This article looks like an international take on U. S. renewable energy development and has links to the new MOU among five federal departments (including USDA/Forest Service) and the Energy Policy Act of 2020. I was going to add this to Sharon’s recent post on renewable energy, but I wanted to highlight the planning implications.
This MOU implements the direction in 43 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3005, Pub. L. No. 116-260 (December 27, 2020), hereinafter “Energy Act of 2020.” Pursuant to the Energy Act of 2020, the Secretary established a National Renewable Energy Coordination Office (National RECO) within BLM Headquarters and five RECOs in the western States with responsibility to implement a program to improve Federal permit coordination for eligible “projects.”
It applies to “relevant aspects of Participating Agency coordination related to supporting activities for eligible projects—such as land use planning …,” which for the Forest Service it defines as “a land management plan approved, amended, or revised under section 6 of the FRRRPA (16 U.S.C. §1604).” (Applying this label to NFMA suggests pretty limited FS involvement.)
It requires a report to Congress identifying “outdated land use plans,” and requires BLM (but not the Forest Service) to “identify land use plans that may need to be amended as part of the decision-making process to consider eligible projects…” But maybe BLM will identify outdated Forest Service plans.
I hope this right hand of our government (a legacy from the prior administration) is talking to the left hand about where it wants to conserve 30% of the land.
Jon, thanks for finding this and extracting the interesting parts ( I would say “juicy bits” but with anything planning that’s going a bit far). My take is that the Admin has two separate interest groups that it wants to satisfy, the renewable folks and the 30 x 30 folks. The Admin folks are smart, and they seem to be focusing on “ground up” efforts for the latter. This delays the point of most such conflicts (we’ll pick the sites and protect “somewhere else.”) Till perhaps after the next election?
But the Admin also has concerns and goals dealing with equity and Tribal rights.
What if poor local communities don’t want either a) big wind and solar or b) “protection” that removes access (including motorized)? Who wins?
What if local Tribes want or need access for spiritual purposes? What if people within Tribes disagree? What if different Tribes with different histories on a particular landscape disagree? To channel Larry Kurtz, does the legitimacy of fed government land claims affect this? Of course the argument could be made that none are really legitimate. Again, whose views would win?
Based on the solar and wind maps I’ve seen, plus unwillingness of people to cut trees for wind and solar, I’d expect that the BLM will be the ones to deal with this challenge. Strategic minerals I’m not sure about. Based on the solar and wind maps I’ve seen, plus unwillingness of people to cut trees for wind and solar, I’d expect that the BLM will be the ones to deal with this challenge.
Perhaps in a way these challenges will be heading for us sooner than renewable vs. 30×30 (or America the Beautiful as it is apparently now known?.. sounds to me like picking trash off highways.) And what happens when the goalposts are moved to 50×50? America the Even More Beautiful?