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

49-683 PDF 2009

SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 

ON FEDERAL LANDS: 

THE ROAD TO CONSENSUS 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Monday, May 11, 2009, in Palm Desert, California 

Serial No. 111-18 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

JIM COSTA, California, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking Republican Member 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Don Young, Alaska 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Monday, May 11, 2009 ................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bono Mack, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wyoming .................................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Abbott, James, Acting California State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior .......................................... 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Chong, Rachelle, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission ... 35 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 39 

Corcoran, Bill, Senior Regional Representative, Sierra Club, Oral 

statement on behalf of Carl Zichella, Western Renewable Projects 

Director, Sierra Club .................................................................................... 68 

Ferguson, Hon. Jim, Councilman, City of Palm Desert, California ............. 12 

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

Renewable Siting Criteria for California Desert Conservation Area .... 21 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 24 

Gensler, Katherine A., Manager of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, 

Solar Energy Industries Association ........................................................... 74 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 76 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 79 

Kretzschmar, Thomas M., Real Estate Division, Baltimore District, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army ......................... 47 

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

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 50 

Levin, Julia, Commissioner for Renewable Energy, California Energy 

Commission ................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Executive Order S-14-08 ........................................................................... 29 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 32 

Malnight, Steven, Vice President, Renewable Energy, Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company .......................................................................................... 62 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 67 

Niggli, Michael R., Chief Operating Officer, Sempra Energy Utilities ........ 80 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 82 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 88 

Zichella, Carl A., Director of Western Renewable Projects, Sierra Club, 

Prepared statement of .................................................................................. 71 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 73 

Additional materials supplied: 

Anderson, Ileene, Desert Program Director, Center for Biological 

Diversity, Statement on the Implementation of Renewable Energy 

Projects in the Western United States ........................................................ 103 

Basin and Range Watch, Letter submitted for the record ............................ 105 

Page

IV 

Additional materials supplied—Continued 

Form letter on ‘‘Solar Development in the San Luis Valley, Colorado,’’ 

delivered by CitizenSpeak!, with personal comments submitted for the 

record by the following individuals: Andy Zaugg; Catherine Broadbent, 

San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition; Cecelia Smith, Director, 

San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition; Charles Tidd, San Luis 

Water Protection Coalition; Claire Barker; David and Renee Hill; Dr. 

Bonnie M. Orkow; Francis Bonny; Glyder, Biosphere Coalition; Jay 

Bremyer; Kathryn Van Note, San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition; Liza Marron, LiveWell Alamosa, ScSEED, Mountain Valley School 

Board; Matthew Crowley, Shumei International Institute; Pavita 

Decorah, Sri Aurobindo Learning Center; Randi Young; Ron Sitts; 

Sandia Belgrade; Stephen Smilack; Tamar Ellentuck ............................... 107 

Form letter on ‘‘Solar Done Right’’ delivered by CitizenSpeak!, with 

personal comments submitted for the record by the following individuals: Andy Liberman; Annette Rojas; Arvind Says; Brendan Hughes; 

Cecelia Smith, San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition; Chris 

Clarke; Connie Crusha; David Crawford, Desert Protective Council; 

David McMullen; Diane Conklin, Mussey Grade Road Alliance; Donna 

Thomas; Florian Boyd; George Wuerthner; Gidon Taylor Singer; Helena 

Quintana; James Dyer; Janeen Armstrong; Jill Giegerich; Karen 

Schambach, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; Katherine McTaggart; Kim F. Floyd; Kurt Leuschner, Desert Cities Bird 

Club; Laraine Turk, California Desert Coalition; Larry Hogue, Desert 

Protective Council; Linda Harter; Luana Lynch; Mesonika Piecuch, 

ORV Watch Kern County; Michael Howard; Michael Pinto; Nick Comer; 

Nick Ervin; Olivia de Haulleville; Philip Leitner, California State University; Phillip Schuyler Carskaddan; Rachel Shaw, Sungazer Photography and Images; Richard Ryan, Desert Protective Council; Ruth 

Rieman; Spencer Berman; Stacey Landfield; Steve Hartman; Terry 

Frewin; Vanessa Rusczyk, The Protect Our Communities Foundation; 

William Modesitt; Willie Walker ................................................................. 108 

Gutierrez, Veronica, Director, Public Affairs, Edison International, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 109 

White Paper on the potential use of the authority in section 4(d) 

of the Endangered Species Act to streamline the ESA permit process for renewable energy projects ......................................................... 110 

Hartig, Anthea, Regional Director, Western Office, The National Trust 

for Historic Preservation, Statement submitted for the record ................ 114 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Letter submitted for the record ......... 117 

Smith, Ceal, Director, San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition, Letter 

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 118 

The Protect Our Communities Foundation, Letter submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 119 

The Wildlands Conservancy (TWC), Letter submitted for the record .......... 124 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ‘‘SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS: 

THE ROAD TO CONSENSUS.’’ 

Monday, May 11, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Palm Desert, California 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., at the 

University of California, Riverside (UCR) Palm Desert Graduate 

Center, 75080 Frank Sinatra Drive, Palm Desert, California, Hon. 

Jim Costa [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Costa and Lummis. 

Also Present: Representative Bono Mack. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. Good morning. Oh, we can do a better job than that. 

Good morning, all these wonderful Californians, I believe for the 

most part, here in Palm Desert. And we thank the City of Palm 

Desert and Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack for being gracious 

hosts—of course along with the University of California, Riverside, 

for being a partner in the University of California’s efforts over the 

years, and with the State Legislature. I do appreciate very much 

all the good work UC does throughout our State. 

I should introduce myself. I am Jim Costa, and I am the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, which 

is a Subcommittee of the full Committee on Natural Resources in 

the House. 

We are part of a large effort that is attempting to try to help 

America develop a comprehensive energy effort, and the term I like 

to use, the term of art, is using all of the energy tools in our energy 

toolbox that looks at the near term, i.e., now and over the next 10 

years, and then over what I view as the midterm between 10 and 

20 years, and then beyond, to really achieve the goals that I think 

all Americans would like to see us achieve, and that is reduce our 

dependency on foreign sources of energy, to develop a more efficient, more cost effective, cleaner source of energy with the issues 

that involve climate change, and focus on how we deal with that 

transition from traditional sources of energy that are critical today, 

2 

and they will be critical tomorrow, to new energy sources. In some 

cases, they are not that new at all. 

And, in California’s case, obviously, we have done a great deal. 

And, of course, part of one of those energy tools in our energy toolbox is conservation. As we all know, that is low-hanging fruit, and 

we know how successful we have been here in California in pursuing that effort of conservation. 

Let me get a few housekeeping functions here managed, and 

then each of my colleagues here have opening statements, and then 

we will begin with our panel. We have two well-qualified panels 

this morning, and we have five witnesses on our first panel and 

four witnesses on our second panel. 

And it is the Chair’s intent that hopefully we will conclude this 

hearing sometime around 12:30, 1:00 p.m., I think. We do want to 

try to get back to—most of us—Washington, either this evening or 

early, early tomorrow morning. So, we are working under those 

constraints. 

There have been a few modifications to our witness list. I will 

acknowledge that as we get to that point. 

As I said, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack serves with us in 

the 111th Congress. She has represented this area for a number of 

years, has done a good job. I enjoy working with my colleague, and 

we thank you and your staff, Chris and Paul, for being very helpful 

to ensure that this hearing goes smoothly. And you have done a 

great job, and thank you and your staff. 

I also want to thank the Ranking Member today, Cynthia 

Lummis from Wyoming. She is a new Member of the 111th Congress, but she has hit the ground running, having served in the 

Wyoming Legislature for many years. She comes from a ranching 

family that goes back to the 19th Century in Wyoming. I am very 

honored to serve with her. 

She has taken a slight detour. Somehow on Mother’s Day—I 

don’t know how you get from Wyoming and Cheyenne to Palm 

Springs, but I guess airlines being what they are today you were 

able to make that work. We appreciate that, and I hope your family 

understands that we appreciate you giving up your Mother’s Day. 

That is awful nice of you to do so. 

Today’s hearing in Palm Desert is kind of fitting and appropriate 

because, as I said, this Subcommittee deals with energy and minerals on Federal lands. And the focus of today’s hearing is on solar 

energy development and wind development, and how we develop a 

road to consensus. 

I love maps, and this map here, all of you who can see it, I know 

it is hard back there, but you can see the colors, the red and the 

different shades of yellow depict those areas that have the most potential to utilize solar power in America. And, as you can see, here 

in Palm Desert and the southeastern portion of California, as well 

as the Southwest, is proverbially the ‘‘mother lode,’’ to take a term 

from the 19th Century—solar power in America. 

And obviously, there is tremendous potential, as we know, but 

we need to deal with some of the issues that are of concern as it 

relates to solar power. In Palm Desert in this part of the world 

there are, Mary tells me, 360 days of sunshine. I don’t know what 

3 

happens to those five days that the sun doesn’t shine, but I am 

sure it is nice anyway. 

Also, Palm Desert has been a leader in aggressively pursuing, 

thanks to its City Council, and we have Councilman Ferguson here 

and the Mayor, on efforts to pursue solar power. The City has 

picked up and run with state legislation referred to as AB 811, 

California law, that allows municipalities to provide loans to help 

homeowners install solar panels on roofs. They also have a feed-in 

tariff pilot program that makes rooftop solar power even more attractive. 

So, we thank you for the good work you are doing here. It was 

actually featured in The Wall Street Journal, along with other 

energy efforts that are taking place in cities such as Chicago, London, and Amsterdam. So, we are in the right place, obviously, and 

I would rather have a hearing here than in Chicago or London or 

Amsterdam. 

[Laughter.] 

Not really, no. They are all wonderful cities. 

Energy conservation and rooftop solar panels are part of our 

tools in our energy toolbox, but they are part of, in my mind, an 

overall comprehensive energy effort. And I think that is what has 

been lacking. You know, since we had the first gas lines in 1973, 

President Nixon announced an energy policy, and every President 

since him has announced an energy policy. And most of the Congresses have tended to act on an energy policy. 

And so we might ask ourselves in 2009 why we are not farther 

along than we are today after all of that time and effort. And I 

think there are a number of contributing factors on why we are not 

farther along. But what I think—and I like to underline and put 

a fine point on it—is that we have never really thoughtfully—we 

get in these sound bites. Remember the sound bites last September? Use it or lose it? Or drill, baby, drill? 

And my response is, both sound bites are rather nonsensical 

when we are talking about a comprehensive energy policy. But, 

yes, sloganeering is a part of what drives public debate. 

What really has been lacking, I think, is developing how we use 

all of the energy tools in our energy toolbox, in the next 10 years, 

in the next 20 years, and beyond, and how we do the bridging in 

a way that makes economic sense. And so our little Subcommittee 

is trying to see how we can play a role in that larger overall effort. 

As we know, these issues are being debated in the Congress right 

now. The Administration has a proposal that they have outlined. 

And we know that here, whether it is in the Southwest or in any 

other parts of America, that whether it is oil and gas—and gas, as 

we know, is one of the energies du jour of California because of our 

air quality issues, whether it is wind power, whether it is coal, 

whether it is geothermal, whether it is solar, that we have the 

most varied of energy options probably more than any other country does in the world. But where we are not doing well, in my view, 

is really trying to put this together. 

This Subcommittee, obviously, focuses just as it relates to those 

issues on Federal lands. Let us be clear about this. We have no 

jurisdictional area over non-Federal lands. 

4 

So, the major question that we wanted to talk about this morning is not just as it relates to wind on Federal lands, but solar 

power on public lands, and trying to see how we use the vast potential that is demonstrated on this map, because solar power, depending upon the various models that are followed, can be very 

land-intensive. 

Siting solar plants means that you limit the availability for multiple use, but I have heard of some very innovative ways that folks 

would like to deal with whether it is solar thermal or solar panels, 

and still allow for multiple use on those lands. We look forward to 

Mr. Abbott’s and other’s comments on their take on that. 

Footprints, though, are significant as it relates to these utility 

scale solar panel plant efforts. And so when we talk about footprint, we are talking about the mitigation and some of the challenges we are dealing with. 

In my view, and I know there is a proposal that Senator Feinstein has and others, and I will be interested in hearing people’s 

thoughts on that, the last thing we want to do, in my opinion, the 

last thing is to lock up or prevent the ability to develop solar power 

on utility scale levels. I am one who thinks that you have to use 

all of the options. 

And so I want to discuss how we pursue solar power in ways that 

will ensure that we have this robust renewable portfolio that I 

think we want to develop over the next 20 years, again to achieve 

the longer term goals, to reduce our dependency on foreign sources 

of energy, and to create a much cleaner source. 

So, we are going to take the time today to listen to all of those 

thoughts. Obviously, we are very interested in the Renewable 

Energy Transmission Initiative that our California witnesses will 

speak on. We are also interested in the collaboration with the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, referred to as RETI, with 

what is taking place with the energy zones that the Bureau of 

Land Management has also been working on, and the transmission. The transmission lines are a very critical part of all of this 

effort. 

California, as we know, the Governor has indicated by the year 

2020 would like to raise the standard of our renewable portfolio to 

33 percent. So, we have to figure out what sort of thoughtful, creative ways we can reach those goals. I think the Federal Government can learn a great deal, as we look at what states are doing, 

best management practices. 

Both Cynthia and I came from state legislatures. I tend to believe that state legislatures are the laboratories of democracy. A 

former Justice of the Supreme Court once said, ‘‘But when we look 

at large-scale projects that are available in the Mojave Desert, and 

throughout our southwestern arid areas, the resource is too great 

and the needs are too large to not do a good job in looking at all 

of the efforts we can to pursue it.’’ Obviously, we don’t want a land 

rush, but we do want to make sure that we do our due diligence 

and that we have a process that makes sense in which everyone 

can participate. 

So, I am looking forward to the collaborative discussion in developing this effort. I am looking forward to listening to my colleagues. And I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member 

5 

this morning, Ms. Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming, for her opening 

statement. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to be here this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Jim Costa, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

I would like to welcome everyone to the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee field hearing on solar energy development on federal lands. I would particularly like to thank Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack for being here and for 

being an extremely gracious host to her district, and also for the tremendous help 

that she and her staff have been in helping us put this hearing together. I would 

also like to thank our Ranking Member today, Ms. Cynthia Lummis, for taking this 

slight detour from her normal Wyoming to Washington, D.C. commute, and our 

hosts here at the University of California Riverside Palm Desert Campus, who have 

been extremely helpful and accommodating for this hearing. 

I am particularly pleased to be holding this hearing in Palm Desert, which is an 

ideal location for a solar hearing for a couple of reasons. First, we are in one of the 

sunniest places on Earth, with close to 360 days of sunshine each year. Second, 

Palm Desert has been a leader in aggressively pursuing solar energy development, 

thanks in large part to the leadership of councilman and former-mayor Ferguson, 

who is with us today. Palm Desert has really picked up and run with A.B. 811, the 

recent California law that allows municipalities to provide loans to help homeowners install solar panels on their roofs, and they have also attempted to start a 

feed-in tariff pilot program here to make rooftop solar even more attractive. I think 

a great example of the job that Palm Desert is doing on energy is the fact that they 

were featured in a Wall Street Journal section on energy conservation last year 

alongside such cities as Chicago, London, and Amsterdam. So being here really 

could not be more fitting. 

Energy conservation and rooftop solar panels are certainly two of the essential 

tools in our energy toolbox that should be included in a comprehensive energy policy. Some of the largest and most useful resources are to be found on our public 

lands. Whether it is oil and gas, wind power, coal, geothermal, or solar, our public 

lands contain some of the best and most varied energy resources anywhere in the 

world. As the subcommittee responsible for crafting policy for the development of 

these energy resources, we have to tackle the difficult questions about how much 

is appropriate, and where. 

The question of where, of course, is one of the major challenges facing solar power 

on public lands. Solar power is very land-intensive, and siting a solar plant means 

that most if not all of the other uses of that land are precluded. This is quite different from windmills or even oil and gas rigs, whose footprints are mere pinpoints 

compared to that of a solar plant. However, this does not mean that we should not 

develop solar power on federal lands. Far from it. Solar power is essential for meeting our renewable energy, clean energy, and domestic energy security goals. But it 

also means we need to take extra care to make sure we are doing it right. We need 

to have all stakeholders in the process working together to build consensus about 

the best ways to put solar plants on the ground and get the power to where it is 

needed. 

Our own state of California has been a leader in this effort with the Renewable 

Energy Transmission Initiative, or RETI. California has a very strong renewable 

portfolio standard—33% by 2020—and the RETI initiative has taken a thoughtful 

and detailed look at where the solar and wind plants and transmission lines that 

will be needed to meet that goal can be sited with the least impacts and the least 

conflicts, and I look forward to hearing more about that today from some of the people who are intimately involved in that process. I believe that the federal government can often learn much from looking at what the states are doing, and this is 

one example that I believe we should be paying close attention to. 

We cannot exclude large-scale solar in the Mojave Desert. The resource is too 

great and the needs are too large to not expeditiously move forward. But we do not 

want a land rush, and we do not want a process that we will regret in the coming 

decades. This hearing is just one step along what I hope will be a very cooperative 

and collaborative road towards achieving consensus. I thank all the witnesses and 

our audience for being here today, and I look forward to working with all of you 

on this issue in the near future. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for her 

opening statement. 

6 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Cynthia 

Lummis. I am the representative from Wyoming. Greetings from 

the smallest population state in the Nation to the largest population state in the Nation. 

What we do have in common is a vast array of extraordinarily 

impressive public lands, and my State of Wyoming is almost half 

public lands. From those public lands we produce coal, oil, gas, 

wind, a little bit of solar, which I am so excited to learn more about 

today, because you are so far ahead of us in that regard, and also 

biomass in the terms of cellulosic ethanol. 

So, we have an all-of-the-above approach to energy in Wyoming. 

What we are working on is how to sequester carbon from coal, how 

to improve the recovery of resources from public lands to more efficiently serve the people of this nation, and to do it in a way that 

exemplifies good stewardship of public resources. 

My reason for being so pleased to attend this meeting today is 

because California is ahead of some states in the Nation with regard to its understanding of the capabilities of solar energy and the 

substantial progress that is being made in evolving that technology 

to something that is way more efficient and more valuable to throw 

into the mix of energy resources. 

I also want to thank, in addition to our Chairman, your Member 

of Congress from this District, Representative Mary Bono Mack, 

who is also tremendously engaged in the issues that we are discussing today. As a member of the very important Energy and 

Commerce Committee of Congress, she serves on subcommittees on 

energy, environment, and telecommunications, all of which are not 

only pivotal to you but pivotal to this discussion in particular. 

So, her willingness to host this hearing in your wonderful District, and display the innovations that are occurring on public lands 

or private lands here in Southern California, is really wonderful for 

those of us from other parts of the country to see. So, thank you, 

Congresswoman Bono Mack, for your kind attention to this subject, 

and to your constituents here in Southern California. 

So, the main purpose of our being here today is to look at the 

consensus that Chairman Costa described, so we can support plans 

that are appropriate for the development, through multiple use activities, of solar resources. According to the Energy Information Administration, at the end of 2007, seven percent of our nation’s 

energy needs were generated from renewable and alternative 

sources of energy. 

Of these resources, most is used for electrical power generation. 

Solar energy provided two-tenths of one percent of that electrical 

power generation and lags significantly behind wind energy, which 

provided about seven percent of the electricity in the renewable 

mix. Hopefully, with the completion of a solar energy programmatic 

EIS, we will see additional solar energy projects coming online in 

the near future. 

I believe for the United States to improve both its economic and 

national security we will have to develop more of our own resources—renewable resources, such as wind and solar, which we 

are here to discuss today, and which you so proudly exemplify, and 

7 

other renewable resources, such as hydropower, geothermal, biomass, and nuclear. 

We must also recognize that we need to use fossil fuels well into 

the future. Whether we like it or not, we and the rest of the world 

are highly dependent on these fuel resources, and they are wholly 

integrated in our society. Of course, natural gas is the cleanest 

burning of all the hydrocarbons that we use, and my State of Wyoming produces a large amount of the natural gas in this country. 

And we are the largest coal producer in this country. 

Coal provides about 50 percent of the nation’s electrical power 

generation. So, it is going to take some time either to get to the 

point where we can integrate other resources into the electrical 

mix, or to advance clean coal technology to the point where we can 

continue to use that resource, so it does not become a stranded 

asset. But, nevertheless, it is not a drag on our efforts to clean up 

our air. 

If solar and wind and other renewable fuels are going to displace 

the need for fossil fuels now and in the future, we are going to have 

to get down to the business of getting these facilities sited and 

built, and that will be part of our discussion today. 

Yesterday was a wonderful day for Mother’s Day. I woke up in 

Jackson, Wyoming, where we had snow on the ground, and it was 

a magnificent, crisp, beautiful, fabulous day. Took off at the base 

of the Tetons and flew to Salt Lake City. When I boarded a plane 

to Palm Springs, the pilot, you know, who usually gives you this 

nice weather report about your destination said, ‘‘Clear skies and 

102 degrees.’’ And I thought, ‘‘I didn’t hear that right.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

But indeed I did, and I spent a lovely afternoon out at 

Twentynine Palms with the staff members you see here today, and 

Chairman Costa, touring the Marine Corps base there via helicopter, and seeing the wonderful advances they are making in renewable resources—geothermal, particularly solar, and wind as 

well. 

We had an opportunity to see some of the solar that they are 

adding to the platforms that shield their mechanics from the sun 

as they are working on machinery. We saw actual photovoltaic 

units that are advancing that base’s ability to become more dependent on renewable sources of energy. We saw a 240-acre lake 

bed that is going to be used eventually for solar panels that will 

make that base the most sustainable and renewable fuels advanced 

base in the military. It was truly impressive. 

In addition, I had a chance to see with Chairman Costa the simulated Iraqi villages that are in the desert there that prove to be 

very accurate training grounds for our troops as they are about to 

enter combat, or situations in Iraq and in communities that allow 

them to avoid combat, because of their understanding of the cultures or the communities in which they are involving themselves 

on the Iraqi and Afghani landscapes. 

So, it was an absolutely instructive, marvelous, diverse, unique 

Mother’s Day. And, further, we enjoyed last evening some of your 

wonderful Southern California hospitality, and I want to thank the 

people of Southern California, my Chairman, Jim Costa, and our 

host, Member of Congress Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack for 

8 

their extraordinary hospitality, the great education they are providing to me, and that we will share with our fellow Members of 

Congress. 

So, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Lummis, for 

your participation. And I think you did a good description of yesterday’s tour of Twentynine Palms and the innovative efforts that the 

Marines, as other branches of our service, are attempting to ensure 

that we do our best to have good energy practices. 

Our hostess this morning, you have not only done a great job 

with your staff and everything else, but you got all of your friends 

and relatives to come, too. 

[Laughter.] 

We like the turnout here. Thank you very much, Mary. And I 

was thinking about the first time that you and I met, I was the 

Chairman of the State Senate Agriculture and Water Committee, 

and we held a hearing here, and you participated in that hearing. 

And that was the first time that we got to chat. So, we obviously 

work together in the House, but it is nice to be back and holding 

a hearing again in your District. 

Your Congresswoman, Mary Bono Mack. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the Chairman very, very much for 

being here today, and the Ranking Member as well for your kind 

words, and welcome to probably the best Congressional District in 

the entire United States. 

[Laughter.] 

Yes. 

[Applause.] 

Although I do love Jackson Hole, it is definitely God’s country, 

it is beautiful, I have spent many, many days hiking and camping 

and backpacking up in that area, so I welcome you to the 103- 

degree weather. And I usually—now you know what I face every 

week when I fly back and forth to Washington, D.C., where it is 

30 degrees there, and usually it is about 85 degrees here and perfect. So, trust me, it is something I do quite often. 

And to the Chairman, usually now we see each other weekly on 

the flight. We usually meet up in Denver. That is sort of our halfway point to Washington, D.C., on our weekly trek. So, it is much 

better to see you here in my District and working hard, and I 

thank you and your staff for holding this. 

And I just want to say one thing I regret is there are not typical 

C-SPAN cameras showing the faces of the witnesses as they deliver 

their testimony. But I really thank all of you for being here today, 

and I hold this Congressional District really as a high example of 

how to do environmental policy, because we are consensus-builders. 

We sit down and talk to each other about issues, and we really try 

to form answers and work together. 

And I can point to many examples I think in my written remarks, from the prepared remarks. I will point to those examples 

on how we work together quite successfully. 

9 

But I, again, want to thank the staff for your hard work, and my 

staff, Chris Foster, who is over here, for his hard work as well. 

So, the Chairman mentioned we have 360 days of sunshine here. 

It is actually about, I don’t know, 350. Those days that it rains, 

generally speaking, we hold a film festival. 

[Laughter.] 

And if you want to end a drought, you just have to throw a film 

festival, and it rains and it pours on those few days. So anyway, 

in fact, we do have about 350 days of sunshine here, making this 

area a natural fit for utilizing solar energy as a clean, renewable 

energy source. 

It is my hope that today’s hearing can start us down a path toward finding a thoughtful approach to increasing solar energy development. There are a few fundamental components that can 

guide our thinking and approach, but we all know that in order to 

decrease our carbon emissions and meet the current 33 percent 

state renewable electricity standard, and a potential Federal RES, 

we need to move forward and to tackle the hurdles in front of us. 

First off, it is important that when considering large solar commercial installations we keep in mind the unique lands around us. 

I am sure, Chairman Costa, in the short time you have been here, 

you have seen just how beautiful our ecosystem is here in Riverside 

County. 

It is these surroundings that bring so many tourists to our area 

and the reason so many families have chosen to call the desert 

home. Finding a balance between moving forward in the near term 

with solar energy development and protecting our local environment is really why we have to bring all sides to the table and work 

out how best to move forward. 

I know we can do it here in this area, as I have said, and there 

are already a few local examples that really show how a collaborative approach like that can achieve great results. That is why we 

now have the newly created wilderness lands in the county, the 

multi-species habitat conservation plan, and, of course, Santa Rosa 

and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. 

I have truly enjoyed working with numerous local constituencies, 

many of those who are here today, on these efforts ever since coming to Congress. We have to keep in mind the larger goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and using more renewable energy 

as part of the way to get there when we hear from today’s witnesses. 

Currently, in Washington and at the Energy and Commerce 

Committee, we are in the middle of crafting a massive effort to regulate and cap carbon emissions. Today’s hearing will hopefully 

begin to address both the challenges of siting large solar projects 

but also how we move this energy, as these issue are clearly intertwined. I strongly believe we need to increase the efficiencies of our 

transmission infrastructure. 

Thank you. 

You guys should have said, ‘‘We can’t hear you.’’ Do you want me 

to start over? 

[Laughter.] 

I strongly believe we need to increase the efficiencies of our 

transmission infrastructure while also pushing for ways to improve 

10 

transmission for more rural areas where renewable energy potential is greatest to the areas that will use the resource. Whether it 

be moving the energy or siting a renewable energy project, I think 

it is also crucial for our businesses and financing community to 

have certainty. 

We all know with the conditions of the credit markets over the 

last six months that clear direction from Federal policy is going to 

be vital. Right now, we have various laudable efforts, be it the 

State’s RETI initiative, the partnership between the U.S. DOE and 

the Western Governors’ Association, pushing for western renewable 

energy zones, and multiple pieces of Federal legislation, but what 

we should seek in the end is a harmonized approach that aggressively brings online new renewable energy sources. 

The House and the Senate both are working on legislation that 

would accelerate the construction of new transmission through providing new authorities to the FERC. And I am hopeful we hear 

more about how to address this energy disconnect in a thoughtful 

manner. 

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses today and 

thank them for coming. I really look forward to your testimony, 

and I definitely want to welcome my local City Councilman, Jim 

Ferguson, who is truly a pioneer and a leader in all of these initiatives. And, Commissioner Chong, it is nice to see you again. We 

visited in my office not too long ago. And Mr. Rabbit as well. We 

all had the chance to visit, and I am especially pleased that you 

are here today. 

And I thank the entire distinguished panel for being here today. 

So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I serve on the 

Energy and Commerce Committee, which probably is a bit confusing to my constituents in the audience. We don’t always share 

a jurisdiction, but the goals are the same, and I look very much forward to working with you on all of these issues as we move forward. 

Again, I thank you for allowing me to be a part of your panel, 

since I am sort of an interloper from a different Committee. So, 

thank you very, very much. 

Thank you all for being here. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bono Mack follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California 

Chairman Costa and Congresswoman Lummis, let me first welcome you both and 

the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to California’s Coachella Valley. I hope you’ve taken some time to enjoy the area and take in the sun. You’re 

right in one of the sunniest parts of our country, and it’s the perfect setting for today’s field hearing. 

In fact, we have around 350 days of sunshine here, making the area a natural 

fit for utilizing solar energy as a clean, renewable energy source. It is my hope that 

today’s hearing can start us down a path toward finding a thoughtful approach to 

increasing solar energy development. 

There are a few fundamental components that can guide our thinking and approach, but we all know that in order to decrease our carbon emissions and meet 

the current 33% State Renewable Electricity Standard and a potential Federal RES, 

we need to move forward and tackle the hurdles in front of us. First off, it’s important to me that when considering large solar commercial installations we keep in 

mind the unique lands around us. I’m sure, Chairman Costa, in the short time 

you’ve been here, you’ve seen just how beautiful the ecosystem is that surrounds us 

in Riverside County. 

11 

It’s these surroundings that bring so many tourists to our area and the reason 

so many families have chosen to call the desert home in the last 20 years. 

Finding the balance between moving forward in the near term with solar energy 

development and protecting our local environment is really why I think we have to 

bring all sides to the table to work out how best to progress. I know we can do it 

here in this area, though, and there are already a few local examples that really 

show how a collaborative approach like that can achieve great results. That’s why 

we now have newly-created wilderness lands in the County, the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and, of course, the Santa Rosa San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. I’ve truly enjoyed working with numerous local constituencies on 

these efforts since coming to Congress. 

We have to keep in mind the larger goal of reducing our dependence on foreign 

oil and using more renewable energy as part of the way to get there when we hear 

from today’s witnesses. Right now, at the Energy and Commerce Committee we’re 

in the middle of crafting a massive effort to regulate and cap carbon emissions. Today’s hearing will hopefully begin to address both the challenges of siting large solar 

projects but also how we move this energy, as these issues are clearly intertwined. 

I strongly believe we need to increase the efficiencies of our transmission infrastructure while also pushing for ways to improve transmission from more rural areas 

where renewable energy potential is greatest to the areas that will use the resource. 

Whether it be moving the energy or siting a renewable energy project, I think it’s 

also crucial for our business and financing community to have certainty. We all 

know with the conditions of the credit markets over the last 6 months that clear 

direction from federal policy is going to be vital. Right now we have various laudable 

efforts, be it the State’s Renewable Energy Technology or the ‘‘RETI’’ initiative, the 

partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy and the Western Governors’ 

Association pushing for Western Renewable Energy Zones, and multiple pieces of 

Federal legislation. But what we should seek in the end is a harmonized approach 

that aggressively brings online new renewable energy sources. 

The House and Senate both are working on legislation that would accelerate the 

construction of new transmission through providing new authorities to the FERC, 

and I’m hopeful we hear more about how to address this energy disconnect in a 

thoughtful manner. 

With that, I’d like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for coming today, 

as I really look forward to their testimony. In particular, it’s great to see Councilman Jim Ferguson here to testify, as so often these issues of national scope are really very local in nature. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. COSTA. Your presence and participation is always welcomed, 

and we thank you again. 

Since you were kind enough to actually acknowledge your staff, 

I would be remiss. But we have Kathy Benedetto who I have 

worked with over the years with the Minority staff, we have Steve 

Feldgus, who is the person who has done a great deal of the work 

to put this hearing together, and we thank you, Steve, for your 

hard work. And then, Marcie Cooperman, who is back there, who 

is trying to make sure that the mics work and that everybody 

comes on time and leaves on time, and all that good stuff. So, I 

thank all three of you for your good work. 

Let us begin with the reason that we are here. You didn’t come 

here to hear us expound on necessarily our own thoughts, but to 

hear thoughtful testimony from the two panels this morning, and 

to allow us an opportunity to have an exchange and ask questions 

and make comments. 

So, without further ado, we have our first panel, and we have 

The Honorable Jim Ferguson, Councilman from Palm Desert. We 

have Commissioner Julia Levin from the California Energy Commission. I remember when that was created. I date back when Governor Brown was there, and my friend, Chuck Imbrecht, used to 

chair it, and appreciate the good work. 

12 

A lot of the energy standards for residential and commercial development took place as a result of the California Energy Commission, which has made itself felt—not only around the country but 

around the world. 

Commissioner Rachelle Chong from the California Public Utilities Commission. The California Public Utilities Commission does 

a wonderful job, and please give my friend, Mike Peavey, my regards. I am sorry he couldn’t be here. 

And James Abbott, the Acting State Director for the Bureau of 

Land Management, from the California office as I understand. And 

then, our fifth witness is Mr. Thomas Kretzschmar—did I pronounce that properly? Kretzschmar. Who is the Senior Projects 

Manager for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. So, we 

look forward to that. 

I mention to the first panel, and the second panel should also 

take this to heart, for the witnesses the Federal way in which we 

do these hearings, we have these little boxes here, and there is a 

light. And while the written statements that all of our witnesses 

can provide can be as voluminous as you choose to make them, for 

the purpose of the hearing we would like to keep your comments 

to five minutes. 

So, for the first four minutes the light is green, and then on the 

fifth minute it turns yellow. And then, when it turns red, your seat 

collapses. 

[Laughter.] 

No, that is not true. But I provide a little leeway there, but we 

do obviously want to be mindful of everyone’s time, so that we can 

get to the best part which is the question and answer portion. 

So, with that understood, it says here on my agenda that Mr. 

Ferguson, Councilmember, you are up first. So, why don’t you 

begin with your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM FERGUSON, 

COUNCILMAN, CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Subcommittee. I want to start by applauding you for your recognition of not only Palm Desert’s but California’s conservation efforts. 

I truly believe the first line in our national, if not state, energy policy is conservation at home. And that conservation I think must be 

a necessary precedent to development of solar energy on Federal 

lands, and I will explain that to you in somewhat greater detail. 

For the past 13 years I have been a Councilman in the City of 

Palm Desert, having served twice as its mayor. I am also Chairman 

of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, a state agency of 

California having land holdings within the Santa Rosa and San 

Jacinto Mountains National Monument. As we sit here today, we 

are located in the center of the Coachella Valley, a region made up 

of nine cities, four Native American tribes, the County of Riverside. 

We number approximately one-half million people and represent 

one of the hottest per capita areas in the United States. 

We guard the uniqueness of our value zealously. For example, we 

recently enacted one of the most forward-reaching habitat conservation plans in the country, reflecting our high priority on the 

preservation of the natural resources with which we have been 

13 

blessed. The Bureau of Land Management has committed to manage its lands within this protected area consistent with the plan as 

part of its Federal, state, and local partnership to conserve local 

ecosystems. 

As is evidenced by the wind farms at the entrance to our valley, 

we also recognize the value of alternative forms of energy, particularly solar. We embrace solar technology in both residential and 

rural areas, and let me be clear about that distinction. Residential 

and rural areas. In order to fulfill environmental climate change 

and economic development goals, we need both of them. 

In the residential sector, our support is in the form of distributed 

generation and energy conservation and efficiency. Working in a 

groundbreaking partnership with both our electric and natural gas 

service providers, Palm Desert has taken the lead and committed 

itself to a 30 percent reduction in its consumption of gas and electricity over the next five years. This includes the peak period of demand. 

We are well on our way to that goal with about 100—or, excuse 

me, one-third of our savings already attained. This is achieved primarily through increased energy efficiency in residential rooftop 

solar systems supported by incentives and financed by the City for 

the homeowner at a reasonable rate of interest rate for both. 

The City earns a fair rate of interest. The property owner immediately adds equity and energy savings to his residential investment, and our major utilities are better able to manage demand response during their peak periods. 

This program started with the simple premise that it is less expensive to save energy than it is to buy out-of-state ‘‘dirty power’’ 

or permit new powerplants or power facilities in the State of California, which is almost an impossible task if you are from our 

State. 

To put this in better perspective, if all of California could simply 

conserve 20 percent, two-thirds of Palm Desert’s goal, 20 percent 

of its energy consumption through efficiency in solar at home it 

would be the energy equivalent of permitting 10 new nuclear power 

generating facilities. This is exactly what we can expect from the 

energy equivalency of drilling an Alaska Wildlife National Refuge, 

which is a much better option. 

The Palm Desert Energy Independence Program has proven 

itself extraordinarily successful. It shows that more aggressive approaches to energy efficiency and renewable energy financing 

makes sense and can get us on a path to energy sustainability and 

security. We salute efficiency in renewable gains thus far, and call 

dramatically on increased activity. 

When environmental, economic development, and national security values are factored into the cost-benefit equation, energy efficiency and renewable energy on all scales make tremendous sense. 

It is our energy future, and we support prompt response as soon 

as possible. 

Let me be clear. We support commercial development of solar 

generation facilities in rural areas. We support President Obama’s 

direction to develop renewable sources of energy on Federal lands, 

and Secretary Salazar’s aggressive approach in addressing that directive. Frankly, I see no other way for us to meet the carbon dioxVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
14 

ide mandates of the International Conference of Parties that crafted the Kyoto Protocol that was endorsed by the United Nations in 

Bali in 2007, and that will meet in Copenhagen later this year. 

California has also a 33 percent, as mentioned earlier, renewable 

portfolio standard mandate that it must meet by 2020. At a time 

when solar energy only factors approximately one percent into our 

State’s solar mix, it is highly unlikely that any of our utilities will 

meet their interim targets by 2010, just next year, without the aggressive expansion of solar energy on Federal lands. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferguson follows:] 

Statement of Jim Ferguson, Palm Desert Councilman 

Good Morning Chairman Costa and Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources: 

My name is Jim Ferguson and, for the past 13 years, I have been a Councilman 

in the City of Palm Desert—having served twice as its Mayor. I am also Chairman 

of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, a State agency of California having 

land holdings within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. As we sit here today, we are located in the center of the Coachella valley— 

a region made up of 9 cities, 4 Native American tribes and the County of Riverside. 

We number approximately 1/2 million residents and represent one of the hottest per 

capita places in America. 

Collectively, we recently enacted one of the most forward reaching habitat conservation plans in the country reflecting our high priority on the preservation of the 

natural resources with which we have been blessed. The Bureau of Land Management has committed to manage its lands within this protected consistent with this 

Plan area as part of the federal, state and local partnership to conserve local ecosystems 

Rather than solely focusing on large-scale solar developments on public and private lands, we enthusiastically embrace solar technology in both the residential and 

rural areas of our community. In order to fulfill energy, environmental, climate 

change and economic development goals, we need it all! 

In the residential sector our support is in the form of distributed generation and 

energy conservation/efficiency. Working in a groundbreaking partnership both our 

electric and natural gas service utilities, Palm Desert has taken the lead and committed itself to a 30% in overall city-wide reduction in its electrical load over a five 

year period. And we are well on our way, with about 1/3 of our savings attained 

to date. This is achieved primarily through increased energy efficiency and residential rooftop solar systems—supported by incentives and financed by the City for the 

homeowner at a reasonable interest rate for both. The City earns a fair rate of interest, the property owner immediately adds equity and energy savings to his residential investment, and our major utilities are better able to manage demand response 

during peak periods. 

This program started with the simple premise that it is less expensive to conserve 

energy off of our grid, than it was to buy out-of-state power or permit new power 

generating facilities in California. To put this into better perspective, if all of California could simply conserve 20% of its energy consumption through efficiency and 

solar at home, it would be the energy equivalent of having ten (10) new nuclear generating facilities, or twenty (20) new gas fired plants in this State. This is roughly 

the energy we could expect from drilling in the Alaska Wildlife National Refuge— 

and what a better option! 

The ‘‘Palm Desert Energy Independence Program’’ has proven itself extraordinarily successful. It shows that more aggressive approaches to energy efficiency 

and renewable energy financing make sense and can get us on a path to energy sustainability and security. We salute efficiency and renewable gains thus far and call 

on dramatically increased activity. When environmental, economic development, and 

national security values are factored into the cost-benefit equation, energy efficiency 

and renewable energy—on all scales—makes tremendous sense. It is our energy future and we support prompt responsible action as soon as possible. 

One of the most exciting opportunities to promote renewable power development 

is a so called ‘‘Feed-in-Tariff.’’ The model has proven so successful in Europe, where 

Germany became the World leader in both solar energy and wind energy in a few 

years. It’s time that America enacts a Federal feed-in-tariff program to reap similar 

15 

gains. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could direct each state to develop 

feed-in-tariff prices that give investors a reasonable and predictable return for 

twenty (20) years. 

At the household level, the feed-in-tariff is quite simple. Homeowners are paid a 

fair price for their excess solar and other ‘‘green’’ generated capacity. Germany and 

Spain have both instituted aggressive models and Spain now expects to have 100 

Giga watts of solar capacity (100 nuclear facilities) by 2020. 

The point is, before we march off to disturb federal soils and disrupt their native 

habitat, there is much we can do through ever-more aggressive energy efficiency— 

throughout our society—and the deployment of safe, clean, renewable generation, 

distributed throughout our communities and close to its end use. 

We also support commercial development of solar generation facilities in rural 

areas: however, that is not unqualified support. We appreciate President Obama’s 

direction to develop renewable sources of energy on federal land and Secretary 

Salazar’s aggressive approach in addressing that directive. Frankly, I see no other 

way for us to meet the carbon reduction mandates of the International Conference 

of Parties that crafted the Kyoto Protocol, that was endorsed by the United States 

in Bali in 2007 and that will meet in Bali, and that will meet in Copenhagen later 

this year without increased efficiency, renewable energy and particularly solar production. California has also set a 33% renewable portfolio standard mandate for 

2020 at a time when solar energy only factors approximately 1% into our state’s 

energy mix. It is highly unlikely any of our utilities will meet their interim target 

by 2010—just next year! 

Since the turn of the last century, our Government has classified federal lands 

for various uses—predominantly conservation and preservation. Our new mandate 

for solar development should not be undertaken in a blanket, rushed approach. Unquestionably there are public lands which may be appropriate for solar development. 

These should be identified and cultivated. Similarly, there are lands which have 

previously been identified for cultural, biological and other purposes which must 

also be respected. In my opinion, the dual responsibility of cultivation of renewable 

resources and the preservation and conservation of cultural and biological resources 

is the main task before this Subcommittee. In that regard, I would like to share 

some of the thoughts of a consortium of environmental groups who have been working to develop a consensus approach to the issue. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The California Desert is a unique and special environment, as recognized by the 

Federal Land Policy Management Act in establishing the California Desert Conservation Area. The vast landscape is home to diverse biological communities, cultural sites, scenic and wild places, and other valuable areas. The desert lands also 

sequester carbon in the fragile desert crust, providing an important benefit in the 

effort to reduce carbon emissions in our state. These lands also are attractive for 

renewable energy projects, and have fueled a rush by companies to file applications 

on public lands for potential projects. The need to find alternatives to carbon based 

energy is great. In California, we are moving forward to meet a Renewable Portfolio 

Standard of 33% by 2020, a goal which is widely supported as necessary to address 

climate change. 

We appreciate Subcommittee’s leadership on the dual issues of natural resource 

conservation and renewable energy development in the California Desert and we are 

committed to working with her and all stakeholders to develop solutions. 

We support providing legislative protection for both the Catellus lands acquired 

for conservation purposes and other park and wilderness quality lands that have 

been identified throughout the California Deserts. We also believe that protection 

of these lands is a continuation of, and builds upon, the conservation work begun 

many years ago in the California Deserts. 

The protection of the Catellus lands and other wilderness and conservation lands 

should not be considered as mitigation for allowing for the development of renewable energy on other public lands in the California desert. Working to responsibly 

site renewable energy is not a quid pro quo for the protection of other lands. The 

siting of renewable energy projects in the California desert needs to be addressed 

separately from any conservation lands proposal. 

As detailed below, we believe that the siting of renewable energy projects in the 

California Desert can be done in a way that can benefit local communities while reducing the level of impact to the fragile desert ecosystems. For example, new renewable energy projects should not fuel sprawl, but should be clustered in appropriate 

locations, reducing the carbon footprint. And, we must ensure that future siting of 

renewable energy projects is conducted in a way that protects resilient habitat, 

which will provide room for species to adapt to climate change. 

16 

This memo sets forth a two-phased approach that addresses short-term needs 

with a process to identify pilot project areas and expedite siting in those areas, and 

also provides for a long-term plan to ensure sustainability of the desert environment. This memo also includes recommendations on how to incentivize development 

of renewable energy projects on private lands so that public lands do not bear the 

entire burden of renewable energy generation. Finally, this memo details a mapping 

process undertaken by the NGOs to produce a map of areas (public and private) 

identified as having a high potential for suitable solar energy development. To be 

clear, however, this map is not a definitive representation of what are considered 

thoroughly vetted development zones and does not address wind energy siting, biomass or geothermal. Instead, this map is an illustration of what could result from 

the recommended short-term, pilot project area process. 

II. TWO-PHASED PLANNING APPROACH 

There are a large number of renewable energy projects proposed in the California 

Desert that potentially threaten the very lands that many, including Senator Feinstein, have worked hard to protect. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right 

of way process for evaluating these projects is not working—it is very time consuming and is not well suited to the task. Staffing shortages at BLM and other permitting agencies create additional problems. 

In order to meet our pressing need for clean energy in an environmentally responsible manner, we recommend that the siting of solar renewable energy projects in 

California take place in a two-phased process. The first phase would addresses 

short-term needs to bring solar renewable power online to meet California’s RPS 

goals, and the second phase would consist of a longer-term, comprehensive desert 

planning process. Both initiatives must move forward simultaneously. 

A. Phase One: Expedite progress by avoiding conflict. 

Pilot Project Areas 

We recommend an accelerated short-term exercise to designate a limited number 

of ‘‘pilot project areas’’ without undermining existing environmental laws. This effort 

should evaluate public and private lands to identify areas appropriate for development and screen out lands that are inappropriate for development. Please see Attachment 1 for a list of criteria for lands that are suitable and unsuitable for development and Attachment 3 for the preliminary map. 

To initiate this phase, we recommend that state and federal agencies work with 

stakeholders to identify pilot project areas sufficient to produce enough MW to meet 

half of the net short as defined by the California Energy Commission. This number 

should be calculated in conjunction with energy conservation, energy efficiency, 

projects on private lands, and distributed generation efforts. 

The BLM must focus its resources on project applications within the pilot project 

areas. While the BLM is currently utilizing the tool of ‘‘right of way’’ applications, 

we do not believe that this administrative tool is suitable for solar renewable energy 

projects particularly because such projects completely destroy habitat values on site. 

The BLM must be able to use its authority to deny project applications in the pilot 

project areas (as they do elsewhere) if the project impacts are deemed significant 

and un-mitigable. The pilot project areas should be considered as feasible alternative sites for project applications currently in the environmental review process. 

Pilot projects can test or identify a number of important components of solar renewable energy siting, development and operations where more research and/or information is needed including: 

• Ways to create a ‘‘race to the top’’ for generators in terms of environmental performance. 

Æ Attachment 2 provides additional conditions that can be placed on renewable 

project applications to encourage more environmentally responsible project 

proposals 

• Environmental impacts of different and emerging energy production technologies 

Æ Impacts will vary project to project. 

Æ Pilot projects should be used to establish BMPs for compiling conservation 

baseline prior to initiation of development. 

• Technology-specific on site mitigation measures for different solar technologies. 

Æ Environmental impacts will vary from technology to technology 

• Technology-specific BMPs for operations (e.g., methods to minimize water use 

for cleaning, wastewater disposal/reclamation practices, ways to ensure wildlife 

movement corridors, measures to minimize adverse hydrological impacts both 

on- and off-site and appropriate types of fencing, etc). 

• Robustness of, and gaps in, land use criteria 

17 

• Federal, state and local agency needs for additional staff and decision support 

tools to enable their participation in a cooperative siting process for additional 

renewable energy development. 

• Ability of BLM and state agencies to work together across land ownerships 

• Ways to expedite permitting, such as coordinated, simultaneous, multi-agency 

environmental review. 

• Clustering development sites to minimize transmission/interconnection needs. 

• Presumed environmental benefits of clustering near existing infrastructure (e.g., 

waste water capture and reuse, adjacency to existing developments, support of 

local economies ‘‘green jobs’’, shared workplace transit for energy facility 

workers). 

• Measures of the disturbance that results from solar development, including the 

change of vegetation and change of species found at and in the vicinity of the 

site. 

• Methods for scaling up the research and analysis to measure the physical and 

biological changes at the ecosystem-level as a result of development. For example, studies should measure soil disturbance and its relationship to air quality 

in the deserts. Ecosystem scale analysis could also be particularly important for 

species that have a large range (e.g., bighorn sheep). 

Mitigation 

Impacts to resources in pilot project areas should be fully mitigated to satisfy both 

federal and state requirements. 

Disturbed Lands in Pilot Projects (please see Attachment 1, Section A for definition) 

Disturbed lands should be prioritized for inclusion in pilot project areas. It is anticipated that mechanically disturbed lands support minimal or reduced sensitive biological, archaeological, paleontological and hydrological resources, due to the high 

level of disturbance they have experienced. Therefore, by design, it is unlikely that 

sensitive resources would be encountered on site. However, compliance with all applicable environmental laws will be necessary. 

We suggest the following measures to help expedite the process for solar plants 

on Disturbed Pilot Project Lands: 

• A rapid assessment to determine whether sensitive species are present despite 

the disturbance; 

• A maximum of a single season of appropriately timed surveys will be required; 

or 

• If sensitive species are presumed or detected onsite, mitigation will be required, 

preferably using predetermined habitat acquisition and mitigation ratios which 

may also include an option of a fixed percent of mitigation through appropriately scaled payments into an established mitigation bank (if available) or 

other fund to pool resources for large-scale conservation land acquisition or 

mitigation projects such as tortoise fencing along major roads and bighorn 

sheep corridors/overpasses. 

Undisturbed Pilot Project Lands 

Before undisturbed lands are included in pilot projects, they must be evaluated 

in order to establish that they have low resource conflicts potential despite the fact 

that they are undisturbed (i.e., lands which support a high level of ecological functioning). Undisturbed areas that are adjacent to existing mechanically disturbed 

lands should be favored over areas that are not. 

It is anticipated that undisturbed lands in pilot project areas will support reduced 

or minimal sensitive biological, archaeological, paleontological, visual and 

hydrological resources, based on the best current available resource information and 

their adjacency to disturbed lands. While it is possible that sensitive resources could 

be encountered on site, these sites will experience a conversion from natural function ecosystems to industrialization, and therefore all environmental laws are applicable. 

Key issues to be addressed in mitigation for projects on undisturbed Pilot Project 

lands include: 

• A minimum of a single season of appropriately timed surveys will be required; 

• If no sensitive or rare resources are encountered, impacts to these lands will 

be mitigated at a [specified] ratio, as appropriate; for federally protected species 

including but not limited to the desert tortoise, clearance surveys must be still 

be done; 

• If surveys encounter sensitive or rare resources, additional surveys may be required in order to accurately characterize those resources. Based on the type of 

resources encountered, appropriate mitigations for sensitive resources on these 

18 

undisturbed lands would be developed in coordination with local, State and federal agencies. 

Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures for solar projects on undisturbed lands in the Pilot Project 

Areas should include: • Acquisition of private lands that provide replacement habitat (‘‘compensation 

lands’’) • Enhanced conservation management of specified public lands: 

Æ For example, mitigation mechanisms identified in the CDCA Plan as amended including construction and maintenance of fencing near roads, buy outs 

of permits on grazing allotments relegation of closed routes, etc. • Enhancement of compensation lands. 

Æ Similar to enhancement of management of public lands the mitigation for private conservation lands could include funding fencing of the acquired lands 

or needed restoration. • Managing compensation lands as conservation lands in the CDCA. 

Æ Any compensation lands transferred to BLM shall be permanently segregated 

or withdrawn from use under the mining and land laws. 

Development of mitigation packages will be done in coordination with state, federal and local resource agencies. 

B. Interim Guidance 

The BLM must provide interim guidance for prioritizing project applications while 

the long term planning process is underway. The BLM should issue an Instruction 

Memorandum that details the criteria to be used to establish priorities for processing applications. These criteria must be designed to identify those applications 

which minimize both harm to the natural values of undisturbed public lands and 

the likelihood of controversy with the public and local communities. Such criteria 

must include: • Avoiding lands with conservation values (see Attachment 1, Section B) • Prioritizing degraded lands and lands adjacent to degraded lands (see Attachment 1, Section B) • Proximity to load centers • Proximity to existing population centers including workforce housing • Proximity to existing transmission and infrastructure; • Availability of sufficient water without causing significant impacts to conservation values (primarily for cleaning—no ‘‘wet cooled’’ projects in the desert unless 

the water used is reclaimed water from close by municipalities.); • Demonstrated secure funding; • Additional ‘‘points’’ for prioritizing projects for those that make commitments to 

reduce demand through energy efficiency projects in population centers or create positive local benefits through distributed generation projects 

C. Phase Two: Develop comprehensive, strategic, management plan for 

all types of renewable energy development that protects desert resources and secures long term protection of biologically important 

areas. 

The long-term phase of the process should include direction to the BLM to engage 

in a landscape level analysis for siting of all types of renewable energy development 

in the California Desert. This process should be coordinated with state and local 

agencies across the region in order to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses 

private as well as public lands. The plan should also establish requirements for enhanced management that will ensure long term conservation of desert biodiversity. 

Desert Blueprint 

A comprehensive, strategic planning process for renewable energy development in 

the desert is needed to address the multiple land uses and values in the desert, including conservation, recreation, tourism, cultural sites, military testing and training, local economic development, and transportation infrastructure, as well as renewable energy. Federal and state agencies must work together in a transparent 

public process to develop a common ‘‘blueprint’’ for the desert. This ‘‘blueprint’’ 

should include well-defined, measurable standards, developed via public involvement processes (e.g., habitat condition and/or population-level objectives). It should 

also employ science-based analytical tools to evaluate compliance with the standards 

(e.g., population viability assessment). It should also provide consistent implementation of science-based analysis and decision-making (i.e., dedicated funding for monitoring and science-based adaptive management processes). 

The ‘‘blueprint’’ should reflect the best science available and specifically assess: 

19 

• Direct and indirect cumulative impacts 

• Rare, sensitive, threatened and endangered species and wildlife corridor needs 

• Climate change adaptation needs 

• Carbon sequestration value of intact habitat 

• Ecological process needs 

• Ecological thresholds /limits for development 

• Maintenance of hydrology in these arid environments 

California’s Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) coupled with the federal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process may be able to provide an appropriate framework for this coordination, but federal legislative language would be required to ensure federal agencies’ engagement. The strategic planning process must 

also provide meaningful opportunities for public participation by a broad array of 

stakeholders. 

Renewable Energy Development Zones 

A primary goal of the comprehensive planning process will be to guide development of renewable energy projects to appropriate areas to provide certainty, minimize conflicts, and facilitate environmentally responsible siting. Directing development towards appropriate areas must include the following steps: 

• Identification of the MW contribution expected to be generated by the lands covered by the plan in conjunction with contributions from other renewable energy 

sources (e.g., energy conservation, energy efficient, distributed generation, and 

renewable energy from other parts of the state). 

• Designation of federal renewable energy zones for renewable development 

(please see Attachment 1 for land use criteria) 

Æ Lessons learned from pilot projects should inform the designation of additional renewable energy zones 

• Rating of designated areas based on greatest energy resource value and least 

environmental conflict and phasing of development accordingly 

• Requiring existing and new applicants to locate projects in identified renewable 

energy zones in appropriate phases 

The BLM should establish a competitive application process going forward that 

is designed to encourage a ‘‘race to the top’’ among generators. This process would 

provide incentives for generators to put forward the most environmentally responsible project proposals, both in terms of siting and project impacts on the ground. 

Lessons learned from the pilot project areas should also inform the processing of applications. Among other strategies, technology-specific BMPs for solar development 

will set high performance standards for developers. (Please see Attachment 2 for a 

list of additional conditions that could be placed on renewable energy applications 

to create a more competitive application process). 

Strategic Desert Conservation 

Long term protection of biologically important lands is a critical component of the 

long term planning process. The blueprint process must: 

• Identify specific public lands with high resource values that require additional 

conservation designations (outside of the mitigation process). 

• Identify additional lands for acquisition by public agencies. 

Mitigation 

All impacts of renewable energy projects must be fully mitigated. The blueprint 

effort can be a framework for developing a strategic mitigation process which generates more robust and effective mitigation over the long term than can be achieved 

on a project by project basis. 

Strategic long-term mitigation planning must address the following: 

• Incorporation of biodiversity sustainability/viability indicators 

• Long term stewardship and funding of stewardship of mitigation lands 

• Mechanisms for ensuring conservation is prioritized on public lands 

• Opportunities for pooling mitigation funds for larger scale land acquisitions of 

properties identified in the desert blueprint process and managing those compensation lands for the benefit of the lost and impacted resources. 

• Expanding legal requirements for mitigation as impacts of renewable energy 

projects are documented. 

III. INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR RENEWABLE 

ENERGY PROJECTS 

A. Identify funding and/or incentives for land aggregation: 

• Federal zero-interest loans for aggregators of private lands for solar energy development (with sidebars to exclude speculators). 

20 

• Capital gains tax exemptions for those purchasing private land for solar energy 

development. • Subsidies (such as partial or full closing costs). • State and federal tax breaks (capital gains, tax credits etc.). 

B. Create mechanisms to reward generators for locating on disturbed areas: 

• Federal zero-interest loans for solar energy infrastructure development on private lands (with sidebars). • Capital gains tax exemptions for developers on private lands. • State and federal tax breaks (capital gains, tax credits etc.). • Regulatory advantages (such as expedited review and interconnection preferences at the state and federal level). • Simplifying and minimizing mitigation for development on disturbed land • Accelerated environmental review of solar facilities on disturbed private lands. 

For example, there could be local incentives for accelerating local permitting. • Accelerated depreciation of solar infrastructure on private lands. 

C. Foster community benefits by siting on private lands: 

Create federal redevelopment or enterprise zones (e.g., Imperial County’s Economic Development Corporation, http://www.ivedc.com/?pid=2). Or, create a state 

economic development zone or a county Energy Element to a General Plan or a redevelopment area. 

Provide payments in lieu of taxes or revenue sharing for local governments to 

compensate for lost tax revenues due to lower solar assessments. 

Create state and federal tax breaks (capital gains, tax credits etc.) for landowners 

who develop their lands with renewable energy projects. 

Provide federal financing modeled after AB 811 (http://www.ab811.org/). 

For landowners, make them eligible for a portion of the Investment Tax Credit 

that currently goes to producers. 

For landowners, tax the rental profits at a lower rate than regular income if the 

profits are from solar producers using the land. 

D. What are the attributes to qualify for a solar energy zone? 

• Adequate insolation (average hours of sunlight); if a value is used, it should be 

set to include such areas as west San Joaquin Valley. • Proximity to transmission. • Degraded biological, scenic and cultural values, especially previously graded 

lands, fragmented land, or land exposed to edge effects, etc. • Avoidance of ‘‘core’’ natural areas. • Avoid incentivizing small isolated solar farms in relatively pristine natural 

areas 

III. Overview of Mapping of potential Pilot Project Areas For Renewable 

Energy Development in the California Deserts 

In response to Senator Feinstein’s request to identify public lands that are appropriate for renewable energy development, we have used the criteria, set forth in this 

memorandum, to identify potential areas for renewable energy pilot projects. This 

mapping exercise clearly demonstrates the potential availability of acreage for renewable projects on public lands. Similarly, an initial mapping exercise has also 

identified significant acreage of private disturbed lands that are likely appropriate 

for renewable energy development. 

It is important to note that the NGOs involved in this exercise are not specifically 

endorsing the identified pilot project areas as ‘‘go zones’’ for development. Nor do 

we support legislative designation of renewable energy zones. 

Instead, it is our strong belief that the state and federal government agencies, 

working with stakeholders, will be able to conduct an accelerated short-term exercise to quickly identify renewable energy pilot project areas. We also believe that 

it will be possible to gain broad consensus on a number of areas for development. 

The NGOs involved in this effort are willing to collaborate with the state and federal agencies to identify renewable energy pilot project areas as part of a larger 

planning effort that includes both a short-term and a long-term process for comprehensive planning, as described above in this memorandum. 

The potential pilot project areas in the attached map were identified based on the 

criteria contained in this memorandum. Particular consideration was given to the 

following factors: 

1. Protecting the core of pristine desert lands, which provides the following benefits: 

a. Areas are located in proximity to existing population centers 

21 

b. Areas are located in proximity to existing transmission and infrastructure. 

c. Areas are located in the vicinity of homes and services for the workforce 

that will be required 

d. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions related to necessary travel of 

workforce to these facilities 

e. Opportunities for economic stimulus are created for population centers 

in need of jobs 

f. Areas will not create small cities to support facility operation in remote 

desert locations 

2. Avoidance of lands with known ecological and biological values, and known cultural values, based on site visits and database queries. Lands are not underrepresented in other public lands conservation areas. 

3. Prioritization of public lands and lands adjacent to degraded public and private 

lands (as defined above), for the following reasons: 

a. Lands adjacent to degraded lands typically have lower biological value 

due to the edge effect of disturbed lands. 

b. Locating pilot projects adjacent to private disturbed lands allows for expansion of the renewable energy development and clustering of renewable energy projects over larger areas. 

c. Locations have the potential to attract projects from siting in core habitat areas. 

4. This mapping exercise was conducted in one week with a relatively small team 

of ecologists, biologists and conservation professionals. The first step was to 

identify to a number of potential pilot project areas based on firsthand knowledge of the landscape, a GIS evaluation, and biological and cultural database 

queries. The second step was to refine these initial pilot project areas through 

site visits. In one week, the group identified public lands that are potentially 

appropriate for renewable energy development. Our conclusion from this mapping exercise is it is possible to site pilot areas for renewable facilities in a 

manner that minimizes impact to the desert ecosystems and we are ready to 

collaborate in finding those areas. 

In conclusion, I would strongly recommend the Subcommittee look at maximizing 

energy efficiency, Conservation and distributed generation (rooftop solar) with s a 

federal feed-in-tariff to stimulate this activity, prior with commercial solar developments as outlined above. 

Thank you for your time this morning. 

Audubon California * California Wilderness Coalition * Defenders of Wildlife * Desert Protection Council * Mojave Desert Land Trust * Natural 

Resources Defense Council * Sierra Club * The Nature Conservancy * 

The Wilderness Society * The Wildlands Conservancy 

Renewable Siting Criteria for California Desert Conservation Area 

Environmental stakeholders have been asked by land management agencies, 

elected officials, other decision-makers, and renewable energy proponents to provide 

criteria for use in identifying potential renewable energy sites in the California 

Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). Large parts of the California desert ecosystem 

have survived despite pressures from mining, grazing, ORV, real estate development 

and military uses over the last century. Now, utility scale renewable energy development presents the challenge of new land consumptive activities on a potentially unprecedented scale. Without careful planning, the surviving desert ecosystems may 

be further fragmented, degraded and lost. 

The criteria below primarily address the siting of solar energy projects and would 

need to be further refined to address factors that are specific to the siting of wind 

and geothermal facilities. While the criteria listed below are not ranked, they are 

intended to inform planning processes and were designed to provide ecosystem level 

protection to the CDCA (including public, private and military lands) by giving preference to disturbed lands, steering development away from lands with high environmental values, and avoiding the deserts’ undeveloped cores. They were developed 

with input from field scientists, land managers, and conservation professionals and 

fall into two categories: 1) areas to prioritize for siting and 2) high conflict areas. 

The criteria are intended to guide solar development to areas with comparatively 

low potential for conflict and controversy in an effort to help California meet its ambitious renewable energy goals in a timely manner. 

22 

Areas to Prioritize for Siting 

• Lands that have been mechanically disturbed, i.e., locations that are degraded 

and disturbed by mechanical disturbance: 

Æ Lands that have been ‘‘type-converted’’ from native vegetation through plowing, bulldozing or other mechanical impact often in support of agriculture or 

other land cover change activities (mining, clearance for development, heavy 

off-road vehicle use). 1

• Public lands of comparatively low resource value located adjacent to degraded 

and impacted private lands on the fringes of the CDCA: 2

Æ Allow for the expansion of renewable energy development onto private lands. Æ Private lands development offers tax benefits to local government. • Brownfields: 

Æ Revitalize idle or underutilized industrialized sites. Æ Existing transmission capacity and infrastructure are typically in place. • Locations adjacent to urbanized areas: 3

Æ Provide jobs for local residents often in underserved communities; Æ Minimize growth-inducing impacts; Æ Provide homes and services for the workforce that will be required at new 

energy facilities; Æ Minimize workforce commute and associated greenhouse gas emissions. • Locations that minimize the need to build new roads. • Locations that could be served by existing substations. • Areas proximate to sources of municipal wastewater for use in cleaning. • Locations proximate to load centers. • Locations adjacent to federally designated corridors with existing major transmission lines. 4

High Conflict Areas 

In an effort to flag areas that will generate significant controversy the environmental community has developed the following list of criteria for areas to avoid in 

siting renewable projects. These criteria are fairly broad. They are intended to minimize resource conflicts and thereby help California meet its ambitious renewable 

goals. The criteria are not intended to serve as a substitute for project specific review. They do not include the categories of lands within the California desert that 

are off limits to all development by statute or policy. 5

• Locations that support sensitive biological resources, including: federally designated and proposed critical habitat; significant 6 populations of federal or state 

threatened and endangered species, 7 significant populations of sensitive, rare 

and special status species, 8 and rare or unique plant communities. 9

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wildlife Habitat Management Areas, 

proposed HCP and NCCP Conservation Reserves. 10

• Lands purchased for conservation including those conveyed to the BLM. 11

• Landscape-level biological linkage areas required for the continued functioning 

of biological and ecological processes. 12

• Proposed Wilderness Areas, proposed National Monuments, and Citizens’ Wilderness Inventory Areas. 13

• Wetlands and riparian areas, including the upland habitat and groundwater resources required to protect the integrity of seeps, springs, streams or wetlands. 14

• National Historic Register eligible sites and other known cultural resources. • Locations directly adjacent to National or State Park units. 15

EXPLANATIONS 

1Some of these lands may be currently abandoned from those prior activities, allowing some natural vegetation to be sparsely re-established. However, because the 

desert is slow to heal, these lands do not support the high level of ecological functioning that undisturbed natural lands do. 

2 Based on currently available data. 

3 Urbanized areas include desert communities that welcome local industrial development but do not include communities that are dependent on tourism for their economic survival. 

4The term ‘‘federally designated corridors’’ does not include contingent corridors. 

5Lands where development is prohibited by statute or policy include but are not 

limited to: National Park Service units; designated Wilderness Areas; Wilderness 

Study Areas; BLM National Conservation Areas; National Recreation Areas; National Monuments; private preserves and reserves; Inventoried Roadless Areas on 

USFS lands; National Historic and National Scenic Trails; National Wild, Scenic 

23 

and Recreational Rivers; HCP and NCCP lands precluded from development; conservation mitigation banks under conservation easements approved by the state Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Army Corps of Engineers a; California State Wetlands; California State Parks; Department of Fish and 

Game Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves; National Historic Register sites. 

6Determining ‘‘significance’’ requires consideration of factors that include population 

size and characteristics, linkage, and feasibility of mitigation. 

7Some listed species have no designated critical habitat or occupy habitat outside 

of designated critical habitat. Locations with significant occurrences of federal or 

state threatened and endangered species should be avoided even if these locations 

are outside of designated critical habitat or conservation areas in order to minimize 

take and provide connectivity between critical habitat units. 

8Significant populations/occurrences of sensitive, rare and special status species including CNPS list 1B and list 2 plants, and federal or state agency species of concern. 

9 Rare plant communities/assemblages include those defined by the California Native Plant Society’s Rare Plant Communities Initiative and by federal, state and 

county agencies. 

10 ACECs include Desert Tortoise Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs). The 

CDCA Plan has designated specific Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (HMAs) to 

conserve habitat for species such as the Mohave ground squirrel and bighorn sheep. 

Some of these designated areas are subject to development caps which apply to renewable energy projects (as well as other activities). 

11These lands include compensation lands purchased for mitigation by other parties 

and transferred to the BLM and compensation lands purchased directly by the 

BLM. 

12Landscape-level linkages provide connectivity between species populations, wildlife movement corridors, ecological process corridors (e.g., sand movement corridors), 

and climate change adaptation corridors. They also provide connections between 

protected ecological reserves such as National Park units and Wilderness Areas. The 

long-term viability of existing populations within such reserves may be dependent 

upon habitat, populations or processes that extend outside of their boundaries. 

While it is possible to describe current wildlife movement corridors, the problem of 

forecasting the future locations of such corridors is confounded by the lack of certainty inherent in global climate change. Hence the need to maintain broad, landscape-level connections. To maintain ecological functions and natural history values 

inherent in parks, wilderness and other biological reserves, trans-boundary ecological processes must be identified and protected. Specific and cumulative impacts that 

may threaten vital corridors and trans-boundary processes should be avoided. 

13Proposed Wilderness areas: lands proposed by a Member of Congress to be set 

aside to preserve wilderness values. The proposal must be: 1) introduced as legislation, or 2) announced by a Member of Congress with publicly available maps. Proposed National Monuments: areas proposed by the President or a Member of Congress to protect objects of historic or scientific interest. The proposal must be: 1) introduced as legislation or 2) announced by a Member of Congress with publicly 

available maps. Citizens’ Wilderness Inventory Areas: lands that have been inventoried by citizens groups, conservationists, and agencies and found to have defined 

‘‘wilderness characteristics.’’ The proposal has been publicly announced. 

14The extent of upland habitat that needs to be protected is sensitive to site-specific 

resources. For example: the NECO Amendment to the CDCA Plan protects streams 

within a 5-mile radius of Townsend big-eared bat maternity roosts; aquatic and riparian species may be highly sensitive to changes in groundwater levels. 

15 Adjacent: lying contiguous, adjoining or within 2 miles of park or state boundaries. (Note: lands more than 2 miles from a park boundary should be evaluated 

for importance from a landscape-level linkage perspective, as further defined in footnote 12). 

24 

Response to questions submitted for the record by 

Councilman Jim Ferguson 

1. Councilman Ferguson, in your testimony you mentioned the need to 

identify pilot projects that can be sited quickly and without conflict. 

Can you identify any sites that can be located without local objection? 

Response: In the Coachella Valley, there do not appear to be any sites. There is 

already a significant number of wind turbine facilities located on both BLM and private lands in the Coachella Valley. While it is likely that some additional wind 

energy projects may be sited in the valley, or that existing turbines will be replaced 

by larger-generating turbines, it is doubtful that a large solar project could be easily 

sited in the Coachella Valley, where significant urbanization has already occurred 

and many areas have already been committed to conservation. We are, however, actively pursuing roof-top solar and improved energy conservation in the valley. Not 

far outside the Coachella valley, there is a large area on both private and BLM 

lands by Desert Center that has been disturbed by abandoned agricultural activities. There is also a large area in the Palo Verde Valley area near Blythe that has 

also been disturbed. It is my understanding that a coalition of environmental organizations has identified these two areas as potentially suitable for renewable energy 

projects. This coalition submitted the attached map to BLM (‘‘Map’’) as part of the 

coalition’s input into BLM’s siting process. In addition, they have provided the attached Desert Siting Criteria (‘‘Criteria’’) for further ascertaining suitable sites within the designated solar zones. You will see on the map that the coalition also identified areas in other parts of the California desert that they consider as potentially 

suitable for renewable energy project siting. This Map and Criteria are in preliminary draft form and represent the view of predominantly environmental groups. 

Other interest groups can be expected to desire an expansion of the identified on 

the Map areas and greater flexibility with the Criteria,. 

2. Councilman Ferguson, does an inventory of degraded or previously used 

lands that would be suitable for siting renewable energy projects exists? 

If not, how much time and money do you estimate it would take to compile such an inventory, and what would be the best agency to carry this 

out? 

As indicated in the response to Question 1, a coalition of environmental groups 

has been working to prepare an inventory of what they consider to be previously 

disturbed lands suitable for siting renewable energy projects. While this inventory 

would reflect their particular assumptions and criteria, it may make a good point 

of departure for preparation of an inventory for use by BLM to consider siting facilities on federal land. I believe, however, that preparation of an inventory should be 

coordinated among all stakeholders. The State of California has, for example, already expended considerable effort through its RETI (Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative) process to identify suitable sites. There has been criticism, seemingly justifiably, of this process for its lack of inclusion of affected local governments 

and other interests. For example, the County of Riverside was critical of the process 

for not having sought to coordinate with the county and other local governments 

and interest groups. To achieve an expedited process, I would suggest that perhaps 

your committee staff could work with BLM, USFWS, state energy and resource 

agencies, affected local governments, and environmental interests to seek rapid consensus about disturbed areas suitable for renewable energy development. As an example of what the environmental coalition has done, their criteria have resulted in 

their identifying the following areas as potentially suitable for renewable energy facility siting. 


49683.005
25 

3. Councilman Ferguson, please explain the difference between a ‘‘feed-intariff’’ system and ‘‘net metering.’’ 

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the difference between ‘‘net energy metering’’ and ‘‘feed-in tariffs.’’ The following chart compares California and German solar 

installations. California’s incentive structure—in blue—is based on net energy metering. In Germany, the feed-in tariff model has had dramatic results as shown in 

red. 

Net energy metering prices are established based on utilities’ avoided costs, or 

simply what’s best for the utility in the short term. Feed-in tariffs are used to catalyze markets, and to assure independent investors with reasonable returns to make 

this a reality. 

Net Energy Metering (NEM) 

Without question, ‘‘net energy metering’’ limits solar installations and greatly 

complicates the solar investment analysis. To participate in a net energy metering 

program like the California Solar Initiative (CSI), a solar installation must offset 

a specific meter and the system must be sized to generate no more power than is 

used by that meter on site. The rules limit the size of the solar system to the consumption on site. Because of this meter restriction, virtually all multi-family buildings and multi-metered commercial buildings are excluded from participation. 

Sectors where NEM does not work 

1. Multi-family buildings 

2. Multi-metered commercial properties 

3. Properties that can generate excess power 

4. Industries, businesses and institutions on low-cost rates 

Payback of the net system costs for photovoltaics installed under the NEM rules 

comes from reducing the owner’s electric bill. That reduction is based on avoiding 

the purchase of conventional power. Its value is a function of the rate at that meter, 

which varies. Consequently, buildings that have very low electric rates will not benefit sufficiently from the net metered savings to make their projects economically 

viable. A low rate—in addition to retarding investments in energy efficiency—devalues the output of a solar system. 

Many of the best roofs for solar in the urban environment are on buildings that 

are multi-metered or pay very low rates, making them unsuited for CSI participation. Time of use rates complicate the situation further. 

Background on Feed-In Tariffs (FIT) 

A distinctly different incentive model for solar systems and other renewables are 

‘‘feed-in tariffs.’’ These are sets of prices used to jumpstart renewable energy production. When subject to feed-in tariffs, electric utilities are obligated to buy renewable 

power such as solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal at above-market rates set by 

the government. And investors can generate as much as they want—or as much as 

their roofs or land areas will allow. Unlike net energy metering, feed-in tariff incentives are built around the requirements of solar investors. 

Different tariffs are paid for different renewables—wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc.—and for different-sized systems. Generally, the tariffs paid per kilowatt-hour are 2—3 times the retail rate, well above utility avoided costs and the 


49683.006
26 

wholesale rates traditionally paid for power purchases. Over time, and based on 

their success and technology gains, the prices can be reduced. 

Without question, the German FIT model has proven to be the world’s most effective practice for boosting adoption of renewable energy technologies. The model has 

been used for wind and solar, with wind developments providing many times more 

power than solar. More than 41 nations—from Spain and Portugal to France, Italy, 

Denmark, the Czech Republic, and South Korea are now emulating the German 

model, using FITs to stimulate renewable power production. California—despite its 

abundant sunshine—is seriously lagging. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Excuse me. We appreciate the enthusiasm, but we don’t encourage either cheering or booing or any of those kinds of things during 

these hearings. They take away from it. But obviously you invited 

your family here. 

[Laughter.] 

Our next witness is Commissioner Julia Levin from the California Energy Commission. And our last witness was about 30 seconds over. As I say, I give a little leeway, but do be mindful of the 

time. 

Thank you very much. Commissioner Levin? 

STATEMENT OF JULIA LEVIN, COMMISSIONER, 

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 

Ms. LEVIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify and 

for looking for ways to build consensus on this very, very important 

issue for California. 

Mr. COSTA. Is the mic on there? 

Ms. LEVIN. OK. Is this better? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. LEVIN. Sorry. 

Mr. COSTA. You have to be right up close. 

Ms. LEVIN. All right. I will try. 

The California Energy Commission, for those of you that aren’t 

familiar with it, is the statewide agency responsible for implementing California’s policies on renewable electricity, energy efficiency, we set building and appliance standards for efficiency, 

transmission, transportation, fuels, climate change policies, and 

other energy-related policies. 

We are also the permitting agency in California for thermal powerplants, which includes geothermal, natural gas, and solar thermal. It does not include photovoltaics, however, because those are 

not thermal power. And we also permit transmission lines associated with thermal powerplants. 

As you know, California has been a leader in climate and clean 

energy policies for many, many decades. And we hope to continue 

our leadership on this very important issue of balancing accelerated renewable energy development and conservation of sensitive 

resources. 

As many people have mentioned, California has a very aggressive 

renewable electricity goal, 33 percent. You may not be aware that 

we also have a state Global Warming Solutions Act, which many 

of us refer to as AB 32, which requires California to reduce our 

27 

global warming emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, which is a 

cut of about 29 percent from business as usual. 

It is an aggressive goal, but our Governor, like President Obama, 

has stated an even more impressive goal for 2050, which is the goal 

proposed by most scientists around the world, and that is a reduction of 80 to 90 percent of all global warming emissions by 2050. 

These are very, very critical goals. 

Mr. COSTA. Listen, I am really serious about this. We appreciate 

your enthusiasm, but it is not polite for the witness, and it takes 

away from the time. And if there come to be more demonstrations, 

we will have to ask you to please leave. So, we really are serious 

about that. 

Commissioner Levin, please go ahead. 

Ms. LEVIN. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. We won’t count that against your time. 

Ms. LEVIN. Thank you. These are very, very important goals, not 

just to protect California from the worst impacts of climate change, 

including impacts on sensitive ecosystems like the California 

desert, these are also critical for our economy and for building a 

clean energy economy of the future. These will create jobs, these 

will create new businesses, business opportunities in California. It 

will also protect consumers and finally give us true energy independence. 

All of these goals are recognized in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, which puts more than $40 billion into clean 

energy programs, and California would like to get our share of that 

money, in part by accelerating renewable energy development in 

the right places in California. 

How do we plan to achieve all of these goals? By working together in a collaborative, science-based, transparent planning process that identifies the right places for renewable energy development and the most important places to conserve and protect from 

development. 

Several of the Committee members have recognized RETI, the 

Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative. This is a process California began nearly two years ago to identify the most important 

areas for renewable energy development based on energy, economic, and environmental factors. We have recently begun to expand that effort due to the Governor’s Executive Order last November and a memorandum of understanding between state and Federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and 

Game, and the California Energy Commission. 

The Executive Order and the memorandum of understanding call 

on the Federal and state agencies not just to expedite and streamline permitting for new renewable energy development, but to create one-stop permitting so it is easier for applicants to establish renewable energy zones that are priority areas for renewable energy 

development and the transmission needed to serve those zones, and 

to develop a desert renewable energy and conservation plan, which 

will provide the long-term conservation needed in the most sensitive areas of our important desert. 

And we are well along in this process, and I really have to thank 

my Federal colleagues, particularly the Bureau of Land ManageVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
28 

ment, which has been an absolutely astounding, wonderful partner 

in this, as have the branches of the armed services, particularly the 

Marines at Twentynine Palms and elsewhere. They really have 

been full partners and participated in RETI and in the DRECP 

planning and the other—both renewable energy permitting and 

conservation planning in the desert. 

That partnership is critical, and if I have one request of the Committee it is to increase the resources for these Federal agencies, so 

that they can only increase their participation or, maybe more realistically, get some sleep every once in a great while, because they 

really—their partnership is critical to the success. 

As I said, it is very, very important to be successful, to achieve 

a consensus that you are striving for by having a science-based, 

public, transparent process. We believe this process will help to accelerate renewable energy in the right places, and to help us to develop the long-term conservation plan that we need to protect the 

most sensitive, vulnerable, and unique California resources. 

So, we thank you again very much for your time, and we look 

forward to achieving that consensus together. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Levin follows:] 

Statement of Julia Levin, Commissioner, 

Renewable Energy, California Energy Commission 

Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Julia Levin 

and I am the presiding Commissioner for Renewable Energy at the California 

Energy Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

The California Energy Commission is responsible for implementing statewide policies on renewable energy, energy efficiency, electricity transmission, transportation 

fuels and the State’s climate change policies. The Energy Commission is also the 

state permitting agency for thermal power plants greater than 50 megawatts (MW), 

including solar thermal, geothermal and natural gas powered plants. In addition, 

the Energy Commission permits transmission lines associated with thermal power 

plants, develops a statewide Strategic Transmission Investment Plan and designates 

transmission corridors on non-federal lands. 

As you know, California has a long history of leadership on climate and clean 

energy issues. In 2002, California enacted the country’s largest Renewable Portfolio 

Standard, requiring 20 percent of the State’s electricity to be from renewable 

sources. In 2006, California enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act, also known 

as ‘‘AB 32,’’ which requires California to reduce its global warming emissions to 

1990 levels by 2020, a cut of about 29% from business-as-usual levels. Last fall, 

Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-14-08 raising California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to 33 percent by 2020 and calling on the State to reduce 

its global warming emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 

Achieving these goals is critical to protect California from the worst impacts of 

climate change—rising sea level, air pollution, droughts, forest fires, declining fish 

and wildlife populations, and significant adverse impacts on agriculture. California’s 

climate and clean energy policies also strengthen our economy by creating new jobs 

and business opportunities, saving consumers money, and providing energy security. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recognizes the economic benefits of 

moving toward a clean energy economy by investing more than forty billion dollars 

into clean energy programs. We hope to take advantage of those dollars by expediting the permitting of appropriately sited renewable energy projects in California. 

These are ambitious goals that require state and federal agencies to work together 

to accelerate renewable energy development while protecting and conserving sensitive resources. California began a more coordinated planning effort called the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative—known as ‘‘RETI’’—to bring agencies and 

stakeholders together to identify the most cost-effective and environmentally preferable renewable energy zones and transmission corridors. Federal, state and local 

agencies, renewable energy companies and associations, conservation groups, utilities, the Armed Services and other stakeholders have participated in RETI. RETI 

will identify and rank Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ’s), develop 

transmission plans to access those zones, and lead to applications for new transVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
29 

mission. We believe that RETI will facilitate the siting and permitting of renewable 

energy projects and the transmission needed to serve those projects. 

Last fall, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-14-08 (Attachment 

A) to increase California’s RPS to 33 percent by 2020 and to build on RETI to expedite renewable energy development. At the same time, state and federal agencies— 

including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and California Energy 

Commission (CEC)—entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that establishes a Renewable Energy Action Team charged with the following tasks: • Identify Renewable Energy Zones based on energy, economic and environmental 

factors—this would build on RETI and other scientific and stakeholder input; • Develop a Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) that identifies 

priority areas for renewable energy development and conservation; • Prioritize and expedite review and permitting of renewable energy projects, especially projects within designated Renewable Energy Zones. 

State and federal agencies, including BLM, USFWS, the Armed Services, CDFG 

and CEC, are working together very closely now to coordinate project siting and permitting, transmission planning and conservation in the California Desert. We are 

very grateful to the federal agencies for their full partnership in these important 

planning efforts and believe that our partnership is critical to success. 

The CEC and CDFG will work together with local and federal agencies as well 

as stakeholders and scientific experts to produce a guide to Best Management Practices for siting and development of renewable energy, which will be tailored to each 

energy type—solar, wind, geothermal, biomass. We will also produce a map that 

identifies appropriate development areas and areas critical to protect from development. These will then form the basis for a long-term conservation plan, known as 

a Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or NCCP. 

We believe that working together with state, federal and local agencies, as well 

as a wide range of stakeholders in these science-based, transparent planning processes will identify the best areas for renewable energy development, and will expedite that development. We also believe that these processes will identify and lead 

to the protection of the areas most critical to conserve. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-14-08 

11/17/2008 

WHEREAS, the State of California is a world leader in efforts to reduce global 

warming and greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable energy production, promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, clean air and emission controls, expand 

the use of low carbon, alternative fuels and promote and commercialize new technologies and industries; and 

WHEREAS, California has previously led the nation with an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring California’s retail sellers of electricity to 

serve 20 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2010; and 

WHEREAS, in 2003, the Governor called for an acceleration of the RPS, urging 

that 20 percent of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2010 rather than 2017, seven years earlier than previously required, and this accelerated 

standard became law in September 2006, when the Governor signed SB 107; and 

WHEREAS, California’s high standards and ambitious goals have resulted in 

California leading the nation in renewable energy innovation, receiving more investment funding in clean technology than anywhere else in the United States, and accounting for 44 percent of all U.S. patents in solar technologies and 37 percent of 

all U.S. patents in wind technologies; and 

WHEREAS, producing electricity from renewable resources provides multiple and 

significant benefits to California’s environment and economy, including improving 

local air quality and reducing global warming pollution, diversifying energy supply, 

improving energy security, enhancing economic development, and creating jobs; and 

WHEREAS, California has some of the best renewable energy resource areas in 

the world, providing immense potential for clean, valuable electricity generation in 

the state, and the development of these resources must be accelerated; and 

WHEREAS, substantially increased development of renewable electricity sources, 

energy efficiency and demand response is needed to meet the greenhouse gas reduction goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050, 

making the success and expansion of renewables a key priority for California’s economic and environmental future; and 

WHEREAS, fostering greater and more timely renewable energy development 

means California’s energy agencies must establish a more cohesive and integrated 

30 

statewide strategy, including greater coordination and streamlining of the siting, 

permitting, and procurement processes for renewable generation, improving the 

manner in which the state develops its transmission infrastructure, and encouraging technically and economically feasible distributed renewable energy opportunities; and 

WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has approved 

more than 6,300 MW of renewable generation contracts for investor-owned utilities, 

and has identified various challenges that impede their timely realization, relating 

to transmission, financing, siting, permitting, integration, environmental and military objectives, technology development and commercialization and equipment procurement; and 

WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission (CEC) in its 2007 Integrated 

Energy Policy Report (IEPR) indicated that there are substantial barriers to generation siting, permitting and transmission that must be addressed in order to achieve 

the 2010 and 2020 RPS goals; and 

WHEREAS, the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) is a statewide 

initiative to help identify the transmission projects needed to accommodate these renewable energy goals and facilitate transmission corridor designation and transmission and generation siting and permitting; and 

WHEREAS, RETI will (1) assess competitive renewable energy zones in California 

and surrounding regions that can provide significant electricity to California consumers by 2020; (2) identify those zones that can be developed in the most timely 

and cost effective way, with least environmental impact; and (3) prepare detailed 

transmission plans for those zones identified for development; and 

WHEREAS, deployment of new renewable energy technologies across the state 

will require utilizing new areas of biologically sensitive land; and 

WHEREAS, California is committed to conserving natural communities at the ecosystem scale through the use of California’s unique Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) tool, coordinated by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) 

and CEC, which identifies and provides for the region-wide protection of plants, animals, and their habitats while allowing for compatible economic activities such as 

renewable energy generation; and 

WHEREAS, the Western Governor’s Association has initiated the Western Renewable Energy Zone (WREZ) initiative to identify and expedite cost-effective, environmentally sensitive transmission development to areas with high-grade, renewable 

energy resources in order to bring about the development of 30,000 megawatts of 

clean and diversified energy across the West by 2015. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of 

California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of 

the State of California, do hereby order effective immediately: 

1. That the following Renewable Portfolio Standard target is hereby established 

for California: All retail sellers of electricity shall serve 33 percent of their 

load with renewable energy by 2020. State government agencies are hereby 

directed to take all appropriate actions to implement this target in all regulatory proceedings, including siting, permitting, and procurement for renewable energy power plants and transmission lines. 

2. The Resources Agency shall lead the joint collaboration between the CEC and 

the DFG to expedite the development of RPS eligible renewable energy resources through the actions outlined in this order. 

3. The Department of Fish and Game shall immediately create a new internal 

division, the primary purpose being comprehensive planning and streamlined 

compliance services; including for renewable energy projects. The division 

shall ensure the timely completion of NCCPs, which embody the balancing of 

project assurances with ecosystem protection. 

4. Pursuant to this Order and the MOU signed on November 17, 2008 by the 

CEC and DFG formalizing the Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT), the 

REAT shall lead completion of items 5 through 12. 

5. Pursuant to the MOU, DFG and CEC shall immediately create a ‘‘one-stop’’ 

process for permitting renewable energy generation power plants. Instead of 

filing multiple sequential applications, the DFG and CEC shall create a concurrent application review process, which shall be filed directly at the state 

level. To facilitate this process, a special joint streamlining unit shall be created and shall reduce permit processing times by at least 50% for projects in 

renewable energy development areas, as such areas are defined by the REAT 

beginning on February 1, 2009. 

6. Pursuant to the MOU signed on November 17, 2008 by the CEC, the DFG, 

the United States Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and WildVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
31 

life Service, the REAT shall endeavor to include all appropriate federal partners in the expedited permitting process described in number 5 above. 

7. By December 1, 2008, the REAT shall initiate the Desert Renewable Energy 

Conservation Plan (DRECP) process for the Mojave and Colorado Desert regions. 

8. By March 1, 2009, the REAT shall identify and publish top priority areas in 

California where other NCCPs or similar plans should be developed based 

upon their renewable energy development potential. 

9. By December 31, 2009, the REAT shall develop and publish a Best Management Practices manual to assist RPS project applicants in designing projects 

to emphasize siting considerations and minimize environmental impacts for 

RPS desert projects. 

10. By December 31, 2009, the REAT, in conjunction with our federal partners 

and stakeholder groups, shall develop a conservation strategy that clearly 

identifies and maps areas for RPS project development and areas intended for 

long-term natural resource conservation as a foundation for the DRECP. 

11. By December 31, 2010, the REAT, in conjunction with our federal partners 

and stakeholder groups, shall complete the draft DRECP and initiate the environmental review process. 

12. By June 1, 2012, the final DRECP shall provide binding, long-term endangered species permit assurances, facilitate the RPS desert project approval 

process, and provide a process for state and federal conservation funding to 

implement the DRECP. 

13. By January 1, 2010, the CEC shall provide an estimate of total retail electricity sales in California in 2020 by utility and shall update this number 

every two years through the IEPR. 

14. Direct the CEC, and request the CPUC and California Independent System 

Operator (ISO), to work with other RETI stakeholders to complete the following by March 31, 2009: (a) develop a product that identifies top priority 

renewable energy zones that can be developed reliably, cost-effectively and 

with least environmental impact; and (b) issue a Renewable Transmission Development Report that identifies potential routes and interconnection points 

for new lines. I direct DFG to participate in the RETI process and the REAT 

to provide increased technical support to the RETI stakeholder group. I also 

request that the CPUC and the ISO support the RETI stakeholder group as 

appropriate in order to meet this deadline. 

15. Direct the CEC, and request the CPUC, to participate in the WREZ initiative 

in order to increase availability to all potential renewable energy resources, 

coordinate research, planning, and investments with our regional partners, 

and to complement RETI. Specifically, I request that the CPUC, in conjunction with the CEC, ensure that there is information exchange and coordination between the WREZ initiative and RETI and to facilitate the feasible integration of the resulting plans from each initiative. 

16. In order to facilitate the timely permitting of renewable energy projects, all 

state regulatory agencies shall give priority to renewable energy projects as 

set forth in this Executive Order. 

17. In conjunction with its work with DFG to develop the DRECP pursuant to 

number 7 above and any work it performs to facilitate the siting and permitting of renewable generation and transmission projects, the CEC shall coordinate with BLM, CPUC, the California ISO, and other interested federal, state, 

and local agencies, work closely with interested stakeholders, and utilize 

input from RETI. 

This Order is not intended to create, and does not create, any right or benefit, 

whether substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State 

of California, its agencies, entities, officers, employees, agents or any other person. 

I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed with 

the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be 

given to this Order. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and caused the Great Seal 

of the State of California to be affixed this the 17th day of November 2008. 

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER 

Governor of California 

ATTEST: 

DEBRA BOWEN 

Secretary of State 

32 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Julia A. Levin 

1. Commissioner Levin, does an inventory of degraded or previously used 

lands that would be suitable for siting renewable energy projects exist? 

If not, how much time and money do you estimate it would take to compile such an inventory, and what would be the best agency to carry this 

out? 

While inventories of degraded or previously used land exist with various state, 

local, and federal agencies, this information is neither complete nor consistent on 

a statewide basis. A comprehensive inventory could help renewable energy developers and permitting agencies to determine the most suitable locations for the development of renewable energy projects. The Energy Commission, building on the work 

of the collaborative Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI), is working 

closely with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to identify disturbed areas that are suitable for the development of renewable energy 

projects, as well as areas for conservation purposes. The Energy Commission has 

been supportive of any efforts to provide renewable developers guidance, tools, and 

information necessary to develop renewable projects while minimizing environmental impacts, and believes a comprehensive statewide inventory of degraded or 

previously used lands would be a valuable tool to assist both renewable developers 

and the REAT agencies as they move forward in the DRECP process. 

We are unable to estimate the dollar amount that would be required to compile 

such an inventory, but for the Mojave and Colorado Desert region of California, it 

could require several persons working full time for six months to do so. Such work 

would require coordination with multiple state, local, and federal agencies, including 

county planning departments. In addition to examining aerial photography, there 

would be a need to acquire zoning and other land use information, including GIS 

layers, accompanied by some amount of on the ground verification. Based upon their 

responsibility for mapping and monitoring prime agricultural land, the California 

Department of Conservation may be the appropriate agency to undertake this work. 

However, such work may not have the highest priority within the Department. The 

Energy Commission believes there is merit in compiling such an inventory and has 

begun to identify areas most suitable for solar development in support of RETI and 

the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08. We would like to accelerate this work given 

its importance, but have been unable to do so due to a lack of adequate staff resources. Going forward, the Energy Commission will continue to identify previously 

disturbed land for purposes of assisting renewable developers and will coordinate 

our efforts with the appropriate land use agencies. 

2. Commissioner Levin, could you explain in more detail how the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative differs from the Western Governors’ 

Renewable Energy Zone process? Are there are differences in the methodologies or expected results of the two processes? 

The Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) and the Western Governor’s Renewable Energy Zone (WREZ) initiative are both processes to identify, 

through objective analysis and broad stakeholder participation, major new transmission to access renewable resources. The differences between the processes lie in 

the scale of the efforts and the level of granularity associated with the analyses. 

RETI will also provide one of the bases for the development of California’s Desert 

Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. We will also explore ways to encourage and 

accelerate renewable energy development within Completive Renewable Energy 

Zones (CREZ) identified by RETI. 

WREZ is a West-wide effort to identify those concentrated areas throughout the 

West with potential for significant renewable energy available for export throughout 

the Western Interconnection. Given this aim, and given the size of the study area, 

WREZ has taken a relatively broad-brush approach to identification of renewable 

resources and land use constraints. 

RETI, on the other hand, is a California effort to identify zones, and the transmission needed to access them, sufficient to meet a specific statewide target by 

2020: 33% renewable energy and GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels. Given this 

particular aim, RETI has considered a wider range of resources and transmission 

solutions than has WREZ. Furthermore, because the transmission projects identified 

by RETI will be planned, permitted, and built by a relatively small group of California entities, RETI has focused on prioritizing particular zones for immediate attention. To that end, RETI has developed innovative approaches to rating zones and 

transmission segments according to both their expected economics and their potential environmental impact. Because 

33 

WREZ brings together a much more disparate group of load-serving entities, 

transmission owners, state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders, WREZ is 

not attempting to prioritize zones but rather to identify possible opportunities for 

major new transmission, and to rely on utilities and transmission developers to determine the order in which the lines are developed. 

3. Commissioner Levin, why does the CEC not have jurisdiction over solar 

photovoltaic power plants, and does this lack of jurisdiction cause any 

problems in terms of planning and coordinating for the siting of photovoltaic plants? 

The Energy Commission has siting jurisdiction over thermal power plants 50 

megawatts and greater. This includes natural gas, geothermal and solar thermal 

plants. Solar photovoltaic power plants are not ‘‘thermal’’ because they convert solar 

power directly into electricity rather than into heat to power a turbine. In addition, 

most solar photovoltaic power plants were, until recently, extremely small. Thus, 

when the Energy Commission was created, solar photovoltaic power plants capable 

of utility scale generation were not anticipated and therefore not included within 

the Energy Commission’s jurisdiction. There is no practical or technological reason 

to differentiate between the siting of solar photovoltaic power plants and solar thermal power plants as the environmental impacts of large scale solar facilities are 

similar. Unfortunately, this regulatory artifact from the mid-1970s has created additional fragmentation in regulatory authority for the permitting of power plants in 

California. Solar photovoltaic power plants are sited by county planning agencies, 

which often lack the staff resources and expertise necessary to evaluate large scale 

solar projects. Consequently, there can be inconsistent approaches between the licensing of these facilities, such that mitigation requirements may vary between 

projects and local siting decisions may not reflect statewide priorities. 

4. Commissioner Levin, please provide the committee with a status update 

on the Renewable Energy Action Teams created by the Governor’s executive order last year. Have they been established, have they been meeting, and what is the time frame for them to issue a product? 

The Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT) has been established and has been 

meeting every other week since early this year. The REAT is comprised of representatives from the Energy Commission, CDFG, BLM, and the USFWS. The Department of Defense has expressed interest in joining the REAT and has participated in several REAT meetings, but they have yet to sign an MOU formalizing 

their participation. 

Two publicly-noticed REAT workshops were held in March in Sacramento (March 

12) and Palm Springs (March 17) to provide an overview of the REAT’s plans to implement Executive Order S-14-08 and to receive public comment. More than 100 

people attended each workshop. A workshop focusing on development of the Desert 

Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) and the public participation process 

is planned in Victorville on June 18. 

As required by Executive Order S-14-08, the REAT will produce by late December 

a Best Management Practices (BMP) manual to assist renewable developers, and a 

DRECP conservation strategy and mapping that identifies areas suitable for renewable development, as well as areas for conservation purposes. Additional workshops 

will be held in the summer and fall of 2009 to discuss the draft BMP manual and 

DRECP and receive comments from the public, developers, environmental groups, 

and other interested stakeholders. 

5. Commissioner Levin, how is California going to manage the water demands of concentrating solar power? Will there be a maximum allowable 

water use per unit of electricity generated for new electricity facilities? 

The Energy Commission, in its 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report, adopted a 

policy prohibiting the use of fresh water for power plant cooling unless it can be 

demonstrated that alternatives are economically infeasible or environmentally undesirable. To date, most of the solar power plant applications that have been filed do 

not propose the use of fresh water for cooling purposes. We anticipate that the trend 

away from the use of fresh water for power plant cooling will continue. However, 

we note that mirror washing can potentially be a significant use of water. The 

Energy Commission is interested in determining how to reduce total water use at 

solar power plants and to use reclaimed water, especially given the fact that the 

majority of solar power plants are likely to be located in areas where water is a 

scarce resource. We have not established nor proposed a maximum allowable water 

use standard per unit of electricity generated for the solar projects under review. 

To do so at this time could be premature without actual operating information and 

data that would allow the Energy Commission to compare various technologies and 

34 

determine if water use projects for such facilities is correct. Going forward, the 

Energy Commission will continue to examine ways to reduce the consumption of 

water use given the environmental benefits of doing so and will include appropriate 

recommendations on the Best Practices Manual.. 

6. Commissioner Levin, at the hearing you mentioned that the CEC had 

identified some potential changes to federal law that would be helpful 

for large-scale solar projects. Please provide those suggested changes to 

the committee. 

The Energy Commission has identified several potential changes to federal law 

that would improve renewable energy development and habitat conservation in California. These recommendations are as follows: 

• Accelerate BLM’s permitting processes and require mandatory coordination of 

NEPA and CEQA for projects located within identified renewable resource 

areas. Renewable developers in California face duplicative and sequential rather than aligned state and federal permitting processes. Federal law should direct BLM to establish a permitting process similar to the Energy Commission’s 

that includes a 12-month deadline for permit review and approval and features 

joint NEPA/CEQA compliance through the Energy Commission’s permitting 

process. This change would accelerate project permitting, reduce costs, improve 

state and federal permit coordination, and provide incentives for developers to 

develop projects within renewable resource areas. 

• Renewable projects located within identified renewable resource areas should 

receive priority processing by BLM and non-viable projects should be rejected 

or eliminated. BLM currently processes renewable energy projects in the order 

in which they are received. Statutes and/or regulations requiring BLM to accept 

applications in order should be changed, and BLM should be granted the flexibility to reject non-viable projects at the time of filing and/or redirect them to 

appropriate areas. 

• BLM should redirect a portion of Right of Way (ROW) fees to fund enhancement 

and management activities of conservation areas used to mitigate project development in renewable resource areas. BLM requires applicants to establish endowment funds to pay for the management of mitigation areas. Using a portion 

of ROW fees would create a steady funding source for state and federal agencies 

to manage these areas, improve permitting and mitigation, and represent a 

public contribution to conservation activities. BLM should also simplify and 

standardize mitigation requirements in renewable resource areas. 

• Site remediation agreements should be restructured to include only facility removal for projects located within identified renewable resource areas. Renewable developers are required to pay up-front remediation costs for future activities related to site closure, including removal of facilities, site re-contouring, and 

re-vegetation. By restructuring site remediation agreements to include only facility removal, state and federal policy regarding identified renewable resource 

areas would instead focus on redevelopment of project sites in perpetuity. This 

change would reduce impacts on pristine areas and undisturbed habitats, reduce future permitting times, and make use of existing transmission infrastructure. This change would also reduce developer costs and provide additional incentives for developers to locate within identified renewable resource areas. 

• Projects located within identified renewable resource areas should receive priority in the California Independent System Operator’s (CA ISO) queue. Generation projects in the CAISO queue are treated equally, affecting the order of 

transmission projects evaluated and approved by the CAISO. Assigning priority 

to renewable generation projects located in identified renewable within the 

CAISO queue will facilitate the development of transmission to these areas, 

thereby providing incentives to develop renewable generation in these locations. 

This proposal would require action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and possible changes to federal law. 

• For projects located on state or private lands, create a federal nexus that will 

allow the USFWS to issue consistency determinations on state permits. Renewable developers proposing projects on state or private lands must acquire a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit that often takes years to complete. Although the 

state and federal agencies of the REAT are preparing the DRECP that will include a Section 10 Incidental Take Permit by 2012, it will be late to assist developers utilizing federal stimulus funds. With a federal nexus or linkage to a 

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) biological assessment, a developer 

could initiate an expedited Section 7 Incidental Take Permit with USFWS and/ 

or use the CESA process for permitting purposes. 

35 

• Direct the Department of Defense to conduct base by base assessment of renewable energy development potential and both potential and need for energy to 

serve new renewable energy and/or increase energy security for bases and other 

military installations. Further require all bases and other installations to implement all cost-effective energy efficiency measures to increase energy security. 

Finally, and most importantly, clarify that energy security is an integral part 

of national security so that the Armed Services can move forward with renewable energy development where appropriate and not in conflict with training 

and other military purposes. 

While the Energy Commission has been working closely with the DoD in RETI 

and other planning processes for several years, few opportunities to develop renewable generation on DoD installations have arisen. In 2008, the Report of the Defense 

Science Board Task Force on Energy Strategy examined the DoD’s energy strategy 

and found that because military installations are highly dependent on electricity 

supplied from ‘‘outside the fence,’’ critical national security and Homeland defense 

missions are at an unacceptably high risk of extended outage from failure of the 

grid. The Task Force recommended that the DoD invest in alternative energy supplies such as solar, wind and geothermal located on installations to reduce this risk. 

Because energy security is a critical component of our national security, the DoD 

should work closely with the Energy Commission and the other REAT agencies in 

the DRECP process to evaluate opportunities for the siting of renewable generation 

facilities on military installations to meet our common goals. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide additional information to the 

Committee. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my Advisor, James Bartridge, 

jbartrid@energy.state.ca.us at (916) 654-4169 with additional questions or requests 

for information. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, thank you for your good testimony. Thank you 

for staying within the time limit. There are a number of questions 

that I am going to follow up on based on your comments that I 

think talk about collaboration and what we are doing on the Federal level. We will get to that in a moment. 

Rachelle Chong— 

Ms. CHONG. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA.—with the California Public Utilities Commission. 

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER RACHELLE CHONG, 

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

Ms. CHONG. Great pleasure to be here. I thank you for having— 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you for being here, and thank you for representing the Commission. 

Ms. CHONG. Well, I grew up in Stockton, so 102 did not scare me 

off. 

Mr. COSTA. It is like Fresno. 

Ms. CHONG. That is right. 

Mr. COSTA. It is 103, 104, we call that balmy. 

Ms. CHONG. That is right. No problem. 

Well, we have been working hard at the Cali PUC since 2002, 

working on renewable energy goals. And what we do there is we 

oversee the renewable portfolio standard for the investor-owned 

utilities there. We also look at their contracts that they enter into 

for renewable energy, and we have the authority to permit new 

transmission lines for the IOUs. 

Commissioner Levin has covered the very ambitious greenhouse 

gas and renewable goals that we have in the State, so I won’t review that. But I thought a few statistics might be in order. Since 

the time we started our renewable energy program in 2002, 

through 2008 we have approved 111 contracts for a total of 6,672 

megawatts of all types of renewable energy. Solar is a sizable porVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
36 

tion. Thirteen of those approved contracts are going to deliver 

about 2,500 megawatts of solar thermal and centralized photovoltaic generation. 

In terms of actual delivered energy, between ’03 and ’08, 870 

megawatts of new renewable generating capacity were installed, 

and are online. But what is interesting is none of the new renewable energy that is online came from solar. We haven’t had a new 

commercial solar thermal plan built in California in 18 years, but 

the energy associated with solar contracts that we have approved 

is targeted to be online and delivered within the next three years. 

And, of course, solar is valuable, because when it is very hot, when 

we need the most electricity, the sun is shining. 

But based on the number of approved and pending contracts, we 

do expect solar generation to play a significant role in meeting our 

AB 32 33 percent target. So, for these reasons, the PUC views the 

success of the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative as being 

critical. We have identified 90,000 megawatts of near-term solar 

potential in this State, much of it on Federal lands. 

Mr. COSTA. That number again? 

Ms. CHONG. 90,000 megawatts near-term solar potential in this 

State, much of which is on Federal lands. Delays or varies in the 

permitting of these solar generation facilities will have real impacts 

on whether we make our greenhouse gas goals for this State. 

We are very aware of the need to upgrade new transmission lines 

to deliver clean energy. The PUC has recently approved the Sunrise Powerlink line, which is expected to access at least 1,000 

megawatts of renewable energy capacity from California’s Imperial 

Valley. We have also approved the first segments of the Tehachapi 

Renewable Transmission Project for ’07—in ’07, and we are now 

looking at the later segments of Tehachapi Project, which will deliver about 4,500 megawatts of energy from the wind-rich 

Tehachapi area. 

There has been a lack of human and financial resources, which 

we think may have contributed to the Federal permitting delays in 

the past. But we are encouraged by the new resources that have 

been announced by the Department of the Interior to prioritize the 

development of renewable energy, and we are glad to see Federal 

stimulus funds that are being put toward streamlined environmental review in California. 

So, I did want to voice my thanks to the Administration and to 

Congress for those additional resources. We hope that these increased resources will allow for BLM and the PUC staff to collaborate efficiently on environmental review of these very important 

transmission lines. 

A moment of caution. Although it is a valuable clean energy resource, utility scale solar has environmental impacts. They have 

large land use requirements, as the Chairman mentioned, and they 

may, some of them, have significant water use. While we are committed to developing renewable energy, we should ensure that our 

lands are used in the most efficient yet environmentally sensitive 

ways. So, we do suggest that BLM and the Federal agencies work 

with the PUC, the Energy Commission, and our utilities and the 

environmentalists to collaborate on the best use. 

37 

We have been working very hard on RETI, as mentioned by 

Commissioner Levin. This is—the most important thing about it is 

it is consensus-based. We have invited everybody into the tent. We 

have been working very hard in a transparent manner to identify 

specific corridors where we could develop transmission for renewable resources. And, really, the success of the entire undertaking 

has been collaboration and the process. 

We have completed Phase 1 in December. We have actually identified California zones that provide cost competitive and environmentally preferable renewable resources. Phase 2A of RETI is now 

focusing on updating estimates of the generation potential in these 

renewable zones, and we are working on a conceptual statewide 

transmission plan. We expect the report to be out about July, and 

we hope that you will consider the work that RETI has done and 

perhaps it could be a good model for a Federal type of process. 

In closing, we look forward to partnering with the Federal agencies and answering some challenges. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chong follows:] 

Statement of Rachelle Chong, Commissioner, 

California Public Utilities Commission 

I want to thank Chairman Costa and the members of the Subcommittee for the 

kind invitation to testify before you. At the California Public Utilities Commission 

(CPUC), we have been working hard since 2002 on implementing the state’s renewable energy goals. Our role is to establish rules governing the renewables portfolio 

standard (RPS) program for our regulated-utilities and to review contracts that our 

regulated utilities enter into for obtaining renewable energy. We also have the authority to permit new transmission lines, which are necessary to deliver this energy 

from the remote areas where renewable resources are often located. 

California has set one of the most ambitious greenhouse gas and renewables goals 

in the country. The California investor-owned utilities are already mandated to provide 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. The Governor 

recently has adopted a further goal of 33% renewables by 2020. Our Air Resources 

Board has also identified 33% by 2020 as a key strategy for achieving California’s 

landmark goal of reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the 

year 2020. This is part of the State’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly 

referred to as AB 32. 

Since our renewable program’s inception in 2002, and through 2008, the CPUC 

has approved 111 contracts for a total of 6,672 megawatts (MW) of all types of renewable energy (including solar). Of that amount, 13 of those approved contracts are 

for the delivery of at least 2,500 MW of solar thermal and centralized photovoltaic 

projects. In terms of actual delivered renewable energy, from 2003 through 2008, 

870 MW of new renewable energy were installed and came online. Unfortunately, 

none of this new renewable energy that is being delivered comes from solar. We 

have not had a new commercial solar thermal plant built in California in 18 years, 

but the energy associated with the solar contracts that we have approved are targeted to be online and generating power within the next three years. 

Solar energy is particularly valuable as a contributor to our renewable energy and 

greenhouse gas reduction goals, given its peaking capacity and ability to provide 

clean power to California on our hottest, sunniest days. We expect solar generation 

technologies to be significant contributors to our 33% renewables goal. In addition 

to the approved solar contracts, another 2,000 MW-worth of solar contracts are currently pending CPUC approval. 

For these reasons, the CPUC views solar development, including on federal land, 

as critical to the achievement of California’s ambitious renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. California’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative 

(RETI) identified over 90,000 MW of near-term solar potential in the state, much 

of it on federal lands. Delays or barriers in the permitting of solar generation facilities have real implications for California’s ability to achieve its greenhouse gas 

goals. One analysis estimates that California’s utilities might require 6,800 MW of 

in-state solar thermal power and 3,200 MW of new photovoltaic power to achieve 

38 

our target of 33% renewables in 2020. To put this in perspective, only 354 MW of 

solar thermal generation are operating today in California, with only an additional 

114 MW operating anywhere else in the world. If our estimates are correct, California has only 10 years in which to permit, finance, build, and fully operate the 

equivalent of 19 times the state’s current solar thermal generating capacity (and 15 

times the current worldwide solar thermal generating capacity). 

The permitting, financing, and building of these solar projects is a complex process that requires substantial coordination among various agencies. As the agency responsible for permitting transmission infrastructure in California, we are acutely 

aware of the need for concurrent development of the transmission infrastructure 

needed to deliver that clean energy to customers. As you know, renewable resources 

are often located in areas that are far from the grid and load centers, and thus 

transmission lines are required to be built or upgraded. 

At the CPUC, we recently approved the Sunrise Powerlink, which is expected to 

access at least 1,000 MW of renewable energy capacity in California’s Imperial Valley. We also approved the first segments of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission 

Project in 2007, and are now reviewing the later segments of that project, which 

would deliver approximately 4,500 MW of capacity from the wind-rich Tehachapi resource area into the Los Angeles basin. We look forward to working closely with 

BLM and other federal agencies on the development of these and other facilities located on federal land. 

We understand that a lack of human and financial resources has contributed to 

federal permitting delays in recent years. We are encouraged, therefore, by recent 

announcements indicating a renewed fiscal commitment to renewable development, 

as expressed by the March 11th Secretarial Order from the Department of Interior 

establishing the development of renewable energy as a top priority. We are also 

pleased to see that there will be federal stimulus funds available to support streamlined environmental review in California. I applaud the Administration and Congress for their responsiveness in addressing delays in the permitting process. We 

are hopeful, too, that the resources will allow for timely and efficient collaboration 

between BLM and CPUC staff on joint state/federal environmental review of the 

transmission lines critical for renewables. 

I would like now to sound a note of caution. Although a very valuable resource 

of clean energy, utility-scale solar power has environmental impacts, including large 

land requirements and potentially significant water usage. If we are to develop public lands with large-scale infrastructure—renewable or not—we should ensure that 

those lands are used in the most efficient and environmentally sensitive way possible. 

We suggest, therefore, that BLM and other federal agencies work with the CPUC, 

the California Energy Commission, and publicly-owned utilities to determine how 

best to develop such lands. We should carefully consider whether and how such development might be concentrated in relatively small areas that maximize use of existing and planned transmission, contain high proportions of disturbed lands, and 

minimize cumulative environmental impacts. 

This hearing is aptly sub-titled ‘‘The Road to Consensus,’’ and I want to stress 

the importance of involving local stakeholders in all of these decisions. I believe 

California’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) may be useful to others as a model. 

RETI was initiated primarily by the CPUC and the California Energy Commission, to address the need for more statewide planning in pursuit of our renewables 

goals. RETI is a consensus-based stakeholder process to identify the transmission 

needed to achieve California’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. 

RETI has engaged a diverse group of stakeholders and benefited greatly from the 

involvement to date of the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Armed 

Forces. Phase 1 of RETI was completed in December 2008 and focused on identifying zones in California that are expected to provide cost-competitive and environmentally preferable renewable resources. We are now in Phase 2A of RETI, which 

is focused on updated estimates of the generation potential in renewable zones 

throughout the state and a conceptual statewide transmission plan. A report on 

Phase 2A is expected to be complete early this summer. We hope that you will consider the work that RETI has done, as it may be useful for future designations of 

renewable energy zones. We look forward to the continued engagement of federal 

agencies in the RETI process. 

We look forward to partnering with federal agencies to address the challenges and 

tremendous opportunities presented by solar development on federal lands in 

California. Thank you again for inviting me here. I am happy to answer any questions from Members of the Committee. 

39 

Response to questions submitted for the record by 

Commissioner Rachelle Chong 

1. Commissioner Chong, does an inventory of degraded or previously used 

lands that would be suitable for siting renewable energy projects exist? 

If not, how much time and money do you estimate it would take to compile such an inventory, and what would be the best agency to carry this 

out? 

Answer: This question is better answered by the California Energy Commission 

(CEC) and I understand that Commissioner Julia Levin has been asked the same 

question. 

2. Commissioner Chong, could you explain in more detail how the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative differs from the Western Governors’ 

Renewable Energy Zone process? Are there are differences in the methodologies or expected results of the two processes? 

Answer: The Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative and the Western Governor’s Renewable Energy Zone (WREZ) initiative are both processes to identify, 

through objective analysis and broad stakeholder participation, major new transmission to access renewable resources. The differences between the processes lie in 

the scale of the efforts and the level of granularity associated with the analyses. 

WREZ is a West-wide effort to identify those concentrated areas throughout the 

West with potential for significant renewable energy available for export throughout 

the Western Interconnection. Given this aim, and given the size of the study area, 

WREZ has taken a relatively broad-brush approach to identification of renewable 

resources and land use constraints. 

RETI, on the other hand, is a California effort to identify zones, and the transmission needed to access them, sufficient to meet a specific statewide target by 

2020: 33% renewable energy and GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels. Given this 

particular aim, RETI has considered a wider range of resources and transmission 

solutions than has WREZ. Furthermore, because the transmission projects identified 

by RETI will be planned, permitted, and built by a relatively small group of California entities, RETI has focused on prioritizing particular zones for immediate attention. To that end, RETI has developed innovative approaches to rating zones and 

transmission segments according to both their expected economics and their potential environmental impact. Because WREZ brings together a much more disparate 

group of load-serving entities, Public Utilities Commissions, and transmission owners, among other parties, WREZ is not attempting to prioritize zones itself, but rather to identify possible opportunities for major new transmission, and to rely on utilities and transmission developers to determine the order in which the lines are developed. 

3. Commissioner Chong, please provide the committee with a status update 

on the Renewable Energy Action Teams created by the Governor’s executive order last year. Have they been established, have they been meeting, and what is the time frame for them to issue a product? 

Answer: The CEC is working collaboratively on the Renewable Energy Action 

Team with other agencies, and therefore, I defer to the CEC on this question. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Commissioner Chong. Thank you for 

staying within the timeline. 

Our next witness is Mr. James Abbott, who is the Acting Director of the California State Office of the Bureau of Land Management. And we look forward to hearing you discuss some of this collaboration and the efforts with regards to not only the energy zones 

but the transmission corridors. 

Mr. Abbott. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES ABBOTT, ACTING STATE DIRECTOR, 

CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Mr. ABBOTT. Thank you. I appreciate the welcome. Let me also 

introduce this morning Darrin Thome, who is with me today from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He is the Chief of the EndanVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

gered Species Act Division and is here to assist in answering any 

questions, should there be some, of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

I would like to welcome you to the California Desert Conservation Area. In 1976 when Congress passed the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act, it was an area singled out for special management, because of its diverse resources, management complexity, 

and proximity to the large population base. Today, 2009, 33 years 

later, the competing land use demands in the California Desert 

Conservation Area has grown even more complex. 

The emergence of new challenges associated with solar energy 

and other renewable energy development will indeed require us— 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Abbott, we want everybody to be able to hear 

you. Could you move the mic a little closer? I am sorry. You really 

have to speak into it. Just bring it a little closer to you. 

Mr. ABBOTT. The emergence of new challenges associated with 

solar energy and other renewable energy development will indeed 

require us to find a way to reach consensus. As has already been 

pointed out, the Department of Energy’s solar map does indeed indicate the abundance, rich abundance, that Southern California 

has for solar potential. 

I have also given you a map showing how the desert is also overlaying the same map that is on the easel here with areas that have 

already been set aside for wilderness, areas of critical environmental concern, desert wildlife areas, recreation areas, and you can 

see it becomes quite a complex mosaic. That makes your title for 

this hearing ‘‘Solar Energy: The Road to Consensus’’ very apropos, 

and we look forward to hearing everyone’s view on how we can 

reach that goal. 

On March 11, 2009, Interior Secretary Salazar issued Order 3285 

identifying renewable energy as one of the top priorities of the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management. That 

order also acknowledges the significant challenges we face as a nation and meeting our energy needs while protecting and enhancing 

water, wildlife, and other natural resources. That order orders us, 

directs us, to use collaborative approaches to balancing the energy 

and environmental needs of this nation. 

Here in California that collaboration process has already begun. 

The State’s RETI initiative, the work being done with the Western 

Governors’ Association, as well as the ideas that we are hearing 

from environmental groups and industry, are all part of the strategic planning that is underway for balancing these needs. The 

Federal programmatic solar environmental impact statement and 

recently announced solar energy zones are intended to continue the 

strategic planning and collaborative processes as we move forward. 

BLM is committed to working with the State of California and 

a wide spectrum of interest groups to address renewable energies 

in a coordinated and joint approach. It is our goal to ensure that 

environmental impacts, industries, technological needs, all are considered in an open and public, transparent, inclusive process. 

Let me summarize briefly for you where we currently are. The 

BLM nationally has received 158 applications for solar energy 

projects. These applications involve 1.8 million acres of public land. 

Mr. COSTA. That is in California? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Nationally. 

41 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Mr. ABBOTT. And represent a combined generating capacity of 

97,000 megawatts. Here in California we have received 66 applications for solar projects covering almost 575,000 acres. 

The impacts of each of these proposed solar energy projects will 

be thoroughly evaluated through the environmental analysis process. We recognize and are committed to addressing the broad concerns and challenges associated with siting solar energy projects, 

especially in the desert region. 

As previously mentioned, we do recognize the relatively large 

land footprint associated with solar energy projects and recognize 

that that will need special attention. We also recognize the scarce 

water resources in the desert regions and the importance of addressing technologies that address the concerns of water utilization. And we also continue to recognize that the desert already has 

a number of environmental resources that have been protected 

through previous efforts. 

My written testimony also describes three national studies that 

are currently underway or recently completed. The Westwide 

Energy Corridor Project, which identified 6,000 miles of energy 

transmission in 11 western states, will serve as a backbone for continuing to address where additional transmission needs are necessary for incorporating renewable energy. 

The solar energy programmatic environmental impact statement 

will be our strategic plan for identifying solar resources on public 

lands in six western states, and it will also serve to identify how 

we move forward with the site-specific solar energy zone. 

In conclusion, the Department of the Interior and BLM clearly 

understand the critical work before us. Frankly, we do not have all 

the answers. However, we do recognize the need to include state, 

local governments, environmental interest groups, industry representatives, in the public as we move forward. 

Our stakeholders have many viewpoints on where and how solar 

energy should be developed, and we look forward to working with 

them in a manner that allows us to make wise choices today that 

will serve the energy’s future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbott follows:] 

Statement of Jim Abbott, Acting California State 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 the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) efforts to 

develop solar energy resources on public lands in an environmentally sensitive and 

responsible manner. I am accompanied here today by Darrin Thome, Chief of the 

Endangered Species Act Division of the Pacific Southwest Region of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

My testimony today will describe the considerable potential of public lands to 

produce solar energy and contribute to a comprehensive national energy strategy 

that places high priority on renewable energy development. I will also discuss the 

BLM’s ongoing efforts to process applications for solar energy projects, and I will 

outline key challenges that influence solar energy siting and transmission. Finally, 

I will highlight the BLM’s effort to address these challenges through landscape-scale 

planning for six western states that have the potential for siting utility-scale solar 

energy facilities. 

The BLM is moving quickly on pending applications that are ready for review 

while we simultaneously move forward with medium- and long-term implementation 

measures. We are aware of, and take very seriously, the President’s emphasis on 

42 

expeditious development of our domestic renewable energy resources while protecting and conserving important natural resources in the process. 

Background 

President Obama, Secretary Salazar, and Congress have expressed the critical importance of renewable energy to the future of the United States. Developing solar 

and other renewable energy resources is central to the Nation’s efforts to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate climate change, and protect the global environment. Renewable energy is also vital to our economic development and energy security. Developing renewable energy can create jobs and promote innovation in the 

United States while reducing the country’s reliance on fossil fuels. 

The President has established ambitious goals to increase energy production from 

clean, renewable sources. Through investments enabled by the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act, the Administration has committed to doubling the Nation’s 

renewable energy generating capacity over three years. To help achieve these goals, 

the Secretary issued a Secretarial Order in March 2009 that makes the development, production, and delivery of renewable energy a top priority of the Department 

of the Interior and BLM. 

Renewable Energy Resources on Public Lands 

The BLM has been taking steps to more systematically address development of 

renewable energy resources since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which 

set a goal to approve 10,000 megawatts (MW) of non-hydropower renewable energy 

on the public lands by 2015. A number of policies and processes are now in place 

to guide renewable energy development, and programmatic (strategic) plans have 

been completed for wind and geothermal development, and for energy transmission 

corridors on public lands. The Administration’s efforts will significantly expand 

these activities and allow BLM to establish a comprehensive program for renewable 

energy development on BLM lands. Through funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, BLM is investing $41 million to complete the necessary environmental studies and develop regional plans for the siting of future renewable energy projects and transmission facilities on BLM lands. In addition, the 

FY 2010 Budget includes $16 million for BLM’s renewable energy programs, a portion of which will be used to establish dedicated renewable energy permitting offices 

that will help reduce BLM’s backlog of pending applications for wind and solar 

projects and ensure more timely processing of future applications. 

The BLM’s completed programmatic plans indicate the public lands hold great potential to provide renewable energy. For example, the geothermal programmatic 

plan estimates that approximately 50 percent of the geothermal resources in the 

United States are on Federal lands, and geothermal energy capacity has the potential to increase by as much as 15-20 fold by 2025 (from 1,275 MW to 19,000 MW). 

Additionally, the wind energy programmatic plan estimated that, by 2025, wind 

energy capacity on the BLM-managed public lands could increase nearly ten-fold 

from current levels (from 327 MW to 3,240 MW). Current wind energy development 

proposals on the public lands could exceed these projections. 

Solar energy offers new and significant development potential on public lands. 

Preliminary data from the work BLM is undertaking in preparing the solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) suggest that as much as 29.5 

million acres of the public lands in six western states may have utility-scale solar 

potential. Developing these solar projects on public lands could help achieve the 

President’s goals for the Nation’s economic and energy security, and the clean 

energy it would generate would benefit the environment. However, it could also require significant reallocations of land resources and have local and regional environmental impacts. Depending on the technology employed, solar projects could also require access to significant water supplies in arid regions where supplies are already 

in high demand. 

As noted earlier, the BLM is working diligently to plan for and develop solar 

energy resources on the public lands in an environmentally responsible manner. The 

BLM is conducting two concurrent and complementary efforts to accomplish these 

objectives. First, the BLM is accepting and processing rights-of-way (ROW) applications from industry for solar development projects. This provides opportunities for 

economic development, stimulates the advancement of solar technologies, and gives 

both industry and government the practical experience needed to refine the project 

implementation process. Second, the BLM, in cooperation with the Department of 

Energy (DOE) is preparing a Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The Solar PEIS is a landscape-scale, strategic 

plan for siting solar energy projects on the public lands in the six western states 

(Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) that have the best 

43 

potential for utility-scale solar development. The solar PEIS is designed to help 

speed the review of individual permit applications by providing the broad-scale cumulative effects analysis that is needed at the project level. 

Solar Energy Development Applications—Process & Status 

The BLM authorizes solar and wind energy development projects as rights-of-way 

(ROW) under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

Project proponents apply for a ROW grant and pay the BLM’s costs to process the 

application. Applicants are required to submit detailed Plans of Development 

(PODs) to help the BLM and the public understand the scope of the project and potential resource conflicts before a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review 

is initiated. In addition, applicants must provide documentation that demonstrates 

their technical and financial capability to construct the project. Approved projects 

are subject to bonding to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

ROW grant, including land reclamation. ROW holders pay an annual fair market 

value rent to the United States based on the land’s appraised value for commercial 

purposes. 

As of April 1, 2009 the BLM is processing approximately 158 active applications 

for solar energy development. These applications involve approximately 1.8 million 

acres of public land and a combined generating capacity of approximately 97,000 

MW. An additional 41 applications have been submitted for land already under application; these are considered inactive applications until the initial application is 

approved, denied, or withdrawn. 

The two projects that have made the furthest progress in the approval process are 

both located in Southern California and are currently undergoing environmental review. The Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System, proposed by Solar Partners, 

proposes to utilize 3,900 acres in the Mojave Desert near the town of Primm along 

the California/Nevada border and have a generating capacity of 400 MW. The Solar 

Two Project, proposed by Stirling Energy Systems, proposes to utilize 6,500 acres 

in California’s Imperial Valley near El Centro and have an initial generating capacity of 300 MW, with possible expansion to 750 MW. If approved and developed as 

proposed, the Ivanpah and Solar Two projects would potentially triple the amount 

of utility-scale solar energy produced in the United States. 

The Ivanpah and Solar Two projects illustrate the potential benefits—and resource management challenges—that can result from solar energy development on 

the public lands. These projects promise state-of-the-art solar technologies and creation of jobs. Their combined anticipated capacity could power more than 400,000 

homes and offset more than 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. 

However, the projects are also located in desert landscapes that support unique and 

fragile ecosystems, and these lands are used and appreciated by the public for their 

diverse resource values. 

Siting Challenges for Solar Energy Development 

The specific impacts of proposed solar energy development on the landscapes and 

public lands of the Southwest will be evaluated thoroughly—and transparently—in 

the environmental analysis conducted for each proposed project. Broad concerns and 

issues, however, have become fairly clear, and they represent challenges for siting 

solar energy development, especially in desert regions. 

A key issue is that utility-scale solar energy projects generally require exclusive 

and intensive use of the land on which they are sited. A typical 250-400MW solar 

energy project is estimated to utilize about 3,000 acres. The land utilized by a solar 

project is typically graded and fenced, and is essentially allocated to a single use— 

renewable energy production—for the long term. Because of its land disturbance 

footprint, the potential effects of proposed solar energy developments on wildlife 

habitats and sensitive species, such as the threatened desert tortoise, merit special 

attention and concern. 

The potential effects of solar energy development on the desert’s scarce water resources and aquatic habitats are also important issues. Some solar energy technologies require relatively greater amounts of water to cool thermal power plant turbines used to convert solar-produced heat into electricity. These ‘‘wet-cooled’’ systems can require 10-15 times the water of ‘‘dry-cooled’’ systems, which cool using 

forced-air. Other solar technologies, such as photovoltaic systems, do not require 

water for cooling because they directly convert solar energy into electricity, but do 

require some water for other purposes. 

Because of the region’s chronic water scarcity and water allocation issues, some 

land managers, municipalities, and stakeholders have questioned the use of ‘‘wetcooled’’ solar systems in the Southwest deserts. Recently, the National Park Service 

(NPS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) expressed concerns about the potential 

44 

impacts to groundwater and aquatic species from applications for solar development 

in Nevada’s Amargosa Valley, located northwest of Las Vegas. The Amargosa Valley 

is a closed hydrologic basin and its water use is considered over-allocated by the 

State of Nevada. The Amargosa Valley is also home to the Devil’s Hole pupfish, a 

listed endangered species, and the Department is concerned that the use of water 

for solar development could reduce the water table in this basin, harming the 

pupfish. 

The Department of the Interior is committed to developing solar energy resources 

while protecting the environment. Secretary Salazar does not believe these goals are 

mutually exclusive. To help achieve this balance in the Amargosa Valley, the BLM 

is encouraging solar energy applicants to utilize low water or no-water technologies 

that appear best suited for this ecosystem. And again, the potential environmental 

effects of each solar energy application will be carefully evaluated, in a transparent 

public process and in close consultation with affected Federal agencies, to inform decision-making. BLM will also address the effects of public lands solar development 

on threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat through section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and will evaluate the potential impacts to Federally-protected lands related to air, sound and light pollution. 

In addition to environmental concerns, the large amount of Federally protected 

land in the Southwest constrains the siting of proposed solar energy development 

and transmission. The BLM’s California Desert District (CDD) offers a good example. The BLM manages 11 million acres in the CDD. However, 3.8 million acres are 

protected as wilderness, national monuments, or other special designations, and are 

excluded from solar energy development. Another 2.9 million acres are BLM-designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and have restrictions on development. About 1.4 million acres were donated or acquired using Land and Water Conservation Funds and primarily managed for conservation purposes. Many of the remaining 2.9 million acres also encompass important wildlife and plant species, possess scenic values, and provide for recreation, mining, and a wide range of other 

multiple uses. Site-specific assessments of these other resource values will likely 

further constrain siting decisions in the CDD and other regions. 

Planning for Renewable Energy Transmission 

Transmission access and capacity are also major factors that shape siting decisions for solar and other renewable energy development. Lack of adequate transmission capability is a clearly recognized constraint on the Nation’s energy delivery 

system. To address this need, the BLM, in cooperation with the Forest Service and 

DOE, recently completed the Westwide Energy Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement process, pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As 

a result of this effort, the BLM designated approximately 5,000 miles of energy 

transmission corridors on the public lands, out of the total 6,000 miles designated 

on Federal lands in the 11 contiguous western states. In California, many of these 

corridors followed those already established by the BLM in its land use plans to 

minimize impacts. BLM’s efforts complement those of FERC, DOE, and others to 

modernize the nation’s transmission grid and expand capacity throughout the country overall. 

These energy corridors form the backbone for future transmission planning in the 

region. However, the process was completed before the transmission linkages needed 

to support renewable energy could be fully understood and identified. That process 

is underway now, and the BLM is contributing to renewable energy siting and 

transmission planning efforts occurring at the state and regional levels. 

The State of California, for example, is leading the way by conducting the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) to identify the most appropriate areas 

and corridors for siting renewable energy development and transmission. The Western Governors’ Association (WGA) is also conducting planning to identify and integrate suitable renewable energy development zones and transmission corridors 

throughout the western states. The BLM will continue to work with the states, 

WGA, and our interagency colleagues to identify needed transmission linkages, and 

to review and amend the corridors as necessary to ensure they provide access to renewable energy while minimizing impacts to other important resources. 

Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS 

Because solar energy resources are of such profound importance—and potential 

scale—the BLM recognizes that a comprehensive plan is needed to address siting 

and transmission challenges, and to guide solar development in an environmentally 

sensitive and responsible manner. To accomplish this, the BLM and DOE are working jointly, with the FWS as a cooperating agency, in preparing a Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Public scoping 

45 

occurred in July 2008, and the Draft PEIS is expected to be available by the end 

of 2009. 

The Solar PEIS is a strategic plan for developing solar energy resources on public 

lands in six southwestern states that have the potential for utility-scale solar development. The PEIS will identify public lands that are available for and excluded from 

development. It will also assess the potential landscape-scale environmental impacts 

of solar energy development, identify best management practices for minimizing 

manageable impacts, and amend the BLM’s land use plans to enable and facilitate 

solar energy development in specific areas. 

The BLM will use preliminary information from California’s RETI and the WGA 

renewable energy planning effort to help identify public lands that would be available for or excluded from development. The BLM expects to analyze an array of alternatives that would describe land open to solar energy development application, 

and where sufficient information exists, lands where solar energy development 

would be a priority for the Bureau. Areas lacking sufficient information at this time 

could require further resource assessment and environmental analysis that would 

be conducted subsequent to the PEIS. 

By identifying appropriate and specific areas for solar development, the PEIS will 

help focus transmission needs and enable efficient renewable energy corridor planning. The environmental analysis conducted in the PEIS will also help facilitate 

site-level project assessment and implementation. Overall, the solar PEIS is essential to establishing a balanced solar energy program that can generate abundant 

clean energy, create jobs, and preserve America’s valued natural resources and landscapes. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the BLM’s efforts to plan 

and provide for solar energy development on the public lands in a way that is sensitive to and sustains our environment. The BLM and the Department of the Interior are committed to working with Congress, the states, Tribes, industry and other 

stakeholders to thoughtfully address siting and transmission issues, and to design 

and establish a sound foundation for the Nation’s emerging solar energy program. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

46 


49683.001
47 

Mr. COSTA. Appreciate that, Mr. Abbott. You went a little over 

there. You won’t get a star today. 

[Laughter.] 

But we look forward to the questions. 

Last, but certainly not least, is Mr. Thomas— 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. Kretzschmar. 

Mr. COSTA.—Kretzschmar, who today is testifying on behalf of 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers. And we look forward 

to your testimony. 

Please, Mr. Kretzschmar. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. KRETZSCHMAR, SENIOR 

PROJECTS MANAGER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

members of the Subcommittee. You may have thought you came all 

the way to the desert and got away from Powerpoint, but I have 

seen— 

Mr. COSTA. Oh. So, I have to turn around to look at the 

Powerpoint, huh? 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. I am afraid so, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. I have got those eyes behind my head, 

but— 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. We will try to hit the ground hard and keep 

moving. The reason I am here is to talk mostly about the Fort 

Irwin, California solar energy Enhanced Use Lease project. I am 

the Program Director—I am sorry, Program Manager for enhance 

use leasing at the Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. We 


49683.002
48 

manage enhanced use leases across the country. These are essentially long-term ground leases to private sector developers to build 

and operate a variety of commercial enterprises on non-excess 

Army lands. 

In October of ’08, the Secretary of the Army announced a Senior 

Energy Council, and among those announcements were five pilot 

projects across the country, one of which is a 500-megawatt solar 

energy project at Fort Irwin. 

Sir, you like maps. This is our map of the solar overlay. We have 

24 installations within that solar target area, a number of which 

are in California. 

The location of Fort Irwin has many desirable attributes, including its 300 days of sunlight per year, and the market conditions 

that are created through the renewable energy portfolio standards. 

And in terms of the Army’s mission, sir, with renewable energy we 

are looking to also increase our security through self-generated 

power. 

You mentioned visiting Twentynine Palms. There is an overlay. 

You can see we are about 100 miles north. We would invite you 

and your constituents to Fort Irwin, sir, at another time and mention that the Garrison provides tours to the public to go into the 

training areas that are the simulated villages. That is open to the 

public. Hopefully, soon you will be able to see some solar energy 

development in that same area. 

We actually advertised the enhanced use lease on December 15 

for these five sites within Fort Irwin. Fort Irwin is 900,000 acres 

in size. There are roughly 14,000 acres between these five sites, 

about 2,000 acres on the Red Lake—or, I am sorry, Red Pass Lake 

site to your right, about 800 acres at the main gate, and the balance between the three Goldstone sites. 

This is a photograph at the Red Lake Pass site, and it was mentioned earlier that water is a critical concern. We do have a well 

at this location, and that makes solar thermal viable. It is also adjacent to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 500 and 

287 kV transmission lines. Its topography and its scale make this 

an ideal site for potential development. 

Another look at the boundary where this site is located, and 

there are the existing power transmission lines. 

The main gate site, again, about 800 acres in the northeast corner there. You can see the Garrison itself. This site is adjacent to 

the Southern California Edison substation where electricity is 

brought from I-15 to Fort Irwin. So, we say it is about a 42-mile 

extension cord. 

So, our goal is to create redundancy, backup, alternative sources 

of energy. In the event of a grid failure, Fort Irwin can sustain 

itself. 

This is another ideal site, because if you look, sir, at the right— 

and ladies, I am sorry—to the right of Fort Irwin’s containment 

area, that black circle is actually its wastewater lagoon. That provides us with another opportunity to create solar thermal generation by the use of treated wastewater. 

The Goldstone facility that we mentioned is the deep space listening facility which is within the Fort Irwin boundaries. NASA 

has partnered with us in support of this solar energy initiative. EsVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
49 

sentially, these are buffer areas around the satellite dishes that we 

don’t train in that are ideal for generation. 

And we are at the point now, sir, we have already advertised. We 

are doing proposal reviews. We hope to have a selection in June 

and begin our environmental permitting process development in 

2014. 

We have been working with our stakeholders in both the state 

and Federal government and local utilities toward a positive goal, 

but we believe we have heard some of the challenges here in terms 

of the transmission, the timing for permitting. The Army has 

worked to create a renewable energy working group that will continue on through this process at Fort Irwin. 

And all of these slides are available on our website at 

eul.army.mil. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kretzschmar follows:] 

Statement of Thomas Kretzschmar, Real Estate Division, 

Baltimore District, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army 

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

to testify today to discuss the Department of the Army’s solar energy initiatives. My 

name is Thomas Kretzschmar and I am a real estate professional with the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I joined the Corps in 2003 and 

have 20 years’ experience on federally funded real estate actions. I also hold a master’s degree in real estate from the Johns Hopkins University. The Baltimore District is the Corps’ national ‘‘Center of Expertise’’ for Enhanced Use Lease projects 

and I manage the Fort Irwin project. 

This morning I would like to describe for you some of the genesis of the Army’s 

renewable energy programs, its recent senior level initiatives, and the resulting creation of a large scale solar energy generation project at Fort Irwin. 

Based on the February 2008 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force On 

DoD Energy Strategy—‘‘More Fight—Less Fuel’’, the Army initiated a six month 

Energy Security Task Force Tiger Team which on October 7, 2008, resulted in the 

establishment of an Army Senior Energy Council to serve as a board of directors 

focusing on Army energy policy, programs and funding to leverage the Army’s nationwide energy-conservation efforts. 

Enhanced Use Leasing’s (EUL) authority is Title 10, United States Code, Section 

2667, which was amended to incentivize the Department of Defense’s (DoD) use of 

private sector capital by leveraging leasing of non-excess real or personal property. 

This authority allows payment from leases to be paid as ‘‘in-kind’’ consideration or 

cash. The law further allows that at least 50 percent of proceeds deposited will be 

available for the installation where funds were derived. EUL requires execution of 

long term (such as terms of 50 years) leases to finance private construction and operation. We must receive at least fair market value for the lease interest. 

Among the Senior Energy Council initiatives were five major energy projects including a 500 megawatt solar energy generation development at Fort Irwin, California. The Army’s EUL program had been focused on a private sector ground leasebased development for solar electricity generation at Fort Irwin since the summer 

of 2007. The Army sought quick execution and worked very hard to accomplish site 

assessments, stakeholder meetings and project approvals. 

Within 60 days, the Army EUL team had created a solar development solicitation 

and advertised its qualification based Notice of Opportunity to Lease (NOL). On 

March 4, 2009, Fort Irwin and Army EUL hosted an Industry Day at the Garrison 

for interested developers to hear about and see the development sites. More than 

250 people attended the Industry Day. Proposals were received April 17, 2009 and 

a June 2009 developer selection is scheduled. 

The Fort Irwin Solar EUL solicitation offers five sites totaling more than 12,000 

acres for renewable electricity generation. These sites are ideally suited for solar 

generation based on four critical criteria: solar radiation, topography, proximity to 

transmission, and water availablity. The Mojave Desert ‘‘insolation’’ (solar radiation) 

is among the best available in the United States. The five sites identified for development have slopes of five percent or less. There are major transmission lines either 

adjacent to or in relative close proximity to the five sites and Fort Irwin can make 

50 

available treated waste water in sufficient quanties to develop thermal solar technologies. 

In addition to its market and construction feasibilities, we also analyzed the intended use, to assure the military mission would not be impacted and that environmental standards would not be compromised. The five sites lie in areas not currently used for training. Three of the five sites are buffer areas for the National 

Aeronautical and Space Administration Goldstone Deep Space Listening facility located within Fort Irwin. NASA and the Army have agreed to work together to advance both agencies’ goals and objectives for renewable energy development. The 

Army and its selected developer will conduct all required environmental analysis to 

assure compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the 

California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). 

The Fort Irwin Solar EUL creates a unique opportunity for the Army to meet its 

renewable energy goals and enhance its mission. The scale of solar development 

being contemplated however, dwarfs previous undertakings. And a project of such 

size does not succeed without challenges. We have sought to identify hurdles with 

the project conceptualization and advertisement and begin working with the appropriate parties toward resolution. 

The Department of Defense and the State of California have in place a Renewable 

Energy Working Group that addresses regulatory and business issues such as environmental review and permitting timelines along with the planning for additional 

transmission lines needed to meet the State’s renewable energy standards. DoD and 

the Army will continue to participate in planning initiatives such as the Renewable 

Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) and Western Renewable Energy Zone 

(WREZ) to provide both military mission compatability guidance and as potential renewable energy supply points. 

We look forward to working with the State of California, San Bernadino County, 

the Bureau of Land Management and Congress to ensure a collaboration on this 

very exciting project. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I will 

be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Thomas Kretzschmar 

Questions from Chairman Jim Costa 

QUESTION 1. Mr. Kretzschmar, does an inventory of degraded or previously used lands that would be suitable for siting renewable energy 

projects exist? If not, how much time and money do you estimate it would 

take to compile such an inventory, and what would be the best agency to 

carry this out? 

ANSWER: An inventory of Federally owned real property does exist. Executive 

Order 13327 issued by President Bush on February 4, 2004 established a Federal 

Real Property Council within the Office of Management and Budget and is comprised of all agency Senior Real Property Officers, the Controller of OMB and the 

Administrator of GSA. The Executive Order calls for GSA to maintain a single, comprehensive and descriptive database of the real property inventory. The database includes land and buildings and environmental information. 

QUESTION 2. Mr. Kretzschmar, what will be the amount of water consumed per Megawatt-hour of electricity generated at the Ft. Irwin solar 

projects, and what will be the quantity of water consumed annually? If that 

cannot be answered at this time, what are the ranges of water usage for 

the applications that you have received? 

ANSWER: The Army’s Notice of Opportunity to Lease (NOL - http://eul.army.mil/ 

ftirwin/Docs/FinalNOL20Mar09.pdf ) for the Fort Irwin Solar EUL development 

identified two potential water sources. Currently, there is no accurate forecast of the 

water to be used generating electricity. There were multiple private developer responses received on April 20, 2009 offering multiple technologies and sizes. A developer selection will be completed in June. Water may be necessary in widely varying 

amounts depending on the technology and scale of generation proposed by the selected developer. We anticipate a two-year Environmental Impact Statement and 

business case evaluation which will determine water usage. 

Despite a lack of actual project specifics, it is possible to estimate water usage 

given the technologies, land areas offered, and the known water sources. Two basic 

solar energy generating technology types exist; Solar photovoltaic (PV) and Concentrating solar thermal (CSP). Solar photovoltaic plants convert sunlight (also known 

as insolation) directly into electricity. Photovoltaic power systems are silent, unobtrusive, and require minimal water for washing. Solar thermal plants consist of two 

51 

major subsystems: a collector system that collects solar energy and converts it to 

heat, and a power block that converts heat energy to electricity. Concentrating solar 

thermal power plants produce electric power by collecting the sun’s energy to generate heat using various mirror or lens configurations. For solar thermal electric 

systems, the heat is transferred to a turbine or engine for power generation. Concentrating solar thermal projects are large installations that require significant 

amounts of land, anywhere from 5 to10 acres per MW. Plants can be wet or dry 

cooled. Wet cooled plants will use significant amounts of water, roughly 750 to 850 

gallons per MWh. Dry cooled plants will use much less water, roughly 20 to 45 gallons per MWh, mostly for mirror (or heliostat) washing. 

The first Fort Irwin water source is an existing well located along the southeast 

perimeter at the site named Red Pass Lake. The Red Pass Lake well flow rate is 

approximately 4,500 gallons per day (gpd), or 1.6 million gallons per year. This is 

believed to be sufficient to support a dry-cooled solar thermal generating facility of 

approximately 150 MW. An in-depth hydrology analysis will be required to more accurately measure the resource and to determine any interconnection with the Fort 

Irwin aquifers, which could adversely affect mission. 

The second Fort Irwin water source available for CSP is treated waste water from 

the Garrison cantonment area. The waste water plant currently treats approximately one million gallons per day. If 350 MW of dry cooled CSP were generated 

from the remaining acres offered at the four Main Gate and NASA Goldstone sites, 

the daily water requirement would be approximately 10,500 gallons (3.8 million gallons annually) or 1% of the effluent outflow. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much. You went a little bit over, but 

I liked the slideshow. So, that will get you a good mark. 

Why don’t we begin with the questions and comments. You are 

the last witness, and I will, as the Chair, begin. The second-to-thelast slide that you showed, Mr. Kretzschmar, do you want to put 

that back up? Can you do that? 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. See how good our technology is here. How well is all 

of that working? We talk about a collaborative process, we talk 

about consensus. It is nice to put that up there, but the first 

thought that ran through my mind is, are we meeting the milestones? Is this taking place? I will let you start, and then I see 

some other people smiling here. We will go to Commissioner Levin. 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. Yes, sir. We have been working on Fort Irwin 

for about a year and a half, and I believe that the working group 

has taken on additional energy, let us say, for lack of a better 

word, based on some of these larger scale projects that are being 

contemplated. I think up until this point we hadn’t personally been 

involved, because the Navy has typically been the lead. They are 

the largest user in the State for electricity. Fort Irwin, the Army, 

is not quite to the scale that the— 

Mr. COSTA. All right. But, I mean, I don’t want you to—because 

my time is limited, too. Is it working or not? I mean, are we meeting the timelines? 

Commissioner Levin, do you want to opine? 

Ms. LEVIN. Is this on? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, it is on. 

Ms. LEVIN. I think that the current processes are working, and 

by the end of this year we will have identified renewable energy 

zones where we can really accelerate permitting. We will also have 

a map that identifies important conservation areas. We will have— 

Mr. COSTA. But are you talking about project-specific, or are you 

talking about the energy zones that Mr. Abbott addressed? 

52 

Ms. LEVIN. Well, I think in order to accelerate the permitting of 

the specific projects we need to have a better framework that allows us to accelerate permitting. But that requires first taking a 

good science-based public look at where do we accelerate renewable 

energy products, and where do we conserve resources. 

Mr. COSTA. I would like to go back to that later on. But because 

my time is limited, let us move on here. The discussion of large 

powerplants or transmission lines and the debate—and this is 

maybe something both Commissioner Levin and Commissioner 

Chong I would like to get your thoughts on, versus the distributive 

model. 

My sense is that you have to use all of the resources. What is 

your sense? 

Ms. LEVIN. That is definitely California State policy, that we 

need it all. Rooftop solar, and other distributed generation is a very 

important part of our clean renewable energy future. It has a lot 

of advantages, but it is more expensive. And utility scale generation from solar or wind or geothermal is much cheaper, although 

it does have larger land use impact. 

Mr. COSTA. Is the Commission looking at realistically—I mean, 

we had some numbers tossed out there, about 90,000 megawatts as 

a potential. It wasn’t clear to me at what timeline that that was 

looking at, as to what the breakdown between the two. 

Ms. LEVIN. I think that the breakdown will be heavily focused on 

utility scale generation, because you can do so much more so much 

more quickly and more cheaply. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. Commissioner Chong? 

Ms. CHONG. Yes, I would agree with that. I think that it is critically important that we have utility scale projects in addition to the 

residential solar initiative programs. 

Mr. COSTA. Very quickly, you know, you looked at lands that are 

the absolute best, and we have that great map over there that kind 

of indicates that. But in Germany we know that they are one of the 

leaders in the world of—they don’t get 300 days of sunshine in Germany. I know, I have been there. 

Are we leaving out a lot of degraded lands, brownfields and other 

lands, where there may be no land use conflicts, but they may be 

not among the best suited, but they would be good? 

Ms. LEVIN. One of the priorities in RETI, and one of the screens, 

is previously disturbed lands, and that will be, you know, one of 

the criteria that we will look for in establishing renewable energy 

zones. In terms of Germany, they have been very successful because they have a feed-in tariff, and California— 

Mr. COSTA. They have a feed-in tariff. 

Ms. LEVIN. Yes. California is looking at a feed-in tariff for 

projects up to 20 megawatts. 

Mr. COSTA. And I think, you know, notwithstanding my friends 

with the utility companies, and I understand their concerns, but I 

think nationwide we are going to have to have some level of providing some incentive for people to develop their own energy. 

Quickly, my time is running out, Mr. Abbott, the BLM is planning to use right-of-way for solar projects, which seems odd given 

the size and the duration of those proposed projects. Do you think 

competitive leasing is a better way to provide both corridor and 

53 

availability? What are the factors, and what areas might be ripe 

for competitive leasing? Have you given that some thought? 

Mr. ABBOTT. That issue has been raised to the Department and 

to the BLM, and it will be one of the issues addressed in the solar 

programmatic environmental impact statement, and so it is a suggestion we have heard and have committed to looking at. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. I have some other questions. Mr. Abbott, 

I want to come back to you and to the other witnesses, but my time 

has expired. So, I will defer to the Ranking Member, the Congresswoman from Wyoming, Congresswoman Lummis. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is about these solar energy zones or renewable 

energy zones. Several of you have addressed that topic. And may 

I ask you to just expand a little more on how you identify them, 

what consensus is used to identify them, what agencies are involved, and then how, once they are identified, you get the transmission lines that are needed to serve those areas. Could use some 

elaboration on those topics. Thank you. 

Ms. LEVIN. I will start with RETI, which I think was the first 

process to try to identify renewable energy zones. It is a stakeholder process that involves all branches of government, environmental groups, renewable energy companies, utilities, the armed 

services, and it was a process of identifying existing projects or 

soon-to-be projects—where they are, where their concentrations of 

economically viable renewable energy projects are—and overlaying 

those with sensitive environmental areas, either areas already protected by law or areas that should be protected for a variety of reasons. And there were very specific science-based criteria for that. 

It also did look at degraded lands and where we could encourage 

development to occur. 

We have completed the first phase of that, which is an initial 

identification of renewable energy zones. We are in the second 

phase, which is to refine those based on additional wildlife and 

other science criteria. And then, we will establish them, along with 

our Federal partners, as areas where we will accelerate renewable 

energy development. 

The third phase of RETI is planning the transmission corridors 

needed to serve those areas. So, again, with the same factors of 

where is there already disturbed land or existing rights-of-way, 

what are the least environmental, lowest cost transmission lines to 

serve those renewable energy zones. And I will let Mr. Abbott 

speak to the solar energy zones. 

Mr. ABBOTT. For California BLM, we have taken the work—the 

informative work that RETI has produced and looked at those proposed or tentative renewable energy zones that are largely encompassed by public land. And we now are going to address in the programmatic solar environmental impact statement that we are 

working on whether or not those are appropriate to be designated 

as Federal solar zones. 

And through that EIS process we will be able to hopefully further engage the public in terms of talking about those Federal sites 

in terms of, will they be a counterpart to the work that RETI does 

for the private land zones that may be identified. 

54 

Ms. CHONG. Just the last thing I would add is that typically a 

transmission line takes about seven years to permit in California. 

That is average. So, we hope to finish the RETI process in a threeyear timeframe, which is a very aggressive timeframe. And then, 

once we have these transmission zones established and the lines 

where we think are the most environmentally sensitive and the 

most sensible, then they can immediately apply for a specific 

project. 

And because all of the stakeholders have been involved in establishing the zones through the RETI process, we anticipate that it 

will accelerate the permitting for those, so that it will be finished 

on a faster timeframe than the normal seven years. 

Mr. COSTA. On that point, would the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. LUMMIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTA. I will make sure you get the extra time. 

On the corridors, because I think they are essential to making 

this all work, have we identified and prioritized which corridors 

need to take place to enhance these solar—whether they be solar 

voltaic or solar thermal—to concur with the other process that is 

taking place, or—— 

Ms. CHONG. We are all—yes. 

Mr. COSTA. Because, as you know, under the stimulus package 

we have given the Energy Department a whole host of months to 

upgrade the existing corridor grades and to make them better. 

Ms. CHONG. Yes. The whole idea is that we are all working together. Things are moving swiftly, obviously, because of the new 

focus on clean energy and the upgrade to the energy system. But, 

yes, we are all seeking to work together, and that is the kumbaya 

of today, I would say. 

Mr. COSTA. But you have prioritized in this—— 

Ms. CHONG. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA.—particular corridor with—— 

Ms. CHONG. Renewable energy is highly prioritized, yes. 

Mr. COSTA. So, in terms of which corridors, I could go to you and 

you could tell them, one, two, three, in terms of which of the corridors are prioritized. 

Ms. CHONG. Correct. One of the focuses of RETI has been 

prioritizing what is near term, truly. And one of the things we have 

done is we have shown which of the zones are the most promising 

for renewable energy. So, for example, Mojave, Imperial Valley, 

Tehachapi, those are the highest rank in California. And we are 

prioritizing those transmission lines to go first. 

Mr. COSTA. I yield back to the gentlewoman. She has two minutes. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A followup question for Commissioner Chong. How do you mitigate for the litigation that occurs in the permitting process for transmission lines 

that you can’t control the extent to which that disrupts your desired three-year timeline? 

Ms. CHONG. No. You can’t control for that, but we have reached 

out in the RETI process to environmental groups, land use groups, 

tribes, to ensure that they are part of the process. And our hope 

is that by making them part of the process, we have considered 

their concerns, their needs, and try to work around those sensitive 

55 

areas, such that when we get down to an actual application for a 

specific project we will be avoiding those most sensitive areas. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thanks, Commissioner. That is a great approach. 

For our two gentlemen, a question about water utilization and 

solar. How are you addressing those issues in your various capacities? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, the BLM is asking applicants for projects to 

consider looking at low water use technologies and identifying that 

that will clearly be an issue that will be scrutinized through the 

environmental review process. 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. I mean, at Fort Irwin and other projects that 

we are working around the country for the Army, water is a critical 

issue. At Fort Irwin, we happen to have a million gallons a day of 

treated effluent. Now, that is not guaranteed indefinitely. 

They are sitting on a finite resource. We understand that. But 

for us, because ours is a competitive process, it gives our developers 

a foothold. They may not be able to develop 14,000 acres on day 

one, but from a competitive standpoint it allows them to create the 

utility scale project that can then over time perhaps enjoy better 

technologies, increased transmission, and make our projects larger 

and better overall. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just a comment also. I 

was so pleased with Mr. Ferguson’s testimony about the incentives 

that are provided here locally for people who engage in efficiencies 

and conservation efforts. And I want to applaud this community, 

and I look forward to visiting with Representative Bono Mack on 

the Floor of the House tomorrow between votes about how those incentives might be used effectively elsewhere in the nation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. Good. Well, that is a nice segue. The colleague who 

has been so gracious in helping this hearing together, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, for five minutes. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the Chairman. And I just want to say 

that the difference between an official hearing such as this is crowd 

involvement and feedback. And this really is to get experts on the 

record, and I think you have all done a remarkable job. But it is 

to hear from them and get it on the record. And it is our job as 

representatives, though, to work directly with our constituents to 

address their concerns. And for those of you here I plan to continue 

to do that. 

And we hear a lot from the panelists today about transparency, 

but to me transparency, as long as that is not jamming stuff down 

on my constituents, and I hope what you mean is public involvement, and I have learned through the years that if you bring the 

public to the table and give them the problems, generally they 

come up with pretty great answers. 

So, I encourage all of you to make sure that not only is it transparent but it is open to other ideas and to people expressing their 

concerns to you, because often when you draw lines in the sand you 

can’t get beyond them. So, I am here to offer to all of you that I 

can get conduit for you to my constituents to make sure that their 

voices are heard as well. 

But my first question is for Mr. Abbott. The Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 set a goal for the BLM to provide 10,000 megawatts of reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
56 

newable energy on the public lands by 2015. Now, that time is flying by. So, given the state of the situation, do you think we will 

meet that goal? And how many megawatts have been approved 

thus far on newly approved non-solar projects? 

Mr. ABBOTT. I am confident that the Department and the Bureau 

is going to continue to do everything possible to meet that goal. In 

addition to the programmatic solar environmental impact statement, we have completed a programmatic wind environmental impact statement and a programmatic geothermal environmental impact statement. 

Those suite of three westwide studies will be of major assistance 

in terms of us identifying and prioritizing where those resources 

are most ripe for development, and also they will serve as the foundation to help us expedite application processes when they come 

forward. 

Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to your question in terms 

of how much has been permitted since the passage of the Energy 

Policy Act. But if you would like, I can get that information and 

forward it to you and the Committee. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. That would be very helpful. So, 

you know, there are many concerns with how we provide transmission capability, as we have heard from all of the testimony. Will 

the Bureau be working more broadly with other agencies within 

the Department or with other cabinet agencies where existing 

transmission may need to be addressed near a military base, tribal 

lands, or other Federal lands? 

Mr. ABBOTT. I believe you will see the Department of the Interior 

continue to cooperate with the Department of Energy, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, and a number of other cabinet 

agencies that are addressing the Administration’s priority in terms 

of ensuring that we have transmission infrastructure that serves 

not only renewable energy but energy security for the nation. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. All right. Thank you. And, you know, last, just 

sort of stream of conscious question up here, I wondered to Commissioner Levin, I guess because you have spoken most directly 

about the maps, have you all looked at the Salton Sea area specifically? You talk about disturbed land. We really have been trying 

to move forward, and I welcome the Army Corps to the discussion. 

I have been working with the L.A. office extensively to try to get 

you guys involved with the Army Corps. 

But as you look at solutions for the Salton Sea, there seems to 

be absolutely no question that it would be prime land, yet I don’t 

see it highlighted with a big asterisk and star as a place you guys 

are looking. Can you tell me how much you have looked at that 

area—especially given that the water will recede, that there is 

water that is there, and that there will be playa areas and exposed 

shoreline as well? 

Ms. LEVIN. I have to tell you, before coming to the Energy Commission, I worked for National Audubon Society on restoration of 

the Salton Sea. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you for your work on that. 

Ms. LEVIN. Well, thank you especially. As Commissioner Chong 

said, one of the most important, one of the largest renewable 

energy zones that we have identified in the RETI process is in ImVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
57 

perial County, and the geothermal resource there is phenomenal as 

is the wind and solar resource in the larger area around the sea. 

I don’t know that we have looked at the seabed itself as potential, 

but I think that as part of the restoration process, once it is determined where the sea will and won’t be in the future, that will be 

an important question. 

Representing Audubon, I always pushed for full utilization of the 

geothermal potential there as a really critical resource for California. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. We are very proud of the geothermal on the 

south, which is actually not in this Congressional District, but 

through the Pass on to the windmills and this solar. This District 

really is willing to do its utmost to move renewables forward. 

But I would ask if you guys could look at—you know, maybe talk 

to the resources people and DWR and see, as their plan evolves, 

or if you can bring a different eye to it, because the plan that came 

forward never had any discussion about renewable potential other 

than geothermal. And it seems that maybe some bright minds looking at this again, there is a lot of talk about exposed playa, and 

then fears about dust and airborne pollutants, and perhaps you 

guys looking at that one more time could help us move forward. 

So, I know I have gone past my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, and we are in your home, so 

we are a little flexible. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I am just trying to give you—— 

Mr. COSTA. I have had this conversation with you on the Salton 

Sea before. It goes back to our water days. It is a big challenge, 

and I appreciate your bringing that up. 

We have an opportunity here to do a second round, and I would 

like to do that. So, that means we each get another five minutes. 

Commissioner Chong and Commissioner Levin, we talked about 

this whole collaborative effort, the transparency and all of that. I 

am trying to get a better understanding of how this renewable 

energy effort, the RETI process, differs from the Governors—Western Governors’ renewable energy zone process, and the Section 368 

process that the Bureau of Land Management I guess is the lead 

in. I mean, how are all of these coming together? Do they compliment each other, or are they working in conflict with one another? 

Ms. CHONG. Well, the RETI process involves just California, of 

course, and it is quite far along. As I mentioned, we are in Phase 

2, and we are pushing along to finish next year. The Western 

Governors’ Association process—— 

Mr. COSTA. Next year when? 

Ms. CHONG. End of next year. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Ms. CHONG. And that is—we are on track, working very hard. 

The Western Governors’ Association is on a different schedule, but 

it, of course, involves numerous states, all on the western side. 

Mr. COSTA. We noticed in the past that some of these transmission issues, as you know, in the PUC have not worked out so 

well between states, where we have had our differences between 

Arizona and California. 

58 

Ms. CHONG. Yes, we have. 

Mr. COSTA. So, having the Western Governors work together on 

this I think is important. 

Ms. CHONG. It is, because the leadership on transmission certainly flows from the top. So, to have the dialogue occurring at the 

Governors’ level has been very helpful. 

So, for example, we would expect that they are going to be concluding with some renewable transmission zones at the end of their 

process, and we are collaborating with that process closely through 

our Governor’s office here in California to ensure that their efforts 

and the maps that the RETI will produce hopefully will synch up. 

And I think overall to have that high level of leadership occurring 

at the Governor’s level is very helpful. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. On a segue to that, as it relates to the process 

that is California, is the BLM’s efforts helpful as it relates to the 

368 transmission corridors? Because, again, I am very concerned 

about these transmission corridors. Is it enough just to update existing corridors? Or does the process need to start over again? 

Should we have a bigger emphasis on renewables? 

I mean, the approval that I think you cited in your testimony, 

or regarding the San Diego corridor, I want to make sure that 

there is enough capacity in these corridors to take in this robust 

renewable portfolio that we are trying to develop that will include 

solar. 

Ms. CHONG. When we are looking at the transmission lines that 

we are permitting at the PUC, we certainly are looking at all of 

the renewable energy that we think will flow through that line, regardless of whether it is just for that utility or not. So, we do consider everything that might flow through it, including from other 

states. We do see renewable energy coming in from other states besides California to serve Southern California. 

Mr. COSTA. Is BLM’s process helpful? 

Ms. CHONG. Yes, I would think it is going to be helpful. We are, 

obviously, pushing hard to get those permits through faster for 

BLM on behalf of our utilities, so that we can get faster to the end. 

Mr. COSTA. Commissioner Levin, do you think a Federal renewable portfolio standard would be beneficial to California’s efforts to 

meet our own renewable energy goals? 

Ms. LEVIN. I don’t know if it will be helpful to California to meet 

our own renewable energy goals. I hope that it doesn’t actually impede our meeting our renewable energy goals, or preempt in any 

way California’s very aggressive renewable electricity goal. But I do 

think it is very important for the country as a whole to have a renewable electricity goal. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. Mr. Kretzschmar, at Fort Irwin, the Army’s proposal there, I want to encourage you, want to be supportive, want 

to be helpful. I think it is what we need to do with all of our military facilities. What is the maximum electrical usage at Fort Irwin? 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. Sir, right now Fort Irwin uses approximately 

25 megawatts. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. It is expected to grow over the next seven 

to—— 

59 

Mr. COSTA. So, you would have the capacity to develop like they 

showed us yesterday at Twentynine Palms, more energy than you 

would consume. 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. And your intent is to sell that back to the grid? 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. The private sector developer that is selected 

for this project will sell the majority of it back to the grid. 

Mr. COSTA. Has the Army conducted throughout a departmentwide review of all of its facilities for solar potential? And if you 

haven’t, will you be doing that in the future? 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. Sir, we have identified those installations, 

not just for solar but for wind, biomass, geothermal, and they are 

being evaluated. Enhanced use leasing is only one of the tools that 

the Army is using in its Army Security Council. 

Mr. COSTA. And you are probably looking at—and, you know, actually it dawns on me I asked about the distributive model versus 

the utility larger scale project. And what we saw yesterday at 

Twentynine Palms was both. On their shade areas on base for their 

equipment they had the solar panels on top of them, as we have 

at my alma mater at Fresno State. We have done 10 acres of parking where we have solar that now provides over 20 percent of the 

energy for the Fresno State campus. 

But they also have a solar farm. And you are doing both? 

Mr. KRETZSCHMAR. Yes, sir, we are. In fact, there is a small wind 

project being competed right now at Fort Irwin, as well as a proposal for rooftop solar. And one of our proposals that came back 

through this solicitation includes electric-powered vehicles. And not 

only are they sort of self-sustaining, they also during downtimes 

generate electricity back to the installation. So, it is a moving rooftop, so to speak. 

Mr. COSTA. My time has expired, and I don’t want to get in a 

bad way here with my colleagues. So, I will defer to my colleague, 

the Congresswoman from Wyoming, for five minutes. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, for Commissioner Chong, in discussing transmission corridors, has there been an emphasis on trying to locate them on existing road rights-of-way? And how are those discussions going? 

Ms. CHONG. It is not atypical for the utility to propose something 

in an existing right-of-way, because it is the easiest way to find a 

transmission line. However, many of these existing transmission 

lines need to be upgraded, and so that might mean, for example, 

a taller tower, more voltage going through them. 

And so the residents that live alongside them object just as 

strongly to these upgraded transmission lines as a new one. So, 

they do make the efforts to go into current right-of-ways first, but 

it is not without problems. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Commissioner Levin, you had mentioned in your 

testimony that you requested that agencies be given adequate resources to fulfill their needs. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? 

What do you see as constraining the ability of Federal agencies to 

assist with the goals of the State of California? 

Ms. LEVIN. Well, probably Mr. Abbott and the gentleman from 

Fish and Wildlife Service can speak more specifically. But in general terms—— 

60 

Mr. COSTA. A little closer into the mic. 

Ms. LEVIN. I am sorry. I think that Mr. Abbott and the gentleman from Fish and Wildlife Service can probably provide more 

specifics. But in general, I would say it is a combination of increased staff. I mean, we are seeing tripling and quadrupling of 

permit applications, and we need to accelerate them faster. 

I think particularly for Fish and Wildlife Service, like the State 

Department of Fish and Game, they haven’t had the staff to look 

proactively, to participate in these long-term, you know, very laborintensive planning efforts, as well as permitting the applications 

quickly. I think I will hand it over to Mr. Abbott and the gentleman from Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Actually, the one other area I think that would be helpful is we 

have begun to identify some changes potentially in Federal law 

that would provide more flexibility and allow the agencies to 

streamline the process more. And I think over the coming months 

we hope to finalize those and perhaps come to Members of Congress. But I will let Mr. Abbott take over from there. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Secretary Salazar has issued in his order—— 

Mr. COSTA. Raise the mic up, a little closer into the mic there. 

There you go. 

Mr. ABBOTT. Secretary Salazar, in his renewable energy order, 

also reaffirmed the establishment of renewable energy coordination 

offices in five of the western states, and we are now being—received the funding necessary to staff those offices. 

We have also had an ongoing dialogue with the staff at the California Energy Commission, California Department of Fish and 

Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to talk about how the various entities who are involved in the permitting process can share 

resources most effectively. And we have started to make some 

progress, and we intend to continue to talk about all of the efficiencies that we can find between the various state and energy offices that are involved in reviewing the permit applications to 

achieve streamlining and effectiveness. 

Ms. LUMMIS. And, Mr. Chairman, a general question. Wind or 

solar, if you had to choose one or the other? 

Ms. LEVIN. Both. We absolutely need to do both. 

[Laughter.] 

No. I mean, if we are looking at an 80 to 90 percent reduction 

in global warming emissions, or even a 33 percent renewable portfolio standard in California, it is going to require a lot of everything, whether it is distributed, utility scale, all resource. They 

each have impacts, and they each have advantages. And so I don’t 

think we want to take anything off the table now. 

Ms. CHONG. I would like to go on record to say ditto. And the 

reason is we have extremely aggressive targets here in California. 

And for us to get there, we need everything. So, we are trying to 

rank them. However, having said that, we have to do it all. And 

I would include the California solar initiative, which is solar roofs 

on residential even in that category, because every little bit helps. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. And something my colleague is not aware of, but 

Mary and I—both Southern California, the Los Angeles Basin, and 

the San Joaquin Valley where I live and I represent, are both 

containment areas. And we are under sanction under the 

61 

Environmental Protection Agency, because we don’t meet air quality standards. And so all of the management tools in our toolbox— 

and, of course, part of that bad air creeps here into the desert as 

well. So, all of this is critical to reach a separate goal, which is to 

clean up the air in California. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. Abbott, I might ask—thank you for that by the 

way. This is such a magnificent State. And when I stand in places 

where I can see air pollution that is caused by cars, or whatever, 

I know that we are missing part of its magnificence. So, thank you 

all for your efforts to clean up California so we can all enjoy your 

magnificent scenery. 

Mr. Abbott, same question to you. With regard specifically to 

BLM lands, is one or the other less intrusive or difficult to deal 

with in regard to all of the multiple resources you are trying to 

manage, as between wind and solar? 

Mr. ABBOTT. Wind, solar, and geothermal all clearly have different footprints and occupy the land differently. But I would agree 

with both of the members on the panel here that we need to consider all, as Mr. Ferguson indicated, as well as how conservation 

will also play into the role. And I think by considering all we can 

I think allocate and make those informed tradeoffs that we need 

to make in terms of where we are going to place renewable resource development versus where we will focus on conservation objectives. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. We are going to—because of time circumstances, even though I would like to go for a third round with 

the panel, go to the next panel. And Congresswoman Bono Mack 

has been gracious to save her five minutes for the next, because 

Congresswoman Lummis and one of our consultants have to catch 

a plane. So, we want to get into the next panel for the next hour 

before they have to depart. 

So, thank you. Mr. Abbott, I have 21 pages of questions that I 

will submit to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ABBOTT. I would be delighted. 

Mr. COSTA. Seriously, I do have some additional questions that 

I will submit to all five of the panelists, even Mr. Ferguson, and 

we would like within a timely manner, within 10 days, for you to 

respond back to those questions. And I suspect my colleagues probably have written questions that they may want to submit to you 

as well. 

So, without further ado, let us have our second panel. And we 

will go from there. 

Good job, Marcie. You are quick. You left one over here. Oh. 

Well, you only have four in this one. I forgot. 

Mr. COSTA. In our first panel, ladies and gentlemen, we had the 

public agencies, both at the state and Federal level, as well as, in 

the case of Mr. Kretzschmar, the Army testify as to what the Department of Defense is doing to become much more energy aware 

and efficient. 

The second panel is a reflection of the perspective from the private sector, and as well as from organizations like the Sierra Club 

62 

that give a different take as to the role of renewable energies. Of 

course, our focus here today is on solar. 

So, our first witness is Mr. Steven Malnight. Did I pronounce 

that right? And he is the Vice President of the Renewable Energy 

for Pacific Gas and Electric. 

Our next witness is Mr. Bill Corcoran, not Bob Corcoran—you 

can call me Bill, you can call me Bob. I get called a lot of things. 

[Laughter.] 

But he is very ably testifying in replacement of Carl Zichella, on 

behalf of the Sierra Club, who has the flu, and we told him not to 

come here, please. 

[Laughter.] 

But we appreciate, Bill, your willing to pinch hit for him on behalf of Carl. 

Our third witness is Ms. Katherine Gensler, who represents 

Solar Energy Industries Association. It is an umbrella organization 

that represents solar energies, not only in California but around 

the country. 

And our last, but certainly not least, witness is Michael Niggli. 

Did I pronounce that correctly? Who is the Chief Operating Officer 

for Sempra Utilities. 

With that acknowledgement, let us—same rules for the second 

panel as the first panel. You have that little box there. It has three 

lights—green, yellow, and red. And you have kind of got a sense 

on how I do it. 

So, anyway, without further ado, Mr. Steven Malnight, would 

you please begin your testimony? You have five minutes. 

You need to speak a little—it is more of a direct mic. You need 

to—— 

[Laughter.] 

There we go. That is much better. I know we have energy here. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN MALNIGHT, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

RENEWABLE ENERGY, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Yes, I think so. I usually have a loud voice, too. 

As PG&E’s Vice President of Renewable Energy, I oversee our renewable energy business initiatives, and thank the leadership of 

this Subcommittee for holding this field hearing to examine the 

current state of solar energy development. 

The Federal Government plays a vital role in expanding the development of solar energy, including policies related to Federal 

lands that can help or hinder renewable energy expansion. Important investments to support expanding renewable energy have been 

made, including financial and program support in the economic recovery package, but there is definitely an opportunity to do more. 

Before going further, let me give you a quick overview of PG&E’s 

support and development of solar and other renewable resources. 

We probably deliver some of the nation’s cleanest energy to our 

customers. On average, approximately half of the electricity we deliver comes from sources that are either renewable or emit no 

greenhouse gases. But there are challenges to fully realizing the 

potential of these clean renewable domestic energy resources. 

As a load serving entity subject to meeting California’s RPS 

standard, which we have discussed, our perspective is primarily 

63 

driven by our role as one of the nation’s largest purchasers of renewable energy through power purchase agreements. Since 2002, 

PG&E has signed more than 40 contracts with existing and new facilities that use or plan to use wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass, 

and solar as their fuel source. Solar is an especially attractive renewable—— 

Mr. COSTA. For a total of how many megawatts? 

Mr. MALNIGHT. You know, actually I don’t have that offhand. I 

can—— 

Mr. COSTA. Get that to us. 

Mr. MALNIGHT. I can get that to you. 

Solar is an especially attractive renewable power source, because 

it is available when the energy is needed most, in the middle of the 

day and peak times during the summer. 

As many of these projects that we have contracted with face challenges, particularly with tight credit markets, and in order to help 

assure that we will have the renewable energy projects needed to 

meet our California RPS obligations, we have also recently been exploring development and ownership of a potential 750 megawatt 

solar site near Cadiz in San Bernardino County. 

I want to highlight two significant challenges that we face in 

bringing renewable resources online quickly. The first is a lack of 

transmission lines, as we have discussed, where the renewable resources are located. Across the west, thousands of miles of transmission lines will be needed to significantly expand renewable 

energy production. And it would certainly be no exaggeration to say 

that without that increased transmission capability we will not get 

the full benefit of renewable resources. 

One way to facilitate that added transmission would be through 

better coordination among agencies. In addition to better coordination, streamlining the reviews required by state and Federal agencies to remove unnecessary overlap and duplicative requirements 

can greatly enhance the development of transmission lines needed 

to link renewables to the grid. 

Another set of challenges relates to the permitting of the renewable projects themselves. For the vast majority of current proposed 

projects, significant coordination is required between Federal and 

state agencies. We believe that it is possible to satisfy all requirements without duplicative efforts and without compromising environmental goals, if Federal and state agencies could rely on a jointly prepared environmental assessment. 

To facilitate this coordination, one agency can be appointed as 

the lead agency for each environmental topic area, to play a coordinating role. At PG&E, we are working with policymakers, regulators, and relevant stakeholders to help address these challenges. 

We strongly support Secretary Salazar’s recent announcement to 

open four renewable energy coordination offices, with small urban 

renewable energy teams in other western states, to expedite the 

application processing, reviews, and permitting of renewable 

energy projects. 

In addition, California’s utilities have been working closely with 

state and Federal agencies on the RETI initiative, which we have 

discussed earlier in the first panel. 

64 

Other activities are centered on streamlining agency permitting 

activities. Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order, which we 

discussed earlier, is a key transition there to help advance California’s transition to a clean energy economy. 

This coordinated approach is expected to significantly reduce the 

time and expense for delivering renewable energy on Federally 

owned land, including the priority Mojave and California Desert regions. We acknowledge the potential tensions between important 

environmental and conservation needs and state and national imperatives to decarbonize energy sources in light of climate change. 

But we remain confident that policymakers can reconcile these tensions and meet both of these very important objectives. 

The Federal Government is very well positioned to help bring 

greater clarity to this process with sound policies. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee’s interest in these vital issues, 

and look forward to working with you and other policymakers and 

stakeholders on the journey to find this consensus. 

On behalf of PG&E, I would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to appear here today, and look forward to answering your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Malnight follows:] 

Statement of Steven Malnight, Vice President, 

Renewable Energy, Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

Chairman Costa, Ranking Member Lamborn, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is Steve Malnight. I am very pleased to appear before you this morning 

on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to provide an overview of some of 

PG&E’s activities relative to solar energy and to offer some thoughts on this important subject. As PG&E’s Vice President of Renewable Energy, I oversee our renewable energy business initiatives and thank the leadership of this Subcommittee for 

holding this field hearing to examine the current state of solar energy development. 

Investments in renewable resources, including solar resources, create jobs, reduce 

air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and move us toward a low-carbon economy in California and across the nation. Vitally important is the support and role 

of the federal government in expanding the development of solar energy, including 

policies related to federal lands that can help or hinder renewable energy expansion. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or Economic Stimulus Package) has provided a foundation of support for the development of solar and 

other renewable energy resources in a time of economic uncertainty. The renewables 

industry has benefitted from the certainty provided by these longer-term, critical extensions and modifications of investment and production tax credits. The grants and 

loan guarantees are also expected to assist with financing of solar energy projects. 

Development of these projects can help invigorate our economy and support a new 

green energy paradigm. 

We are also encouraged by the Department of Interior’s (DOI) investment of $41 

million from the economic recovery package to facilitate large-scale production of renewables on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. But more progress needs to 

be made to ensure that federal land management policies are respectful of the environment yet supportive of state and, ultimately federal, RPS programs. Development of such policies could result in streamlined siting procedures that promote 

solar development and lead to the delivery of more renewable energy to PG&E’s customers. 

Overview of PG&E Projects 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, headquartered in San Francisco, California, is 

one of the largest utility companies in the United States. The company provides natural gas and electric power to approximately 15 million people throughout a 70,000- 

square-mile service area in northern and central California. PG&E proudly delivers 

some of the nation’s cleanest energy to our customers. On average, approximately 

half of the electricity we deliver to customers comes from sources that are either 

renewable and/or emit no greenhouse gases. In 2008, approximately 12% percent of 

65 

our electric delivery mix was from California-eligible renewable resources. As defined in California Senate Bill 1078, which created California’s renewable portfolio 

standard, an eligible renewable resource includes geothermal facilities, hydroelectric 

facilities with a capacity rating of 30 MW or less, biomass, biogas, biodiesel, fuel 

cells using renewable fuel, selected municipal solid waste facilities, solar facilities, 

wind facilities, as well as ocean wave, ocean thermal, and tidal current technologies. 

In 2009, PG&E has forecasted 15% of its energy deliveries to customers will come 

from eligible renewables, another 16% from large hydroelectric resources that are 

not eligible for the state’s RPS, and 20% from nuclear energy, which has zero carbon 

emissions. 

PG&E is actively pursuing renewable generation resources on behalf of our customers. Renewable energy is what our customers consistently tell us they want; it 

furthers our efforts to meet the California renewable portfolio standard, which requires that 20 percent of our electric power be derived from renewable energy 

sources by 2010, a policy goal that PG&E strongly supports, and it allows us to better manage our future cost risk, on behalf of customers and shareholders, by taking 

volatile fuel prices out of the cost equation for this portion of our generation. 

Since 2002, PG&E has signed more than 40 contracts with existing and new facilities that use or plan to use wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass, and solar as their 

fuel source. Solar energy is an especially attractive renewable power source for because it is available when power is needed most in California—during the peak midday summer period. PG&E’s portfolio includes both solar photovoltaic and solar 

thermal technologies. Since early 2008, PG&E has entered into five solar contracts, 

three using solar PV technology and two using solar thermal (or concentrated solar 

power) technologies. One of the PV facilities, Sempra’s El Dorado facility in Boulder 

City, Colorado, has achieved commercial operation, while the other solar facilities 

are still being developed. 

Technological innovation and incorporating ‘‘learning curve’’ benefits are expected 

to reduce the cost of solar technologies over the next few years, leading to higher 

levels of solar development. For example, a study prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on the potential for concentrated solar power, or 

CSP, in California and the rest of the Southwest U.S. indicated that CSP in California could produce upwards of seven times the energy needed to serve the state. 

NREL also suggests that costs for CSP technologies could decline significantly, from 

approximately 16 cents per kilowatt-hour on average today, to approximately 8 

cents per kilowatt-hour in 2015. The halving of the cost of this energy in seven 

years is premised on an assumption that at least 4,000 MW of CSP will be built 

by then—not just contracted for—to achieve ‘‘learning curve’’ benefits. In summary, 

getting the facilities built is a crucial element of reducing costs in the long run. 

We are also impressed by the progress being made in reducing the cost of photovoltaic (PV) technology and look forward to a healthy competition between CSP and 

utility-scale photovoltaics to meet the peak electric needs of California customers. 

We expect the competition between the two solar technologies will help our customers over time by bringing the cost overall of solar energy down. 

There are challenges to fully realizing the potential of these clean, renewable, domestic energy resources. As a load-serving entity subject to meeting California’s 

RPS requirements, our perspective is primarily driven by our role as one of the nation’s largest purchasers of renewable power through power purchase agreements. 

In light of the financial crisis and resulting credit freeze—and in order to help assure that we will have the renewable energy projects needed to meet our California 

RPS obligations—we have also recently been exploring development of a potential 

750 MW solar site near Cadiz, in San Bernardino County. 

We acknowledge the potential tension between important environmental and conservation needs and state and national imperatives to decarbonize energy sources 

in light of climate change, but we remain confident that, through hearings such as 

this, policy makers can reconcile those tensions and meet both important objectives. 

Given the amount of overlap with federal lands and agencies for projects in the 

West, it remains critical that efforts continue to address the following areas: 

A. Transmission 

A significant challenge we face in bringing renewable energy resources online 

faster is the lack of transmission lines to the areas where the renewable resources 

are located. In California, for example, most large-scale concentrated solar power 

generating facilities are sited in remote desert locations, far away from the areas 

where the electricity is needed most. Across the West, thousands of miles of transmission lines will be needed to significantly expand renewable energy production, 

including paths on or around Federal lands. It would be no exaggeration to say that 

66 

only with increased transmission capability can the benefits of renewable resources 

be fully realized. 

One way to facilitate added transmission would be through better coordination 

among agencies. In addition to better coordination, streamlining the reviews required by state and federal agencies to remove unnecessary overlap or duplicative 

requirements could greatly enhance the development of transmission lines needed 

to link renewable energy resources to the grid (and hence, consumers). Carefullycrafted streamlining would not have to come at the expense of protecting critical 

land, water, and wildlife resources. 

B. Project Permitting 

Another set of challenges relate to permitting the renewable energy projects themselves. It is helpful that the Subcommittee has asked a representative of the Solar 

Energy Industries Association (SEIA) to testify regarding those challenges. From 

our perspective as a renewable energy purchaser, it is worth noting that many of 

the applications for permits for renewable development are located within the California Desert Region and involve the use of federally managed land. Those that do 

not involve development on federally-managed land often include a transmission 

intertie that must cross federally managed land. Adding complexity, in many cases, 

development in the desert may involve lands that are home to federally listed species and/or habitat. For these reasons, in the vast majority of currently proposed 

projects, coordination is required between among federal agencies and between federal and state agencies. 

We believe that it is possible to satisfy all requirements without duplicating efforts and without compromising environmental goals, if federal and state agencies 

could rely on a jointly prepared environmental assessment One of the relevant agencies could be appointed as the lead agency; for example, since BLM is most familiar 

with the land it manages, it would conduct the visual analysis. Other agencies with 

relevant expertise in other areas would be placed in a coordinating role. 

PG&E strongly supports Secretary Salazar’s recent announcement to open four 

Renewable Energy Coordination Offices with smaller renewable energy teams in 

other western states. The stated intent to ‘‘cut red tape by expediting applications, 

processing, reviews and permitting of renewable energy projects’’ is a positive step 

forward for the challenges solar development faces and builds off the ongoing work 

by BLM to develop a comprehensive approach to solar projects in the Mojave Desert 

region and the West. 

C. Moving Forward 

At PG&E, we are working with policymakers, regulators, and relevant stakeholders to help address these challenges. For example, California’s utilities are 

working closely with state and federal agencies on the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, which is expected to identify a prioritized listing of Competitive 

Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) and conceptual transmission plans to access these 

zones. Streamlining the permitting process for transmission lines to reach the 

CREZs is a critical path item to achieving California’s expected 33% RPS goal. 

Other activities are centered on streamlining agency permitting activities. Governor Schwarzenegger issued an Executive Order in November 2008 to advance 

California’s transition to a clean energy economy and has directed state agencies to 

create comprehensive plans to prioritize regional renewable projects based on an 

area’s renewable resource potential and the level of protection for plant and animal 

habitat. To implement and track the progress of the EO, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) signed a Memorandum 

of Understanding formalizing a Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT). 

To streamline the application process for renewable energy development, the CEC 

and DFG are to create a ‘‘one-stop’’ permitting process with the goal of reducing the 

application time for specific projects in half. This will be achieved through the creation of a special joint streamlining unit that will concurrently review permit applications filed at the state level. 

To jump start Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCPs) under the EO, 

the REAT will initiate the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in the priority Mojave and Colorado Desert regions and identify other preferred areas that 

will benefit from a streamlined permitting and environmental review process. This 

is expected to dramatically reduce the time and uncertainty normally associated 

with building new renewable projects. 

The CEC, DFG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a coordinated approach with our federal partners in the expedited permitting process. This coordinated approach is also expected to significantly reduce the time and expense for deVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
67 

veloping renewable energy on federally owned California land, including the priority 

Mojave and Colorado Desert regions. 

It will take some time for us to see the results of these—and other—activities to 

increase the levels of renewable energy in California. As we work to achieve California and the U.S. goals on climate change and to decarbonize energy supply resources, as well as protect land, water, and wildlife resources, the federal government is well positioned to help bring greater clarity through sound policies. We appreciate this Subcommittee’s interest in these vital issues, and look forward to working with you, other policy makers, and stakeholders on this journey on the road to 

consensus. On behalf of PG&E, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Thank you. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Steven E. Malnight 

1. Mr. Malnight, please provide your opinions on how the various interagency Memorandum of Understandings that have been signed between 

the federal agencies and the state agencies have been working. Has 

there been an improvement in planning and permit processing, or does 

more need to be done to improve coordination? 

While the Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) are a step in the right direction, it has taken some time for the agencies to develop an efficient working relationship. To that end, the MOUs should be updated to reflect the ‘‘lessons learned.’’ 

One solution we have proposed in California is for the agencies to delegate responsibilities to each other based on expertise rather than ‘‘joint’’ writing of each aspect 

of the environmental document. This would relieve pressure on resources without 

jeopardizing protection of the environment in any way. For example, the wildlife 

agency can take the lead on performing the analysis concerning biological resources 

consistent with its expertise, instead of all agencies participating and attempting to 

jointly analyze and write that section of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

We have also noticed a desire by each agency to coordinate the review process and 

we applaud that commitment. However, this sentiment has not resulted in much 

streamlining, as each agency’s staff continues to be bound by that agency’s internal 

review times and internal processes. According to independent power producers who 

have contracts to deliver power to us, they have not yet experienced expedited internal reviews by field staff and the supervisorial chain. These internal procedures 

should be revisited and revised to reflect the intent with which the MOUs were 

drafted. Specifically, the MOUs could be revised to develop tighter internal review 

timelines to produce the requisite environmental documents. 

In addition, there has been some reluctance on the part of agencies to release a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) if it has not addressed and resolved 

each and every issue. The DEIS is intended to be a draft document and while we 

do not support its release unless it is complete, it would be helpful if the agencies 

did not wait until every issue is completely resolved before releasing the DEIS. Addressing issues in stages could help speed the issuance of the final EIS. 

Another example of areas that cause delay is the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) request for very detailed information prior to commencing the processing of 

Right of Way Grants for solar applications. BLM recently developed very stringent 

criteria for Plans of Development (PODs) that must be submitted before the BLM 

will begin the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. We understand 

that these detailed criteria were developed, in large part, to ‘‘weed out’’ those solar 

developers that were land speculators, from those that intend to actually develop 

solar facilities. The unintended consequence of that action, however, has been to 

delay commencement of the NEPA process because this level of detail is not usually 

developed until later in the design process. While we understand BLM’s desire to 

focus its work on projects that are ‘‘real’’ versus those that are speculative, we suggest a revision to the MOU that would grant fast track, expedited status, to all 

those project developers that meet the stringent POD requirements. The NEPA 

process should be conducted within one year of a completed POD. To accomplish this 

expedited goal, the agencies will need to shorten internal review times. 

2. Mr. Malnight, do you believe it is a better strategy to pursue a smaller 

number of very large solar plants, or a larger number of smaller 

projects, in order to meet a certain renewable energy goal? 

PG&E believes the best strategy is to develop a diverse portfolio of technologies 

and project sizes. This diverse strategy can foster a robust competitive market, mitigate the impacts to the environment, and deliver, in the most cost-effective manner, 

68 

renewable energy to our customers. Relying solely on large solar projects, or smaller 

solar projects, to meet a renewable energy goal, could have the unfortunate consequence that, if those projects fail to materialize for any reason, achievement of the 

renewable energy goal is dramatically impaired. 

3. Mr. Malnight, please provide additional detail on what sort of timelines 

your company would like to see imposed on the BLM review process for 

solar rights-of-way. 

BLM has several opportunities to expedite the review process: 

• BLM should review an initial POD and give notice of any deficiencies within 

30 days of filing of the POD. 

• BLM should review any supplemental information provided in response to a notice of deficiency within 30 days of receipt of that supplemental information. 

• Once a POD is deemed complete, BLM should immediately begin the NEPA 

process. 

• The Notice of Intent (NOI) should be published within 30 days of the completion 

of the POD and BLM should select a third-party independent contractor within 

30 days of issuance of the NOI. 

• For projects within California, the BLM should follow the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) process and coordinate all public meetings, workshops and 

hearings with the CEC’s standard schedule to reduce duplication. 

• The NEPA process should be concluded within 12 months of deeming the POD 

complete. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Malnight, and I appreciate your focus. There are some thoughts that I have with regards 

to questions based on your testimony. We will get back to that. 

Mr. Bill Corcoran from the Sierra Club. 

STATEMENT OF BILL CORCORAN, SENIOR REGIONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA CLUB 

Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Chairman, I will ask your indulgence in advance, as your sole environmental representative, if I run a minute 

over. 

Mr. COSTA. Oh. 

Mr. CORCORAN. May I have that indulgence? 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Chairman, I will give him a minute of my 

time if that helps. 

Mr. COSTA. But not a minute more. No. 

[Laughter.] 

If it is interesting, I will be very considerate. 

Mr. CORCORAN. I think that is a legitimate—— 

Mr. COSTA. If you see my eyes glazing over—— 

Mr. CORCORAN. I will edit appropriately. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. Go ahead. 

Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is Bill Corcoran. I work with Carl Zichella and Sierra 

Club representatives to facilitate environmentally responsible renewable energy and related transmission siting in the western 

United States. I am testifying today on behalf of the Sierra Club’s 

1.3 million members and supporters in the United States and Canada. 

To prevent the calamity of extreme global warming, all nations 

heavily dependent on fossil fuels will have to rapidly shift to renewable energy resources, including solar energy. We need to bring 

renewable energy up to scale, and we need to do so as rapidly as 

69 

we can responsibly manage. That does not mean we need to bypass 

environmental protections. 

On the contrary, we need to take great care while developing 

what we need. To move quickly, we must have the public’s trust 

that environmental values will be upheld. Failing this, our efforts 

will be controversial and our progress slow. 

There are several principles that can guide our efforts. One, land 

that has already been disturbed should be preferred for development. Whether in private or public ownership, land that has already been developed for industrial, agricultural, or other intensive 

human uses is generally superior to greenfield sites to minimize 

environmental harm. 

This is the second one: identify and establish incentives for 

parcelized private lands in good resource areas. Some areas of disturbed lands are already large enough to accommodate solar development, such as farms, mining sites, etcetera. But many of the 

very best areas for solar development are presently very difficult 

to develop. These are areas typically near desert communities 

which were subdivided and sold a vacation or second home developments decades ago. They have excellent solar values and are closer 

to consumer load than more remote and less degraded sites on public lands. 

Currently, the large number of owners, sometimes hundreds or 

more in an area, make aggregating these parcels difficult to impossible for developers. The Sierra Club believes that with proper incentives these sites can be unlocked. Four types of incentives for 

private lands are needed. These incentives should be applied to aggregating properties within recognized areas of high potential that 

could be within designated solar energy development or enterprise 

zones. These zones could be adopted by state action, and, once designated, be eligible for Federal incentives. 

Hear are the four. Incentives for landowners to sell. Many landowners in these areas are unable to develop their parcels. A combination of Federal and state tax breaks would help, as would a 

subsidy for closing costs. 

Incentives for aggregators. As developers find aggregating parcels daunting, it would be necessary to incentivize private parties 

to take this on. Tax breaks similar to those provided for landowners might suffice. 

Incentives for generators to locate. Generators who may have invested significant resources to initiate projects elsewhere might instead locate in these areas if they knew their projects could proceed 

more swiftly. By providing expedited state reviews and licenses, 

combining mitigation and habitat conservation planning in these 

areas, generators would be more able to break ground quickly, take 

advantage of tax incentives, and meet contractual obligations to 

utilities striving to meet the State’s renewable portfolio standard 

goals. 

This idea closely parallels the Governor’s Executive Order in 

California and will require close cooperation with Federal and state 

wildlife management agencies. 

Incentives for counties to zone for solar. Because solar developers 

enjoy a lower property tax rate in California, counties can hold 

land for other forms of development other than solar. Only one 

70 

county in California has an energy element to its general plan, Imperial County. The State should require such elements and work 

with Congress to tie eligibility for Federal or state payment in lieu 

of taxes that apply to counties that zone for solar, and work to aggregate parcelized lands of high renewable energy resource value 

into usable sites. 

Third principle, and I will start editing here. Bureau of Land 

Management should not accept right-of-way applications on lands 

that cannot be developed for environmental reasons. Requiring 

plans of development for all wastes money and staff time. 

BLM is considering designating areas suitable for development 

on their most disturbed sites and then beginning to reject and discourage right-of-way applications in sensitive areas. If implemented, this would help enormously. 

We must, of course, do both our long-term and short-term planning. We need a more circumspect approach for future solar siting. 

We need to establish incentives for generators to locate on disturbed sites on public lands. 

Generators who may be displaced on less disturbed sites would 

be more likely to locate on disturbed lands if they knew they would 

have a clear path through the environmental review and licensing 

processes. Accomplishing this requires joint state and Federal habitat conservation planning and mitigation work, combined with programmatic environmental review that allows for environmental assessments as opposed to EISs. 

Six, be willing to innovate in transmission infrastructure. Many 

resource areas on public lands have stunning views that enhance 

fragile local economies. We have a number of communities here 

that are gateways to fantastic public land resources. It is in both 

our short- and long-term interest to be open to using technologies 

that are less intrusive, such as undergrounding of lines with superconducting materials and technologies, despite the fact that they 

may be somewhat more expensive. This is an investment in the future of these communities. 

Require and fund agency cooperation to shorten environmental 

reviews and increase review quality. And I want to emphasize the 

need for increased staffing in agencies that are saddled with a huge 

challenge. 

Trans-agency cooperation is essential to accomplishing a successful solar energy buildout. Without it, projects will struggle as sequential reviews lengthen consideration timelines and delay needed 

projects. We will need agencies such as the Department of Defense 

to be part of the plan in terms of both making areas available for 

development as they are beginning to do, and participating in remediation and mitigation efforts. 

Other agencies needed to play a central role include the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission and the land management and research agencies of the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, and Interior. 

In summary, by siting projects on the most disturbed lands, we 

can identify both public and private lands by providing strategically crafted incentives to open up lands suitable for development 

but constrained by parcelization, by encouraging innovation both in 

terms of technology and cost recovery. And by careful coordination 

71 

with the states, and mandatory coordination between and among 

Federal agencies, we can realize the vast potential of the Southwest solar energy potential. 

Thank you for your consideration of this testimony, and your indulgence. 

[The prepared statement of Carl A. Zichella follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Carl A. Zichella, Director, 

Western Renewable Programs, Sierra Club 

Mr., Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Carl Zichella. I am the 

Sierra Club’s director of western renewable programs. My responsibilities include 

working to facilitate environmentally responsible renewable energy and related 

transmission siting in the western United States. I am an environmental stakeholder in the State of California’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) 

and the Western Governor’s Association’s Western Renewable Energy Zone (WREZ) 

processes. I am also a steering committee member for the Energy Future Coalition’s 

renewable energy transmission project. I have worked for the Sierra Club for nearly 

22 years and have worked on energy issues throughout my 25 year career in environmental advocacy. I am testifying today on behalf of the Sierra Club’s 1.3 million 

members and supporters in the United States and Canada. 

Global Warming threatens our people and natural environment in ways we have 

never before experienced. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) the next century could see increases in temperature—four degrees 

Celsius—equivalent to the total increase experienced on Earth since the end of the 

last Ice Age 10,000 years ago. The effects on human life and the natural world will 

be enormous. 

To prevent this calamity all nations heavily dependent on fossil fuels will have 

to dramatically shift the way they fuel their economies to renewable energy sources, 

including solar energy. We need to bring renewable energy up to scale and we need 

to do so as rapidly as we can responsibly manage. 

That does not mean we need to do it by short-circuiting environmental protections. On the contrary, we need to take great care to undertake the development 

we need with circumspection because if we are to move quickly we need to gain the 

public’s support and trust that environmental values will not be unnecessarily trampled. If we fail to do this our efforts will be controversial and our progress will be 

slow. 

It is to our great advantage that our solar energy resources are arguably the best 

in the world in terms of quality and location. Not only do we have some of the very 

highest quality solar resource on the planet in California and neighboring states, 

that resource is closer to load than any other comparable resource area in the world, 

200 miles or less generally from the major load centers. This means that we can 

be selective about siting. We do not have to trample protected areas and threaten 

already-imperiled wildlife. 

Solar energy, like all energy sources regardless of fuel type, has impacts. We need 

to make sure that we are taking appropriate precautions to address and mitigate 

these as we move forward to develop large-scale projects. Most of the solar energy 

companies I am aware of are responsible developers who are making every honest 

effort to identify the environmental impacts of their proposed projects and are willing to do appropriate mitigation for their anticipated effects. There are some honest 

disagreements about this, as we would expect, but I believe we can, by working together with federal and state regulators and with the generators as partners, unlock 

the vast potential of this resource in a time frame to help meet President Obama’s 

goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions nationally by 80% by the middle of this 

century, and increasing the use of renewable sources of electricity nationally by 25% 

by 2025. 

What do we need to do to accomplish our solar energy goals and greenhouse gas 

reduction needs? There are a number of principles we can follow that can help guide 

our efforts in the most expeditious manner. Some of these are contemplated in federal legislation. Others are being implemented by federal agencies under the direction of the Executive branch. Still others could be implemented administratively 

under existing authorities should the agencies be so directed by the President. 

Some will take state action, and indeed a critical element of success will be coordination with state agencies and governments. For example, transmission line development, perhaps the largest obstacle for large-scale renewable energy development, 

will require close cooperation and perhaps new planning and siting relationships 

with the states to accomplish. Efforts to simply preempt states would likely face bitVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
72 

ter and entrenched ‘‘as well as unnecessary—opposition and would be in my judgment likely to fail. There is a balance here that threads this needle of respective 

authorities and we will need to find it. Suggestions made by Senators Reid and 

Bingaman to share authorities with the states provide two pathways to solving this 

problem. 

Principles for a ‘‘road to consensus’’ for solar energy development 

1. Land that has already been disturbed should be preferred for development. 

Whether in private or public ownership, land that has already been developed 

for industrial, agricultural, or other intensive human uses is generally superior 

to ‘‘greenfield’’ sites in terms of minimizing environmental degradation. Redevelopment of disturbed sites offers opportunities to improve lands that may not 

otherwise be reclaimed, but it is imperative to consider and address the effects 

of renewable energy development, both positive and negative, on minority and 

low income populations. In the California, Nevada and Arizona deserts we need 

to intensively focus on identifying these sites and making them available for 

renewable energy development. 

2. Identify and establish incentives for parcelized private lands in good resource 

areas. Some areas of disturbed lands are already large enough to accommodate 

solar development. These include abandoned farmlands, unofficial OHV recreational areas, and abandoned mine sites to name a few. But many of the 

very best areas for solar development are presently very difficult to develop. 

These are areas typically near desert communities which were subdivided and 

sold as vacation or second home developments 50-60 years ago. They have excellent solar values and are closer to consumer load than more remote and less 

degraded sites on public lands. Some of these areas were badly damaged as developers bladed roads for subdivisions across them. The large number of owners (sometimes in the hundreds or more) makes aggregating these parcels difficult to impossible for developers who believe negotiating with more than 20 

owners per each two square mile project area is not feasible. It is too difficult 

and takes too long. But abandoning these sites is an affront to desert conservationists who correctly insist that we need to make the best use of disturbed 

sites before using sites that are undisturbed, especially on the public lands. 

The Sierra Club believes that with the proper incentives, these sites can be unlocked. 

Four types of incentives are needed. Some are federal, some are state, and some 

are local. These incentives should be applied to aggregating properties within recognized areas of high potential that could be within designated solar energy development or ‘‘enterprise’’ zones to ensure that the resources have best and fastest effect. 

These zones could be adopted by state action and once designated be eligible for federal incentives. 

a. Incentives for landowners to sell—Many landowners in these areas are unable 

to develop their parcels for residential development due to insufficient water 

resources. A combination of federal and state tax breaks—such as capital gains 

tax exemptions and tax credits—would help, as would a subsidy for closing 

costs. 

b. Incentives for ‘‘Aggregators’’—As developers find aggregating parcels daunting, 

it would be necessary to incentivize private parties to take this on. Tax breaks 

similar to those provided for landowners might suffice. 

c. Incentives for generators to locate—Generators who may have invested significant resources to investigate projects elsewhere would be persuaded to instead 

locate in these areas instead if they knew that their projects could proceed 

more expeditiously. By providing expedited state reviews and licenses ‘‘combining mitigation and habitat conservation planning in these areas, not cutting 

corners on normal review but recognizing that these disturbed sites will have 

fewer conflicts—generators would be more able to quickly break ground, take 

advantage of tax incentives and meet contractual obligations to California utilities striving to meet the state’s renewable portfolio standard goals. This idea 

closely parallels the Governor’s executive order in California. This will require 

close cooperation with federal and state wildlife management agencies. 

d. Incentives for Counties to zone for solar—Because solar developers enjoy a 

lower property tax rate in California there is more incentive for counties to 

hold land for other forms of development rather than zone land for solar. Only 

one county in California has an energy element to its general plan: Imperial 

County. The state should require such elements and work with the Congress 

to tie eligibility for federal or state payment in lieu of taxes that could apply 

to Counties that zone for solar and work to aggregate parcelized lands of high 

73 

renewable energy resource value into usable sites. Decertification of expired 

subdivisions might be one qualifying activity Counties could use. 

3. Bureau of Land Management should not accept Right of Way (ROW) Applications on lands that cannot be developed for environmental reasons—The BLM 

is considering changing the way ROW applications are handled away from accepting every ROW application and only rejecting proposed projects after plans 

of development are completed. This is a very positive step that should be encouraged. Some of the areas applied for are not developable due to wildlife and 

land conservation conflicts, and requiring plans of development for all is wasteful both financially and in terms of agency staffing. BLM is considering designating areas suitable for development (on their most disturbed sites) and then 

beginning to reject and discourage ROW applications in sensitive areas. If implemented this will help enormously. They could begin by rejecting ROW applications in sensitive lands immediately. 

4. Do both long and short term renewable energy planning on public lands—We 

need to both get as much development started in the right places we can manage as expeditiously as possible and plan for the longer term. The approach 

mentioned above is fine for the short term. But we also need a more circumspect approach for future solar siting that can unfold over a longer time 

frame. The resource is rich enough that we have the ability to site solar 

projects more carefully once the first rank of disturbed lands has been identified and put into use. 

5. Establish incentives for generators to locate on disturbed sites on public 

lands—As with the private lands case already presented, generators who may 

be displaced on other less-disturbed sites would be more likely to locate on disturbed lands if they knew they would have a clearer path through the environmental review and licensing processes. Accomplishing this would mean joint 

state and federal habitat conservation planning and mitigation work, combined 

with programmatic environmental review that would allow for Environmental 

Assessments as opposed to EIRs. BLM is currently exploring ways to do this 

with the States of California, Nevada and Arizona and perhaps others. 

6. Be willing to innovate in transmission infrastructure—Infrastructure installed 

to facilitate solar development will be with us for a half century or more. Many 

local objections to transmission needed for solar development stem from degraded viewsheds for local residents. Many resource areas on public lands have 

stunning views that enhance fragile local economies. It is in both our short 

term and long term interest to be open to using technologies that are less intrusive, such as undergrounding of lines with superconducting materials and 

technologies, despite the fact that they may be somewhat more expensive. This 

may require a new rule from FERC, and Executive Order from the President 

or congressional action to approve higher levels of cost recovery, perhaps applied across parts of the entire interconnection, to enable transmission line 

sponsors, whether independent or load serving entities, to consider employing 

them as a part of their projects in uninhabited areas. 

7. Require and fund agency cooperation to shorten environmental reviews, increase review quality—Trans-agency cooperation is essential to accomplishing 

a successful solar energy build-out. Without it, projects will struggle as sequential reviews lengthen consideration timelines and delay needed projects. We 

will need agencies such as DOD to be part of the plan in terms of both making 

areas available for development as they are beginning to do, and participating 

in remediation and mitigation efforts. Other agencies needed to play a central 

role include the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the land management and research agencies of the Departments of Energy, Agriculture and Interior. 

In summary, by siting projects on the most disturbed lands we can identify on 

both public and private lands; by providing strategically crafted incentives to open 

up lands suitable for development but constrained by parcelization; by encouraging 

innovation both in terms of technology and cost recovery; and by careful coordination with the states and mandatory coordination between and among federal agencies we can expeditiously unlock the vast potential of the southwest’s solar energy 

potential. 

Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Carl Zichella 

Question 1: Effectiveness of Interagency Memoranda of Understanding: 

Memoranda of Understanding are important tools for interagency cooperation. But 

74 

it has been our experience that they often fail to meet their intended level of effectiveness because there is no single ‘‘driver’’ to keep the respective signatories on 

track and to hold agencies and their staffs accountable. Existing MOUs on transmission for example have accomplished little. There needs to be a senior official 

from the federal and state governments in charge of their respective signatories to 

ensure that the goals of the agreement are accomplished and milestones met. 

Another shortcoming has related to capacity. Some federal and state agencies, 

such as USFWS are drastically understaffed and lack the ability to contribute to 

the goals of MOUs in a timely way. This desperately needs to be addresses. This 

is even truer at the state level. Some means of federal support for MOUs in terms 

of dedicated staffing at the agencies, dedicated resources to permit the completion 

of the goals of the MOU and support for equivalent state participation are needed 

to make these instruments live up to their expectations. 

Question 2: Small number of large v. large number of small projects: We 

believe that the magnitude of the carbon reductions we must make to gain control 

of global warming and to meet RPS standards requires that we do many things simultaneously. This includes improving our very slow progress with distributed generation and increasing our energy efficiency and conservation efforts as well as 

siting large-scale solar energy projects. Large scale projects properly located afford 

us our best chance of meeting renewable energy goals in the short term. Because 

they produce larger amounts of energy from a smaller number of sites, they can reduce the environmental impact related to scattering smaller projects across the 

landscape. Siting these projects properly takes great care because of their very large 

land disturbance impacts. There is a welcome trend under way currently that seeks 

to site smaller but still significantly-sized projects (20-100 MW nameplate capacity) 

on disturbed and less environmentally significant private lands closer to load. Because these may be relatively easier to site and may need only minimal transmission improvements to begin adding power to the grid, they can cumulatively help 

us make progress on RPS goals as we approve, develop and bring on line larger 

scale projects. They do not replace the need for large scale projects 

Mr. COSTA. Not a problem. And tell Carl that we wished he could 

have been here. But you did an able job, and his testimony—I like 

the seven principles that you put together. I think they give a 

framework under which we can work. We may have differences on 

how we achieve those goals, but I think it is important for environmental organizations to provide principles that are workable. More 

to that later on. 

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. Our next witness, Ms. Katherine Gensler, Solar 

Energy Industries Association. Katherine, you have five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE GENSLER, MANAGER OF 

REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, SOLAR ENERGY 

INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. GENSLER. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. COSTA. Good morning. 

Ms. GENSLER.—members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to offer testimony on the very timely issue of solar 

energy development on Federal lands. 

My name is Katherine Gensler, and I am the Manager of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association. SEIA is the national trade association for the solar energy 

industry and represents nearly 900 members at all points of the 

value chain, from financiers to project developers, component manufacturers, to solar installers. With me today is also Peter Weiner 

of Paul Hastings to help answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. COSTA. A little more directly into the mic. No, just change 

the—raise it up a little bit. There you go. 

75 

Ms. GENSLER. In the five minutes I will be speaking to you 

today, enough sunlight will shine upon the United States to satisfy 

America’s energy demands for an entire month. The solar industry 

is working to harness this carbon-free energy and create domestic 

jobs to move our country to a new clean energy future. 

Solar energy will create more than 60,000 jobs, install a gigawatt 

of solar capacity, and avoid more than one million tons of carbon 

emissions in 2009 alone. These figures will more than double in 

2010. 

There is a broad consensus that developing the enormous potential of solar power on BLM managed lands should be a priority for 

the Bureau. Currently, there are 199 solar projects waiting for permits from BLM with some applications pending since 2005. Together, those proposed projects could power 20 million homes and 

could create 37,000 jobs in the region, yet not a single permit for 

solar energy development has been issued by BLM. In comparison, 

there were approximately 7,100 oil and gas permits issued in 2007 

alone. 

One of the most important provisions in the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act enables a solar project developer to receive 

a grant directly from the Treasury Department rather than having 

to monetize the solar investment tax credit through a financial 

backer. This program requires applicants to begin construction of 

their project by December 31, 2010. 

A lot of what you have heard today focuses on the three- to fiveto ten-year planning cycle. I want to call your attention to the immediate future. Despite the diligent efforts of solar project developers, the Department of the Interior, and states to meet this deadline, we run the risk of having no projects that will satisfy it. The 

following obstacles must be overcome. 

Mr. COSTA. No projects by when? 

Ms. GENSLER. By December 31, 2010—obstacles to overcome 

quickly. First and foremost, the BLM offices that process solar applications here in Southern California and across the west do not 

have adequate resources to efficiently process pending applications. 

Secretary Salazar’s announcement last week that $41 million of Recovery Act funds would be dedicated to processing renewable 

energy applications. 

BLM must expeditiously use those funds to organize and staff 

the renewable energy coordination offices. To ensure the future 

funding of those offices, the rent paid by solar and wind developers 

should be recycled back into those BLM offices that process these 

permits. 

Second, BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and state agencies 

must have a clear process for early and regular coordination, and 

commit to clear timeframes for making decisions. At this point, we 

are only 18 months away from that commenced construction deadline. Timely interagency coordination is crucial. 

Finally, BLM must adopt, and Congress should support, ways to 

expedite environmental review of projects that are capable of beginning construction by the end of next year. This does not mean cutting corners. It means finding ways to proceed faster down the 

same path. 

76 

Mr. Chairman, by taking these actions, Congress can turn the 

broad consensus on the desire for solar energy into real on-theground projects. We can improve our energy independence. We can 

tackle global warming. We can help California meet its RPS goals. 

We can create jobs and grow the local economy. And we can make 

solar energy a significant and lasting contributor to our nation’s 

energy supply. 

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gensler follows:] 

Statement of Katherine A. Gensler, Solar Energy Industries Association 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to offer testimony on the very timely issue of solar energy development on 

federal lands. 

My name is Katherine Gensler and I am the Manager of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). SEIA is the national 

trade association for the solar energy industry and represents nearly 900 members 

at all points of the value chain—from financiers to project developers, component 

manufacturers to solar installers. Established in 1974, SEIA works to make solar 

energy a mainstream and significant energy source in the United States by expanding markets, strengthening the industry, and educating the public on the benefits 

of solar energy. 

In the five minutes I’ll be speaking to you today, enough sunlight will shine upon 

the United States to satisfy America’s energy demands for an entire month. The 

solar industry is working to harness this carbon-free energy and create domestic 

jobs to move our country to a new, clean energy future. Solar energy will create 

more than 60,000 jobs, install a gigawatt of solar capacity, and avoid more than 1 

million tons of carbon emissions in 2009 alone. These figures will more than double 

in 2010. 

In recent years, broad consensus has emerged around the need for clean renewable energy and the role that solar energy can and must play in meeting that need. 

For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to aid the development of 10,000 MW of renewable energy 

projects on public lands within a decade. More recently, President Obama has set 

out a goal of doubling the nation’s renewable energy production in the next three 

years. And a majority of states have adopted ambitious Renewable Portfolio Standards. 

To further these clean energy goals, former Secretary Kempthorne authorized the 

Bureau of Land Management to establish renewable energy coordination offices that 

will expedite the permitting of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, and transmission projects on BLM-managed lands. Secretary Salazar has reinforced these 

policies with his formation of a task force on energy and climate change. We commend the Secretary for his recent announcement that $41 million of funding from 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) will be used to expedite the processing of renewable energy permits. 

Despite this broad consensus, the enormous potential of solar power remains untapped. Currently there are 199 solar projects waiting for permits from BLM, with 

some applications pending since 2005. Yet not a single permit for solar energy development has been issued by BLM. Together, these proposed projects could power 20 

million homes and could create 37,000 jobs in the region. 

This Congress, recognizing both the need for renewable energy and the financial 

challenges faced by project developers, established a grant program in lieu of the 

solar investment tax credit (ITC). This program enables a solar project developer to 

receive a grant directly from the Treasury Department, rather than having to monetize the ITC through a financial backer. The grant program requires applicants to 

begin project construction by December 31, 2010. 

Despite the diligent efforts of solar project developers, the Department of the Interior, and the States to meet this deadline, we run the risk of having no projects that 

can satisfy it. The following obstacles must be overcome, and quickly: 

• First and foremost, the BLM offices that process solar applications here in 

Southern California and across the West do not have adequate resources to efficiently process pending applications, particularly for those projects that can 

meet the Recovery Act deadline of December 31, 2010. As noted earlier, ARRA 

provided additional resources; now BLM must expeditiously use those funds to 

organize and staff the renewable energy coordination offices. 

77 

• Additional resources also must be provided to the Fish & Wildlife Service, 

which is charged with assessing the impacts of solar projects on sensitive species and devising mitigation measures to offset these impacts. • BLM, FWS, and state agencies must have a clear process for early and regular 

coordination, and commit to clear timeframes for making decisions. At this 

point we are only 18 months away from the deadline to commence construction; 

timely interagency coordination is crucial. • BLM must adopt, and Congress should support, ways to expedite environmental 

review of projects that are capable of beginning construction by the end of 2010. 

This does not mean cutting corners; it means finding ways to proceed faster 

down the same path. Examples include processing projects according to readiness, not the date of filing of a permit application; ordering the immediate publication of Notices of Intent under the National Environmental Policy Act for 

projects that have an adequate Plan of Development and have completed or are 

conducting spring studies; using existing studies where possible; and relying on 

mitigation measures to address uncertainties. 

In addition to these immediate changes, there must be long-term fixes if solar 

energy is to become a significant and lasting contributor to our nation’s energy supply. We have had the opportunity to meet with BLM and FWS on several occasions 

and both agencies have been very open and responsive. Nonetheless, some issues 

will require assistance from Congress. • To ease BLM and FWS resource constraints, the solar and wind industries propose to recycle the rents paid by renewable energy developers back to the state 

offices or Renewable Energy Coordination Offices that process the ROW permits. The funding provided by ARRA jump-starts these offices; this proposal 

would provide the agencies with an on-going revenue stream and the certainty 

that they will have trained staff available for process future solar applications. 

(See Attachment 1 for background information.) • In addition, the solar industry has proposed an application processing fee that 

would be collected through BLM’s cost recovery authority. BLM requires legislation from Congress to make this fee nonrefundable. • Solar permit applications should be accepted in a noncompetitive bidding process. While competitive bidding works for established industries like oil and gas 

or mining, it is not appropriate for new market entrants like solar. Instead, 

BLM should grant permits to companies with the financial and technical expertise to bring solar projects to fruition. • Solar and other renewable energy projects require wholesale improvement and 

expansion of our nation’s ailing transmission system on a timeframe that is 

meaningful. To the extent that the Department of the Interior is charged with 

performing the environmental review of transmission lines on public lands, we 

urge the department to act expediently and, to the extent practicable, rely on 

analysis that has already been conducted. 

• For those projects that do not have ready access to transmission, stakeholders 

have focused on the identification of resource ‘‘zones,’’ or areas within which 

solar development could take place (i.e., enough sunlight and relatively flat terrain) while effectively addressing environmental issues such as species protection. BLM is considering these ‘‘zones;’’ the Western Governors’ Association is 

conducting its Western Renewable Energy Zones (‘‘WREZ’’ process); and California has its Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (‘‘RETI’’) process. All 

of these are multi-stakeholder processes which provide diverse parties a road 

to consensus. The multi-stakeholder and scientific approach followed in each of 

these initiatives is key to their success. 

• The federal government can facilitate the deployment of solar by providing clear 

guidance on which federal lands will be open to solar energy development, so 

project developers do not waste time and money pursuing projects in areas that 

may ultimately be deemed inappropriate for development. 

• If Congress sets aside land for strict preservation, solar developers should receive mitigation credit for those lands. 

• Congress should support the use of suitable BLM lands for mitigation easements, an idea introduced by the Nature Conservancy and called ‘‘non-acquisition mitigation.’’ 

• The Department of Defense manages large swaths of land in the Southwest, 

many of which are suitable for solar energy development. Congress should assist the Defense Department in making these lands available for solar power 

plants. 

Solar energy development is among the many possible uses of federal lands in the 

Southwest. The industry recognizes and supports the need for a balanced approach 

to preservation, development, recreation, and other uses. By taking the actions outVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
78 

1 Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) 

lined above, Congress can turn the broad consensus on the desire for solar energy 

into real, on-the-ground projects that tap clean, domestic energy resources while 

providing jobs to grow the local economy. 

Thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

ATTACHMENT 1 

AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION 

SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

Ensuring adequate resources for BLM to process wind and solar energy 

applications 

Background 

Congress has gone on record in support of expediting the processing of applications for renewable energy production on federal lands. 1

However, as of November 2008, there were more than 215 applications pending 

with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for wind energy permits, including 

both applications for site testing (to set up temporary poles to test wind speed) and 

to construct actual wind farms. This is up from 150 pending in January 2008. Due 

to limited staffing, site testing permits for wind energy are taking 18 months or 

longer. Given the time-limited incentives for renewable energy included in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5), delays of this magnitude 

can make or break the economic viability of a project. By contrast, application for 

development permits for oil and gas drilling generally take 6-7 months. 

To date, BLM has approved 192 right-of-way grant authorizations for wind energy 

projects, 28 for development and 164 for site testing only. 

Similarly, there are nearly 200 pending applications for solar energy projects on 

BLM lands, up from 135 in January 2008. None have yet been approved. Solar 

projects do not engage in a site testing phase like wind. Instead, they go directly 

to applying for a full scale development permit, which requires a site specific environmental impact statement (EIS), a process that typically takes two to three years 

to complete. 

In January 2009, the Department of the Interior announced the creation of Renewable Energy Coordination Offices in four western states—Arizona, California, 

Nevada and Wyoming—where the Department has received the most interest in development. While this approach holds promise, steady funding will be important to 

fully realize the potential benefits these offices may provide. The AWEA/SEIA proposal discussed below would provide such funding. 

Treatment of other major activities on BLM lands 

Oil and Gas 

Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides that a portion—around $25 

million per year—of the revenues the federal government receives from oil and gas 

rental payments from BLM lands be recycled back into the BLM for the purpose 

of expediting the processing of additional oil and gas permit applications by the 

BLM. This provision is funding seven oil and gas pilot offices and has led to the 

hiring of 150 BLM staff and is funding 30 staff from agencies like the Forest Service 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service in order to create ‘‘one-stop’’ locations for oil and 

gas producers. 

Geothermal 

Section 234 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides that rentals, royalties and 

other payments, excluding those paid to state and county governments, made by 

geothermal developers be used to expedite the processing of additional geothermal 

permits. This provision is providing $10 to $15 million per year to process geothermal permit applications. 

Commercial Filming 

Public Law 106-206 established a fee system for commercial filming activities on 

public lands. The law allows the Secretary to direct these fees to improve the processing of additional permit request. This law provides around $250,000 a year for 

this purpose. 

79 

Communications Towers 

The Department of the Interior Appropriations bill beginning in Fiscal Year 2006 and repeated in each subsequent year has dedicated $2 million out of the rental fees 

paid by communications tower owners to administering the permit program for communications towers. 

Request of wind and solar industries 

Currently, the wind industry pays nearly $1 million in rental fees to the BLM 

every year. There are currently no rental fees for solar projects, but fees will ramp 

up to $1 million or more quickly as projects get completed and go operational in the 

next few years. 

Similar to the authorities described above for other activities on BLM land, the 

wind and solar industries would like legislation approved that would recycle up to 

$5 million of the rental payments paid by wind and solar developers for projects on 

BLM lands back into the Department of the Interior for the purpose of expediting 

the processing of additional wind and solar permits. This revenue would partially 

fund approximately 70 positions related to processing renewable energy applications. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Katherine A. Gensler 

Questions from Chairman Jim Costa, from the State of California 

1. Ms. Gensler, please provide your opinions on how the various interagency Memorandum of Understandings that have been signed between 

the federal agencies and the state agencies have been working. Has 

there been an improvement in planning and permit processing, or does 

more need to be done to improve coordination? 

Coordination between the various state and federal agencies involved in the permitting of solar power plants is crucial, and should be done with an eye toward 

streamlining the process and reducing permit processing time. The Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between the Bureau of Land Management of and California 

Energy Commission (CEC) has been helpful, but the collaboration is still new and 

further coordination is needed. 

The experience of solar developers in California has varied. In some cases, the 

process has worked well. In other cases, the BLM and CEC processes have not 

aligned, despite the MOU. Remedies for this situation include (1) coordination at all 

levels, from upper management to field staff, (2) developing a schedule of milestones 

with the project applicant and then designating one staff member to be responsible 

for managing the application process, (3) identifying which agency has the regulatory responsibility for certain processes, and (4) greater resources to devote to application processing. Development of solar power will bring thousands of jobs to the 

region; delays in the permitting process impede job creation. 

2. Ms. Gensler, your organization proposes taking some of the rents your 

industry would pay and using that money to help fund rights-of-way 

processing. Would that still be necessary under the new budget released 

by the President? Would you support increases in rents, application fees, 

or royalties in order to help fund additional processing? 

We are very pleased to see that the Administration’s FY 2010 budget request in- cluded $16.1 million for BLM to permit and lease renewable energy resources and 

develop transmission facilities. We anticipate that the new renewable Energy Coordination offices will increase BLM’s permitting processing capacity and accelerate 

the development renewable energy. The advantage to having some of the rents paid 

by renewable energy developers go back to the BLM offices that process such permits is that it ensures long-term funding for these offices and the staff who process 

permit applications. The nation is transitioning to a low-carbon energy future, and 

the solar industry is poised to meet that demand. Having a dedicated revenue 

stream will help BLM maintain the staff and resources it needs to process applications for renewable energy development into the future. 

Any change in the fee structure for solar development must be carefully considered. We must avoid inadvertently increasing the cost of clean, domestically-produced renewable energy. An additional royalty charged on the output from a solar 

power plant could increase the cost of providing that power to consumers. However, 

the solar industry is open to a one-time, non-refundable application processing fee. 

This would be paid to BLM under its cost recovery authority and enable BLM to 

dedicate more staff resources to processing of solar energy permits. For the fee to 

be non-refundable, Congressional action would be required. 

80 

1 Reducing Water Consumption of Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation.’’ 2009. 

U.S. Department of Energy. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/csplwaterlstudy.pdf 

3. Ms. Gensler, in your testimony, you mention the industry’s opposition to 

competitive leasing for solar. Does your organization have a position on 

the use of non-competitive leases as an alternative to issuing rights of 

way, and, if so, what is that position? Also, considering your organization is also concerned about speculators or unserious developers, 

wouldn’t competitive leasing help weed out people who are not serious? 

We have not yet developed an industry position on non-competitive leases. As an 

industry, our goal is to harness the incredible solar resource available in the Southwest United States and bring that power to consumers. Land speculation does nothing to further that goal. The current system of ‘‘first in line’’ processing enables 

BLM to grant permits to companies with both the financial and technical expertise 

to bring solar projects into operation. Competitive leasing merely rewards those who 

submit the highest bid, without the promise of a viable solar project. Such a system 

will not speed the growth of the industry, nor will it necessarily deploy the solar 

generation needed to meet BLM’s renewable energy goals. 

4. Ms. Gensler, please describe the difference between water cooling and 

dry cooling at solar thermal power plants. How much more expensive is 

one technology over the other, and is one inherently more efficient than 

the other? 

Solar thermal power plants, like any other thermal power plant (coal, nuclear, 

etc.), use a steam turbine to generate electricity. The steam turbine uses a closedloop process, changing water to steam and then back to water. The condenser brings 

down the temperature of the exhaust steam as it exits the turbine and is recirculated back to the boiler. A ‘‘water cooling’’ system condenses the steam through 

indirect contact with water that is withdrawn from its source and returned at an 

elevated temperature. A ‘‘dry cooling’’ (or ‘‘air cooling’’) system uses fans or ambient 

air to condense the steam. In general, water cooling offers lower capital costs, higher 

thermal efficiencies, and overall more consistent performance. Dry cooling can reduce water usage by up to 80%, but at a penalty of about a 10% increase in electricity prices. 

In addition to water and dry cooling systems, some projects are being developed 

with hybrid cooling systems. Such systems allow for significantly less water usage 

on a regular basis. The power plant then shifts to the water cooling mode when ambient air temperatures are high, thus preserving the overall efficiency and electrical 

output of the solar plant. 1

5. Ms. Gensler, do you believe it is a better strategy to pursue a smaller 

number of very large solar plants, or a larger number of smaller 

projects, in order to meet a certain renewable energy goal? 

There are many factors that go into determining the ‘‘right’’ size of a power plant, 

solar or otherwise. The electricity needs of the utility and its customers are key; access to transmission capacity and a suitable parcel of land are also very important. 

The optimal size of a solar plant is also driven by economies of scale, both in terms 

of the prices of component parts and also the physics behind the technology. Project 

developers, in concert with their customer, are best positioned to determine what 

size project is most suitable. Input from local, state, and federal officials, as well 

as other stakeholders, in the planning and permitting phases can—and should— 

shape the ultimate development of a solar power plant. However, care should be 

taken to not impose more rigorous standards on one type of power plant vis-a`-vis 

another. Solar energy is an important contributor to meeting the nation’s economic, 

environmental, and energy security goals. Let us not miss the opportunity to tap 

into this clean, renewable energy resource. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. And you have 18 seconds left on your 

time. You have obviously well prepared. Thank you. 

Our last witness in this panel is Mr. Michael Niggli, that will 

give a perspective on solar from Sempra Energy. Mr. Niggli. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NIGGLI, CHIEF OPERATING 

OFFICER, SEMPRA ENERGY UTILITIES 

Mr. NIGGLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

81 

Mr. COSTA. Five minutes. 

Mr. NIGGLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. Welcome to Palm Desert. Glad to have you here. I am 

Mike Niggli. I am COO of the Sempra Energy Utilities. I am also 

Chairman of the Great Basin National Park Foundation, and I am 

a member of the Western Electric Industry Leaders Group, which 

is a group of executives in the electric industry that is trying to 

connect the dots, essentially trying to figure out, how can we bring 

renewable energy to those who are consuming it and want to consume it. 

We found that the best resources for solar and geothermal are 

right here in California, and we found that the best wind resource 

in the world possibly is in Wyoming. They have at least six times 

as much wind capability as we have here in California. The whole 

point of looking across the western 11 states is to find the lowest 

cost resources that we can to deliver those to our customers so that 

renewable energy makes sense for all involved. 

Over the last few years, the world has really flipped over. It used 

to be that it would take time, more time, to actually permit the 

generating facility than it would the transmission line. That is no 

longer the case. With the distributed nature of the renewable resources and the fact that they have attributes of zonal attributes, 

it is actually faster and easier to get those permitted, we think, 

than it is the transmission lines. So generation is not necessarily 

the problem. I think it is the transmission area. 

We have been working for the last four to five years on permitting a renewable energy delivery system of about 1,000 megawatts 

here in California. The PUC has acted on that in December of last 

year, and BLM acted in January, one month later. We are now 

awaiting the U.S. Forest Service to issue their record of decision, 

and hopefully that will come very soon. 

Our company actually—one of our affiliates has developed the 

world’s largest thin film solar plant, and that thin film requires no 

water as well, and they are looking to expand it by five times. You 

can impact our processes in three separate areas. One is in the 

planning process, two is in the environmental review process, and 

three is in the post-decision process. 

Earlier today you heard about a number of great attributes and 

initiatives, the western renewable energy zone project and the 

RETI project here in California. All of these are the right things 

looking at, how do you connect the dots with the BLM’s corridor 

planning. But what you need to do is to make this real. 

Actually, the coordinating and planning must mean something, 

and it must mean something in the decision process where you get 

the licenses to build transmission and to build generation. And so 

you have coordinated planning, but the coordinated planning 

doesn’t mean anything unless we go ahead and work that down 

into the decision process. 

Second, we need you to look at renewable energy credits. We 

need to have renewable energy credits that are tradeable throughout the western United States, so that we can ensure that we have 

the opportunity to trade renewable energy and develop the best 

sites throughout the west to get the lowest cost renewables to our 

customers. 

82 

We also need to look at supersizing transmission lines. We are 

not going to get that many transmission lines between the regions. 

There are just too many constraints. When you look at the maps 

that identify all of the constraints in the western United States, 

there will be few and far between the major bulk powerlines. So, 

we should always consider maximizing the voltage level, so we 

maximize the delivery capability and also, frankly, minimize the 

environmental impact that is associated with those kinds of lines. 

Second, you can also impact the environmental review process by 

ensuring that everyone is using the same data, has the same 

timelines, and is coming to a decision at about the same time. That 

helps everybody in terms of certainty in the process, and it certainly helps the renewable developers to know when a decision will 

be made on transmission that will allow them to commit significant 

funds to their projects. 

They are ready to commit. They are ready to go. But they need 

to know that the capability to deliver is there. 

And then, on the last part of this, when we finish the permitting, 

there are post-decision issues that come up, and they come up in 

terms of the opportunities for additional lawsuits and litigation 

against all of the projects. It is very interesting, but in our area of 

the business anybody who deals with the BLM or the Forest Service or some of the other Federal agencies on transmission has multiple bites at the apple. 

They can go to the IBLA, they can go to the District Courts, they 

can go to the Court of Appeals. But if you want to license a gas 

pipeline in front of FERC, you want to license a hydro project, or 

you want to license a nuclear plant, they generally have one opportunity and that is at the Court of Appeals. And I think by looking 

at doing the same thing here we can probably reduce the amount 

of uncertainty there is in developing renewable resources. 

I have a number of other comments, but in terms of the time, 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to hold those until later until any of 

your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Niggli follows:] 

Statement of Michael R. Niggli, Chief Operating Officer, Sempra Energy 

Utilities—San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California 

Gas Company 

Executive Summary 

SDG&E’s recent experience with the siting process for a 500 kV transmission line 

(the ‘‘Sunrise Powerlink’’ or ‘‘Sunrise’’) that would connect the vast renewable generation potential of the Imperial Valley region to the rest of the grid suggests the 

following: 

A transmission grid is crucial to development of renewable generation: 

Many renewable resources are ‘‘intermittent’’ in nature. This fact requires a strong 

regional grid to facilitate bulk power transfers, to absorb energy supply deviations, 

and to enhance renewable development. It also establishes development of energy 

storage capabilities as a priority. We have observed robust and concrete developer 

interest appearing in the region to be served by Sunrise after SDG&E announced 

the project. 

Transmission siting is needlessly duplicative: Transmission siting in the 

West typically requires several separate state and federal administrative siting 

processes, each subject to separate judicial appeals. All agencies, state and federal, 

must work cooperatively to streamline the overall process, agree on project scoping, 

utilize consistent data, and make timely decisions. Judicial appeals of many federal 

agency decisions, such as those of BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, begin at the 

83 

federal district court level, giving opponents rights to two layers of judicial appeals, 

and adding years of uncertainty to a multi-year administrative permitting process. 

Existing planning is balkanized: Today in the West, regional planning for 

transmission and renewables takes place in the context of Regional Transmission 

Organizations, regional reliability councils (such as the Western Electricity Coordinating Council, integrated resource planning processes supervised by state commissions, and certain ad hoc efforts to address siting issues associated with renewable 

development. 

Congress can simplify and coordinate transmission siting: The federal government can facilitate regional planning and siting by vesting principal responsibility in regional planning organizations, working to ensure that other state and federal agencies give deference to these regional organizations, identifying federal 

lands that should be open to renewables development and transmission corridors, 

developing common siting principles for these lands, providing a single administrative forum for federal transmission line siting, including the right of affected federal 

agencies to participate, with appeals to the circuit courts of appeal; and mandating 

adherence to strict permitting deadlines. Such actions would vastly simplify the 

siting process, and provide a focus for all stakeholders, without compromising environmental regulation. 

I. Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. My name is Michael R. Niggli and I am the Chief Operating Officer for the utilities of Sempra Energy. The Sempra Energy companies develop energy infrastructure, operate utilities, 

and provide related products and services to more than 29 million consumers worldwide. 

Our utilities are San Diego Gas & Electric Company (‘‘SDG&E’’) and Southern 

California Gas Company. SDG&E is a regulated public utility that serves 3.4 million 

consumers through 1.4 million electric meters and more than 840,000 natural gas 

meters in San Diego and southern Orange counties in California. The utility’s area 

spans 4,100 square miles. Southern California Gas Company is the nation’s largest 

natural gas distribution utility, providing safe and reliable energy to 20.5 million 

consumers through 5.7 million meters in more than 500 communities. The company’s service territory encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles in diverse 

terrain throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican 

border. 

The Sempra Energy utilities are strongly interested in the development of a diverse supply of resources. We have already voluntarily committed to achieving 33% 

of our energy supply from renewables sources by 2020, and have achieved commitments and contracts to reach over 20% renewables within the next 2-3 years. Accordingly, the topic today—solar development on federal lands—is of considerable 

importance to us in meeting our goals, goals we believe are in common with the interests of our state, and our nation. 

Achieving significant levels of renewables is a challenge because many of the best 

renewable energy resources depend heavily on location—wind energy must be sited 

where the wind blows; solar is best sited where solar insolation is at its greatest; 

geothermal can only be located where there are rich geothermal resources. Some of 

these technologies require significant amounts of land, and most of the optimal locations for renewables are in relatively remote areas, which require the availability 

of electric transmission to bring the energy to load centers. 

My testimony today will discuss the issues we confront in siting new renewables 

and needed transmission, how we have dealt with those issues so far in the West, 

and some suggested approaches to consider. 

II. Resources in the West and How To Access Them 

The Western U.S. has enormous renewable potential and much federal land 

There is considerable demand in the Western states for renewables. Almost every 

one of the Western States has codified renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Some 

states, such as California, are looking to expand their RPS. And, of course, Congress 

is now exploring a national RPS. 

Fortunately, the Western United States has significant levels of renewable opportunities. The attached table (Attachment 1) shows that the Western states have the 

potential for massive amounts of renewables, especially from wind and solar resources. As illustrated, the West holds the potential for over a million megawatts 

of renewables, with over half of that contained in just the states of Arizona, Nevada, 

and Wyoming. This table does not include the substantial renewable potential in 

Mexico, if it can be integrated into the grid. 

84 

The challenge of developing and integrating renewable resources 

The challenge we face in the West is how to identify the lowest cost opportunities, 

facilitate their development, and integrate those resources within the western grid. 

These are complex topics and they cannot be looked at in isolation. 

Ideally, from a commercial standpoint, to optimize the use of these resources necessitates a free flow of commercial transactions among the states. To some degree, 

this will need to be facilitated by physical infrastructure—most notably, added 

transmission. But, it also can be enhanced by the development of commercial/regulatory structures such as regionally traded renewable energy credits. Through these 

combined structures, buyers of renewable energy can enhance their ability to obtain 

the lowest cost supplies of renewables from the vast resource potential in the West. 

To date, such commercial structures remain embryonic. 

But, purchasers of renewable power cannot simply solicit bids from sellers and expect the power to be developed. Renewable resources must find land on which to 

develop. They require transmission facilities to connect to the regional grid, to bring 

the energy to load centers. And, where the resources generate intermittently, such 

as wind and solar, the largest potential sources of renewables, other resources must 

be available to firm the power and to allow the grid to continue to operate reliably. 

Energy leaders in the Western United States have recognized this challenging 

task and have begun to work together to identify solutions. For example, the Western Electric Industry Leaders (WEIL) Group is comprised of Chief Executive Officers and executive leaders from investor owned utilities, municipalities, government 

agencies, and regional transmission operators, among others. This group has undertaken numerous studies to advise policymakers, such as the Western Governors’ Association, of the issues and challenges facing the development of renewable resources, particularly the technical issues associated with transmission planning and 

integration of renewable resources. 

One element of these analyses has been to identify potential areas where renewables are most likely to develop, and consider ‘‘corridors’’ for the development of 

electric transmission to connect those renewable sources to the grid. The programmatic EIR provisions of the 2005 Energy Policy Act are a positive step in this 

direction for federal lands but do not go far enough. Moreover, this attempt to 

streamline the process was based on then-current uses for federal lands and not on 

potential renewable resource areas. The establishment of transmission corridors 

would facilitate regional transmission planning, which is a vital element to the development of widespread renewable supplies. This same kind of activity has proceeded in several other joint planning processes. The Western Governors’ Association and the United States Department of Energy launched the Western Renewable 

Energy Zones (WREZ) initiative in May, 2008. The WREZ seeks to identify those 

areas in the West with vast renewable resources to expedite the development and 

delivery of renewable energy to where it is needed. Renewable energy resources are 

being analyzed within 11 states, two Canadian provinces, and areas in Mexico that 

are part of the Western Interconnection. Likewise, in California, various public 

agencies are supervising the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) to 

assess competitive renewable energy zones in California, and possibly also in neighboring states, that can provide significant electricity to California consumers by the 

year 2020. RETI is also intended to prepare detailed transmission plans for those 

zones identified for development. 

Problems with existing planning and development processes 

But these planning processes suffer from three significant problems: First, they 

are duplicative, and balkanized. 

Second, their objectives are somewhat vague. For example, they do not have, as 

part of their design, any mechanism for improving the process that has become an 

impediment to adding new transmission. The region does not necessarily need more 

planning processes; it needs a well-coordinated one with clear objectives that will 

advance efforts in the region of adding new renewables and transmission. 

Third, from a planning perspective, there is a ‘‘chicken-and-egg’’ issue—will transmission planning drive where renewables are developed, or will optimal renewable 

resources drive the location of transmission resources. SDG&E’s Sunrise experience 

shows that a public commitment to build transmission to an area identified with 

the potential for substantial and diverse renewable generation will inspire a robust 

quantity of concrete development proposals. After the Sunrise CPCN application before the CPUC, projects representing over 8800 MW of renewable generation applied 

to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (‘‘CAISO’’) and Imperial 

Irrigation District interconnection queues for projects to be located in the Imperial 

Valley and vicinity. And, to date, SDG&E and other utilities have executed purchased power agreements, including options, for over 1000 MW of renewable 

85 

projects in the same region. Finally, renewable generation developers have told us 

that purchase power contracts and an assured transmission path for a project’s output are requirements for a project to obtain financing. 

Ideally, we want renewables located where the total cost of the renewable plus 

any needed additional facilities is lowest. The only way we can move close to this 

ideal is by ensuring that lands for transmission and renewables are readily available. These planning processes do not address this problem. While these issues prevent the many planning processes from achieving all that they ought to, there are 

additional roadblocks to renewables development, which I discuss below. 

III. Roadblocks to Renewables Development: 

The planning and siting process is duplicative and balkanized: 

The interest in developing renewable supplies is a regional interest in support of 

national objectives. However, one of the main roadblocks to the development of renewable energy in the West is achieving local or state siting approvals for renewable 

generation and needed transmission. Parochial local interests sometimes use current processes to delay, and, in some cases, prevent altogether the development of 

generation or transmission. California has seen this arise repeatedly. When a California utility sought to site a transmission line through Arizona, the State of Arizona rejected the request because the proposed facility did not meet the needs of 

Arizona and Arizona ratepayers. Recently, in California, we engaged in a lengthy 

process to site new transmission in Southern California to facilitate access to new 

renewables. Again, local interests opposed this effort mainly because they did not 

want transmission sited near them. 

In addition to parochialism, conflicting jurisdictions and the resultant overlapping 

planning processes lead to the identification of duplicative or competing projects. Potential transmission developers include investor-owned utilities, government-owned 

utilities, and independent transmission providers. But responsibility for planning 

varies depending on the location of the project (i.e., what state(s), and whether it 

is on federal land), and whether the developer is a private or a government-owned 

entity. And, for a given project, there is nothing to require one entity (e.g., a state 

commission) to honor or defer to the planning determination of another entity (e.g., 

a regional transmission organization). 

In addition to planning duplication and overlap, siting approval for transmission 

in the west is typically subject to the approval of each state touched by the project, 

in addition to one or more federal agencies if the project touches federal land. 

We illustrate these process problems in the next section in the context of 

SDG&E’s Sunrise Powerlink transmission project. 

SDG&E’s Sunrise project illustrates the planning and siting problems 

SDG&E’s Sunrise project is a 123 mile 500 kV transmission line to connect the 

San Diego load center with the Imperial Valley substation. Originally proposed for 

operation in 2010, SDG&E now anticipates that the line will be completed in June, 

2012. 

We expect that much transmission siting in the West will face a process similar 

to that applied to Sunrise. The Sunrise project requires separate state and federal 

administrative siting processes, each subject to separate judicial appeals. For Sunrise, state approval is required from the CPUC, which approval is subject to administrative rehearing and appeals before the state courts of appeal and the California 

Supreme Court. SDG&E first applied to the CPUC for Sunrise approval in December, 2005. The CPUC granted the Sunrise CPCN in December 2008, and a CPUC 

decision on rehearing is expected this month. The state judicial appeals could take 

until mid-2010 to resolve. 

On the federal side, required discretionary approvals include the U.S. Department 

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’) and the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Sunrise application for BLM 

approval was filed August 4, 2006. We acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of 

both agencies to process the Sunrise application. BLM, for example, completed a 

thorough and detailed environmental review in close coordination with the state 

that has helped advance the project. But the fact remains that the law provides parties with separate administrative appeal rights for each agency. All signs are that 

project opponents will avail themselves of all appeal rights. And, after the administrative appeals process, any judicial appeals of BLM and the USFS decisions begin 

at the federal district court level, giving opponents rights to two layers of judicial 

appeals (the second layer is to the circuit courts of appeal), adding years of uncertainty to a multi-year administrative permitting process. We expect any appeals of 

the two federal agency decisions to be resolved no earlier than March, 2013. In conVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
86 

trast, FERC decisions licensing natural gas transmission are subject to only one 

level of judicial appeal rights—to the circuit courts of appeal. 

Other projects in the West will endure planning conflicts similar to that faced by 

Sunrise. The CPUC had identified a need for a project like Sunrise in a December 

16, 2004 decision on resource planning. After an extensive study with substantial 

stakeholder input, the CAISO, California’s FERC-regulated regional transmission 

organization, formally found a need for Sunrise in August, 2006. But no weight or 

deference was given to these prior determinations in either the state or federal environmental reviews of Sunrise that followed, even though both earlier need findings 

included robust consideration of alternatives. This forced SDG&E and regulators to 

commit substantial time and resources to re-visit (and indeed, re-litigate) need several times. 

In the end, renewables development will not occur to any significant degree if 

strictly parochial interests are allowed to govern siting decisions. 

The siting process has become cumbersome and balkanized, leaving open the potential for considering the same issues multiple times. Deadlines for prompt resolution either do not exist, or are generally ignored. In the Sunrise process, in spite 

of what may be recited in regulations, we found no enforceable deadlines that appeared to constrain the timing of agency disposition of the several Sunrise applications. Congress could help here by mandating adherence to strict permitting guidelines, with common deadlines for final project decisions. 

Environmental impact reports can be immense, and could benefit from deference 

and/or incorporation by reference of determinations of other agencies. As it is, duplicative siting and relitigation of previously decided issues further drag out the time 

and cost to complete a siting process. For instance, the official Sunrise record (Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, evidence, hearing transcripts, etc., stretched to over 25,000 pages). Indeed, it is well known that some use 

the siting process not to engage in a fair consideration of the issues, but to drag 

things out long enough to force project proponents to abandon their projects or to 

pursue inferior alternatives. The prospect of such impediments and the risk of losing 

millions of dollars on an abandoned a project, manifestly chills the development of 

renewables. 

Finding Development Sites is difficult 

We do understand the concerns about siting facilities in sensitive environmental 

areas, and we, of course, recognize the interest of minimizing the environmental impact of renewables and transmission. But, it is important to understand the difficulty of finding any land at all to develop renewables and transmission. The attached map (Attachment 2) illustrates the types of potential constraints to developing renewables and transmission in Southern California, including the area traversed by Sunrise. This map shows a broad range of environmentally sensitive 

areas. On top of these, potential transmission or renewables developers must also 

consider state parks and forests, military lands, and tribal lands, which could include sensitive archaeological sites) as further potential areas where development 

may be limited or proscribed. With all of the areas that are off limits, we must understand in assessing the potential that many of the options for renewable production are in fact already off the table. So, it is even more important that we plan 

in a manner to facilitate the development of the sites that remain. This map also 

demonstrates the extent of the jurisdictional balkanization that adds extra administrative hurdles in developing linear facilities like transmission lines. 

IV. How Congress Can Help 

These are not simple issues and the solutions to them are not going to be without 

controversy. The suggestions I offer today are likely not to be the universe of good 

actions, but they offer some additional perspective on the areas we believe need to 

be addressed. 

We suggest that Congress look to the following actions to improve the development of renewables and supporting transmission: 

1. Encourage and incentivize States to coordinate on regional transmission plans 

that access areas of potential renewables development, but avoid duplicative 

processes. Planning processes that are too narrow encourage parochialism. 

2. Identify federal lands that may be open to renewables development and encourage use of specific and clearly identified federal lands for transmission corridors, congruent with or adjacent to areas where renewables may develop. 

3. Encourage the trading of verified renewable energy credits. 

4. Entrust regional transmission organizations with the primary responsibility for 

regional planning, and provide that such determinations must be given deference by other state and federal agencies. 

87 

5. Develop common siting principles that must be honored, such as those that follow existing corridors and other linear features such as roads, and that otherwise focus on previously disturbed areas. Where existing corridors are too 

small, it is likely that expansion of those corridors will be the least impacting 

option, and should be considered among these common siting principles. 

6.. A single federal administrative forum for federal transmission line siting applications, including the right of affected federal agencies to participate, would 

vastly simplify the siting process, and provide a focus for all stakeholders, 

without compromising environmental regulations. Provide for judicial review 

of this forum’s decisions at the circuit courts of appeal. 

7. Streamline and facilitate siting of transmission by mandating adherence to 

strict permitting guidelines, with common deadlines for final project decisions. 

8. Encourage the ‘‘supersizing’’ of new transmission facilities to maximize efficient 

energy delivery, minimize environmental impacts, optimize corridor utilization, 

and to strengthen the grid to permit regional bulk power transfers of renewable energy. 

The Sempra Energy utilities appreciate the opportunity to participate in this proceeding and we stand ready to assist in the deliberation of these issues and the development of effective solutions. 


49683.003
88 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Michael R. Niggli 

Question No. 1: Mr. Niggli, please provide your opinions on how the various interagency Memorandum of Understandings that have been signed 

between the federal agencies and the state agencies have been working. 

Has there been an improvement in planning and permit processing, or 

does more need to be done to improve coordination? 

Response: State and federal efforts to identify renewable energy sites and transmission corridors have made progress at developing long range frameworks. Groups 

like the Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT), Renewable Energy Transmission 

Initiative (RETI), and the Western Renewable Energy Zone (WREZ) work conducted 

by the Western Governors’ Association have all collected significant data about 

energy zones and ways to inter-connect them. Their recommendations will be valuable. The challenge will be to transition from the planning stage of siting transmission lines, to obtaining permits, and, then to begin construction in a reasonable 

amount of time. 

In anticipation of meeting this challenge, I offer four key thoughts: 

Reduce Jurisdictional Overlap—Generally, several state/ federal agencies are 

involved in regulating renewable energy projects. Due to individual agency mandates, renewable project developers face significant time hurdles and uncertainty. 


49683.004
89 

A key improvement would be to reduce the number of agencies involved by consolidating responsibilities to fewer agencies. This might be carried out by transferring 

permitting responsibility to a new agency solely responsible for renewable projects. 

Or, place more responsibility in the hands of an authoritative state agency and the 

Department of Energy (DOE). In turn, these agencies would jointly dictate goals, 

administrative processes, and schedules, to staff dedicated to renewables. 

One Stop Shop—Renewable projects would benefit by having key representatives of state and federal agencies working collectively toward joint goals, possibly 

located all under one roof. This would improve communication and efficiency. 

Dedicated Staff for Renewables—State and federal staff frequently carry multiple project workloads. Having dedicated staff to renewables will allow focus and 

time dedication to renewable projects. 

Shift from traditional Regulator arrangement to Project Manager—The 

permit process is typically constrained by multiple processes controlled by many 

people. An improvement would be to grant overall authority and responsibility to 

one project manager assigned by a state or federal agency for each renewable 

project. Ideally, the project manager could set goals and expectations for all supporting staff. This arrangement would reduce time delays and increase overall efficiency. 

Background Information 

Examples of groups or regulations attempting to streamline renewable efforts—Well intended efforts are being made, but these visionary goals slow 

down due to regulatory details. 

• Governor Executive order S-14-08—State agencies to work with federal agencies 

to streamline. 

• Renewable Energy Action Team (REAT)—Blend of state and federal agencies to 

streamline core areas for large scale renewable generation. 

• Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI)—Blend of state and federal 

agencies with mission to streamline approval of transmission corridors. 

• Federal Energy Policy 2005, Section 368—Federal energy policy to identify 

western transmission corridors and then promote amendments to land use 

plans of various federal agencies. Private & Indian lands not included, federal 

lands only. 

• Federal National Energy Policy 2005, Section 1221—Federal mandate for the 

Department of Energy to designate National Interest Electrical Transmission 

Corridors. An application can be made to the FERC to license projects in such 

corridors if all else fails. Indian lands not included. 

• State AB 1059—State mandate to CEC to designate transmission corridors 

Sample list of agencies/authorities that must be addressed with existing 

regulations. 

• Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLMPA) 

• Federal Section 106 (protection of cultural resources) 

• Clean Water Act and connection to ACOE 404 program, Regional Water Quality 

Board certification, etc. 

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

• California Endangered Species Act (CESA) 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

• National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) 

Below is a list of multiple agencies. Fewer agencies with more authority 

may be the right answer for streamlining approvals. 

• Bureau of Land Management 

• United States Fish & Wildlife 

• Various national Forests 

• Individual military bases 

• Individual Indian tribes 

• California Energy Commission 

• California Public Utilities Commission 

• California Department of Fish & Game 

• State Regional Water Quality Boards 

90 

Question No. 2: Mr. Niggli, one of the concerns raised about the Sunrise 

Powerlink project is that it could be used to transmit non-renewable 

energy from Mexico into San Diego. Are there any guarantees that it will 

be used only for renewable energy? 

Response: The Sunrise Powerlink will become part of the integrated electrical grid 

in California that will be operated by the California Independent System Operator 

Corp. (‘‘CAISO’’). The CAISO is obligated by its FERC tariff and by FERC rules to 

provide open and non-discriminatory access to all transmission customers and sellers. With the decision ultimately resting with the CAISO, SDG&E cannot guarantee 

what types of power will flow over Sunrise. However, SDG&E has made the following substantial commitments to ensure that Sunrise Powerlink will be used to 

transmit renewable energy: 

1. SDG&E committed to not contract with coal generators for the delivery of 

energy across the Sunrise Powerlink. 

2. SDG&E committed that in the event that a current contract for a renewable 

resource deliverable by Sunrise fails, we will seek to replace energy with another renewable resource from that same region. 

3. SDG&E voluntarily committed to raise the Renewable Portfolio Standard 

(RPS) target to 33 percent by year 2020. 

SDG&E made these commitments on the record in the final oral argument before 

the CPUC in hearings for the Sunrise Powerlink on November 7, 2008, and SDG&E 

submitted the commitments to the CPUC in writing in comments on an alternate 

proposed Sunrise CPCN decision (COMMENTS OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 

COMPANY ON ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER 

GRUENEICH, Nov. 20, 2008, pages 15-17). The CPUC Decision approving Sunrise 

(at pages 173 and 265) states that SDG&E will be held to these commitments. 

Further, these commitments are made in a context reinforcing that Sunrise will 

be used to transmit substantial amounts of renewable energy. With respect to 

SDG&E’s commitment to replace any failed renewable contracts, the CPUC decision 

noted that SDG&E already had contracts with several such renewable energy resources totaling 2,253 gigawatt-hours per year. Id. at 265, fn. 680. And, under the 

CAISO’s non-discriminatory operation, renewable generation is likely to get dispatched first because of its very low operating costs. 

Question No. 3: Mr. Niggli, do you believe it is a better strategy to pursue 

a smaller number of very large solar plants, or a larger number of smaller 

projects, in order to meet a certain renewable energy goal? 

Response: SDG&E has established no preference of a smaller number of large 

solar plants or a larger number of smaller projects. Ultimately, all market segments 

must be appropriately utilized. As one example, SDG&E’s proposed Solar Energy 

Project specifically targets smaller scale solar projects tied to its distribution system 

in a complementary fashion to other existing distributed renewable generation programs in the State of California. However, under the Renewable Portfolio Standard 

(RPS) SDG&E also annually solicits large scale renewables, which will be delivered 

via electric transmission lines. Economies of scale would seem to suggest that larger 

installations will be needed for SDG&E to achieve its renewable goals. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, thank you. You as well have 13 seconds left, 

and so we will use that time wisely. 

I will begin with my questions. Mr. Malnight and Mr. Niggli, do 

both of your companies support a national renewable energy standard? 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Yes, I will go first. You know, I think PG&E is 

generally supportive of that. I think as with all energy standards, 

as we have seen in California, the devil is in the details of how 

those get designed and built. And we, you know, are anxious to 

work with stakeholders to help in thinking about—— 

Mr. COSTA. And you are participating, what, in California. 

Mr. NIGGLI. Yes. We have no problem with the national standard. California is by far the most aggressive in renewable portfolios. And I think the question is, really, are you going to have an 

RPS or are you going to have a greenhouse gas standard? At the 

91 

end of the day, for a national RPS to work you do need renewable 

energy credits. 

We think that is a part of this process that has to happen. And 

the State should have some leeway in determining whether they 

exceed the minimum standards, certainly as California probably 

would do. 

Mr. COSTA. Now, you both spoke about the need in terms of the 

collaborative process and the good things that are coming as a result of RETI, the renewable energy transmission effort. And also, 

the other efforts with the energy zones that BLM is dealing with, 

and the 368 process. 

But it seems to me that both of you may raise some important 

points. Unless you understand clearly that there are corridors that 

are going to be able to have the capacity to carry this energy and 

that there are some timelines under which they are going to be approved, that one can’t be held up in litigation forever for those 

who—I mean, mitigation is one thing. 

Litigation, because I simply don’t want it ever to happen, is—I 

respect some people’s view, but sometimes I differ with people. 

There has to be—if you really want to have a renewable portfolio 

standard, you have to be able to make this work, right? 

Mr. NIGGLI. Steve, I will start on this one. 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Please. 

Mr. NIGGLI. And the answer is absolutely yes. You have to think 

about the electricity system as a superhighway system of some 

kind. Forty years ago, the Pacific Northwest-Southwest Intertie 

was built. That brought tremendous amounts of hydroelectric 

energy from the Northwest to the Southwest, and it really was the 

first renewable line, if you think about it, in terms of great exchange of energy. 

We need to have those kinds of exchanges put in place around 

the western United States for renewable to work well. It is an 

intermittent resource. It will not always be there, and you need to 

move the power from different areas, and you need a strong transmission system to do that. 

At the end of the day, all of the work that is being done in the 

corridors, we have to have consensus amongst the environmentalists, amongst the energy companies, and the developers, that there 

are some reasonable no-regrets corridors that can be developed to 

work toward a solution for society on this. 

Mr. COSTA. Some timelines. 

Mr. Malnight? 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. Do you want to add to that? 

Mr. MALNIGHT. I don’t have much to add, except to reemphasize 

the point that I think certainty for the developers of these facilities 

is really critical. These are very capital-intensive plans, and the 

ability to have certainty on your development is very critical for 

success. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Corcoran, you talked about the focus on lands 

that have already been disturbed and appropriate for development. 

I had asked that question with one of the other panelists. What 

sort of Federal action should be taken to improve that inventory? 

92 

Mr. CORCORAN. To improve the inventory of those private lands, 

I think what we need is to have resources, both at the state and 

Federal level, to inventory those areas, to be able to work through 

the natural resources present on those areas, and to be able to, you 

know, thereby prioritize them. It is just a lot coming through a 

pipeline, and we need to—— 

Mr. COSTA. Provide more information. 

Mr. CORCORAN. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. Also, it sounds like on behalf of the Sierra Club, if 

I heard you correctly, you favor a two-track approach where some 

plants get sited more quickly, because their due diligence has been 

done and the transparency is there, and others need a more careful 

process. Do you think it is feasible? 

Mr. CORCORAN. Do I think it is feasible? I think it is what we 

must do, so let me just answer it that way. I understand that there 

must be steel on the ground or at least going forward at the end 

of 2010 with the stimulus package, so we are learning as we go in 

this process. Right? And so there will be those early projects that 

we are going to need to do the best we can to put those on areas 

that are already degraded. 

Long term, we have to think about how we will use public lands 

for this use, because it displaces all other uses on that area. But 

in the short term, there are necessary challenges to meet—— 

Mr. COSTA. What is the better strategy, smaller footprints, smaller projects, or a few larger projects that have larger footprints? Or 

have you opined on that? 

Mr. CORCORAN. I am not thinking of it in that way, so I am not 

sure how to answer the question. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Have you raised a response on Senator 

Feinstein’s proposal on the expansion of the Mojave National 

Monument effort? 

Mr. CORCORAN. We believe it is—— 

Mr. COSTA. On the Catellas lands? 

Mr. CORCORAN. We believe it is important that public lands that 

were bought and otherwise provided Federal ownership for the purposes of conservation should be given that conservation protection. 

Mr. COSTA. Do think within the—you know how we work on legislation. 

Mr. CORCORAN. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. I mean, you put it out, it becomes work in progress, 

everybody opines of different views. And then, usually most legislators try to develop a consensus. Senator Feinstein has done that 

over the years on her legislation. I tried to do that with mine, and 

you make modifications/changes there. 

I mean, I think that when you look at that map, and when you 

look at California and that map, it is critical that you don’t take 

away the resource at the same time you are trying to protect some 

valuable lands. 

Mr. CORCORAN. Absolutely, that is correct. And I believe that by 

protecting the Catellas lands it is still more than possible to provide the energy we need from remote renewables, as part of an 

overall outcome of energy efficiency distributed generation and remote generation, to meet our RPS standards. 

93 

Mr. COSTA. And so you think with developing that robust renewable portfolio that it is possible, even in that proposal, to make the 

accommodations for the transmission corridors and for the sites 

that are maybe held on private lands and maybe have multi-use to 

in effect make it a win-win situation. Those are my words. 

Mr. CORCORAN. I believe that that is the direction we need to 

move in, and it underscores why, from my perspective, having the 

resources to more rapidly identify areas that are degraded, and to 

look for ways to create a Federal nexus with private lands, such 

as the zoning that I mentioned, we can look for ways to build financial packages that provide developers the certainty they need to go 

forward. And doing this in a way that we won’t pass regrets on to 

future generations, that we unnecessarily sacrificed pristine desert 

lands in our moves now, in our essential moves now, on meeting 

our renewable portfolio. 

Mr. COSTA. I am going beyond my time. But you understand that 

the certainty from the private sector and the public utilities is critical. 

Mr. CORCORAN. I agree. And it is a certainty that must be balanced with a certainty for American citizens that their public lands 

will be used appropriately and in a process that—— 

Mr. COSTA. This is a Federal trust we all share. We understand 

that. But also, the alternative is clean energy and renewable energy. And so, you know, I mean, do you think the other environmental organizations share that view? 

Mr. CORCORAN. Which view is that, Chairman? 

Mr. COSTA. My view. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CORCORAN. I am not able to speak for them. I will defer. 

Mr. COSTA. No. I like to have a little humor. I hope you have all 

noticed here this morning in the audience. No, I mean the view 

that there has to be a balance, and that if you don’t make these 

renewable projects work for all of the right reasons, or if you are 

just—your only response is no, that you can’t have it both ways. 

Mr. CORCORAN. And that is exactly right. This is a challenge to 

our movement, insofar as you can’t just say no. It is not responsible. Therefore, we need to look for ways, but also bringing to the 

table the decades of experience. There is a robust desert conservation community in California with unmatched knowledge of the 

land. And so it is very important to find ways to bring that to the 

table, so that we can expedite—— 

Mr. COSTA. Because I really think there is a challenge to environmental organizations throughout the country. There was that 

story that Carl was quoted and in The Wall Street Journal, and it 

appeared in other news organs, but about the need that—that 

there needs to be now an affirmative response to for environmental 

organizations to work on supporting these type of good, renewable 

projects. 

Mr. CORCORAN. I believe there are responsibilities all around the 

table to find—— 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Mr. CORCORAN.—the solution that works. 

Mr. COSTA. Good. I have gone way beyond my time. I probably 

won’t get invited back, but my—— 

94 

[Laughter.] 

—colleague from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you will get 

invited back. I just have a feeling about that. 

My first question is for Ms.—is it Gensler? You mentioned that 

no permits are being issued. Some have been pending since 2005. 

Was that a California number or a U.S. number? 

Ms. GENSLER. That is westwide, well, U.S., but primarily focused 

in the west. 

Ms. LUMMIS. And is that because the BLM land use plans for the 

most part did not address solar energy development, and this more 

comprehensive EIS will amend land use plans to accommodate the 

potential for solar uses? 

Ms. GENSLER. I think that is part of it. Some of it is also staffing 

resources. This is a technology that is new to many of the BLM 

staff, and so just getting up to speed and having the knowledge 

base internally has been a challenge. But you are correct in noting 

that many of the land use plans do not account for solar development in the current managed lands, and so it becomes a one-off decision for each of these projects. The PEIS is intended to update all 

of those plans to accommodate solar development. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you. And both Mr. Malnight and Mr. Niggli 

mentioned permitting, and both post-decision and pre-decision permitting. And what struck me is: should all of this be transferred 

to FERC? I mean, there you have a superagency that does deal 

with natural gas pipelines and it sort of transcends other agencies. 

So, when you mentioned—one of you mentioned—that one agency 

should be named the lead agency for various aspects of permitting. 

I believe that was you, Mr. Malnight. And, Mr. Niggli, you mentioned that post-decision issues, such as appeals, you know, IBLA, 

District Court, Court of Appeals, versus the FERC process, which 

goes straight to the Court of Appeals, do your statements argue for 

FERC superseding these other agencies? 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Well, let me comment real quickly on that first. 

I think that we actually have an architecture of collaboration now 

that is moving in the right direction and is encouraging. I wasn’t 

necessarily meaning to advocate for a complete change in that 

structure. 

I think when I was commenting on one agency as a lead for each 

topic certain agencies have more knowledge and more expertise in 

different topic areas. And having each of those agencies play a lead 

role and coordinate with other agencies on those topics I think 

would help speed that process through. 

Mr. NIGGLI. I think at this time it is not necessary that we have 

FERC as the lead agency here. I would like to address the pre-permitting area. When you look at all of the activities that are going 

on right now, one of the things that happens is there are so many 

transmission proposals that come out from independent folks, from 

investor owned, from municipalities, and some of them overlap, 

some of them are duplicative. And in some way we need a regional 

transmission organization that can sift through those and analyze 

them and then say, ‘‘Here is the ones that should go forward.’’ 

Now, the decision on those going forward are within the states, 

and the states’ rights, and they can make those decisions based on 

95 

the data, the environmental impact, and the economic arrangements. But I think you do need somebody on the front end that can 

help sift through those, and their decisions on need essentially are 

deferred to or deferential in terms of the region. 

On the back end of the process, on the litigation process, I think 

it would be very helpful if we did have some kind of a process that 

allowed fewer steps and fewer opportunities to drag out the decisions or drag out the litigation. 

Ms. LUMMIS. And have you submitted any proposals for how the 

process can be streamlined, literally, as amendments to current 

law? 

Mr. NIGGLI. We have not. We have been working through with 

the Western Governors’ Association to try to ensure that the wider 

regional work that is going on right now can be effective in this 

area. And I think there is a lot of good work being done, but there 

is more to do. 

Ms. LUMMIS. And the great thing about the Western Governors’ 

Association, I really want to tout it, because I used to be on the 

staff council for WGA, is that they do take from various agencies 

sort of interns to have long-term relationships with WGA, so they 

can serve as coordinators. And it is a great avenue for collaboration. So, I commend your mentioning it, and I want to pass along 

my kudos to them. 

That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. You have 22 seconds. You get several stars. 

Next witness. Next witness? Next—— 

[Laughter.] 

I am sorry. I misspoke. Our Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, 

for five minutes. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Congresswoman 

Lummis’ point, you know, the FERC having overall jurisdiction and 

oversight of everything, I know that uniformity is exciting to the 

utilities, but I love FERC having total responsibility as long as 

they are very responsive to Congress. And my Committee has jurisdiction over FERC, and sometimes they don’t necessarily see things 

the way we would like for them to see them. But in any event, I 

understand the uniformity question, and your question I think is 

a very good one. I am happy to work with you further on that on 

the Floor. 

But I want to just—Councilman Ferguson earlier talked about 

feed-in tariffs, and I would love to know from the two utilities how 

you feel about feed-in tariffs. It just seems to me to make perfect 

sense that if I am going to invest in solar panels on my house and 

generate electricity, that I ought to be able to reap the benefit. So, 

I would love to get your thoughts on the feed-in tariff, please. 

Mr. NIGGLI. Do you want me to start on that, Steve? 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Sure, go ahead. 

Mr. NIGGLI. OK. There are a couple of things to feed-in tariffs 

that we look at. We are not a carte blanche supporter of feed-in 

tariffs, primarily because we want the marketplace to work, and we 

want to get the lowest cost energy, generally through bids that we 

get. 

Now, on solar rooftops, most people have the incentive that in 

the higher tiers, the blocks of energy that are priced higher, they 

96 

can offset those with solar energy. So, if that makes sense for their 

consumption, they should go ahead and utilize the solar—the million roofs program and other programs to save them money. 

The thing that we worry about is some of the things that have 

happened in Europe. For instance, if you built a large-scale solar 

plant here, you might be able to build it for $150 to $200 per megawatt hour. In Spain, and in Germany, they have had feed-in tariffs 

that are $400 to $600 per megawatt hour. That certainly helps the 

developers. The developers can put those up all day long, but it 

doesn’t necessarily help the consumers to get the best priced energy. 

Mr. MALNIGHT. From PG&E’s perspective, I think I share a lot 

of the sentiments that Mr. Niggli just commented. I would say we 

are the largest investor-owned utility in California that has deployed California solar initiative homes, and we are a strong supporter of that program. 

On the feed-in tariff, the other things that I would highlight, we 

do need to ensure that, as the sites get larger and larger under a 

feed-in tariff, they would need to have performance guarantees and 

performance requirements from an operations perspective, so that 

we can maintain operability of the system. Obviously, as these sites 

get very large, they can have a tremendous impact on the electric 

system when they come on and off. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. All right. Also, why are we still using decadesold transmission technology? And I know we are all waiting for this 

smart grid technology to come online. But in the meantime, can we 

do a lot to improve the efficiencies of transmission? Aren’t there 

new technologies out there in powerlines themselves? And are you 

doing that? And, if not, why not? 

Mr. NIGGLI. That is a great question. We have all got smart grid 

initiatives going on right now. It won’t change the basic concept of 

how electricity gets delivered, generally speaking. But I will give 

you an example of some things that have happened over time 

where the grid gets stronger and stronger as you add elements to 

it. 

When we built the Southwest Powerlink, which connects Arizona 

to San Diego, in 1984, the capacity that we received on that line 

was about 580 megawatts or so. Over time, that system got stronger with the addition of other elements around it, and today we get 

1,700 megawatts of capability out of that line. So, the utilities are 

doing everything they can to squeeze every electron out of that system, because every one you can do with existing resources is almost 

free. It is much better than having to put up a new transmission 

line. 

Mr. MALNIGHT. I don’t really have anything to add to that. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Well, it just seems to me that you can squeeze 

it out for free, but you are not investing in future technology. So, 

you are justifying using old technologies for the bottom line, when 

in fact there are much better technologies out there. So, maybe, 

carbon fiber transmission lines, new technology, so the heat in the 

line doesn’t cause the sway. Aren’t there, really, technologies that 

are shelf-ready out there right now that you could be using that 

you are not? 

97 

Mr. NIGGLI. There is not really—like, carbon fiber will not get us 

the amounts of power, the bulk power capability that we have to 

deliver. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Will it improve it? 

Mr. NIGGLI. It probably won’t. I don’t think you will see carbon 

fiber necessarily doing that. There is a lot of materials technology 

work that has to be done to allow that to carry the same amount 

of power that, say, a 500,000-volt transmission line would right 

now. So, there are some things you can do in terms of how you control and operate the system that the smart grid will help us continue to best use our assets. 

Then, breakthrough, if you ever got to essentially low-cost or 

lower-cost underground capability, I think you would have the ability to deliver from one side to another without the environmental 

impacts that you see today. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. You said—and I know my time is up. You said 

‘‘probably not.’’ Are you standing by ‘‘probably’’ or are you standing 

by ‘‘certainly not’’? Because I would like that actually answered in 

writing if I could get it from you, that you could be doing a lot more 

to increase your transmission capabilities and efficiencies. You said 

‘‘probably not.’’ So, I don’t know if you knew the answer or if you 

are taking a stab at the answer, but I would really like the answer, 

if you could provide that in writing. Later is fine. 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Certainly, we can, Congresswoman. I think—I 

want to make sure I had your question. Your question I think was 

around whether new capacities, new technologies like carbon fiber, 

could possibly be used in the not-too-distant future. We would be 

glad to answer that. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. 

And I thank the Chairman very much. 

Mr. COSTA. Not a problem. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. You are welcome back in my District any time. 

[Laughter.] 

Especially if you spend a lot of money. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. We appreciate it very, very much. 

Mr. COSTA. Visited a casino, only for observation purposes, last 

night. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Take a tour of the casinos, if you would like. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, yes. 

We have room for I think another round here, so let us go quickly, and hopefully the Congresswoman from Wyoming will get a 

chance. I will go quickly. 

Ms. Gensler, all of the solar private industries that are testifying, 

the discussion out there between solar thermal and solar voltaic on 

the utility scale of projects. Any preference with the technology and 

the water issues as you know? And PG&E has a solar thermal 

project in my area, a pilot project, and they are looking to expand 

that if it works out well to 150 megawatts. Quickly. 

Mr. MALNIGHT. We actually need both, I think, and we look forward to both of those competing against each other to continue to 

reduce the costs. As far as water, you know, PG&E is evaluating 

both dry and wet options. We have invested our gateway thermal 

98 

facility in dry cooling and believe that that is a very viable option, 

and we will look at both of those. 

Mr. COSTA. Very water efficient. 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Corcoran, do you care to make any comment? 

Mr. CORCORAN. Dry cooling is the direction we would love to see 

them go in. It will increase opportunities to use degraded areas as 

well. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Ms. Gensler? 

Ms. GENSLER. We have members who develop all sorts of technologies. We are just happy to see anything be deployed in the 

State of California at this point. But certainly everything has a different consideration. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Mr. Niggli? 

Mr. NIGGLI. Nothing to add, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. Nothing to add. 

On your Powerlink, Sunrise Powerlink, that you referenced, are 

you going to have excess capacity for renewable energy? 

Mr. NIGGLI. We are going to have 1,000 megawatts of capability. 

We have signed up almost all of that capacity either between us, 

Southern California Edison, or Pacific Gas and Electric, to utilize 

the capability of the transmission. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. You talked about we need more than just a wellcoordinated planning process, or just another planning process. 

What did you have in mind? 

Mr. NIGGLI. Well, primarily that as we go forward and we agree 

upon corridors that need to be put in place in the western United 

States, that those planning processes that are underway to determine that actually have—— 

Mr. COSTA. Well, it has to be a permit at the end of the day, 

right? 

Mr. NIGGLI. It has an impact on licensing. 

Mr. COSTA. Bingo. 

Mr. NIGGLI. Absolutely. 

Mr. COSTA. We are thinking along the same lines. 

Ms. Gensler, you said that Congress should support the use of 

BLM land for mitigation easements. Could you elaborate on that 

idea very quickly? 

Ms. GENSLER. I did. And I would defer to the Nature Conservancy also, who is coming up with some interesting easement ideas 

and mitigation strategies called non-acquisition mitigation. But to 

the extent that BLM land is deemed inappropriate for solar development and possibly for other types of development, we would like 

some kind of crediting mechanism, so that that land can be used 

for mitigation to better enable a solar project to be developed. 

Mr. COSTA. What do you think on the update on the Section 368 

corridors that BLM is leading? 

Ms. GENSLER. I think it would be fantastic if BLM actually considered renewable energy development. It was a bit of an afterthought the last time. 

Mr. COSTA. So you think it is an add-on, and it should be part 

of the process. You don’t think they should start over again, do 

you? 

99 

Ms. GENSLER. I think we can take everything we have already 

done and work with it. 

Mr. COSTA. That wouldn’t be good, no. OK. 

Mr. Malnight, what sort of timelines would PG&E like to see imposed on the BLM review process for solar right-of-away? 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Well, certainly faster is always better. I think 

that, you know, I am not sure exactly what day or what month I 

would propose to you right now. I am happy to give you a written 

answer for that. But, clearly, we need to provide a lot of coordination between the agencies to improve the timeline of that. 

Mr. COSTA. What has been your experience on the seven-year 

timeline that I was just somewhat—— 

Mr. MALNIGHT. From transmission. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, to site a transmission line. 

Mr. MALNIGHT. I think that that is in the ballpark. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. And any way you think we can improve on that? 

Mr. MALNIGHT. Well, as I mentioned before, I think enhancing 

the coordination and really, you know, working together is the 

right answer. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. The effort that we are embarking upon, it 

just seems to me that we have been talking about collaboration and 

coordination, but the Federal Government truly—and I was talking 

back and forth to some of my colleagues here in between questioning—needs to get our own act together. 

We have provided a tremendous amount of money in the stimulus package to the Department of Energy, but the Secretary of 

Energy laments to us that, you know, historically, they have not 

done a very good job in getting grants out, getting projects out. As 

a matter of fact, he has a monthly meeting with the EPA and the 

Secretary of Agriculture and others. I mean, he even told me personally that he thinks USDA does a better job of getting grants 

out. I know USDA doesn’t do that good of a job. So, if he is looking 

at that— 

We have increased their budget significantly, but I think some 

of my colleagues’ comments to whether or not we choose FERC as 

the lead agency, or whether we choose some other—we have too 

many cooks in the kitchen, for lack of a better term. 

Mr. Corcoran, would you care to opine on that? I have got—very 

quickly, because I want to—— 

Mr. CORCORAN. I think the cooks are getting together to figure 

out what they are doing here in California. I—— 

Mr. COSTA. How about in Washington? 

Mr. CORCORAN. It is starting to come together, and—— 

Mr. COSTA. It needs a lot of work. 

Mr. CORCORAN. It needs a lot of work, you bet, but I would be 

very cautious about embedding power in one particular place, because these are decisions that affect local communities, they affect 

a lot of folks, and we are also trying to see where we can get with 

energy efficiency and distributed generation. You don’t want a 

process that is run to emphasize one part of the clean energy solution for the United States. 

Mr. COSTA. Because you agree with me we ought to use all of the 

energy tools in the energy toolbox, right? 

100 

Mr. CORCORAN. We do. And we need to use them responsibly and 

to protect the conservation outcomes we have achieved over the 

last few decades. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. My time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Wyoming. Five minutes. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And following up on 

your comments, could the Western Governors’ Association and its 

counterparts in other regions be the lead agency? Anybody? 

Mr. NIGGLI. I will start on that. I think they can be a lead agency and very influential in the mega-planning that goes on with the 

corridors that need to connect the western renewable energy zones. 

I think that is probably a natural place. I am not sure that they 

are necessarily the lead agency when it comes to, say, siting the 

transmission lines themselves. 

The only reason I say that is that every single generation project 

we have ever looked at ultimately involves both state and Federal, 

because of the transmission element. And you need to have that active state participation. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Maybe we could create something—now I am just 

thinking out loud—that would involve the Warious Governors’ Association’s regional entities and Federal agencies that is somehow 

sanctioned by Congress. But, again, I am just thinking out loud. 

I wanted to let you know about your comment about non-acquisition mitigation, something that we are doing in Wyoming that I 

think has promise. The companies that are developing the Jonah 

Infill and the Pinedale Anticline for natural gas production are 

having massive cumulative impacts on the environment, the air environment, the wildlife corridors, and so forth. 

And so what they are doing is putting some funds together that 

may be used both within Wyoming’s Wildlife Trust Fund and as 

their individual company mitigation projects to do acquisition not 

of easements, because easement at least implies perpetuity, but 

conservation leases on certain properties that can serve as non-acquisition mitigation for impacts on Federal and private lands with 

regard to these cumulative impacts. So, just a thought there. 

And, let us see, third thought. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield 

back. Thanks. 

Mr. COSTA. Wow, you are really buttering me up. You have two 

minutes and 40 seconds left. I guess that accounts for the time that 

I exceeded. 

Our last questioning is from our able member, Congresswoman 

Bono Mack. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Corcoran, first, I would like to welcome you for the Sierra 

Club. I would point out that one of the best advocates is here in 

the audience. That is Joan Taylor. I am surprised she is not testifying. She would have done a great job. She is a very capable voice 

for the Sierra Club here and is in my office frequently, and does 

a fantastic job I think of bringing all sides together. I hope you follow her model in leadership in these areas. 

But my question, really, is for you. And I don’t know how familiar you are with our multi-species habitat and conservation plan, 

the systems that we have out here where we plan for the mitigation. Are you familiar with them at all? 

101 

Mr. CORCORAN. With the model of them, yes. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Yes. 

Mr. CORCORAN. OK. In specific, I would say Joan should be at 

the table. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Well, thank you. Would that be, then, the 

model that you would like to put forward to see that we put forth 

for mitigating for these projects? 

Mr. CORCORAN. I think that habitat planning outcomes, like in 

HCP/NCCP, are part of the long-term solution to how we get to a 

place where we can find the places to say yes to, and guarantee 

that we are still making progress on the recovery of species. So, 

yes, long term that is an important outcome. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. And do you believe—in your testimony and 

your points, how good is the Sierra Club’s math in meeting this 

standard? We talked about needing to inventory these non-disturbed lands and all. How far along in that process are you? Do 

you have a number, or do you have—do you really think we can 

meet that 33 percent by 2020, given what you know currently 

about the lands? 

Mr. CORCORAN. I think we have a huge challenge on the interim 

goal. I am hopeful that we will meet the long-term goal of 2020. 

What I want to emphasize is that this is an inventorying of 

resources in which, for example, through the RETI process and 

others, the Nature Conservancy, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and others have brought a lot of important 

natural resource information to the table. So, now the challenge is 

to the State and the Federal Government to, with their own resources, coordinate these together, so that we are ensuring that we 

are finding the right places to say yes to. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. All right. Terrific. Well, I know that I am 

down to my last three minutes, and the Chairman will love me 

dearly if I wrap it up sooner rather than later. So, again, I—— 

Mr. COSTA. You have three minutes. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Well, thank you. I will take three minutes to 

thank you, then, for being here. 

[Laughter.] 

And to encourage you to come back. And, again, the players at 

the table, the greatest thing that I have done is I have hiked—done 

hikes with the Sierra Club to see concerns of theirs, and actually 

almost killed myself hiking some trails that were pretty hard, complicated. Actually, we had to leave the Sierra Club guy at the bottom of the hill. But, really, we will be out there in any capacity to 

bring you guys together and to work on these issues on a consensus 

way. 

This District, if you look at the map, it is a mosaic of different 

land uses and ownership. But I can tell you that everybody, whether it is my tribal land, national monument land, state park land, 

it is that way because people live out here because they love where 

they live, and they care deeply, and they deserve a seat at the 

table. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you so highly for doing this in my 

District rather than just in Washington, D.C. And, again, I encourage you all to come back. 

102 

And to my new colleague from Wyoming, thank you for your insight and your wisdom and your guidance. 

And if anything, for my constituents here today, it is important 

as Members of Congress and the House of Representatives, our districts are all so diverse and so different, and our concerns—it is 

hard sometimes to recognize and to understand where we come 

from. A lot of Members of Congress travel the world over, on 

CODELS they are called, and I wish Members of Congress would 

instead get out to see each other’s districts and to understand the 

challenges that we face, and then come together to build a consensus and bipartisanship. 

So, again, in that model, in that vein, thank you very, very 

much, both of you, for being here, and to the distinguished panelists also for your time today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Bono Mack, for 

your good words, and for your good staff. And we have an incredible country, and with all of the diversity that you commented on, 

clearly, this hearing today reflects a large part of that diversity 

that we are all very proud of. And I know of your District, because 

I like to get away sometimes and visit. 

I also on occasion speak at conferences down here, but it is a 

wonderful part of California, as is the 20th Congressional District, 

Bakersfield and Fresno. We have Yosemite and Sequoia in our 

backyard, and we grow the richest bounty of agricultural diversity 

of crops anywhere in the world, notwithstanding that Coachella 

also does a good job. But we have some terrible drought conditions 

right now that we are dealing with. 

But to the Congresswoman from Wyoming, you forsook Mother’s 

Day, and that was awful nice. I guess I owe you one for—certainly 

your family, but we appreciate the good work you are doing on the 

Subcommittee and on the full Committee. I speak on behalf of my 

colleagues. You have hit the ground running, and your contributions today have demonstrated that. 

To both panels, the first panel and the second panel, you have 

done an excellent, excellent job. Bill, you are not a bad pinch hitter. 

And all of you I think added to the kind of information that we 

need. The testimony is critical, as we develop—as we try to develop 

the comprehensive energy policy that has been elusive over the last 

three decades. 

And hopefully we will learn the mistakes of why we have not 

been successful in the last three decades, and this time bring together the bipartisan effort that is necessary, that our nation deserves, that our nation needs, and that our constituents want to 

see us make happen. 

I have some magic words I need to say here, and that is that the 

Subcommittee may have additional questions. As I told you, I do 

have additional questions. They will be submitted to you. Under 

the Committee Rule 4H, any material submitted for inclusion in 

this hearing record must be submitted no later than 10 business 

days following today’s hearing. And so we want to make sure that 

the witnesses and those who have participated in the hearing understand that, as do my colleagues and their staff. 

103 

And, therefore, if there is no further business before the Subcommittee—no further business? The Chairman again thanks all of 

you, and our hostess, and the wonderful people here in Palm 

Desert and the Palm Springs greater area for making us feel at 

home. 

Thank you very much. This Subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[A statement submitted for the record by Ileene Anderson, Desert 

Program Director, Center for Biological Diversity, follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by Ileene Anderson, M.S., Desert 

Program Director, Center for Biological Diversity, on Implementation of 

Renewable Energy Projects in the Western United States 

Mr., Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Ileene Anderson. I am the 

Center for Biological Diversity’s Desert Program Director. I have worked for the 

Center for Biological Diversity for over 5 years of my 20 years in environmental 

work. I was appointed to the Bureau of Land Management’s California Desert Advisory Council in 1998 and served six years including one year as chairperson. I submit this statement on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and our 220,000 

members, e-activists and staff. 

My responsibilities include working to protect rare and endangered species and 

their habitats on public and private lands. In that context, I and our desert and 

public lands energy staff are working to facilitate environmentally responsible renewable energy throughout the desert regions of the western United States. I have 

also been involved in the environmental working group for the State of California’s 

Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI), and working with stakeholders 

and conservationists to chart a clear path forward that allows for appropriately 

sited renewable energy development and resources conservation. 

Global climate change poses great challenges to all of the inhabitants of the planet. Scientific literature on the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the United 

States (and the world) is well developed. Changes include decreased snowpack, increased water temperatures, sea level rise, increase in storm intensity and the proportion of precipitation of rain versus snow, increase in the number of heat wave 

days in major urban centers, and increased wildfire frequency and intensity among 

a multitude of other related issues. Profound impacts to ecosystems and species, including changes in the timing of life events, shifts in range, and community abundance shifts are likely and depending on the timing and interaction of these impacts, they may be catastrophic. For the western deserts specifically, modeling efforts predict a warmer and drier climate. Desert species already cling tenuously to 

life in extreme climate conditions, and will require opportunities to migrate and 

change ranges as global climate changes occur. 

Quick action must be taken to minimize the catastrophe and prevent run-away 

climate change from occurring. An immediate shift to a different energy pathway 

that includes renewable energy is imperative. Yet large scale renewable energy development can also have large scale environmental impacts. This is why thoughtful 

siting of renewable energy to maximize renewable energy production while preserving our ecological heritage on public lands—which must provide refuge to species struggling to adapt to a rapidly changing climate and functioning ecosystems 

on which species and human communities depend—is not only possible, but essential, and indeed an obligation on our part to future generations. Ensuring that 

large-scale renewable projects comply with our existing environmental safeguards is 

essential to ensure that environmental impacts are minimized at the same time that 

use and development of renewable energy is maximized. 

The impacts to the environment vary with the type of renewable energy development. Solar energy production on a large scale often times requires large tracts of 

relatively flat land that is devoid of vegetation. Little habitat values remain on 

these sites once they are dedicated to solar energy production. Because of the significant impact that these projects will have, applying the following fundamental 

principles, which were developed through the Center’s experience in the California 

Desert, can provide a useful framework for siting renewable energy on Enterprise 

and Redevelopment Zones that can be applied throughout the western United 

104 

States, in order to achieve the goal of increasing our nation’s reliance on renewable 

energy, especially solar energy include: • Site solar projects on previously disturbed sites. Mechanically disturbed 

sites such as abandoned agricultural lands have already been ‘‘type converted’’ 

from native vegetation and habitat to agriculture. In the west, agricultural 

lands have been fallowed from lack of water or soil salt build up. • Establish incentives for development on these private lands. Because 

many of mechanically disturbed sites are actually on private property, 

incentivizing siting of solar facilities on these lands will benefit to the local 

economies and effectively will steer development away from undisturbed public 

lands that are in many cases the last, best refuge and habitat for imperiled species. These private land sites are typically at the peripheries of developed areas, 

close to load-bearing centers and delivery infrastructure. 

Examples of the kind of incentives that may need to be applied to these solar Enterprise and Redevelopment Zones include: • Incentives for land owners to sell/lease property to solar development. 

Incentives such as tax credits or tax exemptions would encourage landowners 

to purpose their lands to renewable energy projects. Local economies, many of 

which are economically underserved, will benefit, while repurposing these lands 

as the key to our energy independence. • Incentives for solar to be developed on these lands. Similar incentives as 

mentioned above—including tax credits and/or exemptions—would encourage 

solar developers to locate within these zones, taking pressure off of undisturbed 

public lands. • Centralizing solar development into Enterprise and Redevelopment 

Zones. Enabling centralized production by directing development into Enterprise and Redevelopment Zones is far more efficient that creating hop-scotch development which will require additional expensive infrastructure in order to deliver the energy to market. Concentrating projects into Enterprise and Redevelopment Zones adjacent to existing development also lowers to the carbon footprint of getting workers from home to jobs and back. 

The potential pitfalls that can result from not applying this framework have been 

exemplified in the California Desert. For example, during the initial rush of applications to site solar energy on public lands in the California Desert Conservation 

Area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) accepted applications for projects in 

areas previously-identified as unsuitable for development—for example, areas that 

had already been established for endangered species conservation. Because there 

was no programmatic plan in place or any mechanism for steering applications to 

appropriate areas and away from inappropriate ones, BLM then had to initiate additional processes to evaluate and determine that these areas were inappropriate for 

solar development, leading to frustration on the part of the solar developers, and 

wasting significant BLM resources processing applications for projects that it was 

clear from the outset were inappropriately sited. BLM should reject all applications in previously identified areas for environmental conservation at the 

outset and use its staff time and resources to move forward projects that 

are appropriately sited. 

We are pleased that the Department of Interior has now initiated a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement that will identify areas that are appropriate for 

solar development. This process will need to 1) clarify locations that are suitable for 

development, 2) cluster development into specific areas (versus the status quo where 

applications are filed in a haphazard fashion) and 3) steer public lands solar development onto disturbed lands and adjacent to existing transmission lines, substations, population centers and disturbed private lands. Establishing solar energy 

zones in this way will minimize the need for new transmission, and concentrate the 

industrialization into these most appropriate areas. 

Incentives must also be found to allow solar developers to transfer their applications from inappropriate sites to such solar zones. In many instances, developers 

lack incentives to transfer an application from the inappropriate site to a more appropriate site is due to delays that can jeopardize contractual obligations because 

the application loses its place in the transmission hook-up ‘‘queue’’, and because the 

developers risk losing capital already invested in studies and project engineering. 

However, creative incentives can be applied to all of these challenges. Project location transfer needs to be allowed without the applicant having to go back to the end 

of the ‘‘queue’’. Environmental surveys of public lands done on inappropriately located application sites may in some cases provide information to the public and the 

public land managers that is valuable and could be compensated. Indeed, when the 

solar projects are transferred to appropriate solar zones that have been selected to 

minimize environmental conflicts, the environmental review process will be signifiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
105 

cantly shortened, allowing for faster project implementation than on the inappropriate sites. 

Permitting agencies need more resources in order to process these applications 

quickly and efficiently. High priority needs to be given to adding additional staff capacity in the Department of Interior agencies, including BLM, and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, who may need to be consulted regarding impacts to threatened and 

endangered species. 

Lastly, the federal government must cooperate with state and local governments 

to achieve the goals of expediting solar (and other renewable) energy production. 

In summary, many opportunities exist to expedite renewable energy development 

and in particular solar development specifically in the western United States. We 

urge the Natural Resources Committee to take the bold, necessary steps that will 

aid our transition to a different energy pathway that includes appropriately-sited renewable energy, while conserving our irreplaceable natural heritage. 

Thank you for considering these solutions and please feel free to contact me with 

any questions. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Basin and Range Watch 

follows:] 

May 15, 2009 

To: Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

From: Basin and Range Watch 

Greetings, 

These comments are in response to the Congressional Subcommittee Field Hearing to Examine the Future of Solar Power on Federal Lands in Palm Desert, California on Monday, May 11th, 2009. We have several comments. 

We support the strong use of distributed generation and conservation, including 

residential solar funding plans such as California’s AB811 loan program and building-integrated solar on new housing and commercial properties. When House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Jim Costa (D-CA) says this 

is too expensive, following the California Energy Commission’s claim, we have to 

disagree, as this claim does not incorporate the full cost of new and upgraded transmission which will add billions of dollars to construction costs of remote solar and 

wind energy projects to move the energy to cities, and raise ratepayers’ rates as 

well. Solar companies will be receiving 30% federal grants to cover the costs of construction of plants, and we feel similar grants could be put toward local distributed 

generation plans. Locally generated energy and conservation should be the top priority in the national energy plan instead of remote industrial generation on pristine 

desert and mountain lands. 

We agree with the part of the testimony given by Bill Corcoran of the Sierra Club 

that outlines a plan for supporting companies in acquiring disturbed lands by incentives to aggregate subdivided private lands and create Enterprise Zones. We emphatically do not support the use of largescale renewables on undeveloped pristine 

federal lands. The scraping of vegetation and soils that will be needed to build solar 

thermal power plants over thousands of acres is hypocritical to the cause of slowing 

global warming, as carbon is sequestered by desert flora and soil microbiota. 

The destruction of critical habitat for Desert tortoises and other wildlife and rare 

plants cannot be mitigated properly in our opinion. The Federally Endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep has been found on areas that are proposed solar energy 

project sites, and much more study is needed to ensure the little remaining habitat 

for these populations is not destroyed. Increasingly rare Sage grouse habitats are 

also threatened by proposed wind energy projects in the Great Basin Desert on federal lands. These cannot simply be replaced. Native American cultural heritage 

sites, sacred sites, archaeological sites, and historic areas need to also be included 

in inventories of federal lands before they are slated for renewable siting. We do 

not support the Sierra Club’s or other groups’ mitigation plans for habitat lands 

that are being considered for siting of utility-scale solar plants. We urge Congress 

to seriously consider disturbed lands, whether private or public, as this will speed 

the environmental review process greatly and lessen protests by users of public 

lands. 

The subcommittee promotes a rush of many new transmission lines in the name 

of combating climate change yet ignores the data from the Environmental Protection 

106 

Agency (EPA) that sulfur hexaflouride (SF6) is the most potent greenhouse gas 

studied to date, with a global warming impact of 23,900 times CO2, and a much 

longer lifespan (estimated at 3,200 years, compared to CO2’s 50-200 years). Almost 

all of it is used and emitted in electrical transmission and distribution, with big 

spikes in emissions during construction of lines. SF6 is used as an insulator in highvoltage (35 kV and above) circuit breakers, switchgear, and other electrical equipment. 

Sempra Energy is using the Natural Resources Defense Council-Audubon Society 

Google-Earth Map in their testimony to show Congress which lands are suitable for 

development. We believe this map should not be used for this purpose yet until it 

is revised to include the many environmentally sensitive areas and issues that were 

not included. We do not support the use of this map database by Congress to speed 

up permit applications for big renewable projects on Federal lands until more consensus is reached among the environmental community and other groups concerned 

with the desert. 

One of the most obvious environmental consequences of plans to cover the deserts 

with solar thermal plants is water. We do not feel that Congress really understands 

that there will never be enough water to accomplish such a feat. ‘‘Mining’’ of groundwater from desert valleys can cause distant springs to dry up and also contributes 

to soil compaction as the aquifer settles. Pore spaces in the aquifer collapse when 

groundwater is withdrawn, diminishing the use of the valley as an aquifer in future 

centuries. Much water in thermal reflector plants is wasted in washing solar panels 

every day to keep off dust. Water used in these plants is not recycled but is allowed 

to run off onto the ground. Diesel trucks and other fossil-fuel powered equipment 

are used to transport and direct the water, causing a waste of energy and a release 

of greenhouse gasses that nullifies any savings and offsets that are expected from 

using the power of the sun. The solar plant ends up providing no net gain from its 

construction and can even be a loser, due to the low efficiency of solar collectors to 

begin with. Thus even dry-cooled solar thermal energy plants use too much water 

in arid ecosystems, and wet-cooled plants should not be considered in deserts. 

We are concerned with the discussion of streamlining and accelerating the environmental review process for siting solar projects on public lands. We hope that our 

country’s national heritage of federal lands in the desert with their rich fauna and 

flora, history, and recreation use, will be given due protection, following the voters’ 

past will in enacting such initiatives as the California Desert Protection Act. We do 

not want to see decades of environmental protection and review processes discarded 

in a confused rush to meet renewable energy goals, helping to defeat these goals 

in the process. 

We felt that the hearing failed to recognize the very many concerns that local people in the desert communities have about the impacts large scale renewable projects 

will have on their environment, property values, quality of life and energy bills. It 

appeared as though the meeting was formatted to make approval of these projects 

very easy for energy developers. We do not feel the United States Congress should 

be pandering only to the interests of developers. Please hold more desert field hearings to gather input from local desert residents and from desert ecologists and scientists who have done research on the importance of desert ecosystems to local 

economies and as part of our natural heritage. 

In conclusion, we ask that Congress not recommend that generators site utilityscale projects on our undisturbed public lands and habitats. 

Thank you, 

Kevin Emmerich 

Laura Cunningham 

Basin and Range Watch 

P.O. Box 70 

Beatty, NV 89003 

775-553-2806 

www.basinandrangewatch.org 

Nick Ervin 

President of the Board of Directors 

Desert Protective Council 

P.O. Box 3635 

San Diego, CA. 92163 

(619) 342-5524 

www.dpcinc.org 

Steve Tabor, President 

Desert Survivors 

107 

PO Box 20991 

Oakland, CA 94620-0991 

www.desert-survivors.org 

Daniel Patterson, 

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

Tucson AZ USA 

(520) 906-2159 

dpatterson.blogspot.com 

www.peer.org 

Denis Trafecanty 

The Protect Our Communities Foundation 

PO Box 305 

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 

Donna Charpied, Executive Director 

Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley 

PO Box 397 

Desert Center CA 92239 

(760) 987-1363 

stopthedump@yahoo.com 

Ceal Smith 

P.O. Box 316 

Crestone, CO 81131 

(719) 256-5780 

ceal@theriver.com 

Austin Puglisi, M.D. 

Anne Westenhaver 

9131 Rawson Rd, 

Morongo Valley CA 92256 

austinanne@earthlink.net 

April Sall, Chair 

California Desert Coalition 

P.O. Box 1508 

Yucca Valley, CA 92286 

www.cadesertco.org 

[A form letter on ‘‘Solar Development in the San Luis Valley, 

Colorado,’’ delivered by CitizenSpeak!, with personal comments 

submitted for the record by the individuals listed below follows:] 

Andy Zaugg; Catherine Broadbent, San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition; Cecelia Smith, Director, San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition; Charles Tidd, San Luis Water Protection Coalition; Claire Barker; David and Renee Hill; Dr. Bonnie M. Orkow; 

Francis Bonny; Glyder, Biosphere Coalition; Jay Bremyer; Kathryn 

Van Note, San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition; Liza Marron, LiveWell Alamosa, ScSEED, Mountain Valley School Board; 

Matthew Crowley, Shumei International Institute; Pavita Decorah, 

Sri Aurobindo Learning Center; Randi Young; Ron Sitts; Sandia 

Belgrade; Stephen Smilack; Tamar Ellentuck 

To: Representatives on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. 

I am writing in response to the field hearing on Solar Energy Development On 

Federal Lands: The Road to Consensus held in Palm Desert, California, May 11, 

2009. My personal statement appears at the end of this letter. 

Thank you for extending the comment period on above mentioned hearing. The 

San Luis Valley has become the major focal point for industrial solar development 

in Colorado. More than 50% of the Valley is publicly owned, thus the future of our 

high-elevation rural Valley hangs in the balance of Federal energy policy decisions 

currently being debated by the Department of Interior, Congress and this committee. Being far from DC, Denver and the urban demand centers, the concerns of 

our 40,000 constituents have not been heard. I hope this marks and end to our invisibility. 

108 

The San Luis Valley is home to one of our nations most productive agricultural 

areas and spectacular natural and cultural landscapes, recently recognized when 

Congress passed the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Act of 2009. 

Solar energy development on the massive industrial scale currently being proposed is entirely untested. Impacts on our rural agricultural communities, aquifers 

and watersheds, air quality, ecosystems and biodiversity remain largely 

unexamined. In the absence of an informed energy policy, unregulated market-driven solar energy development could very well accelerate the disappearance of the extraordinary ecological and cultural heritage of our Nations rural areas including the 

San Luis Valley. 

Large-scale solar facilities are already being sited on private lands within the Valley. I do not believe we should sacrifice our public lands too. Until existing degraded 

lands and the built environment, especially near urban point-of-use centers are fully 

utilized, it simply makes no sense to destroy intact (and carbon sequestering) ecosystems on our valuable public lands. 

I would like to see the farmers, ranchers, businesses, communities and citizens 

who make the San Luis Valley their home profit directly from our solar resources 

rather than giving carte blanche to distant corporations in exchange for a few shortterm jobs. By providing incentives for distributed generation, solar energy development can be integrated into the existing fabric of our rural agricultural economy 

rather than uprooting it through large-scale industrialization. As you consider solar 

energy development on public lands I urge you to prioritize the following: 

1. Energy efficiency and conservation; 

2. Smart-grid upgrades to existing infrastructure before constructing new transmission; 

3. Federal and state incentive programs to promote point-of-use distributed generation through Feed-In Tariffs, progressive net metering and long-term, lowinterest loan programs targeting agriculture, business, municipalities, rural 

communities and households; 

4. Use of degraded lands and the build environment near urban centers first; 

5. Use of low-water dry cooling solar technologies in arid and semi-arid environments; 

6. Avoidance of National Parks and Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness, Roadless Areas, State, Federal, County or citizen recognized special 

conservation areas, intact public lands, prime agricultural lands, wetlands, 

wildlife corridors, cultural sites and Federal or State endangered species habitat; 

7. Pilot studies geared at developing effective mitigation and ‘‘best management 

practices’’ for large-scale solar energy facilities; 

8. Development of a comprehensive study by our nations top independent energy 

and policy experts leading to adoption of a National Energy Policy. 

Lastly, I would like to encourage the Subcommittee to continue holding hearings 

on renewable energy development, particularly in our part of the Southwest. As we 

stand at the crossroads of the new energy transition, a fundamentally new paradigm 

is emerging that those of us at ‘‘ground-zero’’ would like to share. 

I respectfully submit my comments for the Record of the Hearing and request that 

I be notified of further hearings on solar energy development on public lands. 

[A form letter on ‘‘Solar Done Right’’ delivered by CitizenSpeak!, 

with personal comments submitted for the record by the individuals listed below follows:] Andy Liberman; Annette Rojas; Arvind 

Says; Brendan Hughes; Cecelia Smith, San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition; Chris Clarke; Connie Crusha; David Crawford, 

Desert Protective Council; David McMullen; Diane Conklin, 

Mussey Grade Road Alliance; Donna Thomas; Florian Boyd; George 

Wuerthner; Gidon Taylor Singer; Helena Quintana; James Dyer; 

Janeen Armstrong; Jill Giegerich; Karen Schambach, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; Katherine McTaggart; 

Kim F. Floyd; Kurt Leuschner, Desert Cities Bird Club; Laraine 

Turk, California Desert Coalition; Larry Hogue, Desert Protective 

Council; Linda Harter; Luana Lynch; Mesonika Piecuch, ORV 

Watch Kern County; Michael Howard; Michael Pinto; Nick Comer; 

Nick Ervin; Olivia de Haulleville; Philip Leitner, California State 

109 

University; Phillip Schuyler Carskaddan; Rachel Shaw, Sungazer 

Photography and Images; Richard Ryan, Desert Protective Council; 

Ruth Rieman; Spencer Berman; Stacey Landfield; Steve Hartman; 

Terry Frewin; Vanessa Rusczyk, The Protect Our Communities 

Foundation; William Modesitt; Willie Walker 

Dear Representatives on the House Natural Resources Committee: 

I am writing with comments on the Congressional Subcommittee Field Hearing 

to Examine the Future of Solar Power on Federal Lands held in Palm Desert, California on Monday, May 11th, 2009. My personal statement appears at the end of 

this letter. 

First, I hope you will schedule more hearings throughout the Southwest. These 

hearings should include testimony from scientists with expertise in desert ecosystems, as well as energy engineers and developers experienced with a variety of 

renewable energy alternatives, including distributed generation. In addition, the 

hearings should provide opportunities for citizen input. 

I believe that we can move to a low-carbon society without sacrificing our beautiful and biologically rich desert landscapes. As you consider where and how solar 

energy should be developed in this country, please adhere to these simple principles: 

1. Place the highest priority on energy efficiency and conservation. 

2. In developing solar, place the highest priority on ‘‘distributed generation’’ technologies, such as photovoltaic solar panels 

3. Use proven incentives such as Feed-In Tariffs and long-term, low-interest loan 

programs to promote more distributed solar. 

4. Put large-scale, centralized solar projects only on lands that have already been 

heavily abused, such as abandoned farm land. 

5. Don’t build large-scale projects on good habitat, especially if it is home to endangered species. 

If we follow the first four points above, we can combat global warming without 

paving the desert with ‘‘solar parks.’’ 

More detail on each of these principles is available at: http://tinyurl.com/ 

solardoneright 

Please submit these comments For the Record for the hearing. I would like to receive notice of further hearings on solar energy development on public lands. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Veronica Gutierrez, 

Director, Public Affairs, Edison International, follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by Veronica Gutierrez, 

Director, Public Affairs, Edison International 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this 

opportunity to offer testimony on issues related to solar development on federal and 

private lands. 

My name is Veronica Gutierrez. I am the Director of Public Affairs for Edison 

International, the parent company of Southern California Edison and Edison Mission Energy. I am responsible for assisting Edison Mission Energy with its plans 

for renewable energy development in the West. I am also responsible for assisting 

Southern California Edison with low carbon energy development and out-of-state 

transmission development. 

Southern California Edison is the nation’s leading purchaser of renewable energy 

with more than 16% of our electricity coming from renewable resources, enough to 

power 1.8 million homes for an entire year. Southern California Edison also purchases 80% of all the solar energy currently generated in the United States. In order 

to reach our goal of 20% renewables by 2010, and to prepare for the 33% renewable 

portfolio standard currently working its way through the state legislature, Southern 

California Edison is investing more than $20 billion over the next five years to expand and strengthen our transmission and distribution infrastructure. 

Edison Mission Energy is one of the country’s 10 largest wind energy developers 

with projects in operation or in development in 17 states. Edison Mission Energy’s 

business plan also calls for development of utility-scale solar generation in a unique 

niche—on privately owned, ‘‘disturbed’’ land or land with low quality habitat. 

From an Edison International perspective, we have a very keen interest in removing barriers to both solar generation development and the development and upgrade 

of transmission necessary to bring it online. I would like to reiterate the recommendation of California Public Utilities Commissioner Rachelle Chong that you 

110 

consider California’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, also known as 

RETI, which has involved many stakeholders and has painstakingly assessed the location of optimal renewables zones, and especially the transmission corridors necessary to bring this generation online. Federal agencies are already participating in 

RETI and we welcome their continued involvement. 

Our experience has been that the state process for transmission siting works fairly well, and we are very pleased to hear of new efforts to allocate the resources necessary for federal agencies to streamline and accelerate environmental reviews. We 

have made similar recommendations to several federal agencies and elected officials 

in the hope that the federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will soon receive the staffing resources to more 

quickly complete the necessary work for siting proposals. 

Also from an Edison International perspective, I would like to reiterate the recommendation of Carl Zichella of the Sierra Club regarding incentives for renewable 

developers focusing on private, disturbed, land. Regarding this matter, there is a 

very specific issue that we have found particularly troublesome. The review time associated with Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance is currently a disincentive 

for development on private land because the ESA has a more expedited time table 

for review when there is a federal nexus: 135 days. This makes development on federal land more attractive to developers because the normal time table for review on 

private land is three to five years for disturbed land and six to nine years for 

projects with more significant impacts. We believe that this discrepancy can be resolved through two actions: 1) Allocation of staff to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more expedited review and for an administrative rulemaking. 2) An administrative rulemaking under section 4(d) of the ESA that could reduce the review time 

to a matter of weeks if staffing levels were appropriate to handle the workload. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has informally reviewed our ideas for expedited review, especially when it involves already disturbed land or low quality habitat. I have a white paper on this matter that I would like to share with your staff 

and provide for the record. What we need now are the funds for implementation. 

Your assistance in this regard will be greatly appreciated. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

White Paper 

Use of Section 4(d) of Endangered Species Act 

To Encourage Low Impact Renewable Energy Projects 

I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE. 

This paper describes the potential use of the authority in section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (‘‘ESA’’) to streamline the ESA permit process for renewable 

energy projects that will have low impacts on endangered and threatened species. 

To address the global climate change issue, the State of California has adopted 

significant new legislation and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to 

expand dramatically the energy generated in the state from solar and other renewable energy sources. In response, many private entities are seeking the approval for 

solar energy projects in the California desert. 

The State of California and the federal government have initiated the preparation 

of regional plans to address the potential impacts of solar energy projects on natural 

resources. These plans, however, are not anticipated to be completed for several 

years. Until these plans are completed, there is a need to encourage the siting of 

solar energy projects in areas that will avoid and minimize impacts on endangered 

and threatened species and that will not preclude the implementation of the regional natural resource conservation plans. 

Previously disturbed lands are most often privately-owned and impacts on listed 

species are consequently reviewed under Section 10 of the ESA. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (‘‘Service’’) acknowledges that permitting timelines under Section 10 

can take many years—even for projects that have minimal impacts on endangered 

and threatened species. The Service recently estimated that the permitting process 

for solar projects on private lands ranges from 3-5 years for a project with low impacts, to 6-9 years for a project with more significant impacts. In contrast, the ESA 

establishes a 135-day process for issuing incidental take authority in circumstances 

where there is a federal nexus. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b). But in most instances, no federal nexus is available for renewable projects on private lands. 

The above ESA permitting process paradoxically results in a significant disincentive to siting renewable energy projects in areas where they will have least impact. 

111 

It also encourages the siting of renewable energy projects on more sensitive federal 

land. 

II. USE OF SECTION 4(D) TO ENCOURAGE SITING OF RENEWABLE 

PROJECTS IN AREAS OF LOW IMPACT. 

Section 4(d) of the ESA provides a mechanism for the Service and the Department 

of Fish and Game to promote siting of renewable energy projects in areas with the 

least impact on threatened and endangered species. 

Section 4(d) authorizes the Service to issue regulations that are ‘‘necessary and 

advisable’’ to provide for the conservation of threatened species 16 U.S.C. § 1533(d). 

The Service has interpreted section 4(d) to authorize regulations that limit the section 9 take prohibition for threatened species. These so-called ‘‘4(d) Special Rules’’ 

have the effect of allowing take of certain threatened species under conditions prescribed by regulation, if any, without an incidental take permit under section 10. 

Generally, 4(d) Special Rules restrict the section 9 take prohibition for defined categories of actions, allowing take resulting from, for example, routine ranching activities on private land without a section 10 permit. See, e.g., 50 CFR § 17.43(c)(3). 

Thus, 4(d) Special Rules allow persons to take the subject species in the course of 

conducting the enumerated activities, in compliance with the ESA, without individual authorization from the Service. 

III. USE OF SECTION 4(D) TO STREAMLINE THE CESA PERMITTING 

PROCESS FOR THREATENED SPECIES. 

The use of section 4(d) for qualifying renewable energy projects would also 

streamline the permit process for compliance with the California Endangered Species Act (‘‘CESA’’). California Fish and Game Code section 2080.1 provides a streamlined CESA permitting process with regard to projects impacting species jointly listed under ESA and CESA where the project has obtained ESA incidental take authority. Fish and Game Code, § 2080.1. Section 2080.1 provides a mechanism for the 

Department of Fish and Game to concur in a federal incidental take approval within 

30 days after receiving notice of the federal approval. Once this concurrence is 

issued, no other CESA approval is required for the project. 

When the Service issues the section 4(d) rule, it will also issue a biological opinion 

and an incidental take statement authorizing incidental take of threatened species 

subject to the requirements of the 4(d) rule. The California Department of Fish and 

Game may then determine that the incidental take statement is consistent with 

CESA requirements. Using the authority of section 2080.1, the Department of Fish 

and Game will avoid the need for a duplicative individual permit process under 

CESA for qualifying renewable energy projects. 

IV. EXAMPLES OF USE OF SECTION 4(D) TO AUTHORIZE LOW IMPACT 

ACTIVITIES OR ACTIVITIES PENDING COMPLETION OF REGIONAL 

CONSERVATION PLAN. 

A. THE GNATCATCHER 4(D) SPECIAL RULE. 

In 1993, the Service issued a 4(d) Special Rule limiting the take prohibition of 

the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (‘‘Gnatcatcher 4(d) Rule’’). 58 Fed. 

Reg. 65088 (Dec. 10, 1993); codified at 50 CFR § 17.41 (b). As the Service explained, 

the Gnatcatcher 4(d) Rule provides ‘‘another regulatory mechanism [in addition to 

incidental take authorization provided under sections 7 and 10]—to allow take of 

the gnatcatcher incidental to otherwise lawful activity.’’ 58 Fed. Reg. 65088, 65091. 

Under the Gnatcatcher 4(d) Rule, incidental take of the gnatcatcher was permitted during the period in which a natural community conservation plan (‘‘NCCP’’) 

was being prepared, provided the take occurs within an area under the jurisdiction 

of a local government agency that engaged in the preparation of a NCCP and such 

take results from activities conducted in accordance with the NCCP Conservation 

Guidelines and Process Guidelines. 50 CFR § 17.41(b)(3). 

The California Department of Fish and Game, in coordination with the Service 

and the NCCP scientific review panel, prepared the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Process Guidelines and the Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Conservation Guidelines to define 

the roles of local, state, and federal government in the NCCP planning process (collectively, ‘‘Guidelines’’). The Guidelines set forth, among other things, the process 

and the substantive requirements for securing interim approval of loss of coastal 

sage scrub (i.e., gnatcatcher) habitat, thus allowing take of gnatcatcher under the 

4(d) Special Rule. The table below summarizes the requirements of the 4(d) Special 

Rule and the Guidelines. 

112 

B. CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER. 

In 2004, the Service adopted a 4(d) Special Rule with regard to the California 

tiger salamander. 50 C.F.R. § 17.43; 69 Fed. Reg. 47212 (August 4, 2004). The Special Rule provided an exemption for routine ranching activities on private and Tribal 

lands. The Service explained that: 

Under section 4(d), the Secretary may publish a special rule that modifies 

the standard protections for threatened species found under section 9 of the 

Act and Service regulations . . with special measures tailored to the conservation of the species. We believe that, in certain circumstances, easing 

the general take prohibition on non-Federal lands may encourage continued 

responsible land uses that provide an overall benefit to the species. 

Id. at 47241. 

SALMON. 

NOAA Fisheries promulgated a 4(d) Special Rule for certain salmon species listed 

as threatened (‘‘Salmon 4(d) Rule). 70 Fed. Reg. 37160 (June 28, 2005); codified at 

50 CFR § 223.203. Among the 13 activities for which the take prohibition was limited was municipal, residential, commercial, and industrial development provided 

that the development occurs pursuant to local government ordinances or plans that 

NOAA Fisheries has determined are adequately protective of the subject species. Id. 

§ 223.203(b)(12). The Salmon 4(d) Rule lists a dozen conditions that NOAA Fisheries 

would use to evaluate the adequacy of local government plans, which must provide 

for ‘‘properly functioning conditions’’ for the salmon species, as summarized in the 

table below. 


49683.007.eps
113 

V. PROPOSED SECTION 4(D) RULE FOR QUALIFYING RENEWABLE 

ENERGY PROJECTS. 

The issuance of a 4(d) rule for renewable energy projects with low impacts on 

threatened species involves the following general steps: 

1. Preparation of conservation guidelines establishing requirements applicable to 

projects subject to the 4(d) rule. The guidelines would identify (i) substantive 

requirements that a qualifying project would be required to meet, (ii) mechanisms to insure implementation of the requirements, and (iii) oversight by the 

Service and the Department of Fish and Game. 

2. It is anticipated that the conservation guidelines would require qualifying 

projects to meet identified ‘‘low impact’’ criteria. For example, the conservation 

guidelines could require any qualifying project satisfy all of the following requirements: 

a. The total acreage of the project is no greater than 1280 acres, including 

acreage associated with permanent disturbance from the project’s electrical interconnection to transmission system. 

b. The project is sited on privately-owned ‘‘disturbed or degraded land’’ (as 

defined below) that is not within a National Park, National Recreation 

Area, National Monument, designated Wilderness Area, Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern or critical habitat previously designated by the 

Service for listed species. ‘‘Disturbed or degraded land’’ means land that 

is on or within 2 miles of land that is or has been used within the last 

50 years for agriculture, mining or mineral extraction, landfill, wastewater treatment, pipeline, transmission line, rail line, airport, military 

operations, or state or federal road or highway or other similar uses; 

c. Unless within an existing BLM-designated or contingent corridor, the 

project’s electrical interconnection line is not within a National Park, 

National Recreation Area, National Monument, designated Wilderness 

Area, Area of Critical Environmental Concern or critical habitat previously designated by the Service for any threatened or endangered species; 

d. Except for grading and compacting portions of a project site that have 

been in agricultural use within the past 10 years, no more than 30% 

of the project site will be graded; 

e. During operation, consumptive use of surface or ground water that is 

suitable for potable and agricultural uses does not exceed 5 gallons/ 

MWh; 

f. Insignificant operational air emissions; and 

g. ‘‘Best management practices’’ established for construction and operation 

of such projects are implemented to minimize impacts on endangered 

and threatened species. 

3. Preparation of an environmental assessment regarding the environmental impacts of the 4(d) rule; 


49683.008.eps
114 

4. Publication of the proposed 4(d) rule in the Federal Register requesting public 

comment; 

5. Providing a minimum of 30 days for public comment; 

6. Adopting a Finding of No Significant Impact; and 

7. Approving the final rule and publishing the final rule in the Federal Register. 

It is anticipated that the Service could complete the process for promulgating a 

section 4(d) rule for qualifying renewable energy projects in approximately one year. 

[A statement submitted for the record by Anthea Hartig, 

Regional Director, Western Office, The National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by Anthea M. Hartig, Regional 

Director, Western Office, The National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Introduction 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (National Trust) commends the 

Chairman and the Subcommittee for their leadership in bringing diverse voices together to build consensus regarding the future of solar energy development on federal lands. The National Trust fully supports the effort to expand our nation’s renewable energy portfolio, and we recognize that federal public lands will play a significant role. Federal land managers, project proponents, resource specialists and 

the interested public have a unique opportunity to work collaboratively in advancing 

our renewable energy goals without compromising our nation’s significant historic 

and natural resources. Potential legislation to promote solar energy development 

should not simply aim to accomplish this goal in an expeditious manner, but should 

do so in a way that emphasizes protection of historic and natural resources, thus 

ensuring a holistic environmental approach. 

Background on the National Trust 

My name is Anthea M. Hartig and I am the Director of the Western Office of the 

National Trust, the largest private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to 

protecting the Nation’s irreplaceable historic and cultural resources. Chartered by 

Congress in 1949, the National Trust provides leadership, education, and advocacy 

to protect America’s diverse historic places and revitalize its communities. Staff in 

our headquarters in Washington, D.C., nine regional and field offices—including the 

Western Office in San Francisco—and 29 historic sites work with our 235,000 members and thousands of local community groups in all 50 states. 

Solar Energy Development and Cultural Resources on Public Lands 

The National Trust supports solar energy development on federal public lands; 

however, we caution against expediting such development at the expense of irreplaceable historic and cultural resources. We understand that some impacts may be 

unavoidable. However, future administrative and legislative efforts should emphasize the need to balance our energy needs with the protection of sensitive resources. 

Certainly, federal agencies, project applicants, Congress, and interest groups such 

as the National Trust, working collaboratively, can ensure that every effort is made 

to avoid impacts where possible. 

Achieving the nation’s energy goals should be done through a careful and deliberate process, relying on existing environmental and preservation laws to guide decision-making. In fact, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is doing just that. 

BLM recently initiated Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) to evaluate the potential adverse effects of a solar energy development program on its lands. To meet the requirements of the Section 106 process, BLM is 

preparing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) that, when finalized, will guide the implementation of the Section 106 review process. The National Trust is participating 

as a consulting party in the development of this agreement. We believe the PA will 

ensure that specific projects are sited wisely and approved only after their impacts 

are properly understood. 

Such upfront efforts to regulate the siting of utility-scale solar energy developments are important because these projects can occupy massive footprints on the 

land. If improperly located, they can have devastating consequences for historic and 

cultural resources. Several proposed projects could have particularly severe visual 

impacts on one of the last rural stretches of Route 66, a cherished American landscape. Other threatened cultural resources are large land areas significant to Indian 

tribes. These traditional cultural properties and cultural landscapes derive their significance from the land itself, and visual intrusions may negatively impact the rich 

115 

1See Environmental Protection Agency 2008. ‘‘Mapping Data Excel File’’. http://www.epa.gov/ 

renewableenergyland/mapslincentives.htm 2 Environmental Protection Agency 2008. ‘‘About Brownfields’’. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ 

about.htm 

heritage and continued cultural practices of tribes. Additionally, significant archaeological sites—many unaltered for centuries—are prevalent on BLM lands, particularly in the southwestern United States. 

The National Trust is pleased to see significant leadership from the BLM’s California Desert District on these issues. In pre-application meetings, BLM’s resource 

managers have effectively steered applicants away from well-known sensitive historic sites and have not permitted development in our preferred exclusion areas listed below. In addition, BLM has made clear that developers will be required to conduct comprehensive cultural resource surveys of affected land prior to project approval. As less than 7% of BLM land nationwide has been inventoried, we expect 

significant cultural resources will be identified during this process. The surveys will 

be useful for avoiding and minimizing impacts to sites and, when avoidance is impossible, will provide guidance for mitigating resource losses. 

As both administrative and legislative efforts to promote and advance solar 

energy development move forward, the National Trust believes that the following 

guidelines will help achieve this goal while also ensuring the best possible protection of irreplaceable historic and cultural resources: 

Conduct Resource Inventories on Potentially Impacted Land 

Understanding where historic and cultural resources are located in advance of 

solar projects will help to alleviate potential conflicts between these resources and 

solar energy development. For important tribal resources, this can be accomplished 

with early and thorough consultation with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. Early consultation is vital for siting solar developments in ways that 

avoid impacts to properties of traditional religious and cultural significance. Given 

the potentially extensive footprints of utility-scale solar developments, tribal input 

will be important for guiding solar projects to appropriate parts of landscapes. Consultation should be initiated at the earliest possible time after a project is proposed 

and, ideally, should be conducted via methods most preferred by the tribes involved. 

Making a concerted effort to develop trusting relationships with tribes can help to 

ensure that the collection of information about potential impacts to sites, resources 

and landscapes is timely and thorough. This information can then be used to identify more appropriate locations for solar development. 

Similarly, completing early cultural resource surveys of areas with high potential 

to produce utility-scale solar energy will help to identify lands with few resource 

conflicts, and avoid direct and indirect impacts to significant cultural resources. 

These resources represent the most intact, important and unique information known 

about our nation’s history and prehistory and, accordingly, should be preserved in 

place whenever possible. If impacts are unavoidable, cultural resource survey findings should be used to help identify the best measures for first, minimizing and second, mitigating impacts. Minimizing impacts could include adjusting a project’s location so that it physically and visually impacts the fewest significant sites possible, 

or using technology that does the least damage to surface sites. Mitigating impacts—the least desirable option—could include creating educational materials for 

nearby teachers and students or pursuing off-site mitigation, such as stabilizing and 

interpreting nearby sites to balance out impacts to sites within the project area. 

Employ Preferential Siting 

The National Trust also urges the Subcommittee to prioritize siting of utility-scale 

solar development on those public lands that have already been disturbed by previous agricultural, mining, or other activities that may already have compromised 

cultural resource values or resulted in contamination by pollutants or hazardous 

substances. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tracks these contaminated 

‘‘brownfield sites,’’ which include abandoned mine lands, Superfund sites, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites. At the end of 2008, EPA listed 

at least 263 such sites, totaling nearly 6.5 million acres, that have very good or excellent potential for utility-scale solar development. 1 In addition to the health, environmental and economic benefits to communities from brownfield remediation 2, 

these lands may have great advantages for utility-scale solar energy development. 

First, they often are already zoned for industrial uses and frequently have existing 

electrical transmission infrastructure that can be upgraded more quickly and inexpensively than new infrastructure can be developed. Second, these lands frequently 

are located near population centers, thus allowing electrical generation close to the 

116 

3 United States Army Environmental Command 2008. ‘‘Solar Power Array Constructed on Fort 

Carson Landfill’’. http://www.aec.army.mil/usaec/newsroom/update/win08/win0812.html 

point of use and increasing efficiency in energy transfer while reducing landscape 

disturbances. A success story from Colorado illustrates the benefits of siting utilityscale solar developments on previously disturbed sites. The Fort Carson Landfill 

Solar Development near Colorado Springs is a 2 MW photovoltaic array built on 12 

acres of a former landfill. Generating approximately 3200 MWh/year, the development fulfills approximately 2.3 % of Fort Carson’s energy consumption. 3

Another way to facilitate solar energy development while minimizing impacts to 

historic and cultural resources would be to locate solar projects within or as close 

to existing energy corridors as possible. This siting strategy would confine disturbances to already impacted areas, rather than spread the impacts across the landscape. It would also reduce the cost of constructing transmission lines for getting 

electricity to the grid, and lessen landscape disturbances associated with new transmission lines. 

Finally, the National Trust believes that federal agencies should make every effort 

to avoid the impacts of utility-scale solar energy development on lands that have 

been designated or acquired by the federal government for the purpose of conserving 

historic and cultural resources. Accordingly, the National Trust suggests that the 

following lands be excluded from utility-scale solar development: • Units of the National Park System; • Units of the National Landscape Conservation System; • National Monuments; • National Historic and Scenic Trails; • National Historic Byways; • National Historic Landmarks; • National Historic and Archaeological Districts; • National Heritage Areas; 

• U.S. Forest Service Archaeological Areas; 

• Areas designated by Congress for the purpose of protecting cultural resources; 

• Properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places including Traditional Cultural Properties; 

• Sacred Sites identified by Executive Order 13007; and 

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

In addition to excluding these lands, it is important to establish adequate buffers 

between them and solar development projects. The sizes of buffers would depend, 

in part, on the topography of the area, the types of cultural resources present, and 

the size and type of the solar project and supporting energy infrastructure. Establishing guidelines for best siting practices, including the use of buffers around significant cultural resources, would expedite environmentally responsible utility-scale 

solar energy development. 

Promote Technologies With the Least Potential for Impacts 

The National Trust believes that ongoing advances in solar, energy storage and 

transmission technologies will enable the United States to meet and even exceed its 

renewable energy goals. We specifically promote the use of current technologies and 

the development of future technologies that have the least possible physical and visual impacts to significant cultural resources. Such low-impact solar developments 

include those that can be sited on ungraded landscapes and those whose components 

can be dispersed to lessen physical and visual impacts to specific significant resources. 

Conclusion 

America’s rich cultural heritage represent the history of our society and help to 

define us as a nation. We are fortunate that many of these important places and 

artifacts are located on our federal public lands. The federal land managing agencies 

are the stewards of our public lands so they have a responsibility to afford the highest degree of preservation to our irreplaceable historic and cultural resources, independent of the lands’ renewable energy development potential. The National Trust 

believes that conducting early stage planning and dialogue among diverse stakeholders, including performing tribal consultation and cultural resource surveys of 

lands with high potential for solar energy development, will help to promote preservation while facilitating cost- and time-efficient development. Early identification of 

high potential development areas that contain few significant resources will promote 

expedited and mutually agreeable solar energy development. 

As the Subcommittee considers how to build consensus for solar energy development on public lands, the National Trust strongly encourages inclusion of early 

117 

planning that considers historic and cultural resources. Our nation’s goal should be 

to foster renewable energy development without destroying significant components 

of our national historic and cultural heritage. 

We are happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have about our recommendations, and we appreciate the opportunity to share our comments. 

[A letter submitted for the record by the Natural Resources 

Defense Council follows:] 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

May 20, 2009 

The Honorable Jim Costa 

Chairman 

House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

1626 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) appreciates the opportunity to 

enter into the public record the following comments regarding the Subcommittee’s 

Field Hearing on solar energy siting held in Palm Desert on May 11, 2009. 

NRDC is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. 

Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1.2 million members and online activists 

nationwide, served from major offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San 

Francisco, Chicago and Beijing. 

NRDC would like to endorse the testimony provided by Carl Zichella, Director of 

Western Renewable Programs for the Sierra Club. NRDC is working closely with 

the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations on the issue of solar energy 

siting. Like many of our colleagues in the environmental community, NRDC and the 

Sierra Club recognize the need to balance renewable energy production with protection of our most treasured natural lands. 

Mr. Zichella’s testimony highlights guiding principles that will be essential to 

striking this critical balance. These principles include siting projects on disturbed 

lands whenever possible, providing incentives for siting on private lands, and conducting both short and long term planning processes for renewable energy development on public lands. NRDC strongly supports these policies and believes that they 

can help put us on a ‘‘road to consensus’’ as Mr. Zichella’s testimony asserts. 

NRDC would also like to call to the attention of the Subcommittee members an 

apparent mis-characterization of NRDC’s Path to Green Energy online mapping tool 

that occurred during the field hearing. We understand that a utility representative 

suggested that the Path to Green Energy maps indicate expansive areas in Southern California that NRDC has ‘‘green lighted’’ for energy development. 

The Path to Green Energy tool developed by NRDC in collaboration with the Audubon Society and Google Inc. identifies the most well-known, environmentally sensitive lands across 13 western states in order to show where renewable energy 

would be inappropriate. The maps do not ‘‘green light’’ or endorse the siting of renewable energy in any specific areas. 

Knowing the location of important natural resources is just the first step towards 

ensuring that new projects and transmission lines are built in an environmentally 

responsible manner. The Path to Green Energy maps are not intended to serve as 

substitutes for the complex siting decisions which must take place in full compliance 

with environmental law. Any characterization of the project that suggests otherwise 

is inaccurate and in fact has the potential to be counterproductive to the goal of facilitating environmentally responsible siting. 

Thank you for the opportunity to enter these comments into the public record. 

Sincerely, 

Johanna Wald 

Senior Attorney 

cc: The Honorable Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the Interior 

118 

[A letter submitted for the record by Ceal Smith, Director, San 

Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition, follows:] 

Congressman Jim Costa 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Email: marcie.cooperman@mail.house.gov 

Subject: Solar development in the San Luis Valley, CO, comment letter on the field 

hearing on Solar Energy Development On Federal Lands: The Road to Consensus 

held in Palm Desert, California, May 11, 2009. 

Dear Congressman Costa and Subcommittee Members: 

Thank you for extending the comment period on above mentioned hearing. The 

San Luis Valley has become the major focal point for industrial solar development 

in Colorado. More than 50% of the Valley is publicly owned, thus the future of our 

high-elevation rural Valley hangs in the balance of Federal energy policy decisions 

currently being debated by the Department of Interior, Congress and this committee. Being far from DC, Denver and the urban demand centers, the concerns of 

our 40,000 constituents have not been heard. I hope this marks an end to our invisibility. 

The San Luis Valley is home to one of our nations most spectacular natural and 

cultural landscapes, recently recognized when Congress passed the Sangre de Cristo 

National Heritage Act of 2009. 

Solar energy development on the massive industrial scale currently being proposed is entirely untested. Impacts on air quality, watersheds, ecosystems, biodiversity and our communities remain largely unexamined. In the absence of an informed 

energy policy, unregulated market-driven solar energy development could very well 

undermine the extraordinary ecological and cultural values of our Nations rural 

areas including the San Luis Valley. 

Large-scale solar facilities are already being sited on private lands within the Valley. I do not believe we should sacrifice our public lands too. Until existing degraded 

lands and the built environment, especially near urban point-of-use centers are fully 

utilized, it simply makes no sense to destroy intact (and carbon sequestering) ecosystems on our most valuable public lands. 

By providing incentives for distributed generation, solar energy development can 

be integrated into the existing fabric of our rural agricultural economy rather than 

uprooting it through large-scale industrialization. As you consider solar energy development on public lands I urge you to prioritize the following: 

1. Energy efficiency and conservation; 

2. Smart-grid upgrades to existing infrastructure before constructing new transmission; 

3. Federal and state incentive programs to promote point-of-use distributed generation through Feed-In Tariffs, progressive net metering and long-term, lowinterest loan programs targeting agriculture, business, municipalities, rural 

communities and households; 

4. Use of degraded lands and the build environment near urban centers first; 

5. Use of low-water dry cooling solar technologies in arid and semi-arid environments; 

6. Avoidance of National Parks and Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness, Roadless Areas, State, Federal, County or citizen recognized special 

conservation areas, intact public lands, prime agricultural lands, wetlands, 

wildlife corridors, cultural sites and Federal or State endangered species habitat; 

7. Pilot studies geared at developing effective mitigation and ‘‘best management 

practices’’ for large-scale solar energy facilities should they be proven to be necessary; 

8. Development of a comprehensive study by our nations top independent energy 

and policy experts leading to adoption of a National Energy Policy. 

Lastly, I would like to encourage the Subcommittee to continue holding hearings 

on renewable energy development, particularly in our part of the Southwest. Vital 

to an authentic public process, we urge you solicit non-industry citizen and expert 

testimony. As we stand at the crossroads of the new energy transition, a fundamentally new paradigm is emerging that those of us at ‘‘ground-zero’’ are acutely aware 

of. 

119 

I respectfully submit these comments for the Record of the Hearing on behalf of 

our members and stakeholders in the San Luis Valley and beyond. Please notify us 

of further hearings on renewable energy development. 

Sincerely, 

Ceal Smith 

Director 

San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition 

cc: Sen. John Salazar 

Sen. Michael Bennett 

Sen. Mark Udall 

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar 

DOE Secretary Steven Chu 

Gov. Bill Ritter 

Sen. Gail Schwartz 

The San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition is a grassroots non-profit organization representing a broad spectrum of stakeholders united by the belief that the 

vital ecological, wildlife, cultural, agricultural and water resources of the upper Rio 

Grande Basin in the San Luis Valley, CO should not be jeopardized by 

unsustainable industrial development. By working with communities, government 

and various stakeholder groups, WPC is actively engaged in promoting an emerging 

culture of sustainability in the San Luis Valley that is responsive to climate change 

and the need to move away from destructive fossil fuel dependency. 

[A letter submitted for the record by The Protect Our Communities Foundation follows:] 

The Protect Our Communities Foundation 

May 26, 2009 

Congressman Jim Costa 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

House Natural Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Subject: The Protect Our Communities Foundation Comment Letter on May 11, 

2009 Field Hearing on ‘‘Solar Energy Development on Federal Lands: The Road to 

Consensus’’ 

Dear Congressman Costa: 

Thank you for extending the comment period following the May 11th hearing to 

allow organizations like The Protect Our Communities (POC) Foundation 

(www.protectourcommunities.org). POC was unable to send a representative to the 

hearing and we are grateful for this opportunity to submit comments on use of federal lands for large-scale solar development. POC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation headquartered in San Diego County that began as a grassroots citizen organization three years ago. The main focus of POC is the energy future of San Diego County and Southern California. POC fully supports the California Energy Action Plan, 

developed jointly in 2003 by the California Public Utilities Commission and the 

California Energy Commission. The Energy Action Plan prioritizes local distributed 

generation to meet California’s energy needs. 

California’s renewable energy approach to date has been almost completely focused on remote renewable energy resources and the transmission associated with 

such development. Such an approach had merit in the 1980s when California became the world leader in renewable energy and solar panels cost $12 to $15/watt 

(2008 dollars). However, the world has changed. Commercial solar photovoltaic (PV) 

installations now cost less than $4/watt. 

Nevertheless, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources appears to accept as a given that large-scale desert solar installations are so much more cost-effective than the urban PV solar alternative that it justifies the transmission cost, 

environmental trade-offs, and controversy of such desert development. This may 

have been true in the 1980s. It is not true in 2009. 

The least-cost solar resource in 2009 is in California’s developed urban and suburban areas, and this resource is vast. All urban solar deployments would be compatVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:50 Nov 10, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\49683.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
120 

ible dual-use of existing rooftops and parking lots, avoiding the dilemma you noted 

in your opening remarks at the hearing—‘‘Solar power is very land-intensive, and 

siting a solar plant means that most if not all of the other uses of that land are 

precluded.’’ 

It is true as you noted that ‘‘some of the largest (solar) resources are to be found 

on our public lands.’’ However, these large solar resources are only useful to the extent they are cost-effective in their own right and can be delivered efficiently to 

California or Southwestern population centers. As we are discovering through individual transmission line proposals and the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) process, the cost of delivery via new transmission may be astonishingly 

high, without even addressing the environmental compromises necessary to construct the transmission lines. 

The RETI process also revealed that the least-cost solar solution to reaching our 

target of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 would consist predominantly of distributed PV. Why? Because state-of-the-art PV is more cost-effective than solar thermal, and tens of thousands of megawatts of PV could be added at the distribution 

level with little or no upgrading to the existing transmission system required. 

The California Energy Commission’s RETI Phase 1B Final Report (January 5, 

2009 version) makes the following points about state-of-the-art PV (pp. 5-27, 5-28): 

There is considerable commercial interest in utility-scale ‘‘thin film’’ systems. 

This sensitivity tests an alternate thin film technology for solar with capital 

costs of about $3,700/kWe (AC), roughly half that of tracking crystalline. 

Notably, these (PV) capital costs are also lower than the large-scale solar 

thermal projects; therefore thin film solar is assumed to occur both at the 

distributed scale (20 MW) and also in large scale blocks (150 MW). 

Unlike solar thermal technologies, PV can be deployed in urban and suburban 

areas in compatible dual-use applications that require no environmental trade-offs. 

Urban/suburban PV is more cost-effective than remote PV because it avoids the (1) 

high cost of new transmission lines and (2) high line losses, in the range of 15 percent, during peak demand periods. 

The RETI report goes on to say that distributed PV at a current state-of-the-art capital cost of $3,700 per kilowatt can provide two-thirds of what California needs 

going forward to reach 33 percent by 2020 (p. 5-31): 

The results of this sensitivity run are dramatic. More importantly, the costcompetitive in-state (distributed PV resources) increase by more than 20 

times to about 45,000 GWh/yr. This figure is over two-thirds of the net short 

requirement. The large majority of these (distributed) resources are 20 MW 

solar PV projects assumed to connect to the distribution system. 

In February 2009 RETI reduced its estimate of the gap that must be filled to 

reach 33 percent by 2020, such that 45,000 GWh/yr from distributed PV could meet 

75 percent of the need. 

The November 2008 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) ‘‘Solar 

Los Angeles’’ strategic plan is a good real-world example of the RETI distributed 

PV scenario. It consists of 780 megawatts of urban PV and 500 megawatts of remote 

solar. This is two-thirds urban solar, one-third remote solar. With this urban/remote 

balance little if any new transmission will be necessary for the City of Los Angeles 

to go solar. LADWP is a public utility and ‘‘Solar Los Angeles’’ reflects the intent 

of the City of Los Angeles to become a leader in smart and urban renewable energy 

development. 

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) service territory offers another example of the 

large role urban PV could and should play in California’s, and the Nation’s, renewable energy portfolio: 

• There is approximately 4,500 megawatts of commercial rooftop and commercial 

parking lot PV potential in SDG&E territory; 

• Peak load in SDG&E territory in 2008 was 4,348 megawatts, and the average 

load over the course of the year is approximately 2,400 megawatts; 

• 4,500 megawatts of PV is equivalent to approximately 900 megawatts of continuous power generation over the course of a year; 

• The San Diego area could generate approximately 40 percent of its year-round 

power demand from urban commercial rooftop and commercial parking lot PV 

alone. 

• That is without considering approximately 2,500 megawatts of PV potential on 

residential rooftops in SDG&E territory; 

• If the residential PV resource is fully developed in addition to the commercial 

PV resource, 60 percent of the San Diego area’s year-round power demand could 

be met with urban PV; 

• This huge solar resource has no land use requirements, as it is all compatible 

dual-use, and has no environmental impacts. 

121 

RETI has attempted to sidestep the implications of its oblique endorsement of distributed PV solution to California’s renewable energy goal by stating there is no way 

PV manufacturers could mobilize quickly enough to provide 2,000 to 3,000 

megawatts of PV per year to realize the potential of the distributed PV scenario. 

This is not a valid concern. Spain, with about the same population as California and 

a less productive economy, added nearly 2,500 megawatts of PV in 2008. 

More than 5,000 megawatts of PV was installed worldwide in 2008. A POC representative attended the 1st Thin-Film PV Summit in San Francisco in early December 2008. Statistics on worldwide PV manufacturing capacity were presented at 

the Summit. Worldwide thin-film PV production capacity reached 3,600 megawatts 

per year in 2008. It is projected to reach 7,400 megawatts per year in 2010. Worldwide conventional polycrystalline silicon PV production capacity reached 13,300 

megawatts per year in 2008. It is projected to reach 20,000 megawatts per year in 

2010. There will be some scale-back on the 2010 capacity numbers due to the state 

of the world economy. 

Worldwide PV manufacturing, either thin-film alone or thin-film and conventional 

polycrystalline silicon, could readily supply a 3,000 megawatts per year PV demand 

in California and much higher PV demand for the U.S. as a whole. The Wall Street 

Journal recently reported that conventional solar panel prices have fallen by $2/watt 

since 2008, due to too much solar manufacturing capacity chasing too few solar 

projects. It is disingenuous of RETI to dismiss the distributed PV solution on 

grounds of PV manufacturing capacity constraints. 

POC views the emphasis on new transmission as necessary precursor to substantial progress on renewable energy goals as a testament to very effective lobbying by 

America’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The IOUs have for the moment successfully adapted a critical new problem, climate change, to a century-old revenue generation scheme. 

IOUs make far more profit on transmission lines than any other types of infrastructure they build. For example, SDG&E’s proposed 1,000 MW Sunrise Powerlink 

transmission line, with an estimated cost of $1.9 billion, will generate at least $1.3 

billion in profits (in current dollars) for SDG&E shareholders over the financial life 

of the project. $700 million of those profits will be credited to the company in the 

first eight-and-a-half years. Remote renewable energy generation requires transmission. Local renewable energy generation does not. 

The nation has over 527,000 miles of existing high voltage transmission. See 

Figure 1. This transmission infrastructure serves a declining demand for electricity. 

U.S. electricity demand declined approximately 2 percent in 2008 and is expected 

to decline another 1 percent in 2009. 

Southern California, with an average electrical demand of approximately 14,000 

megawatts, has approximately 20,000 megawatts of import capacity on existing 

transmission lines. See Figure 2. Southern California can already import 100 percent of its average electrical load. There may be some need to upgrade older lines 

so they can continue to provide decades of reliable service. However, neither California nor the Nation is experiencing a shortage of transmission as a general 

matter. 

The policy challenge is the difficult work of ramping down the existing flow of fossil power on these lines and methodically replacing it with renewable energy generation. A reasonable proposal of this sort was presented to the California Energy 

Commission in early 2007 by, Solar Millennium, a major solar thermal developer. 

Called the Mojave Solar Development Zone, it would preferentially locate solar thermal projects along the right-of-ways of major existing highways with existing high 

voltage transmission lines in the Mojave Desert. These highway corridors already 

have a combined 6,000 megawatts of existing transmission capacity. 

Figure 3 shows the corridors identified by Solar Millennium for inclusion in its 

proposed Mojave Solar Development Zone. In reality the zone identified by Solar 

Millennium is far larger than it needs to be to generate 6,000 megawatts or even 

10,000 megawatts of solar power. Solar thermal or PV can produce about 100 

megawatts per square mile. One hundred square miles would produce about 10,000 

megawatts. One-half mile solar right-of-ways on each side of the highway for only 

100 miles of the 100s of highway miles shown on the Solar Millennium map would 

suffice to provide 10,000 megawatts of solar power. 

This commonsense proposal pre-dates the RETI process and apparently gained little or no traction within the RETI process itself. One likely reason is that the solar 

land rush had already begun, and restricting solar develop to a limited Mojave Solar 

Development Zone would have inconvenienced developers with more remote and undeveloped properties in some phase of negotiation. Another likely reason is that it 

made use of existing transmission and presumed that existing fossil transmission 

rights would be transferred to the solar projects. This is a reasonable presumption, 

122 

but is also a strategy the IOUs have steadfastly opposed. The California Energy 

Commission and the state of California missed a golden opportunity in 2007 to gain 

some control of the desert land rush through some form of the Mojave Solar Development Zone and failed to act. 

The easiest pathway from a political standpoint, to give the IOUs a mandate to 

overlay public lands and the Nation with new transmission, will result in tremendous controversy and probable gridlock in moving forward on the development of renewable generation. The affected citizens and interest groups will oppose many of 

these projects for the right reasons—that there are better, more cost-effective, and 

less damaging solutions that are being ignored or dismissed for reasons of political 

convenience. 

It is understandable why an IOU would see renewable energy solutions through 

a transmission lens. However, that lens is costly, inefficient, controversial, and damaging. The fact that a solar strategy with heavy reliance on new transmission would 

be very costly is positive financial news to an IOU. The more the new transmission 

system costs, the more the IOUs will thrive economically. Yet it is an unnecessary 

and largely avoidable financial burden on everyone else. The Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources should not reflexively adopt today’s IOU financial reward system as the point-of-departure for crafting the nation’s solar energy development policy on public lands. 

POC believes that you and all members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources genuinely want to address climate change. POC is glad for this opportunity to provide input about the most efficient way to achieve that end. We do 

believe that, when we put all the costs on the table, there is no question that urban 

solar should be the centerpiece of our solar strategy and not an afterthought. 

POC looks forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources to maximize solar energy production in the most cost-efficient 

and environmentally sound manner. Please contact Denis Trafecanty at (760) 703- 

1149 or by e-mail at denis@vitalityweb.com if you would like further information regarding any of the comments in this letter. 

Sincerely, 

Denis Trafecanty, President 

The Protect Our Communities Foundation 

PO Box 305 

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 

Bill Powers, P.E., POC Board Member 

Powers Engineering 

4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209 

San Diego, CA 92116 

tel: 619-295-2072 

e-mail: bpowers@powersengineering.com 

cc: Sen. Dianne Feinstein 

Sen. Barbara Boxer 

Sen. Harry Reid 

Sen. Jeff Bingaman 

Congressman Nick Rahall 

Congressman Henry Waxman 

Congressman Ed Markey 

Congressman Bob Filner 

Congresswoman Susan Davis 

Congressman Duncan Hunter, Jr. 

Interior Secretary Henry Salazar 

DOE Secretary Steven Chu 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger 

Carl Pope, Sierra Club 

Frances Beinecke, NRDC 

123 


49683.009.eps 49683.010.eps
124 

[A letter submitted for the record by The Wildlands Conservancy 

(TWC) follows:] 

May 26, 2009 

To: Committee on Natural Resources 1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

From: The Wildlands Conservancy (TWC) 

SUBJECT: Comments re: Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources Field Hearing on Solar Power Development on Federal Lands: The 

Road to Consensus, in Palm Desert, CA on Monday May 11th, 2009 

Greetings, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Congressional Subcommittee 

Field Hearing and we appreciate Congressman Jim Costa’s leadership in facilitating 

the hearing and bringing people together to discuss this important issue. The 

Wildlands Conservancy (TWC) is a 501c3 non-profit conservation organization with 

the dual mission to preserve the beauty and biodiversity of the earth and to fund 

outdoor education programs for the youth. TWC has a vested interest in the current 

renewable energy discussion and corresponding developments being proposed for 

federal lands within the California desert region. TWC has preserved more land in 

California with private funds than any other conservation organization and owns 

the largest nonprofit preserve system in CA. 

TWC is very supportive of renewable energy and eliminating our dependence on 

fossil fuel energy sources and reduce our carbon footprint. TWC leads by example 

and our first preserve was established off-the-grid and self-sufficient in 1995. TWC 

is also passionate about land conservation and preserving functioning ecosystems 

and initiated the largest private land acquisition project in U.S. History, The 

Catellus Land Purchase. The purchase of over 600,000 acres in the CA Desert connected Joshua Tree National Park to Mojave National Preserve with public conservation lands. These lands were all gifted to the Department of Interior for management with the understanding that they were purchased for conservation. Just 4 

years after the completion of the project, applications for renewable energy development began to cover the CA Desert. We feel it is imperative that the siting of renewable energy projects and the greening of California’s energy supply be accomplished 

while protecting our treasured landscapes and fragile ecosystems. We encourage our 

political representatives to engage in an open and transparent process with all 

stakeholders, including those in the CA deserts, to make responsible decisions about 

siting projects that benefit the public and rate payers while protecting the environment. 

Currently there is a ‘‘land rush’’ in the CA desert because the low cost of ‘‘leasing’’ 

public lands for renewable projects creates an economic incentive for industry. Also 


49683.011.eps
125 

since these projects result in a permanent impact on the land and degrade adjacent 

habitat the current process of using the Right of Way (ROW) application is inappropriate and does not adequately address the costs and impacts of such projects. Furthermore, there is intense pressure to get projects online and take advantage of federal stimulus funds which creates additional pressure to accelerate the siting, planning, and permitting of these projects and fast-track the environmental review processes. We urge renewable energy developers to access and acquire disturbed lands, 

both private and public, as this will surely speed the environmental review process 

and have the best chance of getting projects ‘‘shovel-ready’’ by December 2010. 

These least-conflict areas provide a win-win solution for all stakeholders. 

One strategy for private lands as outlined in the testimony given by Bill Corcoran 

of the Sierra Club supports companies acquiring disturbed lands by creating incentives to aggregate subdivided private lands by forming Enterprise Zones. 

We are adamant that special attention and consideration be given to the large 

footprint that will accompany these industrial-scale solar facilities in the California 

desert region. The bull-dozing and scraping of vegetation and topsoil that will occur 

in the construction of solar thermal power plants over thousands of acres is 

duplicitous to the cause of combating climate change, as much carbon is sequestered 

by desert flora and soil microbiota. We also feel that the destruction of critical habitat for Desert Tortoises and other wildlife, rare plants, and desert water resources 

(riparian habitats, aquifers, etc.) that will result from these projects being sited on 

pristine lands and core habitat cannot be mitigated properly. 

We would like to comment on part of the testimonies given by Rashelle Chong 

(CA Public Utilities Commission) and Julia Levin (CA Energy Commission) that refers to the state’s RETI (Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative) process as 

being critical in this discussion. She stated that the RETI process is consensusbased and that everyone was invited during Phase 1 of the process. This, however, 

is not true, as several desert stakeholders (local governments, conservation groups, 

citizen action groups etc) requested a position on the Stakeholder Steering Committee (SSC) in (December 2007) and were denied. (Although many of the conference calls are now ‘‘open’’ initially many were not and folks were turned away 

from meetings and not allowed to give input or vote.) Furthermore the SSC is dominated by industry and energy agencies and some utilities are represented twice with 

votes. 

We do not agree that there should be one lead energy agency, such as Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission or Western Governors’ Association (as suggested by 

Congresswoman (WY) Cynthia Lummis); furthermore WGA is not an ‘‘agency’’ with 

authoritative power over these designations currently). However we do agree with 

Bill Corcoran that the power should not be concentrated in any one entity but 

should at the least include a co-lead of a federal land managing agency such as the 

Bureau of Land Management. 

We strongly encourage the question addressed to the utilities by Congresswoman 

Mary Bono-Mack that new transmission technologies, such as carbon fiber lines and 

superconductors, should be heavily researched and considered in the transmission 

planning process. Although these technologies may have higher initial costs the long 

term benefits and efficiency must be weighed against these short-term costs. It is 

essential to incorporate in a long-term strategic plan and protect public and private 

lands from reckless transmission corridor expansion and designation by restringing 

existing lines with these new wires. 

In closing we feel it is important to use many of the tools and new technologies 

to green the power supply. This includes exploring options such as feed-in tariffs, 

expanding AB 811 funding and creating other new incentives for local distributed 

energy at the source of need to minimize remote industrial-scale projects and unnecessary transmission. This will provide the maximum benefit to the residents of California, both present and future generations while providing the opportunity to incorporate other new technologies as they become available. 

Thank you for reviewing these comments. We hope that you earnestly consider 

these in the preparation and planning of future hearings that may incorporate public testimony regarding the issue of solar development on federal lands. 

Sincerely, 

April Sall 

Conservation Director 

The Wildlands Conservancy 

Pioneertown Mountains and Mission Creek Preserves 

(760) 369-7105 

april@wildlandsconservancy.org 

Æ