also need I think to have good confidence building review 

process for the leasing decisions. 

For the ‘‘Smart From the Start’’ initiative, I would like you to explain a little bit more how the lessons learned from onshore renewable energy can help make the offshore development go smoothly, 

and how the offshore wind leases to be highly conditioned in the 


66362.004.eps
38 

leases, what that really means, and whether that will accelerate 

the development of this enormous resource. 

Mr. BROMWICH. Let me begin the answer this way. We have as 

I think you know, Congressman Holt, a very relatively small, but 

incredibly dedicated, staff of people who do our renewables work. 

Right now it is about 28 people who have a broad range of expertise. 

And I can’t tell you what they have learned from onshore, but 

they could tell you what they have learned from onshore, and I am 

sure that they are applying it to the various work that they are 

doing right now. 

And I know that in devising the ‘‘Smart From the Start’’ Program as it applies to offshore, the Secretary and others in the Department used some of the lessons that they had learned from onshore work. 

I think that what has already happened is that the ‘‘Smart From 

the Start’’ Program has given a booster shot to the program. It has 

accelerated the pace of things to a remarkable degree. 

As you know, we have designated specific areas offshore New 

Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, and in the case of your 

State, for example, we have already put out for response a request 

for interest. That went out at the end of last month. 

And we are anticipating a very significant amount of interest, 

and then it will be our job to shift through those and to figure out 

to whom the leases should be awarded. So we are in a very different place now, not just in New Jersey, but in all of the wind 

energy areas that were designated recently, and with a whole new 

set that will be designated in the near future, to put together and 

get up and running a robust offshore wind capability that will justify the kind of transmission backbone that Google and its partners 

are looking to build. 

As I said before, we are going to continue to look for ways to improve the efficiency of our process, and to cut back even further on 

the time that it takes to go through all of the steps. We have already made a substantial advance by—— 

Mr. HOLT. So let me ask you that anywhere along the East Coast 

will there—well, how soon do you estimate will there be wind turbine offshore generation? And I am talking about kind of the 10 to 

30 mile offshore region? When will we see it? 

Mr. BROMWICH. I don’t know. So much of it depends on the pace 

of construction of these facilities, and what happens the construction is in operation, and plans have been filed, as it has been for 

Cape Wind, and then what other obstacles may be in the way. 

And in the case of Cape Wind, there is very little left for us to 

there. There is a review of birds, and bats, and our monitoring program needs to be submitted. There are then various plans that 

need to be submitted, but they don’t need our approval. We have 

to object within a certain period of time if we object. 

So that, if they get the financing, is going forward. It is harder 

to predict, and it is more speculative for me to predict how things 

will go off Delaware, off New Jersey, off Maryland, and off Virginia. 

I think that I share your hope that it will be soon, but how soon, 

I really can’t say without any degree of certainty. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

39 

Chairman LAMBORN. Thank you. The Gentleman from California, 

Mr. Costa. And I am letting him go next with the agreement of Mr. 

Markey, because he didn’t have a chance to speak in the first 

round. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues as 

well. This is a very important hearing, I think, of the Subcommittee today because for those of us who do want to build a renewable robust portfolio, and trying to find out what these roadblocks have been for both solar and wind. 

And even in States like California that have approximately 20 

percent of our energy from renewable sources, and with the goal to 

expand that to 30 percent over the course of the next 10 years, 

these challenges I think are critical. 

Mr. Abbey, I would like to talk to you because we have had this 

conversation before. There is an effort that the Bureau of Land 

Management has done with the renewable electricity standards 

that have been implemented in 29 States, and especially in the 

Southwest, with a number of areas where there is great potential 

for solar energy utilization; i.e., California, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Arizona. 

And you have been dealing with these programmatic EISs to do 

this. You have had—I can’t speak for the other States, but I certainly know in the desert of Southern California that a very, I 

thought, good effort, collaboration between the State and local 

agencies. 

But yet as we all know, and I am reading it in our analysis, some 

of the obligations are roadblocks to solar and wind, to include financing demand, and project siting and litigation. 

I would submit to you and Members of the Subcommittee that 

it is siding and litigation that seems to be the primary obstacles 

in the case of Southern California. Where are we on that, Director 

Abbey, and where are we in the opportunity to produce the final 

programmatic environmental impact statement that would allow 

those solar projects to go forward? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, thanks for your question, Congressman Costa. 

The programmatic environmental impact statement assessed the 

environmental, and social, and economic impacts associated with 

solar energy development on public lands, and as you stated, in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. 

We extended the public comment period twice so that we could 

benefit from the input that we would receive from the public, from 

the industry, and other regulatory agencies that worked for the 

State and even local governments. 

That public comment period has closed, and we are assessing 

those comments at this point in time, and we anticipate moving 

forward as aggressively as possible, and responding to those comments, and producing a final environmental impact statement 

based upon the information that has been provided to us hopefully 

this year, or early next year. 

Mr. COSTA. So you are looking at doing it before the end of this 

year hopefully? 

Mr. ABBEY. The schedule was such that we were targeting this 

calendar year, and it may be in the next year based upon the subVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66362.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

stantial comments that we have received regarding the draft document. 

Mr. COSTA. Are you committed to adopting solutions that have 

been recommended by the California Desert Renewable Energy 

Working Group in the near future? 

Mr. ABBEY. We have taken that into consideration. Let me just 

say one thing along those lines. We have a great working relationship with the State of California, and because of that working relationship, and because of the State renewable energy portfolio 

standards that is in place, we understand the important role that 

California plays as far as helping us diversify our Nation’s energy 

portfolio. 

Mr. COSTA. I mean, if we can’t locate solar energy development 

in that part of the State, god help us. I don’t know that we can site 

it anywhere. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, I am pretty confident that we will move forward with projects that have been proposed, and at least of those 

projects. Litigation is something that we are—— 

Mr. COSTA. Is there anything that Congress should consider to 

remove barriers for agencies to try to implement these solutions? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congressman, I am not that we need a Congressional 

engagement or involvement at this point in time. Certainly oversight is helpful, but nonetheless, we have all the authorities that 

we need to go out and do the job that we have been tasked to do. 

Mr. COSTA. But I suspect that you are as frustrated as I am, and 

some of the others. The Bureau of Land Management has spent 

considerable time and effort now through two Administrations trying to take advantage of what is a tremendous potential in those 

States that you enumerated, where there is a lot of solar energy 

potential. 

There are literally thousands of megawatts that could be developed, and it just—I mean, are there any other impediments that 

are keeping us from getting there? 

Mr. ABBEY. I do not believe there is. Again, the chief—— 

Mr. COSTA. How about the connection of the transmission and 

the moving of that power to where it can be used? 

Mr. ABBEY. The transmission continues to be a challenge, but 

again I don’t believe that any additional authorities are necessary. 

The challenge that we have with transmission is that it crosses numerous jurisdictional boundaries, and there are an awful lot of people that are involved in approving the transmission through corridors and lines. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired, but we need to continue to work on this. This seems to be 

one of those areas where there is strong bipartisan agreement, and 

clearly we can do better, I think, and I will look forward to you 

making those timelines at the end of this year or early next year. 

Mr. ABBEY. I look forward to working with you to do that. 

Chairman LAMBORN. And I want to thank the Gentleman from 

California who was the Chairman of this Subcommittee for the previous four years, and knows many of these issues very well. We are 

going to conclude now unless someone shows up at the last second. 

The Chair recognizes Representative Bishop from Utah. 

41 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate what 

the Gentleman from California was asking, because transmission is 

a key element to whether we have any kind of alternative energies. 

You have to get it from one place to another. 

So let me follow up if I could on the track in which he was going, 

because this could be a major impediment to that power. So, Mr. 

Abbey, how many transmission projects have been fully permitted 

on Federal land in, say, the last three years? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congressman Bishop, I would have to provide you 

with the specific data for that request, but I will say this. That 

since 2009, BLM has permitted 500 miles of transmission lines 

across Nevada, Idaho, and California. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you did not have Utah in there. Come on. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, actually, we are dedicating a transmission line 

in Utah, I think, next week. 

Mr. BISHOP. Oh, good, because that is the last question that I 

have here. 

Mr. COSTA. Could you name it after the Congressman? 

Mr. BISHOP. No. Just don’t use the word memorial in there. Do 

you have an idea of how many transmission projects that are currently in the pipeline with the Interior Department? 

Mr. ABBEY. The answer that was just given to me is around 35. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. And I was going to ask if there were delays, but 

obviously like the Gateway West, the EIS for Gateway West in 

Utah has been delayed for 22 months. Why was there a delay in 

that? 

Mr. ABBEY. Again, there are challenges as far as identifying a 

corridor that is acceptable to everyone that is engaged and involved 

in that review process. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Well, that is a good point, because obviously in 

developing these EISs requires multiple agencies to become involved in them unfortunately. So is the policy that you require a 

consensus, or a majority rule on the issuing where there are various opinions that may be in conflict from these multiple specialists 

from these multiple offices? How do you determine whether you go 

forward or not? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, it goes back to our ‘‘Smart From the 

Start’’ concept, where we try to engage and involve everybody early 

in the process, versus going forward with the analysis and coming 

up with a decision that there is little support for. So as we look 

to—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So, could one office stop the entire work? 

Mr. ABBEY. No, they could not. They could certainly object to the 

analysis, or object to the decision, and then we would work through 

the processes to try to resolve those differences. 

Mr. BISHOP. Has it ever been attempted to have like a team of 

experts congregate just in one office so they can represent all of it, 

and it can all be done in a timely manner? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, we routinely get together and coordinate our 

actions. Whether or not we need to all be in one office to do that 

on a routine basis, I am not sure that it requires that, but communication is a key all along that process. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, that may be one of the things that we should 

talk about in the future sometime in trying to consolidate that parVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:54 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66362.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
42 

ticular process. I would ask you the specific that is very parochial 

to me, and that is that segment to Red Butte portion of the energy 

gateway, and I am hoping, but is the Interior prepared to deliver 

that? 

I understand that the EIS is supposed to be published on May 

27. Of course, if the world ends on May 21, it is a moot issue, but 

are you prepared to move forward with that one? 

Mr. ABBEY. We are prepared to move forward. I am not sure 

within the time frame that you just identified, but we have done 

a lot of work to get to where we need to be as far as releasing that 

document. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that, and I think that one of the things 

that people have talked about here before as I was listening before 

I came down here, we have made statements both from the Administration and from Congress about our need to invest in and integrate renewable energy sources, and sometimes there is an incongruity with that statement; the development with the resources, 

and especially the critical transmission infrastructure that we need 

to move that particular energy. 

I think that I have about a minute-and-a-half left there. If, for 

example, you all don’t change your wildlands, and you do something wrong, and don’t change your wildlands proposal, and we do 

something wrong, and don’t actually cut the funding. Let’s say we 

do something right and cut the funding to that. 

Since it is not in a—and the line item for it is part of the overall 

budget, but would any kind of change in that funding provide a 

delay in projects like these from getting their permits established? 

Mr. ABBEY. I am not sure that there would be delay. It would 

certainly be a factor in us reviewing the proposals that would be 

before us, and take that information into account from the inventories that would have been performed to identify lands with renewable energy characteristics. 

At the end of the day, it is one factor of many that we would consider, and then as we go forward, make a decision to best serve the 

public. 

Mr. BISHOP. And that one factor is a key in keeping this Committee going. I don’t have any other questions, but I really feel 

somewhat naked up here if I am not asking you to release some 

documents to me. I don’t have any that I really want, but can you 

give me something just for the fun of it? 

Mr. ABBEY. I will give you my written notes here if you would 

like them. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Abbey. Thank 

you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman LAMBORN. OK. And thank you, and I want to thank 

the two witnesses, both Directors, for their testimony. Members of 

the Committee may have additional questions for the record, and 

I would ask that you would respond to these in writing should they 

be submitted. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the Committee 

will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

43 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Robert Abbey, Director, 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Congressman Rob Bishop (UT) 

1. You mentioned during the May 13 hearing that the Gateway West environmental impact statement is being delayed due to ‘‘challenges to identifying acceptable corridors to those engaged in the review process.’’ 

a. Can you be more specific as to the nature of those challenges? 

Answer: With a proposed route of over 1,100 miles, the Gateway West Transmission Line Project is the longest, and perhaps the most complex, interstate high 

voltage transmission line project currently under consideration in the United States. 

Over 2,000 miles of alternative routes are analyzed in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The project has a wide range of cooperating agencies, including Federal, state and local governments. Some of the siting challenges 

addressed in the DEIS include: location of the line on both Federal and private land, 

and use of designated corridors, such as the West Wide Energy Corridor; avoiding 

impacts to Sage Grouse and other sensitive species habitat; avoiding designated 

areas and existing infrastructure; and conformance with existing land use plans. 

b. Have those challenges been resolved? If not, why not? 

Answer: The BLM, working with cooperating agencies, developed a broad range 

of alternatives designed to address siting issues. BLM has addressed some of these 

challenges for instance, by locating some segments of the proposed line in areas 

where most, if not all, resource conflicts are avoided; for these segments, no alternative routes were analyzed in the DEIS. There remain project segments where a 

consensus opinion on an acceptable route does not currently exist. However, BLM 

continues to engage with cooperative agencies to try to resolve these remaining 

issues. 

c. Are those challenges within the U.S. Department of the Interior or other 

federal agencies? 

Answer: Federal Cooperating Agencies on the Gateway West Project include the 

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Although not all regulatory 

issues are resolved at this time, the BLM has a very good working relationship with 

these agencies and we expect resolution before the Record of Decision is issued. 

d. What is being done to resolve these issues and move this project 

through the process? 

Answer: After the close of the Public Scoping Period in July 2008, the BLM allowed additional time in response to public input and for state and local governments to develop alternative route proposals. The BLM worked with these stakeholders to avoid ‘‘fatal routing flaws’’ from a public land perspective. These alternatives are fully considered in the DEIS. The project management team continues 

to work with cooperating agencies to address issues and provide as complete an impact analysis as current information and science allow. 

To address sage grouse and cultural resource issues, the BLM has formed focus 

groups consisting of cooperating agencies, interested parties, and the applicants. For 

sage grouse, the BLM developed an ‘‘Analysis Framework for Interstate Transmission Lines.’’ The focus group is working through the four components of analysis 

in this first-time application of the Framework. The approach is endorsed by the 

BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Idaho and Wyoming State Game 

Agencies. For cultural resources, a focus group is preparing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 

focus group was endorsed by the interested parties affected by the project and 

should lead to a broader acceptance of the PA among the interested parties. 

2. What is your expectation of how long a project of this scale should take 

to complete the NEPA process? 

Answer: Depending on the length and complexity of a transmission project, four 

to five years for the NEPA process should be expected. 

3. Are there similar challenges for the Sigurd-to-Red Butte segment of the 

Energy Gateway transmission project? If so, what is being done to address those in a timely manner? 

Answer: The BLM is working closely with 13 Cooperating Agencies (Federal agencies and local governments) to identify the optimum routing alternatives for the 

Sigurd to Red Butte Project. Although this project does not have significant sage 

44 

grouse concerns, and plan amendments are not needed to address visual constraints 

on public land, there are other and different challenges associated with this project 

For example, there are cultural and cultural-visual concerns and inventoried 

roadless area constraints as the southern portion of the route crosses the Dixie National Forest. 

4. What is your expectation of when the draft environmental impact statement will be issued for the Sigurd-to-Red Butte segment? 

Answer: The Draft EIS was mailed to the public on May 27, 2011, and is available online at: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/cedar_city/planning/deis_documents. 

html. The public comment period began on June 3 and ended on July 18, 2011. We 

anticipate a decision on the project in the fall of 2012. 

Congressman Rau ́ l Grijalva (AZ) 

la. Before permitting a project, I think we can all agree that everyone involved would like to have certainty that a project is not going to experience any delays from litigation. Certainty is good for industry, energy 

investors, endangered species, irreplaceable historic and cultural resources, Native American tribes and land managers. However, in the 

Solar Energy Development Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) there are at least 20 out of 24 proposed SEZs have had 

less than a 5% survey for cultural resources. In the PEIS, the BLM 

states that in-depth analyses have already been performed for the SEZs, 

or would be for future SEZs. If<5% surveys are generally the best the 

BLM can do for identifying cultural resources in ‘‘solar energy zones,’’ 

can you please share with the Committee how the BLM plans to adequately assess potential impacts to historic properties under both 

NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, thereby providing certainty for preservationists as well as other interested 

parties? 

Answer: in accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (N11PA), the BLM is coordinating with and soliciting input 

from the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) in each of the six states in 

the study area and from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In addition, 

the National Council of SHPOs, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and 

Tribal governments have been invited to consult on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and the preparation of a National Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) regarding solar energy development. The PA will provide for a 

phased consultation process related to historic, traditional, and cultural resources 

for the PEIS and subsequent activities that could tier to the PEIS Record of Decision. Details regarding the consultation process are presented in Chapter 14 of the 

Draft Solar PEIS. Additional information, including copies of correspondence with 

Tribes, is included in Appendix K. of the Draft Solar PEIS. 

Ib. When the BLM creates new SEZs, will the BLM instate minimum cultural resources survey thresholds before offering any new SEZs like a 

20% survey standard for example? 

Answer: The BLM is currently reviewing comments (comment period ended May 

2, 2011) on the Draft Solar PEIS. Many commenters asked that the BLM augment 

its data collection for various resources by conducting on-the-ground surveys prior 

to making final decisions about solar energy zones (SEZ). Such comments identified 

the need for conducting targeted Class II cultural resource inventories, among others. We agree that identifying baseline cultural resource data through a standard 

sampling regime would be useful in assessing the potential adverse affect on historic 

properties, and we are considering various options in terms of time and cost. We 

also note that each solar energy development project will require additional review 

and consultation once a specific plan of development is prepared and presented to 

the BLM. 

45 

Congrcsswoman Grace Napolitano (CA) 

1. The BLM and DOE draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Development of Solar Projects in Six Western United States 

purports to reduce the permitting time for projects. My understanding 

is that the BLM must still conduct an environmental review for each 

project because the PEIS does not get into site specific and project specific environmental impacts. Please provide a schedule showing exactly 

how much time the PEIS will save, and why, over the normal time for 

the BLM to process an application for a solar project or a transmission 

line project needed to delivery energy from a solar project? 

Answer: The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) will help 

the BLM establish a framework for siting solar energy development projects and 

identify and prioritize locations on public lands best suited for solar energy development (i.e., those identified through a comprehensive environmental analysis as containing the highest solar energy potential and the fewest environmental and resource conflicts). Once completed, the PEIS will provide environmental analysis to 

which future projects may tier under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). It would be difficult to ascertain how much time the PEIS would save because each project is unique. However, by tiering to the Solar PEIS’ analysis, future 

environmental reviews may be expedited by focusing on a narrower range of alternatives and by avoiding redundancy by concentrating only on issues not already 

analyzed. 

2. The BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with various California agencies to create a 

Renewable Energy Policy Group to facilitate the permitting of renewable energy projects. Related to that effort, BLM and other federal, state, 

and focal agencies, along with industry, environmental organizations, 

and the public are involved in the development of the Desert Renewable 

Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) that is intended to facilitate renewable energy project review and approval and provide long-term endangered species permit assurances. One of the products will identify and 

map areas for renewable energy project development. How is (he PEIS 

for Solar Development taking into account the work of the DRECP? 

Answer: A number of regional and state initiatives, including the California 

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP), have been started in the sixstate study area evaluated in the Solar PEIS. 

Appendix D of the Solar PEIS provides an overview of the regional and state initiatives that specifically address renewable energy development in the six-state 

study area. It also includes maps depicting how these efforts relate to the lands proposed by the BLM as being available for solar energy development or proposed as 

SEZs. 

Specifically, the DRECP is intended to advance state and federal natural resource 

conservation goals in the Mojave and Colorado desert regions of southern California, 

while also facilitating the timely and streamlined permitting of renewable energy 

projects. The DRECP will include a strategy that identifies and maps areas for renewable energy development and areas for long term natural resource conservation. 

The DRECP was initiated after the BLM began its evaluation of the six-state study 

area for the Solar PEIS, is currently collecting additional data, and is not expected 

to be completed until after the Solar PEIS Record of Decision has been issued. Because both efforts may result in amendments to the California Desert Conservation 

Area (CDCA) plan, there has been and will continue to be close coordination between the two efforts. The outcome of the DRECP is anticipated to result in additional refinements to the decisions expected to be made on the basis of the Solar 

PEIS, including any lands prioritized for renewable energy development and any 

lands excluded from renewable energy development in the CDCA. 

46 

3. The BLM seems to be moving towards more of a business-like relationship with renewable energy developers on public lands. The renewable 

energy industry is supportive and like their private lands projects, the 

BLM is a business partner in the development process. Does the BLM acknowledge that in a business transaction there is a significant amount 

of risk assumed by both parties and all contracts and agreements should 

be drafted to address these risks? Industry is concerned about the outdated, template forms that the BLM requires developers to sign without 

any opportunity to suggest changes. These documents include cost recovery agreements, memorandums of understanding, and right of way 

grants. Industry is running into significant problems obtaining financing because of poorly drafted or unclear language in these documents. 

Would the BLM consider a process where a developer would have an opportunity to provide comment (a redline draft) of an agreement which 

would then be reviewed by an Interior Department Solicitor for consistency with federal regulations? The types of changes that industry is 

seeking are replacing references to outdated policy and regulations, ensuring relationships with third party consultants and cooperating agencies are clearly spelled out, and terms and conditions of the agreements 

are clearly defined. 

Answer: There are a variety of different BLM documents and agreements associated with the processing of wind and solar rights-of-way on the public lands. Some 

of these documents are standard template documents that need to be retained for 

consistency purposes. These types of documents include the standard terms of the 

right-of-way grant and the template for cost recovery agreements. 

There are other documents, including the stipulations attached to a right-of-way 

grant, which are developed through the NEPA process and should be clear and understandable. Applicants or project proponents should have an opportunity to review 

these stipulations to make sure they arc clear and understandable, and it is appropriate for individual companies to work with the local BLM office to ensure these 

stipulations are clear and understandable. However, the BLM authorized officer retains the authority to accept or reject any suggested revisions to these documents. 

4. The Wind Industry understands that the federal government must propose new policies to keep up with the ever-changing public interests and 

impact concerns. They were pleased when the BLM’s PEIS for wind was 

being developed that industry representatives were allowed to provide 

input and the policies were created through a public process, taking 

into consideration the concerns of a variety of stakeholders. However, 

more recently, several new policies (IMs) have come out which have a 

great impact on renewable energy development, and industry is not allowed any input during the development of these policies. Why has the 

BLM recently chosen to adopt policies unilaterally without any consultation with the parties most affected by these policies, especially in light 

of the strong track record of collaboration on past policies such as the 

wind PEIS and related IMs? The renewable energy industry sees the 

BLM as a partner in the development process and would appreciate if 

the BLM would consider soliciting opinions of industry experts before 

releasing policy which is often met with contention. Would the BLM consider appointing a panel of expert industry representatives to review 

proposed policy to help the BLM draft the most appropriate and productive policies to meet their goals, while continuing to encourage renewable energy development on public lands, as has been stated time and 

again as a priority for the federal government? 

Answer: The BLM has a strong history of collaborating with industry and will 

continue to maintain that working relationship. While our Instruction Memoranda 

generally deal with the orderly administration of public lands and generally do not 

have a public comment period, the BLM is always interested in hearing from our 

industry partners as well as other stakeholders and the public in general about impacts to them. 

47 

5. One of the biggest problems with NEPA is the duplication of responsibility among resource agencies (e.g., BLM Sensitive Species List and 

USFWS Candidate, Threatened and Endangered Species List). This fragmentation and duplication adds greatly to the problem of coordination 

of NEPA with other laws and with conflicting agency missions. Under 

most current practices, a project often proceeds under NEPA in a ’best 

public fit scenario,’ only to be substantially delayed by interpretation of 

policy memorandums and guidance documents, and exceptionally broad 

interpretations of permitting and analysis requirements. How does the 

BLM plan to use the RECO offices and staff to effectively minimize this 

type of duplication? 

Answer: The objective of RECO offices is to facilitate the expeditious processing 

of applications for renewable energy projects on the public lands. However, the close 

collaboration with other agencies does not mean that the BLM can abdicate its responsibility to comply with federal laws and regulations, even if those laws appear 

duplicative of other agencies’ laws and mandates. We will continue, however, to 

minimize and streamline our procedures with other agencies to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Æ