RENEWABLE 

ENERGY

Agencies Have Taken 

Steps Aimed at 

Improving the 

Permitting Process for 

Development on 

Federal Lands

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives

January 2013

GAO-13-189

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-189, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Natural 

Resources, House of Representatives

January 2013

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at Improving the 

Permitting Process for Development on Federal 

Lands

s

Why GAO Did This Study

Concerns over reliance on imported oil 

and greenhouse gas emissions from

fossil fuel use have led to increased 

interest in producing electricity from 

renewable sources, including wind, 

solar, and geothermal energy.

Because federal lands, including those 

managed by the Departments of 

Agriculture and the Interior, 

encompass areas with high renewable 

energy potential, interest has 

increased in permitting such activity on 

those lands. EPAct 2005 includes 

several provisions intended to increase 

renewable energy development on 

federal lands, including goals for 

approving renewable energy projects. 

GAO was asked to look at (1) the 

status of renewable energy permitting 

on federal land, including time frames 

for processing permits applied for since 

EPAct 2005; (2) actions federal land 

management agencies have taken to 

facilitate renewable energy 

development on federal land, 

particularly since the passage of EPAct 

2005; and (3) factors affecting 

renewable energy development on 

federal land. To conduct this work, 

GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and 

policies; interviewed agency and 

industry officials; and surveyed BLM 

staff responsible for processing 

applications for renewable energy 

permits on federal lands. 

GAO is not making any 

recommendations in this report. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, 

the Department of Agriculture 

concurred with its findings, while the 

Departments of Energy and the Interior

had no comments.

What GAO Found

Since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), federal land 

management agencies—primarily the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM)—have received hundreds of applications for utilityscale renewable energy projects and authorized 25 projects: 7 wind, 10 solar, 

and 8 geothermal projects. Applications for the majority of projects were 

withdrawn by the applicants or denied by BLM because of insufficient 

information. Applications for about one-fourth of the projects are still pending with 

the agencies. Time frames for permitting wind and solar projects ranged from 1.5 

to 4 years from receipt of the initial application to approval of the project, with 

time frames decreasing for applications submitted in later years. For geothermal 

projects, permitting time frames ranged from 1 to 4 years from receipt of the 

initial application to approval for construction. In all, for projects applied for since 

EPAct 2005, BLM has authorized projects with the capacity to generate a total of 

about 5,450 megawatts of electricity, contributing to the act’s goal of approving 

projects capable of generating 10,000 megawatts of electricity on public lands by 

2015.

Federal land management agencies have taken several steps to foster 

renewable energy development on federal lands since EPAct 2005. Specifically, 

these agencies have developed or revised policies aimed at, among other things, 

improving the renewable energy permitting process, formalized coordination 

within and across agencies and with state and local governments, and devoted 

increased resources to processing applications for renewable energy permits. 

One of BLM’s most comprehensive actions was the completion of programmatic 

environmental impact statements for renewable energy development, intended to 

streamline the permitting process. The agencies also took steps to improve 

coordination through regularly established meetings and development of

memorandums of understanding between federal and state agencies. They also 

added staff and increased funding for this development. For example, BLM 

tripled its staff devoted to processing wind and solar energy applications. To help 

ensure that its actions are achieving their intended purposes, BLM issued an 

instruction memorandum in December 2012 aimed at increasing the efficiency 

and effectiveness of its renewable energy permitting process. 

According to BLM respondents to a GAO questionnaire, industry representatives,

and others GAO interviewed, many factors affect the pace of renewable energy 

development on federal lands. Some of these factors are specifically tied to the 

agencies’ permitting processes, primarily BLM’s. For example, respondents cited 

effective coordination among the involved parties and the amount of resources 

the agency can devote to permitting as factors that facilitated the permitting 

process. On the other hand, they often cited problems with the quality of 

applications received as a factor that may hinder or slow the permitting process.

Respondents also cited a number of factors outside of permitting agencies’ 

control that can affect the pace of renewable energy development, such as 

access to transmission lines (which are often scarce in areas where renewable 

energy is abundant) and competition from electricity generated using

conventional energy sources, such as natural gas. View GAO-13-189. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Letter 1 

Background 4

BLM Has Received Hundreds of Permit Applications since EPAct 

2005 and Authorized 25 Projects 15

Agencies Have Taken Several Steps to Foster Renewable Energy 

Development on Federal Lands since EPAct 2005 21

Factors Related to Permitting, as Well as Market and Other Forces, 

Affect the Pace of Renewable Energy Development on Federal 

Lands 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 43

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 45

Appendix II Authorized Renewable Energy Projects for Which Applications 

Were Submitted after the Energy Policy Act of 2005 48

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Agriculture 50

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51

Tables

Table 1: Status of Applications for Utility-Scale Wind and Solar 

Project Permits on BLM-Managed Lands since EPAct 2005 16

Table 2: Information about Authorized Renewable Energy Projects 

for Which Applications Were Submitted after EPAct 2005 

through May 2012 48

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Utility-Scale Wind, Solar, and Geothermal 

Technologies 6

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Stages in Processing Authorized 

Solar and Wind Project Applications Submitted after 

EPAct 2005 Using Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements 18

Figure 3: Average Time Frames for Stages in the Processing of 

Applications for Authorized Wind and Solar Projects, by 

Year Submitted 19

Figure 4: Summary of BLM’s Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statements for Wind, Geothermal, and Solar Energy 

Development 23

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 18, 2013

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Natural Resources

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Markey:

American families and businesses depend on electricity to power their 

lives, businesses, and the economy. Concerns over reliance on imported 

oil and greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels to generate 

power have increased interest in producing electricity from renewable 

sources, including wind, solar, and geothermal energy. In the coming 

decades, the Energy Information Administration in the Department of 

Energy projects the strongest growth in the domestic energy sector will 

come from renewable energy. The federal government is uniquely 

positioned to affect the development of renewable energy sources, in part 

through its land management activities. For example, the Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 

248 million surface acres, or about one-eighth of all lands in the United 

States, and estimates that 20.6 million acres have commercial wind 

energy generation potential and more than 20 million acres have 

commercial solar energy generation potential.

About 95 percent of federal land is managed by four land management 

agencies—BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park 

Service in the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service in the 

Department of Agriculture. The agencies manage this land for various 

purposes. BLM and the Forest Service manage land for multiple uses, 

such as recreation, timber, and fish and wildlife, and have much of the 

responsibility for permitting renewable energy development on federal 

lands. In contrast, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park 

Service manage land primarily to conserve fish and wildlife and their 

habitats and park resources, respectively.

Because areas of federal land have a high potential for producing 

renewable energy, interest has increased in permitting such production 

on those lands over the past decade. For example, through the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Congress directed the Secretary of the 

Interior to “seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy 

projects located on public lands with a generation capacity of at least 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

10,000 megawatts of electricity” by 2015.1 In 2009 the Secretary issued 

an order establishing renewable energy as a priority for the department 

and also establishing a task force to, among other tasks, develop a 

strategy to increase the development and transmission of renewable 

energy from appropriate areas on public lands.2

Although renewable energy is generally cleaner to produce than energy 

from conventional sources, such as coal- or gas-fired power plants, 

renewable energy projects can have significant environmental impacts. 

Developing renewable energy projects on a scale large enough to 

generate substantial electric power (i.e., on a utility scale) can affect the 

environment across hundreds, even thousands, of acres of federal land 

and, depending on the energy source, may preclude uses of those acres 

for other purposes. In addition, these projects, like other development 

projects, can affect the surrounding environment: for example, water used 

in some solar technologies may diminish scarce groundwater in the arid 

Southwest, or the turning rotors of a wind turbine may kill birds and bats. 

Accordingly, part of the federal permitting process for renewable energy 

development on BLM- and Forest Service-managed lands involves not 

only those agencies but also the Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Park Service in assessing potential environmental effects.

In light of interest in renewable energy development on federal land, you 

asked us to review federal agencies’ processes and time frames for 

permitting renewable energy projects. Our objectives were to examine 

(1) the status of renewable energy permitting on federal land, including 

time frames for processing permits applied for since EPAct 2005; 

(2) actions the agencies have taken to facilitate renewable energy 

development on federal land, particularly since the passage of EPAct 

2005; and (3) factors affecting renewable energy development on federal 

land.

 

1

Pub. L No. 109-58, § 211, 119 Stat. 660 (2005). The act specifically omitted hydropower 

as a part of the 10,000-megawatt goal. A megawatt is 1 million watts, or enough electricity 

to power about 750 homes. 

2

For this report, we are defining renewable energy to include onshore wind, solar, and 

geothermal energy. Likewise, we are limiting our discussion of federal lands to those lands 

managed for multiple uses by the Department of the Interior and the Department of 

Agriculture. Other lands, such as those managed by the Department of Defense, are 

excluded from our analysis because they are generally not open to outside development 

of renewable energy resources.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

To determine the status of renewable energy permitting, we administered 

a questionnaire to BLM officials nationwide, covering all permit 

applications for onshore wind, solar, and geothermal energy projects 

submitted to BLM—the agency responsible for permitting almost all 

applications submitted for renewable energy development on federal 

lands—from enactment of EPAct 2005 (August 8, 2005) through May 

2012. We analyzed information obtained through the questionnaire 

regarding the status and time frames associated with each application 

and the factors affecting its processing. We received a 100 percent 

response rate to this questionnaire. In addition, we conducted 

semistructured interviews with officials in the nine Forest Service regional 

offices to determine the status and time frames of renewable energy 

permitting on Forest Service-managed lands. To determine actions taken 

to facilitate renewable energy development, we reviewed relevant laws, 

regulations, and agency policies and guidance. We interviewed 

headquarters officials from the Department of the Interior and its four land 

management agencies—BLM, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service—as well as from the 

Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. We also interviewed BLM 

officials from four state offices;3 Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Park Service officials from selected regions and field units;4 officials from 

all nine Forest Service regions; and officials in the wind, solar, and 

geothermal research programs at the Department of Energy’s National

Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. We obtained BLM 

funding and staffing data from the agency’s database, and we assessed 

the reliability of these data by reviewing the agencies’ internal controls of 

their data systems and interviewing agency officials; we found these data 

to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To determine 

factors affecting renewable energy development, we used the results of 

our questionnaire and also interviewed representatives from industry and 

environmental groups to obtain their perspectives on the time frames and 

 

3

We interviewed BLM officials from California, Colorado, Nevada, and Wyoming. We 

selected California, Nevada, and Wyoming primarily because they represent areas with 

substantial renewable energy development and substantial agency resources devoted to 

processing renewable energy applications. We selected Colorado primarily to obtain 

perspectives about the program from a state with less activity and fewer resources. 

4

We interviewed Fish and Wildlife Service officials from the agency’s Mountain-Prairie and 

Pacific Southwest Regions, both selected because they had a significant amount of 

renewable energy development, and from one state office within each of these regions.

We interviewed a National Park Service official from a national park in California because 

of his experience with renewable energy development near the park. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

factors associated with the permitting process, and renewable energy 

development in general. Appendix I provides a more detailed description 

of our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to January 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Renewable energy technologies generate electricity, fuels, or heat 

through the use of resources that are continually replenished, such as 

wind, sunlight, and naturally occurring underground steam and heat.5

Development of utility-scale renewable energy projects on federal land 

occurs primarily on lands managed by BLM and, to a lesser extent, on 

those managed by the Forest Service. Nearly all of the approximately 

248 million surface acres of federal land managed by BLM are located in 

11 western states and Alaska. BLM is also responsible for managing 

resources (e.g., geothermal, oil, and gas resources) lying on or beneath 

federal lands and beneath private lands for which the federal government 

retains mineral rights—amounting to approximately 700 million 

subsurface acres altogether. The Forest Service is responsible for 

managing 193 million acres of forests and grasslands, primarily in the 

western states but also throughout the country. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Park Service manage about 90 million and 

80 million acres, respectively, but under legislation that generally 

 

5

Other renewable energy sources include bioenergy, such as liquid biofuels and solid 

biomass fuel; hydropower; ocean energy, including wave, tidal, current, and ocean 

thermal energy; and waste conversion, including anaerobic digestion, landfill gas, and 

municipal solid waste. 

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

precludes the development of large-scale renewable energy projects.6

Another Interior agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, works with Indian 

tribes to develop renewable energy on tribal lands.7

Renewable energy projects on federal lands date back decades; for 

example, utility-scale geothermal projects have operated on both BLMand Forest Service-managed lands since the 1970s, and several utilityscale wind projects have been operating on BLM-managed lands, 

primarily in California, since the early 1980s.8 In May 2012, the first utilityscale solar power plant began operating on federal lands, specifically on 

BLM-managed land. No utility-scale wind or solar development is 

operating at present on Forest Service-managed lands. In general, over 

half the nation’s electricity generated from geothermal resources comes 

from resources on federal lands, and about 1 percent of the nation’s 

electricity generated from wind and solar energy comes from resources 

on federal lands.

Electricity generation using wind, solar, and geothermal energy can range 

from small-scale production—for example, rooftop solar panels on a 

home or geothermal resources heating a greenhouse—to utility-scale 

production of hundreds of megawatts of electricity. Figure 1 shows 

 

6

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations. The act requires the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the compatibility of activities with the purposes of a 

particular refuge and the mission of the refuge system and not allow those activities 

deemed incompatible. The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created the 

National Park Service to promote and regulate the use of the National Park System with 

the purpose of preserving unimpaired the natural and cultural resources of park units for 

the enjoyment of this and future generations. 

7

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for the administration and management of 55 

million surface acres held in trust by the United States for Indian tribes, individuals, and 

Alaska Natives. Permitting renewable energy projects on tribal trust lands is project 

dependent and handled by a combination of the tribal surface owner, the bureau, BLM, 

and other agencies.

8

Electricity generated from federal lands helps power millions of homes across the United 

States. For example, the geothermal resources found at the Geysers Geothermal Field—

approximately 40 percent of which are considered to come from federal lands—has a net 

generating capacity sufficient to power 750,000 homes, or a city the size of San 

Francisco. 

Types of Renewable 

Energy and Technologies 

Used for Development
 

Page 6 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

examples of utility-scale facilities representing each of these three energy 

types.

Figure 1: Examples of Utility-Scale Wind, Solar, and Geothermal Technologies

The most common technologies for utility-scale wind, solar, and 

geothermal development include the following:

• Wind energy. Wind farms comprise a number of turbines built close 

together to produce utility-scale wind power. Horizontal-axis turbines, 

the most common, constitute nearly all utility-scale turbines in the 

United States.9 To generate electricity, horizontal-axis turbines 

capture the wind’s energy with two or three propellerlike blades 

mounted on a rotor sitting atop a tower. A smaller utility-scale wind 

farm may have 6 turbines on 100 acres and generate about 

3 megawatts, and a larger wind farm may have over 100 turbines on 

about 10,000 acres and generate over 300 megawatts. Siting wind 

farms in appropriate locations is important because they can fragment 

wildlife habitat and plant communities, and the turbines and blades 

themselves may kill birds and bats, make noise, and mar views.

• Solar energy. Multiple technologies exist for utility-scale solar power. 

Solar photovoltaic technologies convert energy from sunlight directly 

into electricity, using arrays of solar panels. Concentrating solar power 

technologies use mirrors to focus the sun’s energy to heat water or 

other fluids; these fluids in turn create steam that powers a 

conventional turbine generator to produce electricity. An average solar 

 

9

The other type of wind turbine is a vertical-axis turbine, which resembles an eggbeater. 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

plant, whether photovoltaic or concentrating, requires about 3 to 

8 acres for every megawatt of generating capacity. For example, a 

small utility-scale solar plant occupying about 400 acres may generate 

45 megawatts, and a large facility occupying over 7,000 acres may 

generate 1,000 megawatts. Selecting appropriate areas for the 

development of solar projects is essential given that such 

development generally precludes other uses of the same land 

because the surface area is graded before installation, and 

components are installed relatively close to one another. In the 

southwestern United States, where the potential for solar energy 

development is greatest, solar installations can affect habitat needed 

by various species, including those listed as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act, such as the desert 

tortoise. In addition, some solar technologies use large amounts of 

water, which can be problematic in desert environments.

• Geothermal energy. Geothermal power plants extract geothermal 

fluids—hot water, brines, and steam—from the earth by drilling wells 

to depths of up to 10,000 feet.10 These fluids are then used to create a 

vapor that can power a turbine generator to produce electricity, with

only the highest-temperature geothermal resources—generally above

200 degrees Fahrenheit—suitable for electricity generation. 

Geothermal power plants typically generate from 30 to 

120 megawatts, and an individual power plant often uses resources 

brought to the surface through multiple wells. Mitigating for harmful 

effects is important in geothermal planning because geothermal 

operations can emit dangerous gases, and geothermal drilling 

operations may contaminate groundwater.

However it is generated, electricity from utility-scale renewable energy 

development is sold to utilities and—like electricity generated by more 

conventional sources such as coal- or gas-fired power plants—is 

conveyed to consumers through transmission lines. Some of the best 

locations for wind and solar development, however, are in remote areas 

far from consumers, and transmission lines to carry the power are not 

 

10In addition, a technology referred to as “enhanced geothermal systems,” being 

developed by the Department of Energy and others, has the potential to allow for the use 

of geothermal resources not previously obtainable. This technology works by injecting 

high-pressure fluids into geologic formations where there is hot rock but little natural 

permeability for hot water to circulate; these fluids fracture the rock and thereby create 

more permeable formations, enhancing the availability of geothermal resources.
 

Page 8 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

always readily available in these remote areas. In addition, electricity 

generated from wind and solar development differs from geothermal and 

conventional sources because it is available intermittently, rather than 

continuously.

In managing their lands, BLM and the Forest Service are required by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the National 

Forest Management Act, respectively, to develop or revise land use plans 

for the areas they manage, providing for multiple uses, such as 

recreation, timber, and fish and wildlife, and natural scenic, scientific, and 

historical values. All land management actions, including renewable 

energy development, must conform to the approved land use plan 

governing the land management unit—such as a national forest—where 

the action is to take place. Consequently, renewable energy development 

can occur only where it is consistent with the applicable land use plan, 

which in some cases may require changing the plan. Plan revisions 

undergo extensive environmental analysis before being finalized.

Wind and solar energy projects on federal land require permits from the 

relevant land management agency through the issuance of rights-ofway.11 A right-of-way is an authorization to a qualified individual, 

business, or government entity to use a specific area of federal land for a 

specific amount of time for a certain purpose and with certain restrictions. 

Geothermal activities are administered by BLM for all federal lands 

(regardless of whether the surface land is managed by BLM or another 

agency) through the issuance first of leases and then of subsequent 

permits for drilling operations and other activities—similar to the process 

used for oil and natural gas.12

 

11Stakeholders have characterized authorizations for wind and solar energy development 

as “permits,” “rights of way,” “right-of-way leases,” and “leases.” In this report, we use the 

statutory term “right-of-way” to refer to these authorizations. The Forest Service 

implements this authority by issuing special use permits.

12The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 

Lands of 1947, as amended, provide the legislative authority for federal oil and gas 

leasing. BLM’s oil and gas leasing regulations are located at 43 C.F.R. pt. 3120, and 

regulations governing oil and gas operations are located at 43 C.F.R. pt. 3160. BLM 

cannot issue leases for National Forest System lands over the objection of the Forest 

Service. 

Agency Permitting 

Processes for Renewable 

Energy Development
 

Page 9 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 authorizes BLM 

and the Forest Service to issue rights-of-way over federal lands for a 

variety of purposes, including systems for generating, transmitting, and 

distributing electric energy.13 For new projects that may have a significant 

impact on the environment, the act requires applicants to submit a plan of 

construction, operation, and rehabilitation for the right-of-way that 

complies with applicable laws and regulations. An agency may issue a 

right-of-way only after the applicant has demonstrated that it has the 

technical and financial capability to construct the project for which the 

right-of-way is requested. Each right-of-way must include terms and 

conditions that, among others, protect the environment, federal property 

and economic interests, and the public interest. The holder of a right-ofway must generally pay its fair market value annually in advance and 

must provide a bond ensuring that the holder can perform the 

obligations—such as reclamation—required by the terms of the right-ofway.

BLM’s permitting process for wind or solar energy projects comprises 

several steps prior to right-of-way issuance, as follows:

• A potential project developer contacts the BLM office responsible for 

land where a right-of-way is sought and obtains a standard application 

form.

• Preapplication meetings take place between the potential applicant 

and appropriate BLM field office staff to discuss the application form 

and its requirements, the general project proposal, land use planning 

in the area, and potential land use constraints.

• Once an application has been submitted, BLM reviews it to determine 

whether it is complete. A complete application must include a 

statement of technical and financial capability to construct, operate, 

maintain, and terminate the system for which the right-of-way is being 

requested, along with a project description—called a plan of 

development—sufficiently detailed for BLM to evaluate the proposed 

project’s appropriateness and feasibility.14

 

13BLM may issue a right-of-way on a given land area unless otherwise directed by law, 

agency order, or a land use plan. 43 C.F.R. § 2802.10.

14BLM’s website offers proponents a template to be used in developing wind and solar 

plans of development.

Permitting for Wind and Solar 

Energy Development 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

• BLM checks to ensure that the proposed use conforms with BLM land 

use plans and that no apparent conflicts exist, such as other valid 

rights for the same lands requested in the application.

• BLM establishes a cost-recovery fee based on the amount of time 

BLM estimates it will take to process the application and issue a 

decision and collects this fee from the applicant.15

• BLM begins processing and evaluating the application, including 

associated environmental reviews under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA),16 Endangered Species Act, and others.

An approved application generally results in an authorized right-of-way, 

although BLM generally issues a notice to proceed before the holder of 

the right-of-way can begin construction. On the other hand, BLM is 

authorized to deny applications for various reasons—for example, if the 

project is not consistent with the relevant land use plan or if applicants do 

not provide BLM with sufficient information.17 At any point in the process, 

an applicant may choose to withdraw the application.

The Forest Service issues permits for wind and solar energy development 

under its “special use” permit process.18 A potential project developer files 

a project proposal, which must contain information such as a project 

description and evidence of the applicant’s technical and financial 

capability to carry out the project. Proposals are initially screened to 

ensure in part that the proposed project is consistent with applicable laws, 

regulations, and relevant land use plans. A second screening then 

examines whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient technological 

 

15The Federal Land Policy and Management Act authorizes BLM to recover the costs of 

processing right-of-way permit applications. Such cost-recovery fees are estimated by 

BLM and can be paid in installments, depending on the actual amount necessary to 

process an application.

16Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-

4347 (2011). Under NEPA, federal agencies must assess the effects of major federal 

actions—those they propose to carry out or to permit—that significantly affect the 

environment.

17A BLM decision to deny an application must be made in writing, stating the reason(s) for 

denial. Reasons for denial are described at 43 C.F.R. §2804.26.

18Special use authorization regulations appear in 36 C.F.R. pt. 251, subpart B. All uses of 

Forest Service lands other than those involving roads, grazing and livestock use, the sale 

and disposal of timber and certain other forest products, and minerals are designated as 

special uses.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

and financial capability. If these conditions are met, the potential project 

developer may submit the proposal as a formal application, which is then 

analyzed under NEPA. If the project is approved, a special use permit is 

awarded to the applicant. Special use permits must include terms and 

conditions that protect the environment and require compliance with 

federal and state air and water quality laws, as well as with any state 

environmental and facility siting standards that are more stringent than 

federal standards. Like BLM, the Forest Service can deny applications for 

various reasons, including if the proposed project is inconsistent with the 

relevant land use plan or if the applicant fails to demonstrate sufficient 

technical or financial capability.

Geothermal activities are authorized through the issuance of leases and 

several subsequent permits and approvals to drill fluid minerals under the 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended. To explore and develop 

geothermal resources on federal lands, developers generally must first 

obtain a federal lease from BLM.19 Once a lease is obtained, a potential 

developer undergoes three primary phases seeking approval of plans and 

permits to explore and then develop geothermal resources and, 

ultimately, to construct a geothermal power plant. These plans and 

permits include the following: (1) an exploration plan, which describes the 

overall process for drilling and testing for geothermal resources; (2) one 

or more geothermal drilling permits, which allow an applicant to drill wells 

to confirm and produce geothermal resources at a given location; and 

(3) a utilization plan, which describes the proposed power plant and 

infrastructure needed to generate electricity from geothermal resources 

and provides much of the information needed to permit the power plant 

itself. A construction permit and site license must also be obtained before 

geothermal plant construction may begin. These three phases of 

geothermal permitting can be set in motion concurrently, but generally the 

environmental approval for the exploration phase is completed before 

applicants apply for geothermal drilling permits and subsequent 

construction permits. Applications for geothermal drilling permits can also 

be submitted after construction of a plant is completed if the developer 

determines that a geothermal field may benefit from additional wells.

 

19Agency officials told us that limited exploration activities may take place before a lease 

is issued, although developers generally prefer to obtain a lease before making any 

substantial investments in exploration activities. The lease is a contract between the 

federal government and the lessee that specifies certain terms for development and 

payment of rents and royalties.

Permitting for Geothermal 

Energy Development 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

As with many other land management activities, the agencies must 

comply with key environmental laws—including, among others, NEPA, 

the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation 

Act—when amending land use plans and approving permits for 

renewable energy development. Compliance with these laws can involve 

considerable time spent by agencies and project developers on 

environmental analysis and consultation with multiple agencies.

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

20 Enacted in 1970, NEPA 

has as its purpose, among others, to promote efforts to prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment. NEPA requires an agency to 

prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of any 

“major federal action” significantly affecting the environment. 

Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality21

implementing NEPA generally require an agency to prepare either an 

environmental assessment22 or an environmental impact statement.23

Agencies may prepare an environmental assessment to determine 

whether there is a significant potential impact on the environment, 

which would necessitate the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement. If the agency determines in its environmental assessment 

that no significant environmental impacts will occur from the proposed 

action, then it prepares a finding of no significant impact. If the agency 

issues an environmental impact statement, it must also issue a record 

 

20Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347.

21The President’s Council on Environmental Quality coordinates federal environmental 

efforts and works with other White House offices and federal agencies in the development 

of environmental policies and initiatives.

22An environmental assessment is a concise public document that provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact 

statement or a finding of no significant impact and is to include brief discussions of the 

need for the proposal, alternatives, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9 (2011).

23An environmental impact statement is a more detailed statement than an environmental 

assessment, and NEPA implementing regulations specify requirements and procedures—

such as providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the draft document—

applicable to the environmental impact statement process that are not mandated for 

environmental assessments. An environmental impact statement must, among other 

things, (1) describe the environment that will be affected, (2) identify alternatives to the 

proposed action and identify the agency’s preferred alternative, (3) present the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and (4) identify any 

adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided should the proposed action be 

implemented. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c) (2011), 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4, 1508.11 (2011).

Key Environmental Laws 

Affecting the Permitting 

Process 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

of decision describing the agency’s decision; identifying all 

alternatives the agency considered; and stating whether all 

practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted and, if not, why not. 

Environmental impact statements can be developed at either a 

programmatic level—where larger-scale, combined and cumulative 

effects can be evaluated and where overall management objectives, 

such as road access and use, are defined—or a project level, where 

the effects are evaluated of a particular project in a specific place at a 

particular time. Programmatic environmental impact statements can 

reduce the environmental analysis needed for individual projects 

proposed in the area covered by a programmatic statement.24 In 

addition, land use plan revisions typically involve the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement, and programmatic statements have 

also enabled agencies to amend multiple land use plans at the same 

time (e.g., land use plans for areas served by multiple BLM field 

offices), thereby reducing the NEPA review typically required when 

unit-specific land use plans are amended.

• Endangered Species Act of 1973.

25 The purpose of the Endangered 

Species Act is to conserve threatened and endangered species and 

the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under section 7 of the act, 

federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species protected under the act. To fulfill this responsibility, the 

agencies must, under some circumstances, formally consult with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service when their actions may affect listed species 

or habitat identified as critical to the species’ survival. The 

consultation usually ends with the issuance of a biological opinion by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service; this opinion may specify protective 

measures intended to minimize the project’s impact on the species. 

For example, on the basis of a biological opinion, BLM may require a 

wind project to incorporate techniques reducing the turbines’ potential 

to harm species protected under the act.

 

24A programmatic environmental impact statement does not typically replace the need for 

site-specific environmental review of each project, but the ability to use broader 

programmatic analyses can help streamline environmental review by focusing the analysis 

on the most critical site-specific issues of concern. Known as tiering, a programmatic 

approach allows an agency to avoid duplication of paperwork by incorporating by 

reference the general discussions and relevant specific discussions from an 

environmental impact statement of broader scope into one of lesser scope or vice versa.

25Pub. L. No. 93-205 (1973), codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

26 The National Historic

Preservation Act provides for the protection of historic properties. For 

all projects receiving federal funds or a federal permit, section 106 of 

the act requires federal agencies to take into account a project’s effect 

on any historic property, including, for example, areas of traditional 

religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe.27 In accordance 

with regulations implementing the act, agencies must consult with 

relevant federal, state, and tribal officials to determine whether a 

project or activity has the potential to affect historic properties.

Other key federal laws affecting the permitting of renewable energy 

projects in particular include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act28 and the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act.29 Each act generally makes it unlawful 

to “take” (defined to include, among other actions, hunting, trapping, or 

killing) a bird, its nest, or eggs covered by the act unless a permit has 

been issued under specific circumstances.

In addition to federal land management agency requirements, project 

applications are also subject to relevant state and local requirements, 

which vary from state to state. For example, in California, utility-scale 

solar projects are also subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. 

The California act requires a state agency to prepare an environmental 

impact report on any project it proposes to carry out or approve that may 

have a significant effect on the environment. The act generally prohibits 

the agency from approving a project unless it is modified to mitigate or 

avoid significant effects on the environment.

 

26Pub. L. No. 89-665 (1966), codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 to 470x-6.

27The act defines as a historic property any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, 

structure, object, or any properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an 

Indian tribe, included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

2816 U.S.C. §§ 703-712.

2916 U.S.C.A. §§ 668- 668d.
 

Page 15 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Since 2005, BLM has received hundreds of permit applications for utilityscale renewable energy projects. For wind and solar projects, 17 projects 

have been authorized, with permit-processing time frames decreasing 

over time—from about 4 years to about 1.5 years. For geothermal 

projects, 29 applications were submitted, and construction was approved

for 8 projects, with the permit-processing time frames ranging from 1 to 

4 years. In all, since EPAct 2005, BLM has authorized projects sited on 

federal lands with the capacity to generate a total of about 

5,450 megawatts of electricity, a substantial increase over the number of 

megawatts the agencies had authorized before passage of the act, 

contributing to the act’s goal of approving 10,000 megawatts of renewable 

energy on federal lands by 2015.

According to agency officials and responses to our questionnaire, from 

passage of EPAct 2005 through May 2012, BLM received 416 permit 

applications for utility-scale wind and solar projects. Over 350 of the 

applications were for solar energy projects, almost all of which were 

submitted for development on BLM-managed lands in Arizona, California, 

and Nevada. Sixty-five applications were submitted to BLM for wind 

energy projects. One application was submitted for a wind energy project 

on Forest Service-managed land.30 Of the 416 applications submitted to 

BLM, rights-of-way were issued for 20 applications covering 17 projects 

(7 wind and 10 solar).31 About 60 percent of the applications were 

 

30The one wind development application to the Forest Service since EPAct 2005 was 

accepted in August 2008 for development in the Huron-Manistee National Forests in 

Michigan. In 2010, however, before the Forest Service determined whether to approve or 

deny the permit, the applicant withdrew the application. Since EPAct 2005, additional 

applications may have been submitted to the Forest Service, but the Forest Service 

maintains data only for those applications that complete the agency’s screening process 

and are determined sufficiently complete to analyze. This practice differs from that of BLM, 

which tracks all applications, whether or not they are complete enough to analyze. 

Separately, the Forest Service has approved one other application for a wind project to be 

developed on the lands it manages. This project, located in Green Mountain National 

Forest in Vermont, was approved in January 2012, although construction for the project 

had not yet begun as of the time of this report. Because the application was submitted 

before EPAct 2005, this project is not included in our analysis. 

31In some cases, multiple applications may be submitted and approved for one project. 

For example, at one solar project in California, the applicant submitted four applications to 

address the component land areas of a single project. For geothermal energy

development, multiple applications are submitted for each project, covering the three 

phases of geothermal development—exploration, drilling, and construction. 

BLM Has Received 

Hundreds of Permit 

Applications since 

EPAct 2005 and 

Authorized 25 

Projects 

Since 2005, BLM Received 

416 Wind and Solar Permit 

Applications and 

Authorized 17 Projects, 

and Permitting Time 

Frames Have Decreased
 

Page 16 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

ultimately withdrawn by the applicant or denied by BLM. Table 1 depicts 

the status of all 416 wind and solar applications. (See also app. I for more 

information about our methodology for determining how many 

applications each agency received.)

Table 1: Status of Applications for Utility-Scale Wind and Solar Project Permits on BLM-Managed Lands since EPAct 2005

Status of applications

Wind applications Solar applications

Total wind and

solar applications

Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

Authorized 7 11 13 4 a 20 5 

Pending 27 42 82 23 109 26

Withdrawn 17 26 126 36 143 34

Denied 13 20 97 28 110 26

On holdb c c 11 3 11 3 

Other 1 d 2 22 6 23 6 

Total 65 100 351 100 416 100

Source: GAO analysis of BLM questionnaire results. Because of rounding rules, percentages for some results shown in the table may 

not add to 100.

a

A right-of-way was authorized for 13 solar applications; however, these 13 applications covered 10 

projects because 1 project had multiple applications.

b

“On hold” refers to certain solar energy applications for which BLM postponed processing while the 

solar programmatic environmental impact statement was being completed.

c

Data not applicable for wind applications.

d

Of the 17 wind and solar projects that had been granted a right-of-way, 7 

were in operation and 3 were under construction as of the time of this 

report. The remainder were delayed for various reasons—such as 

bankruptcy or changes in the type of technology applicants plan to 

install—or had been terminated. (See app. II for the status and details of 

authorized projects for all types of renewable energy.)

Applications identified as “other” —for example, those that were closed for administrative reasons 

other than withdrawal or denial—did not fit in any of the listed categories.

Of the 109 wind and solar energy applications that were identified as 

pending, 2 had been approved through a signed decision at completion of 

environmental analysis but were not considered authorized because a 

right-of-way had not been issued, and 20 applications had entered the 

environmental analysis process as of the time of our review. The 

remaining applications were in earlier stages of the review process. 

According to BLM officials, some of these applications are not likely to be 

considered or approved because of where they stand in the queue of 

applications for that parcel of land. For example, for some especially 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

desirable parcels, two or more applications may be in the queue for a 

right-of-way. Applications are processed in the order received, and 

applications that are further down the queue for the same parcel of land 

will be considered only if the first application for that parcel is withdrawn 

or denied. In other cases, BLM officials told us, applicants were no longer 

actively pursuing their applications but had not yet formally withdrawn 

them. 

Applications were withdrawn or denied for various reasons. According to 

BLM officials, some applicants withdrew because of concerns regarding 

the financial market and concerns over the presence of cultural and 

natural resources located in the project area. Regarding applications that 

were denied by the agency, BLM officials told us that a majority were 

denied because applicants did not provide sufficient information—such as 

technical details associated with their projects—for BLM to process the 

applications. The next most frequently identified reason for denial was 

that developers could not demonstrate the technical or financial capability 

to carry out their projects.

Permitting for the 17 authorized wind and solar projects with applications 

submitted after EPAct 2005 took from less than half a year to almost 5 

years from initial application submission to right-of-way authorization, 

according to our questionnaire results. Average permitting time frames 

differed depending on the type of project application; it took about 3.5 

years to complete the permitting process for solar projects and about 2.5 

years for wind projects.32 Some of this difference stems from the fact that 

most wind applications were processed using environmental 

assessments rather than environmental impact statements, whereas all 

authorized solar applications were processed using environmental impact 

statements—and processing applications using environmental 

assessments took roughly two-thirds as long, on average, as processing 

applications using environmental impact statements.

In addition, for those wind and solar applications processed using 

environmental impact statements, the time necessary to complete the 

application represented about one-third of total processing time. For wind 

applications processed using environmental assessments, the time to 

 

32Before applying for a permit for a utility-scale wind project, applicants generally obtain 

permits for testing and siting. For projects issued a right-of-way, the additional time to 

obtain these permits ranged from less than one year to about 3.4 years. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

complete the application represented a smaller portion of the total 

processing time—about 9 percent. Most of the remainder was spent 

preparing for or conducting the environmental analysis (see fig. 2).

Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Stages in Processing Authorized Solar and Wind Project Applications Submitted after 

EPAct 2005 Using Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements

Note: This figure represents 17 wind and solar projects authorized by BLM. As noted in table 1, for 

one solar project, four applications were submitted, but because these four applications were 

processed simultaneously, we treated them as a single application in this analysis.

BLM officials also reported substantially shorter processing times for wind 

and solar applications received in more recent years. Specifically, 

authorized wind and solar project applications submitted in 2006 took an 

average of about 4 years to process, whereas those applications 

submitted in 2009 averaged about 1.5 years (see fig. 3). According to 

BLM officials, these time frames may have decreased because BLM field 

office staff have gained experience in processing renewable energy 

applications.
 

Page 19 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Figure 3: Average Time Frames for Stages in the Processing of Applications for Authorized Wind and Solar Projects, by Year 

Submitted 

Notes: This figure represents 17 wind and solar projects authorized by BLM. As noted in table 1, for 

one solar project, four applications were submitted, but because these four applications were 

processed simultaneously, we treated them as a single application in this analysis. In addition, the 

data for 2006 represent four applications (one wind environmental assessment and three solar 

environmental impact statements); for 2007, nine applications (three wind environmental 

assessments, one wind environmental impact statement, and five solar environmental impact 

statements); for 2008, two applications (two solar environmental impact statements); and for 2009, 

two applications (one wind environmental assessment and one wind environmental impact 

statement).

From EPAct 2005 through May 2012, BLM received applications for 29 

new utility-scale geothermal projects, most of which were submitted from 

2007 through 2009 for development in Nevada. Each component of the 

application process for developing utility-scale geothermal projects—

exploration plans, geothermal drilling permits for individual wells, and 

utilization plans for constructing and maintaining the geothermal power 

plant—requires environmental analysis and agency approval. As of the 

time of this report, of these 29 proposed projects:

• BLM approved 25 exploration plans, with the remaining 4 projects 

suspended by the applicants.

BLM Received 

Applications for 29 

Geothermal Projects since 

2005 and Approved 8 for 

Construction, with 

Permitting Time Frames 

from 1 to 4 Years
 

Page 20 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

• Associated with the 25 projects approved for exploration, BLM 

approved 168 geothermal drilling permits to drill individual wells for 

developing these projects.

• BLM subsequently approved 8 of the 25 projects for construction and 

maintenance; 3 of these projects were operational, and another was 

under construction.

Some of the 25 applications for which geothermal exploration plans had 

been approved did not progress to approval of construction because, 

during the exploration phase, applicants did not find sufficient geothermal 

resources to justify constructing a plant. In other cases, according to 

agency officials, financial difficulties constrained applicants’ ability to drill 

wells and construct power plants. A few other projects were early in the 

exploration process and had not yet moved to the construction phase, 

according to BLM officials.

Time frames for obtaining the multiple approvals and permits necessary 

for utility-scale geothermal power plants ranged from 1 to 4 years, in part 

because of the time needed to explore and find adequate geothermal 

resources and also because of the time needed to process applications at 

each approval stage. On average, it took about 1.3 years for approval of 

exploration plans, about 124 days for approval of drilling permits, and 

about 1.3 years for approval of construction plans.

BLM-authorized renewable energy projects sited on federal lands and 

applied for since EPAct 2005 have a total electricity-generating capacity 

of about 5,450 megawatts—a substantial increase over the capacity for 

renewable energy generation approved before EPAct 2005, which was 

about 1,360 megawatts. Of this 5,450-megawatt capacity, authorized 

wind projects contributed about 800 megawatts, solar projects about 

4,200 megawatts, and geothermal projects about 450 megawatts.33

 

33BLM has signed a record of decision for two additional projects (one wind energy and 

one solar energy) that have the potential to generate an additional 1,800 megawatts from 

projects sited on federal lands. Nevertheless, because these projects had not been issued 

a right-of-way as of the time of this report, they are not included in our total of authorized 

projects.

Wind, Solar, and 

Geothermal Projects 

Applied for and Authorized 

since EPAct 2005 Total 

5,450 Megawatts of 

Generating Capacity
 

Page 21 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

As previously noted, EPAct 2005 established a goal that the Secretary of 

the Interior “seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy 

projects located on public lands with a generation capacity of at least 

10,000 megawatts of electricity” by 2015. The 5,450 megawatts for 

authorized projects discussed above contribute to this goal, as do 

megawatts for projects that have been approved but for which an 

authorization has not been issued.34 Other megawatts that contribute to 

this goal include those from renewable energy projects on non-Interior 

lands that rely on BLM rights-of-way for “connected actions” essential to 

the project, such as transmission corridors. BLM officials also told us that 

the megawatts associated with projects approved before EPAct 2005 

contribute toward meeting the goal. In October 2012, with the approval of 

a large wind energy project, Interior officials announced that the

department had surpassed the 10,000-megawatt goal.

Since EPAct 2005, the federal land management agencies—primarily 

BLM but also other Interior agencies and the Forest Service—have 

developed and revised policies to address renewable energy 

development on federal lands, formalized collaboration within and across 

their respective agencies and with state and local governments, and 

devoted increased resources to process renewable energy permit 

applications. In addition, BLM—partly in response to our review—has 

drafted a policy to help guide and assess these efforts to help ensure they 

are achieving their intended purposes.

Since 2005, BLM has developed and revised policies aimed at improving 

renewable energy permitting and development on its lands through 

various means. Other agencies—including the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the Forest Service—have also developed renewable energy policies. 

Although some of these steps began before EPAct 2005, BLM officials 

said they saw the need for continual improvements and changes, given 

 

34As noted, for purposes of this report we considered wind and solar projects as approved

when a NEPA decision (such as a record of decision) is signed, and we considered a 

project as authorized when a right-of-way is subsequently granted. 

Agencies Have Taken 

Several Steps to 

Foster Renewable 

Energy Development 

on Federal Lands 

since EPAct 2005

Agencies Have Created 

Policies Aimed at 

Improving Renewable 

Energy Development
 

Page 22 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

the sharp increase in applications for renewable energy permits since 

EPAct 2005.35

BLM has developed and revised policies intended for improving 

renewable energy development on its lands by means of programmatic 

environmental impact statements, designation of priority projects, 

instruction memorandums, and rulemaking.

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements

One of BLM’s most comprehensive actions taken with respect to 

renewable energy was the completion of programmatic environmental 

impact statements for wind, geothermal, and solar energy development, 

made final in 2005, 2008, and 2012, respectively (see fig. 4). These 

statements enabled BLM to amend multiple land use plans 

simultaneously to provide for renewable energy development on BLMmanaged lands; in some cases, the statements also established new 

policies and identified best management practices for energy 

development. According to BLM officials, the statements were intended to 

streamline the permitting process for renewable energy development by 

shortening the amount of time needed for project-by-project 

environmental impact analyses. The solar statement differed from those 

for wind and geothermal energy in that it identified specific areas of 

federal lands most suitable for development—known as solar energy 

zones—and created incentives, including economic incentives and more 

streamlined permitting, for development to occur in those locations.36

 

35Several efforts to promote renewable energy development began before EPAct 2005. 

For example, in May 2001, the President issued an executive order that agencies should 

take appropriate actions to expedite projects to increase the production, transmission, or 

conservation of energy. That same month, the President’s National Energy Policy 

Development Group recommended that the Departments of the Interior, Energy, 

Agriculture, and Defense work collaboratively to increase renewable energy production. 

Subsequently, in July 2001, the departments created an interagency task force to address 

how to increase renewable energy production on federal lands.

36BLM identified 17 areas, covering approximately 285,000 acres, as solar energy zones.

BLM
 

Page 23 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Figure 4: Summary of BLM’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements for Wind, Geothermal, and Solar Energy 

Development

Note: “Year approved” refers to the year when the record of decision was signed for the associated 

programmatic environmental impact statement. Information in the table generally reflects BLM’s 

actions as described in the relevant record of decision.

a

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, 

and Wyoming.

b

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming.

c

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.

d

Programmatic environmental impact statements can be particularly useful 

with regard to renewable energy development because many of BLM’s 

land use plans did not address such development at the utility scale and 

amending them through a programmatic review was more efficient than 

doing so one by one. For example, relying on the analysis in the wind 

statement, BLM amended 52 land use plans, in some cases incorporating 

wind energy development into land use plans where that energy type had 

not previously been addressed but where proponents had shown an 

interest and in other cases restricting wind energy development from 

wildlife habitat where the agency believed adverse effects could not be 

A variety of areas are closed to development, including, among others, wilderness areas, wilderness 

study areas, and national monuments.
 

Page 24 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

mitigated.37 Without the programmatic statement on wind energy, these 

land use plans would have had to be amended individually, each with its 

own associated environmental review.

Moreover, in using such programmatic statements, BLM helped address 

concerns that NEPA’s requirements for environmental analysis can be 

overly time-consuming. According to BLM officials, the geothermal 

programmatic environmental impact statement approach has shortened 

the time it has taken BLM staff to ensure the accuracy of NEPA 

documentation for site-specific activities such as drilling, in part because it 

supplied a template for environmental assessments. Additionally, BLM 

officials anticipate that environmental analysis for applications in the new 

solar energy zones will be streamlined because BLM can tier these 

analyses to the relevant programmatic analysis.

Priority Projects

In 2009, according to Interior officials, BLM began selecting projects to be 

given higher priority in application processing so as to focus agency 

efforts and limited resources on those projects it believed had a greater 

likelihood of being approved. Recognizing the need for explicit criteria, 

BLM in 2011 established criteria for prioritizing wind and solar energy 

projects.38 These criteria took into consideration natural and cultural 

resource values—seeking to direct development away from sensitive 

areas. According to officials, BLM expected that projects on less sensitive 

lands would take less time to process because these projects would 

require less consultation, environmental analysis, and mitigation. In 

addition, BLM also considered those projects for which the application 

process had progressed far enough to start formal environmental review. 

Initially, BLM selected priority projects on its own but—recognizing that 

other agencies are integral to the permitting process or may be affected 

by project development on BLM-managed lands—it has since 

coordinated on project selection with other agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

Department of Defense.

 

37Land use plans were included for amendment in all states covered by the wind 

programmatic environmental impact statement except Arizona and California because 

separate pending land use plan amendments were being conducted to address wind 

energy development in those states.

38BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-061.
 

Page 25 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Some BLM officials told us that additional agency attention paid to priority 

projects has facilitated processing and streamlined the approval process. 

For example, the record of decision for all priority projects is now signed 

by the Secretary of the Interior, which means that the decisions, if 

challenged, cannot be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

This board’s review can lengthen approval time frames, according to BLM 

officials.39

Instruction Memorandums

Since 2005, BLM has issued multiple instruction memorandums to its field 

offices containing new policies aimed primarily at development of wind 

and solar energy. A significant increase in wind and solar permit 

applications beginning in 2007—many of which BLM officials said were 

speculative in nature or not detailed enough for consideration—coupled 

with BLM’s relative inexperience in processing such applications made 

managing the applications a challenge. Several of the memorandums 

stemmed from a lessons-learned workshop on renewable energy held in 

January 2011, where officials from several Interior agencies, as well as 

industry groups, identified challenges and developed suggestions for 

improvement. The following month, on February 7, 2011, BLM issued 

three instruction memorandums specifically targeted at clarifying NEPA 

documentation, facilitating the application review and approval process, 

and improving the quality of project applications. The instruction 

memorandums are as follows:

• A memorandum aimed at clarifying BLM’s policy under NEPA as it 

relates to analyzing applications for utility-scale renewable energy 

projects.

40 This memorandum provided guidance to BLM staff on 

developing and presenting certain information required for 

environmental impact statements related to renewable energy 

projects. For example, as part of the NEPA process, BLM is to 

analyze reasonable alternatives for development. Given the various 

technologies available for renewable energy development, some 

alternatives may be proposed that are not technically or economically 

 

39The Interior Board of Land Appeals is an appellate review body that exercises the 

delegated authority of the Secretary to issue final decisions for the Department of the 

Interior. Its administrative judges decide appeals from bureau decisions including those 

related to the use and disposition of federal lands and their resources. 

40BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-059.
 

Page 26 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

feasible. This memorandum states that reasonable alternatives 

include “those that are practical or feasible from the technical and 

economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply 

desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.” It also notes that 

information about the applicant’s interest and objectives, including any 

constraints or flexibility in a proposal, is needed to help BLM 

determine which alternatives to analyze in detail under NEPA and, 

conversely, which alternatives to eliminate from detailed analysis.

• A memorandum providing updated guidance to facilitate the 

application review and approval process by directing early 

coordination between BLM and other stakeholders.

41 This 

memorandum requires that all prospective applicants participate in at 

least two preapplication meetings with BLM before the agency can 

accept an application for solar or wind projects.42 The first such 

meeting, between an applicant and BLM, helps ensure that the 

applicant is familiar with BLM’s right-of-way process and allows 

discussion of issues such as the applicant’s proposal for the project, 

any land use and siting constraints, potential environmental issues, 

and potential alternative site locations. The second meeting is to 

initiate coordination with other federal agencies, such as the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, as well as with tribal, state, and local government 

agencies; to provide an additional opportunity to discuss potential 

environmental and siting constraints; and to modify the proposed 

project, if necessary, before an application is submitted.

• A memorandum aimed at improving the quality of project applications, 

thereby enabling BLM officials to better identify applicants with a 

serious interest in project development. 43 This memorandum sought 

to enable BLM to distinguish between applicants that are serious 

about developing a renewable energy project and those considered to 

be land speculators. To enable these distinctions, BLM clarified the 

expectation that wind and solar project applications are to include 

detailed project descriptions before BLM can begin further processing 

and that the agency will not accept plans that are still in the

 

41BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-061.

42Existing BLM regulations encourage applicants wishing to submit a permit application to 

hold preapplication meetings with BLM but do not require them to do so.

43BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-060.
 

Page 27 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

conceptual phase. Because right-of-way permit applications are 

processed in the order in which they are received, identifying serious 

applicants early in the process can help ensure that BLM’s time is 

spent reviewing and processing projects likely to come to fruition.

Rulemaking

BLM in 2011 undertook two rulemaking actions to facilitate the 

development of utility-scale wind and solar power on federal lands. First, 

in April 2011, BLM issued a temporary rule to immediately prevent the 

filing of mining claims in areas contemplated for wind or solar energy 

development, plus a related rule that would make permanent the 

temporary ban on mining claims. According to agency statements in the 

temporary rule, over the previous 2 years, hundreds of new mining claims 

were filed for areas where wind and solar right-of-way energy applications 

had been submitted. Also, according to these agency statements, many 

of these claims were likely to be speculative. Specifically, the temporary 

rule stated that these claims were filed not for true mining purposes but 

rather for the mining claimant to try to compel some kind of payment from 

the renewable energy applicant before relinquishing the mining claim.44

BLM officials told us that the agency expected to publish the final rule in 

January 2013. Second, in December 2011, BLM solicited public 

comments to be used in preparing a proposed rule to establish a 

competitive process for leasing federal lands for solar and wind energy 

development.45 According to agency statements in the proposed rule, a 

competitive process—rather than the first-come, first-served process 

currently in use—would enhance the agency’s ability to capture fair 

market value and ensure fair access to leasing opportunities.46 The 

 

44In December 2012, BLM made approximately 303,900 acres of public land unavailable 

for mining claims under the temporary rule to protect the solar energy zones identified in 

the solar programmatic environmental impact statement. 77 Fed. Reg. 74690 (December 

17, 2012).

45Although BLM refers to this proposed competitive process as leasing, the process will 

continue to use rights-of-way as the basic permitting approach for wind and solar energy 

development. 

46In June 2012, the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General issued a 

review of BLM’s renewable energy program, reporting that BLM could generate millions of 

dollars in additional revenues if it used a competitive bidding process. The report primarily 

addressed areas of renewable energy related to rental revenue collection, bonding, and 

monitoring and compliance. See Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General, 

Bureau of Land Management’s Renewable Energy Program: A Critical Point in Renewable 

Energy Development, CR-EV-BLM-0004-2010 (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2012).
 

Page 28 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

rulemaking would establish competitive bidding procedures for lands 

within designated solar and wind leasing areas,47 define qualifications for 

potential bidders, and structure the financial arrangements necessary for 

the process. The agency expects to issue a proposed rule in January 

2013.

In 2007, BLM issued a rule revising the agency’s geothermal resources 

leasing regulations to implement EPAct 2005. This rule established, 

among other things, a new process for competitive leasing, under which 

BLM is generally to issue a lease to the highest bidder.

In addition to new policies created by BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service

in March 2012 issued wind energy guidelines aimed at improving utilityscale wind energy development to reduce potential impacts to species of 

concern—including migratory birds, bats, bald and golden eagles, and 

sage grouse—regardless of whether projects are proposed for federal or 

private lands.48 Among other aims, these guidelines are intended to 

promote compliance with wildlife laws and regulations, encourage 

scientifically rigorous assessments proportionate to risks facing species of 

concern, and mitigate potential adverse effects on species of concern and 

their habitats. The guidelines assist developers in identifying species of 

concern that their proposed projects may affect and also discuss risks to 

those species. Adherence to these guidelines is voluntary. Regarding 

Forest Service-managed lands, in August 2011, the Forest Service 

amended its special use directives to add provisions specific to wind 

energy projects.49 Previously, agencywide policy was to deny wind energy 

development proposals if the proposed development could reasonably be 

accommodated on lands not managed by the Forest Service. Now, 

however, this policy is to be considered in conjunction with the agency’s 

encouragement of wind energy facilities on Forest Service-managed 

lands to help meet the nation’s energy needs. No such directives exist for 

 

47Currently, the only such areas are the solar energy zones designated as a result of the 

solar programmatic environmental impact statement.

48Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy 

Guidelines (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2012).

4976 Fed. Reg. 47354. The agency added two new chapters to the Forest Service 

Handbook, addressing wind energy uses and wildlife monitoring and wind energy sites:

Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 and 2609.13, chapters 70 and 80, respectively, 

effective August 4, 2011.

Other Agencies 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

solar projects, although agency officials told us they are drafting such 

provisions and expect to complete them in 2013. In general, officials with 

the Forest Service told us that interest in utility-scale wind and solar 

development on their lands is considerably less than for BLM-managed 

lands and that, as a result, the Forest Service has relied primarily on BLM 

guidance when considering proposals for development.

Since EPAct 2005, the federal land management agencies have taken 

steps intended to improve coordination as a way to streamline the 

permitting process and promote renewable energy development on 

federal lands in general. Specifically, coordination has been formalized 

through regularly established meetings and memorandums of 

understanding across Interior agencies, as well as with other federal

agencies and state and local governments.

To facilitate coordination on renewable energy activities among its 

component agencies, Interior instituted weekly meetings among its 

component agency officials at the national level to discuss issues 

concerning individual renewable energy applications and projects, 

particularly those identified as priority projects. These “strike team” 

meetings were intended to formalize coordination to ensure that officials 

across component agencies are aware of concerns that could affect the 

development of projects—including critical habitat, cultural or tribal 

issues, conflicts with national park boundaries or interests, and other 

environmental issues—and have a recurring forum where such concerns 

may be aired and resolved. BLM’s national and state renewable energy 

coordination offices also hold weekly meetings to discuss the status of 

projects and other issues as they come up.

In several cases, coordination between Interior agencies within certain 

regions has been formalized through a memorandum of understanding. In 

January 2008, for example, in recognition of the increase in renewable 

energy permit applications for projects in Southern California, BLM’s 

California Desert District and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Ventura and 

Carlsbad offices signed a memorandum of understanding to help ensure 

efficient completion of required consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act. This memorandum defines the process, products, actions, 

time frames, and expectations needed to complete the process. In 

addition, in June 2011, a memorandum of understanding was signed 

between BLM’s California state office and the National Park Service’s 

Pacific West Region. The memorandum generally documents 

coordination procedures the two agencies are to follow in instances 

Agencies Have Taken 

Steps Intended to Improve 

Coordination Within and 

Across Agencies
 

Page 30 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

where proposed renewable energy projects in the region may affect lands 

under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. According to Park 

Service officials, a similar memorandum is being explored between the 

National Park Service’s Pacific West Region and BLM’s Nevada state 

office. Interior officials told us that, given the success of the California 

effort, the agency is discussing potential amendments to agency manuals 

to ensure that closer coordination occurs between each BLM state office 

and relevant National Park Service regional offices. Before putting such 

amendments in place, however, the agency wants to evaluate different 

tools to encourage and reward staff for engaging in coordination.

BLM has also formalized its coordination on renewable energy with other 

federal agencies, as well as with state and local entities. For example, in 

2006 BLM and the Forest Service signed a memorandum of 

understanding to implement certain geothermal leasing and permitting 

provisions of EPAct 2005, in part to reduce the backlog of geothermal 

leasing applications. In addition, over the past decade, BLM and the 

Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory have 

maintained a relationship whereby the laboratory has provided expertise 

to BLM in support of BLM’s management of renewable energy 

development. According to laboratory officials, the relationship has 

evolved so that the laboratory provides BLM with assistance on a 

systematic rather than task-by-task basis. For example, in 2011 BLM and 

the laboratory signed an interagency agreement for the laboratory to 

provide technical assistance and training for fiscal years 2011 through 

2013. Given the laboratory’s expertise, laboratory officials have in some 

cases assisted BLM offices with individual renewable energy applications 

by evaluating the technical feasibility of certain proposals. In addition, 

BLM state offices are working in partnership with state and local 

agencies. In California, multiple federal land management agencies are 

working with the California Energy Commission and the California 

Department of Fish and Game in a collaborative effort to develop the 

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for 22.5 million acres of 

public and private land in Southern California. This effort, initiated under a 

2008 memorandum of understanding, is intended to develop a 

conservation strategy to provide for protection and conservation of the 

natural resources within the Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions while 

allowing solar and other renewable energy development in a manner that 

avoids or minimizes environmental impacts. According to Interior officials, 

other BLM efforts to coordinate with states have occurred in Wyoming 

and, to a lesser degree, in Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Officials 

told us that success in developing renewable energy projects depends on 

collaboration with states, making such partnerships important.
 

Page 31 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2012, BLM reported more than 

doubling the program funding devoted to wind and solar energy activities, 

from about $8 million to about $16.5 million.50 During that time, BLM 

added 64 full-time-equivalent staff—tripling its staff from 32 in fiscal year 

2010 to 96 in fiscal year 2012. In addition to these funds, BLM uses costrecovery fees, which it is authorized to recover from applicants to pay for 

processing applications for wind and solar energy development.51 From 

fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2012, BLM reported collecting about 

$16 million through these fees;52 BLM officials estimated that costrecovery fees represent about half of the total funds received by BLM field 

offices.

In contrast, funding and staffing for geothermal energy leasing and 

permitting declined in recent years after the expiration of temporary 

funding authority created by EPAct 2005. Specifically, the act established 

the Geothermal Steam Act Implementation Fund to be used to expedite 

the development of geothermal energy.53 The act required that certain 

rents and royalties paid as part of geothermal leases go into the fund until 

the end of fiscal year 2010. BLM used these funds for coordinating and 

processing geothermal, permits, among other uses. Authorization for this 

fund has expired, and after expiration, BLM’s geothermal-related 

obligations declined from about $7.9 million to about $2.7 million from 

fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2012, and the number of full-timeequivalent staff was reduced from 45 to 35 during that time.

 

50These figures represent BLM obligations. 

51The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to recover costs, and the Secretary has delegated this authority to BLM. One 

purpose of this authority is to prevent the federal government from subsidizing private 

enterprises by paying all their land use application costs. Nevada Power v. Watt, 711 F.2d 

913, 925 (10th Cir. 1983).

52BLM provided us with the total amount in cost-recovery fees collected in these years 

but did not specify the amount collected in each individual year.

5342 U.S.C. § 15873. In 2006, we reported that geothermal applicants faced delays when 

applying to develop power plants on federal lands, concluding that BLM lacked resources 

to process leases, amend its land use plans, and process applications, which led to delays 

in many cases. GAO, Renewable Energy: Increased Geothermal Development Will 

Depend on Overcoming Many Challenges, GAO-06-629 (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 

2006). 

Agencies Have Devoted 

Additional Resources to 

Renewable Energy 

Development
 

Page 32 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

The funding and staffing increases for wind and solar energy 

development were in large part used by BLM to establish renewable 

energy coordination offices at the national and state levels to, among 

other duties, help process wind and solar right-of-way permit applications 

in the four western states with significant renewable energy activity: 

Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming. BLM also established similar

but less well-developed entities, known as renewable energy teams, in 

several of the other western states with less-significant renewable energy 

activity.

Interior agencies besides BLM have also recently devoted additional 

resources toward renewable energy efforts. To accommodate the 

workload associated with increased interest in renewable energy 

development, the National Park Service in 2010 hired a permanent, fulltime national external renewable energy coordinator and six full-timeequivalent staff focused on coordination for renewable energy permitting. 

According to agency officials, these positions are supported by using 

funds from the agency’s existing programs. Other National Park Service 

staff also contribute time to renewable energy efforts on BLM-managed 

lands as a collateral duty. For example, agency officials told us that 

several agency staff representing national parks in Southern California 

have spent time working with BLM and project applicants on renewable 

energy proposals near national parks in the region; these officials told us 

they work with BLM and applicants to minimize potential negative effects 

on park resources, such as impaired views, increased noise and light 

pollution, and disruption to area wildlife.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also reported receiving more appropriated 

funds for engagement in renewable energy permitting. Specifically, in 

fiscal year 2010, the agency’s Conservation Planning Assistance 

Program received a $1.5 million increase for technical assistance on 

renewable energy projects. In fiscal year 2011, this program received an 

additional $2 million for these activities, for a total increase of $3.5 million. 

This $3.5 million increase continued for fiscal year 2012. The program’s

funding covered not only time spent contributing assistance to projects 

proposed on federal lands but also to those proposed on private lands. 

Some of this funding helped address region-specific increases in 

workloads. For example, according to agency officials, in fiscal years 

2011 and 2012, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office was able to add two to three full-time-equivalent staff 

positions at the state level and to conduct consultation and project 

planning at five offices working on renewable energy in the region. 

Nonetheless, several Fish and Wildlife Service officials told us that they 
 

Page 33 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

completed their increased federal lands renewable energy-related work 

as a collateral duty done in conjunction with other work responsibilities.

Interior has taken steps to address its component agencies’ concerns 

over the amount of time and funding they commit to the renewable energy 

permitting process, according to agency officials. For example, Interior 

has prepared a draft secretarial order delegating authority for cost 

recovery to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Park Service, and others to allow these agencies to collect costrecovery fees to help pay for their activities as part of the permitting 

process. A final order is expected to be issued in 2013.

According to Forest Service officials, interest and activity in developing 

wind and solar energy projects on Forest Service-managed lands have

been at a relatively low level, and no specific Forest Service increases in 

funding or staff comparable to BLM’s have been dedicated to renewable 

energy development. Forest Service officials told us that funding is 

received through recovery of costs from applicants when needed for 

specific renewable energy activities. The agency maintains two expert 

advisors on technical and legal issues related to geothermal leasing, as 

well as other personnel who work on renewable energy projects and 

policy as collateral duties. Nevertheless, the Forest Service does not 

dedicate specific funding to wind, solar, or geothermal energy 

development; rather, funding for such development is included in agency 

budget line items covering broader activities. According to Forest Service 

officials, they do not track the amount the agency spends on renewable 

energy permitting activities.

To help ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of its renewable energy 

activities, BLM issued a new instruction memorandum in December 2012 

aimed at providing BLM offices involved in renewable energy activities 

with a better understanding of renewable energy policies and regulations 

and to provide clarity and consistency in the goals of the agency’s 

renewable energy activities. The memorandum—developed partly in 

response to our review—directs the national renewable energy 

coordination office to establish an Oversight and Implementation Plan. 

This plan is to establish an internal review to be performed annually by 

the national renewable energy coordination office, beginning in fiscal year 

2013. The review is intended to ensure BLM compliance with renewable 

energy regulations and policies and to ensure that guidance is applied 

appropriately and consistently throughout BLM. In addition, the plan is to 

BLM Plans to Review Its 

Renewable Energy 

Activities
 

Page 34 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

call for collaboration among the various offices in the development of 

future renewable energy policies.

During our review, some agency officials and stakeholders acknowledged 

the importance of greater resources and coordination in facilitating the 

permitting process but also informed us of areas for improvement—

thereby indicating the importance of assessing the permitting process. 

For example, one agency official and some stakeholders told us that BLM 

field offices were not always consistent in their approach to renewable 

energy permitting or in their willingness to coordinate on renewable 

energy projects; they said that BLM could do more to help ensure 

consistency in coordination. An ongoing oversight and improvement plan 

can assist BLM in identifying needed improvements to its renewable 

energy permitting process.

According to BLM officials’ responses to our questionnaire and interviews 

we conducted with others, including industry representatives, many 

factors can affect the pace of renewable energy development on federal 

lands. Some of these factors relate to the land management agencies’ 

approval and permitting processes, primarily BLM’s, with BLM 

respondents and others identifying some factors that facilitate and others 

that hinder the permitting process. Other factors identified as important 

include some related to broader market forces, which operate outside of 

the permitting process and therefore beyond the agencies’ direct control.

Agency officials, industry representatives, and other stakeholders we 

spoke with identified several key factors affecting the processing of 

renewable energy applications. Factors facilitating the permitting process 

include coordination among the involved parties and resources the 

agency can devote to permitting; factors that may hinder or slow 

permitting include the quality of submitted applications and managing for 

the presence of natural and cultural resources on proposed development 

locations.54

 

54We provided questionnaire respondents with a list of potential factors related to 

permitting and asked them to identify those that facilitated and hindered the process for 

each individual project. See appendix I for a full description of our methodology.

Factors Related to

Permitting, as Well as 

Market and Other 

Forces, Affect the 

Pace of Renewable 

Energy Development 

on Federal Lands

Agency Officials and 

Others Identified a 

Number of Factors Related 

to Permitting That Can 

Facilitate or Hinder the 

Process
 

Page 35 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Factors identified as facilitating the permitting process are generally 

related to coordination among the parties involved in permitting and the 

availability of BLM resources.

Coordination among Parties Involved in the Permitting Process

BLM respondents identified the quality of coordination between parties 

involved in permitting individual projects as among the top factors that 

facilitated the permitting process for each of the three energy types we 

reviewed. Such coordination occurs throughout the application process, 

including the initial request for an application; when key portions of the 

application, such as the plan of development, are made final; when 

environmental analyses are conducted and NEPA documentation is 

prepared; and the issuance of the right-of-way. It also happens among 

several parties—between the applicant and BLM staff, among staff within 

BLM, and between BLM staff and staff from other federal and nonfederal 

agencies.

BLM respondents identified one forum for coordination as particularly 

helpful in facilitating the permitting process: participation in preapplication

meetings, where coordination occurs among multiple parties. These 

meetings, which take place before an applicant submits an initial 

application to BLM, are meant to provide opportunities for applicants, 

BLM officials, and other stakeholders to discuss the permitting process, 

early concerns about project proposals, and other issues. According to 

some respondents to our questionnaire, applicants who spent time 

coordinating with stakeholders early could generally move through the 

permitting process more easily than those who had not. Several 

respondents acknowledged that preapplication meetings could be timeconsuming, but these respondents also said that such meetings could 

help ensure that applicants understand BLM’s permitting process and 

required documentation, select appropriate locations to site projects (e.g., 

to avoid areas with environmental or other constraints), and submit an 

adequate application. Concerning one application, a respondent 

explained that frequent and early coordination between BLM and the 

applicant clarified expectations for both parties as to what information the 

applicant needed to provide to BLM, thus preventing delays associated 

with unanticipated surveys or studies that might otherwise have been 

required.

Such coordination often involved other federal agencies, which BLM 

respondents and others identified as important. Some Fish and Wildlife 

Service officials told us that meeting with applicants at the preapplication 

Facilitating Factors 
 

Page 36 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

stage can help ensure that potential harm to species and ways to mitigate 

that harm are identified and addressed in the application. For example, 

particularly with wind energy projects, officials said they work with 

applicants to mitigate not only harm to threatened and endangered 

species and their habitats under the Endangered Species Act but also 

harm to other species protected under laws such as the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.55 Fish and Wildlife 

Service officials also said that they work with applicants at the 

preapplication stage to prepare species conservation plans and issue 

species-specific Fish and Wildlife Service permits. These officials said 

that these early meetings and documentation from applicants provide 

both the applicant and the agencies greater certainty that the applicant 

can comply with relevant species protection laws. Similarly, a respondent 

told us that for one approved project, early coordination between the 

applicant and officials from a nearby Air Force base helped the applicant 

select a site that was less likely to interfere with the base’s training needs, 

thereby limiting the potential for conflict as the application progressed 

through the permitting process. BLM respondents also identified 

coordination with state, local, and tribal governments as facilitative, 

although to a lesser degree than coordination with federal agencies.

Most representatives of industry and environmental groups we spoke with 

commended BLM’s efforts to enhance coordination, but they suggested 

that improvements could still be made. For example, one industry 

representative suggested that preapplication meetings could be more 

beneficial if BLM designated one staff member as coordination leader for 

a particular project. This individual could then be responsible for setting 

deadlines and holding the various other participants accountable for 

completing their respective tasks in a timely manner.

Availability of BLM Resources to Support Permitting

BLM respondents frequently cited the availability of resources as an 

important factor in the permitting process. They identified the importance 

of (1) cost-recovery funds provided by applicants to cover agency 

permitting costs for wind and solar energy projects and (2) internal BLM 

 

55The Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that developers document in writing

their actions to avoid, minimize, and compensate for potential adverse impacts. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service refers to this documentation as Bird and Bat Conservation Strategies.
 

Page 37 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

resources used to support activities such as administration and policy 

development.

The cost-recovery funds that BLM requires applicants to submit before it 

processes wind or solar applications pay for agency permitting expenses, 

such as reviewing applicant-provided information and studies, preparing 

environmental analyses, and recording information in agencywide 

databases. According to BLM officials, BLM’s expenses are generally 

substantial given the scale of most renewable energy projects and 

required reviews, ranging from $50,000 to almost $400,000. Without 

receiving at least a portion of its expenses in the form of cost-recovery 

funds, BLM does not begin processing an application; any delay in receipt 

of these funds can cause additional delays throughout the permitting 

process. Several respondents noted that in certain cases the applicants 

never provided cost-recovery funds, even after multiple BLM requests.

In addition to cost-recovery funds, BLM provides internal resources to 

support administrative activities not specific to individual applications, as 

well as to maintain adequate staffing with sufficient expertise to process 

renewable energy applications. BLM officials and industry representatives 

told us that when BLM first began receiving applications for utility-scale 

solar development, it did not have expertise in either solar energy 

development or in processing permits for this type of right-of-way. Over 

the last few years, however, BLM has increased the number of its staff 

and the amount of funding dedicated to renewable energy development 

and has provided training opportunities to its staff who process 

applications; agency officials and industry representatives also told us 

that staff have become more knowledgeable through experience.

Representatives from industry and environmental groups and officials 

from agencies other than BLM concurred that BLM staff have in more 

recent years become more knowledgeable about renewable energy in 

general and the permitting process specifically. Several commented that 

the pace at which an application was processed depended on the abilities 

of the assigned project manager and the emphasis placed on renewable 

energy by the field office processing the application.

Other Factors

BLM respondents to our questionnaire commonly identified two other 

factors as facilitating the permitting process, although these factors were 

cited less frequently than those related to coordination or resources. One 

of these other factors was agency policy and guidance related to energy 
 

Page 38 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

development. Specific policies identified by respondents as particularly 

helpful for wind and solar applications included programmatic 

environmental impact statements; instruction memorandums from BLM, 

including the memorandum addressing NEPA compliance for utility-scale 

renewable energy development; and a 2003 memorandum containing 

interim guidance from the Fish and Wildlife Service on avoiding and 

minimizing wildlife impacts from wind turbines.56 In addition, one industry 

representative told us that BLM’s solar programmatic environmental 

impact statement is effective in screening lands for the presence of 

cultural and biological resources. Another industry representative called 

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2012 wind energy guidelines an effective 

tool that clearly describes agency expectations.

Another facilitating factor identified was the selection of applications as 

priority projects. Several respondents and industry representatives told us 

that a priority designation helped because the various stakeholders 

involved in the permitting process dedicated their attention to reviewing 

priority projects. Others, however, were less certain of benefits. A few 

industry representatives told us they did not observe a reduction in 

application processing times. Also, one BLM respondent told us that, 

although the designation of a solar application as a priority project 

facilitated the permitting process for this project, it also encouraged 

officials to process the application faster than was appropriate, given that 

the necessary biological and cultural surveys had not been completed.

BLM respondents to our questionnaire and other agency and industry 

representatives we spoke with identified several key factors that could 

delay the processing of renewable energy applications, such as 

application quality and other applicant-related factors, as well as factors 

related to managing for natural and cultural resources.

Respondents identified the quality of a renewable energy application, 

including key components such as the plan of development for wind or 

solar projects, as among the top factors hindering the permitting process. 

The plan of development for wind and solar projects is to include 

information on structures and facilities associated with the proposed 

 

56This guidance was replaced by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s March 2012 wind energy 

guidelines.

Hindering Factors
 

Page 39 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

project, engineering specifications, maps, and other items. Similarly, 

applications for geothermal power plants are to include a detailed 

utilization plan, completed and signed facility construction permit, and 

completed and signed site license. According to BLM officials, this 

information allows them to determine the scale and scope of the 

proposed development and begin analyses to determine project 

feasibility. The agency does not begin processing applications until the 

information is complete. Since many applications require more 

information than is initially submitted, this step may delay processing, 

depending on how much additional information is requested by BLM and 

the applicant’s ability to respond. For example, one respondent to our 

questionnaire said that in addition to poorly defining the project, an 

applicant continually altered key application components—including 

project scope, design, and technology—which made it difficult for BLM 

officials to analyze impacts on natural and cultural resources and process 

the application in a timely fashion. BLM officials also told us that some 

applicants did not include detailed information necessary to begin review, 

such as technical plans for engineering and hydrological design or 

stormwater management, which delayed processing of the applications. 

When critical components like these are missing from an application, 

delays result. BLM questionnaire respondents reported that in some 

instances applicants did not respond to the agency’s requests for 

additional information or responded with incomplete information, leading 

to denial of their applications. As noted, our analysis showed that the 

most prevalent reason for denial was that an applicant did not provide

information BLM requested that was needed to process the application.

On the other hand, several industry representatives told us that the 

amount of documentation necessary to develop a project on federal land 

is, in their view, at times excessive. Some representatives told us that 

additional information and studies requested by the agency can be timeconsuming and expensive to provide, thereby delaying projects, and, in 

their opinion, are not always necessary. For example, one applicant for a 

wind energy project wanted to incorporate into the application studies on 

golden eagles, a protected species, that had recently been completed for 

areas close to the proposed project site. The Fish and Wildlife Service, 

however, requested site-specific studies, which could take 3 to 5 years.

Similarly, several questionnaire respondents identified applicants’ 

requests for BLM to delay the processing of their applications as 

hindering the permitting process. The respondents noted several reasons 

that applicants might make such requests, including the need for more 

time to respond to BLM’s requests for additional information and changes 
 

Page 40 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

to agency policies or fees. For example, applicants might have requested 

a delay because they wanted to wait until the effects of BLM’s recently 

issued programmatic environmental impact statement for solar energy 

development could be determined. In other cases, costs associated with 

development—such as BLM rental fees paid by the applicant for siting a 

project on federal land or the costs required for mitigation efforts 

necessary at the project site—can cause an applicant to request a 

processing delay. One questionnaire respondent reported that an 

applicant for a solar energy project requested a BLM delay when BLM 

quoted rental rates higher than the applicant expected.

BLM questionnaire respondents identified several other factors that, to a 

lesser degree, hindered the processing of applications, including 

managing for the presence of threatened or endangered species, or other 

species of concern, and managing for the presence of tribal, cultural, or 

historic resources. For example, for one pending solar application in 

Nevada, BLM officials noted that the applicant is performing additional 

wildlife and environmental analyses and consultation with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to avoid impacts to the desert tortoise. For other projects, 

managing for the presence of tribal, cultural, or historical resources can 

contribute to the time it takes to process an application. In some areas, a 

burial site or a place of sacred significance may require extensive tribal 

consultation. For one project, an industry representative told us that 

extensive tribal consultations led to the applicant’s changing the project’s 

design about 15 times. Ultimately, according to this representative, the 

applicant spent thousands of hours on archaeological reviews and moved 

the project to prevent any degradation of culturally sensitive areas. This 

representative told us that the lack of specificity in the regulation guiding 

tribal consultation makes it difficult to ascertain whether an applicant’s 

proposed mitigations for sensitive resources are likely to be adequate. As 

a result, according to this representative, lawsuits may still ensue, further 

delaying development even after a project has been approved.

BLM questionnaire respondents also identified requirements for state or 

local laws as factors that can hinder the permitting process. Specifically, 

several respondents told us that compliance with the California 

Environmental Quality Act can add procedural layers to processing 

applications in California.
 

Page 41 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

BLM questionnaire respondents, other BLM and federal agency officials, 

and industry representatives we spoke with also identified as important 

some factors outside of the permitting process and beyond agency 

control. Specifically, market forces and other factors influence whether 

renewable energy projects on federal lands are proposed, funded, and 

completed. Some of these factors relate to demand for renewable energy, 

including competition from electricity generated through other sources, 

and others relate to supply, including the availability of electrical 

transmission lines. Such forces can play a key role for any utility-scale 

renewable energy project by setting the financial backdrop for the project, 

according to industry representatives. For an applicant to secure 

financing for renewable energy projects on federal lands, investors 

generally require some assurance that the costs to construct the project 

and produce the energy will not exceed revenues from selling that 

energy. For example, BLM officials we spoke with told us that one reason 

that some renewable energy projects were withdrawn was that financing 

was not available because of concerns about whether the project could 

repay its investment costs. These officials said that financing for 

permitting, construction, and other aspects of development is more likely 

to be available to applicants who demonstrate that demand is sufficient 

and that the cost of supplying power allows for profitability.

According to agency officials and industry representatives, demand for 

electricity from renewable sources can be influenced by such factors as 

competition from other sources of energy and the presence of renewable 

portfolio standards. As natural gas prices have decreased in recent 

years,57 renewable energy sources may have become less attractive to 

electricity purchasers and investors. Because wind and solar energy 

development provides an intermittent supply of electricity, purchasers and 

investors may find other, more steady supplies of electricity more 

attractive. In addition, demand for renewable energy may be affected by 

 

57For more information about the increased availability and recent price declines of natural 

gas in the United States, see GAO, Oil And Gas: Information on Shale Resources, 

Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks, GAO-12-732 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 5, 2012).

Market and Other Forces 

Outside the Permitting 

Process Also Play a Role
 

Page 42 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

the presence of renewable energy portfolio standards;58 at least 29 states 

have such standards in place, under which utilities are required to derive 

a minimum percentage of total electricity they sell from renewable energy 

sources. Such standards may increase demand for renewable energy 

overall, but because an increasing number of these state standards have 

been or are nearly met, the utilities required to comply with these 

standards may no longer be interested in purchasing additional 

renewable energy within the next several years, according to industry 

representatives. BLM respondents noted that applicants sometimes 

struggled to find buyers for their electricity and, consequently, had 

difficulty pursuing their projects. Industry representatives told us that 

establishing power purchase agreements—contracts between energy 

producers and energy purchasers—was a key part of the success of their 

renewable projects, and several questionnaire respondents noted that 

some wind and solar projects could not move forward because the 

applicants were unable to secure such agreements. In one case, a BLM 

official noted that the inability of a solar project to secure a power 

purchase agreement contributed to the cancellation of a 700-megawatt 

project after BLM had authorized the project’s right-of-way permit.

Officials we spoke with also identified factors influencing the cost of 

supplying renewable energy—most notably the accessibility of 

transmission lines and the availability of government incentives—as 

having a role in the pace of energy development on federal land. 

According to agency officials and industry representatives, the availability 

of nearby power transmission and distribution lines and access to these 

lines are critical to the economic viability of a renewable energy project, 

regardless of whether the project is located on federal or nonfederal 

lands. Often, however, renewable energy sources are abundant in areas 

where transmission lines are scarce—increasing the overall difficulty and 

cost of supplying renewable energy. Moreover, the construction of new 

transmission lines can be costly and can face its own regulatory and 

 

58A renewable portfolio standard provides states with a mechanism to increase renewable 

energy generation using a cost-effective, market-based approach that is administratively 

efficient. Such a standard requires electric utilities and other retail electric providers to 

supply a specified minimum amount of customer load with electricity from eligible 

renewable energy sources. The goal of such a standard is to stimulate market and 

technology development so that, ultimately, renewable energy will be economically 

competitive with conventional forms of electric power. Existing portfolio standards vary 

from state to state. California, for example, has a renewable energy portfolio standard of 

33 percent by 2020, and Arizona has established a goal of 15 percent by 2025.
 

Page 43 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

environmental challenges, including separate environmental analyses. 

For example, several BLM officials in Wyoming told us that not having a 

sufficient transmission infrastructure has been a deciding factor in some 

companies’ decision to suspend or halt their renewable energy projects. 

In addition, we were told that the availability of government incentives can 

affect the cost of producing electricity from renewable resources. For 

example, the federal tax code includes special tax incentives for solar 

energy development, which can help increase the potential profitability of 

planned solar projects. Such tax credits can be useful, although less so if 

available financing is limited, because without financing for an initial 

investment, projects that might benefit from tax credits would not be built 

in the first place. As part of a federal response to the 2008 recession, the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 expanded a number of 

existing tax incentives, including ones for renewable energy development. 

Several industry and government officials we spoke with cited the Energy 

Production Credit (also known as the Production Tax Credit) for wind 

facilities in particular as an important incentive for encouraging the 

development of several new wind projects. However, this tax credit was

scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2012,59 which, according 

to some industry representatives, likely contributed to a reduction in the 

number of proposed wind projects. According to a respondent to our 

questionnaire, this uncertainty hampered one applicant’s ability to attract 

investors, and the applicant ultimately found the project no longer

economically viable.

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 

Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior. In written comments 

(reproduced in app. III), the Department of Agriculture concurred with our

findings, while the Departments of Energy and the Interior had no 

comments.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

 

59Enacted on January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended the 

Energy Production Tax Credit and modified its requirements, allowing projects to be 

eligible for the credit as long as project construction begins by a deadline of December 31, 

2013. This is a difference from past years, where projects were required to be completed 

and producing electricity by the deadline to be eligible for the credit.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 44 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of 

Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior; appropriate congressional 

committees; and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to the report are 

listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

This report examines (1) the status of renewable energy permitting on 

federal land, including time frames for processing permits applied for 

since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005); (2) actions the 

agencies have taken to facilitate renewable energy development on 

federal lands, particularly since the passage of EPAct 2005; and 

(3) factors affecting renewable energy development on federal land.

To address our first objective, we identified applications for utility-scale 

onshore wind and solar projects submitted to the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) after enactment of EPAct on August 8, 2005, through 

May 31, 2012, by asking the BLM renewable energy coordination office to 

query the BLM database designed to track such applications. We also 

identified geothermal drilling permit applications and associated utilityscale geothermal project applications submitted to BLM during the same 

time period by asking BLM to query the agency database designed to 

track geothermal permits. We contacted BLM because it is the agency 

responsible for permitting almost all applications submitted for renewable 

energy development on federal lands. We used the results of this query to 

group the permits according to the utility-scale projects of which they 

were a part. After reviewing the lists of applications and correcting for any 

obvious duplication and other errors, we sent each BLM state office a list 

of applications for projects located in that state and asked officials to 

verify our lists’ accuracy. In some instances, we deleted some 

applications because BLM officials informed us that certain applications 

were submitted to BLM before enactment of EPAct or were submitted for 

resource exploration or testing without being part of utility-scale 

development. BLM officials also identified applications that met our 

criteria but did not appear in their database; we added those applications 

to our analysis. We identified a total of 65 permit applications for wind 

projects, 351 for solar projects, and 29 for geothermal power plants, as 

well as 405 applications submitted for geothermal drilling permits from 

August 8, 2005 through May 31, 2012.

We distributed an electronic questionnaire to BLM officials for all projects 

meeting our criteria. We developed questionnaires for each energy type. 

For each application, we asked respondents to identify the dates of 

certain milestones (e.g., the date the application was received or the date 

it was considered complete) and the factors that facilitated or hindered 

processing of that particular application. Although the databases 

contained some of the milestone information we collected through our 

questionnaires, they did not include information for each of the dates 

needed for purposes of our analysis. To encourage questionnaire 

recipients to respond, we held meetings with national and state BLM 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

officials to explain the questionnaire’s purpose, followed up by telephone 

and e-mail, and obtained a 100 percent response rate for projects 

meeting our criteria. 

We sent the completed questionnaires to a third-party contractor to 

compile the results, checked the compiled results to ensure their 

accuracy and reliability, and followed up as needed to clarify incomplete 

or ambiguous responses. In some cases, we eliminated certain 

responses from our analysis because we could not obtain sufficiently 

complete information from the respondent. Because our questionnaire did 

not sample from a population, no sampling errors occurred. Nevertheless, 

the results of any questionnaire may be subject to errors, commonly 

referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a 

particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information available to 

different respondents, or in how data are entered into a database or 

analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into questionnaire results. 

We took steps in questionnaire development, data collection, and data 

analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, before 

developing the questionnaires, we met with BLM officials at headquarters, 

state, and field offices to discuss the permitting process. We also 

reviewed current policies and legislation relevant to our questions and the 

analysis of the responses. The questionnaire was designed by GAO 

questionnaire specialists in conjunction with staff having subject-matter 

expertise. We pretested a draft of the questionnaire with officials from five 

BLM state offices—Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, the 

states that received the greatest number of applications—to ensure that 

the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to understand.

We also conducted semistructured interviews with the special-use 

coordinators in each of the nine regional offices of the Forest Service. 

During these interviews, we requested information on the number of 

applications received and time frames for processing applications, as well 

as on factors facilitating and hindering the permitting process.

To address our second objective, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, 

and agency policies and guidance. We also interviewed officials from the 

Department of the Interior and its four land management agencies—BLM, 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 

National Park Service—as well as from the Department of Agriculture’s 

Forest Service. In addition to officials in these agencies’ headquarters, we 

interviewed BLM officials from California, Colorado, Nevada, and 

Wyoming. We selected California, Nevada, and Wyoming primarily 

because they represent areas where substantial renewable energy 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

development on federal lands is taking place, and substantial agency 

resources are devoted to processing renewable energy applications. We 

selected Colorado primarily to obtain the perspective about the program 

from a state with less activity and fewer resources. We interviewed Fish 

and Wildlife Service officials from the agency’s Mountain-Prairie and 

Pacific Southwest Regions, both selected because of substantial 

renewable energy development occurring in the regions, and from one 

state office within each of these regions. We interviewed a National Park 

Service official from a national park in California because of his 

experience with renewable energy development near the park. In 

addition, we interviewed Forest Service officials from all nine Forest 

Service regions and officials in the wind, solar, and geothermal research 

programs at the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. We reviewed strategic plans, agency 

reports, and reviews of renewable energy development on federal lands; 

memorandums of understanding between agencies; and programmatic 

environmental impact statements for wind, solar, and geothermal energy. 

We also obtained funding and staffing data for BLM from the Department 

of the Interior’s Financial and Business Management System. We 

assessed the reliability of the data we used in our report by reviewing the 

methods of data collection and data entry into this system, as well as 

various agency planning documents, and determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable to use in this report.

To address our third objective, we reviewed the results of our 

questionnaire and semistructured interviews regarding both factors that 

facilitate and hinder renewable energy development. We also interviewed 

BLM and other agency officials, as well as representatives from seven 

industry and two environmental groups, to obtain their perspectives on 

the permitting process, the time frames and factors associated with 

processing permit applications, and renewable energy development in 

general.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to January 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Authorized Renewable Energy 

Projects for Which Applications Were 

Submitted after the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Page 48 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Of the 445 applications BLM received for utility-scale wind, solar, and 

geothermal projects since enactment of EPAct 2005 through May 2012, 

BLM authorized 25 projects—7 wind, 10 solar, and 8 geothermal (see 

table 2). These projects were authorized with the potential to generate 

about 5,450 megawatts: 800 megawatts from wind, about 4,200 

megawatts from solar, and about 450 megawatts from geothermal 

energy.

Table 2: Information about Authorized Renewable Energy Projects for Which Applications Were Submitted after EPAct 2005

through May 2012

Energy type State Project name

Potential output 

(megawatts) Acres

Year

authorized Status 

Wind AZ Dry Lake Wind Project 63 13,438 2009 In operation

CA Tule Wind Energy Project 124 12, 239 2012 Other

CA

a

Ocotillo Express Wind Energy 

Project 

315 10,151 2012 In operation 

NV Spring Valley Wind Project 150 8,600 2010 In operation

OR Lime Wind Project 3 107 2010 In operation

UT Milford Wind Project, Phase 1 80 110 2008 In operation

UT Milford Wind Project, Phase 2 49 34 2010 In operation

Solar CA Blythe Solar Power Project 1,000 7,025 2010 Other

CA

b

Calico Solar Project 664 4,604 2010 Other

CA

c

Lucerne Valley Solar Project 45 421 2010 Terminated

CA Desert Sunlight Solar Farm 

Project 

550 4,144 2011 Under 

construction

CA Genesis Solar Energy Project 250 1,950 2010 Other

CA

d

Imperial Valley Solar Project 709 6,459 2010 Terminated

CA Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating 

System

370 3,471 2010 Under 

construction

NV Amargosa Farm Road Solar 

Project 

464 6,320 2011 Terminated

NV Crescent Dunes Solar Project 110 2,094 2010 Under 

construction

NV Silver State Solar Energy Project 

(North) 

50 618 2010 In operation

Geothermal NV Coyote Canyon Geothermal 

Project 

62 3,960 2011 Other

NV

e

Salt Wells Ormat Geothermal 

Project 

40 6,948 2011 Other

NV

e

Salt Wells Gradient Geothermal 

Project 

120 15,622 2011 Other

Appendix II: Authorized Renewable Energy 

Projects for Which Applications Were 

Submitted after the Energy Policy Act of 2005

e
Appendix II: Authorized Renewable Energy 

Projects for Which Applications Were 

Submitted after the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Page 49 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Energy type State Project name

Potential output 

(megawatts) Acres

Year

authorized Status 

NV McGinness Hills Geothermal 

Project 

90 7,680 2011 In operation

NV Wild Rose Geothermal Project 35 13,800 2012 Other

NV

f

Blue Mountain Geothermal Power 

Plant

49 5,252 2008 In operation

NV Jersey Valley Geothermal Project 30 7,460 2010 In operation

UT Cove Fort Geothermal Project 30 50 2012 Under 

construction

Sources: GAO analysis of questionnaire results and BLM data.

a

Right-of-way authorized.

b

Right-of-way holder filed for bankruptcy, and new owner is seeking to change from concentrated 

solar power technology to photovoltaic solar technology.

c

Right-of-way was authorized, but applicant is seeking to change technology from sterling dish 

suncatcher technology to photovoltaic solar technology.

d

Project was under construction, but work was halted because of cultural resource concerns.

e

This project has not yet begun construction because the proponent is exploring for additional 

geothermal resources.

f

Construction has not begun given the recent authorization at the time of our review.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture

Page 50 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Agriculture 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 51 GAO-13-189 Renewable Energy on Federal Lands

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty (Assistant 

Director), Ulana Bihun, Catherine Bombico, Lee Carroll, Ellen W. Chu, 

Richard P. Johnson, and Kelly Rubin made key contributions to this 

report. Important contributions were also made by Catherine M. Hurley, 

Armetha Liles, Dan Royer, and Kiki Theodoropoulos. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361373)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.