I get a daily newsletter from an outfit called Heatmap News. It had this interesting article yesterday
The Department of Energy is moving ahead with plans to allow companies to build AI data centers and new power plants on federal land — and it has put together a list of more than a dozen sites nationwide that could receive the industrial-scale facilities, according to an internal memo obtained by Heatmap News.
The memo lists sites in Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Colorado, and other locations. The government could even allow new power plants — including nuclear reactors and carbon-capture operations — to be built on the same sites to generate enough electricity to power the data centers, the memo says.
Trump officials hope to start construction on the new data centers by the end of this year and switch them on by the end of 2027, according to the memo.
The agency will request formal feedback from artificial intelligence companies and developers about how best to proceed with its proposal as soon as Thursday, according to an individual who wasn’t authorized to speak about the matter publicly …
There’s more to the story, but Heatmap News costs $99 a year, so if anyone else subscribes, please post the rest.
**********************
UPDATE: Thanks to the alert TSW reader who sent an E&E News, the DOE was going to use its own land. Which interestingly didn’t come up on my previous internet search for “federal land in New Jersey.” So it goes. Here’s a link to the Request for Information itself. If you live near any of the proposed sites, you can look at the appendix of the document for maps and photos of what they are thinking about and what considerations they are incorporating. Back to the E&E story..
In a request for information, DOE said it had identified 16 sites overseen by the department that potentially could host AI infrastructure. It said it was seeking input from companies and the public on how to potentially develop the sites and back public-private partnerships to meet surging electricity demand in the coming years.
According to the RFI text, “DOE sites offer potential advantages such as access to or the potential to build power infrastructure, secure locations and opportunities for technological collaboration with DOE research facilities.”
The 16 sites are not the only sites under consideration and no decisions have been made about “changes to land use” at the locations, the RFI says. It included detailed maps for potential data centers and indicated the Trump administration was eyeing long-term ground leases or easements for construction.
“The global race for AI dominance is the next Manhattan project, and with President Trump’s leadership and the innovation of our national labs, the United States can and will win,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a statement. Wright, who has repeatedly called for boosting AI capacity, is visiting the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado today and plans to reveal more information there.
The department said it is looking to enable construction of AI infrastructure by the end of 2025 and start operations at data center sites by the end of 2027.
The DOE sites identified for development are Idaho National Laboratory; the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant; Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant; Argonne National Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; National Energy Technology Laboratory; National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Sandia National Laboratories; Savannah River Site; Pantex Plant; and the Kansas City National Security Campus.
The plan aims to address one of the largest challenges facing the energy sector: how to find enough electricity to support a technology boom and ensure the United States stays competitive with China in developing AI technologies. According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, data centers could consume roughly 12 percent of U.S. electricity by 2028.
***********
The new RFI doesn’t outline in detail which power sources might fuel data centers on federal land but said new infrastructure could “accelerate deployment of key technologies like nuclear, geothermal, and energy storage.” DOE said it was looking to “fast track permitting” for technologies like advanced nuclear.
A view of the Pinyon Plain Mine near the Grand Canyon. The mine has operated since the 1980s but mined its first batch of uranium ore in 2024. (Blake McCord/Grand Canyon Trust)
Given the dark history of Tribes and the uranium industry, it seems like this is a historic agreement.
From this Navajo-Hopi Observer article:
I italicized the parts featuring the importance of working together. Note that the footprint of the Pinyon Plain Mine (on the Kaibab NF) is 17 acres. If footprint is related to environmental impacts, it seems like nuclear might be a better bet for energy production on federal lands than wind and solar plus any required new transmission.
Also, it makes me wonder whether the way federal permitting works with the BLM or FS as intermediary, effectively keeps the applicants from working directly with communities to work out agreements that work directly with their concerns. For example, the Public Lands Rule idea that companies could offset environmental damage in one location by doing restoration work elsewhere, still leaves the local communities out of the picture. On the other hand, even if community officials negotiated directly with companies, individuals could still disagree and litigate. Oh, well.
*********************
After months of negotiation, the Navajo Nation and Energy Fuels Inc. have signed an agreement allowing the transport of uranium ore along federal and state highways throughout the Navajo Nation, with transportation set to resume in February.
“We have a settlement agreement that will allow the Navajo Nation to monitor and inspect the haul trucks and that provides financial compensation for the expenses to improve safety and protect the environment,” Stephen Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, said in a press release.
The agreement comes nearly six months after Energy Fuels, Inc., voluntarily halted transportation following the company’s first transport through the Navajo Nation with little notice to the tribe. The company then entered into negotiations with the Navajo Nation in August 2024 after the tribe condemned their actions.
Energy Fuels President and CEO Mark Chalmers said he is honored that the Navajo Nation is willing to work with the company in good faith to “address their concerns and ensure that uranium ore transportation through the Navajo Nation will be done safely and respectfully.”
The agreement has not been made public, but a press release issued by Energy Fuels outlines some of the details.
The mining company said it has agreed to add additional protections and accommodations in addition to the existing U.S. Department of Transportation requirements, which include limiting transportation to specified routes and hours of the day and not transporting on days involving celebrations or public events.
The company also said it would follow clear emergency response procedures, abide by notice and reporting requirements, carry additional insurance and give its drivers extra training and qualifications, including obtaining Navajo Nation transport licenses.
The company also said it agreed to use state-of-the-art cover systems — instead of the tarps it had previously said it would use — to prevent uranium ore dust from blowing out of transport trucks, establish provisions for escorts and blessings at the discretion of the Navajo Nation, and additional inspection procedures that will enable the Navajo Nation to ensure that all applicable rules and agreements are being satisfied.
“We appreciate the sincere approach the Energy Fuels’ negotiation team took with the Navajo Nation,” said Heather Clah, acting attorney general of the Navajo Nation. “They demonstrated a genuine understanding for the Navajo Nation’s and the Navajo People’s trauma regarding uranium and engaged as a partner in good faith to build a trusting relationship.”
The Navajo Nation stretch of the Pinyon Plain Mine’s approved uranium ore transportation route is more than half of the roughly 320-mile journey, with a total of 174 miles traveled on major state routes through Navajo land.
“This agreement isn’t just about resolving a conflict; it’s a commitment to protecting future generations, respecting Tribal sovereignty and ensuring that all voices are heard and valued,” Gov. Katie Hobbs said in a press release.
“Today marks an important step forward for our communities and shows what is possible through collaboration, partnership, and a shared commitment to public safety,” Hobbs added. “I’m proud to have brought Energy Fuels and Navajo Nation to the table so they could come to an agreement that addresses the Nation’s long-standing concerns and includes enhanced emergency response plans.”
As part of the agreement, Energy Fuels committed to transporting up to 10,000 tons of uranium-bearing cleanup materials from abandoned uranium mines across the Navajo Nation.
They have also agreed to support the Navajo Nation’s transportation safety programs, education, environment, public health and welfare, and local economic development related to uranium issues. Details about the specific type of support were not provided.
“We are proud to be a part of a historic agreement with the Navajo Nation, and we are committed to fulfilling our promises to them,” Chalmers said. “We hope this agreement marks the beginning of a constructive relationship that restores trust with our neighbors while also paving the way for future collaborations on cleanups and other areas of shared interest.”
According to Energy Fuels, the company has safely hauled several hundred thousand tons of uranium ore and other materials along state and federal highways that cross the Navajo Nation between 2007 and 2024, with no incidents resulting in the spillage or release of ore.
“Measures outlined in the agreement provide additional layers of protection for the Navajo and others, beyond the rigorous standards set by the USDOT,” the company stated in a press release.
Tradeoffs | Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun photo of Idaho Stibnite Mine on Payette NF
We have spent some time discussing “ways the FS might improve” and “ideas for the new Admin.” But I’ve noticed a drop-off in responses by current employees who are vital to the discussion, and I attribute it to end of the year annual leave. I’m expecting those folks to be back the 6th of January or thereabouts. I’m taking off the 23rd to the 6th. For the next few days, I’ll be posting topics of general interest that have been postponed due to “improving the Forest Service” discussions. We have also spent time talking about ideas like “naturalness” for federal lands, and it seems like many projects are in themselves unnatural, from ski areas to mines, so perhaps the goal should be to design needed projects in ways that promote naturalness and environmental sensitivity. I don’t think “don’t do it” can be a final answer for many uses.
Energy and Mining Roundup
*****************
Big Tech Goes Nuclear and Natural Gas
The problem with predicting the future is that it seldom works. Hence a bias for agility (what we might call adaptive management) over believing in predictions. There are surprises that occur that are fairly unpredictable. One such is the rise of AI, or data centers, and the Big Tech desire for round-the-clock electrical energy, large amounts of it. They apparently don’t want to wait for battery technology or other renewable storage technologies to emerge This has led them to take a deep dive into both nuclear and natural gas. David Blackmon has an piece discussing the natural gas vs. nuclear aspects in Forbes without a paywall. Nuclear seems to be approaching a renaissance, driven by unpredicted energy needs of data centers.
Which raises a question.. there are many obstacles to the intended wind and solar buildout across the US; public pushback, the sheer scale of the materials and labor and maintenance needed and so on, when folks are saying our existing grid is in bad shape. Pretty soon, after the data centers are going, people are going to start asking “was that national buildout ever realistic? is it still needed? What should the role of industrial wind and solar be in a nuclear future?
On September 20, 2024, the same day Governor Hobbs sent her letter to the Forest Service, the Forest Service responded to Attorney General Mayes’s request for an environmental review of the mine. Although it stopped short of saying it would conduct the review the attorney general and the governor are asking for, the agency did commit to take a look at recent scientific publications cited by the attorney general and said it would compile a report and communicate its findings.
But what if there were States that were fine with mining under current environmental and health standards?
Wyoming appears to be such a state. Check out the stories in Cowboy State Daily on starting up old uranium mines (just search on uranium on their site), e.g. recent buy of uranium processing plant.
UEC officials say they are seeing a huge demand for uranium right now, from multiple players, thanks to the rising use of artificial intelligence.
“I mean, that’s all you hear lately,” UEC Vice President of U.S. Operations Brent Berg has told Cowboy State Daily previously. “How all the big tech companies continue to dominate the news flow for nuclear. Amazon did three deals recently for small modular reactors. Google has made a commitment for reactors to power a data center by 2030.”
In fact, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta have all said they expect nuclear power to run the huge data centers they foresee needing as they incorporate advances in artificial intelligence to their operations. TerraPower is backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
The trends for artificial intelligence and nuclear power are putting Wyoming front-and-center, and not just because it has the largest uranium reserve in the United States and its climate is conducive to artificial intelligence centers.
Wyoming has been working to innovate in the nuclear space for some time now, and it’s also working with a major submarine power plant maker to evaluate tiny nuclear reactors as one way to help augment the stability of electrical grids.
Remember Yucca Mountain?
Matthew Wald has an interesting post in the Breakthrough Substack today.
Hopeful news about Canada successfully siting a place for waste storage
The recent breakthrough is that the Canadian Waste Management Organization, a utility-owned nonprofit, says it has reached agreement with a tribe and a municipality to host a permanent repository. The site is in northwest Ontario, about 130 miles northeast of International Falls, Minn., and is located between the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, known as WLON, and the township of Ignace. It was one of two sites that were willing and had suitable geology. When completed, the repository’s underground tunnels will cover an area about 2 kilometers by 3 kilometers, or about 1.2 miles by 1.8 miles. Canada’s goal is for an “informed and willing” host. Canada embarked on that process in 2010. The United States is now following the same approach, as the path of last resort, following the stalemate at Yucca Mountain. Congress chose Yucca, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, over the objections of Nevada, but the effort was checkmated by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada after he became the Democratic leader in 2005 and then Senate Majority leader. Yucca is still technically the law of the land, but Congress has not appropriated significant money since 2012 to get it licensed.
The article has interesting history in the US and elsewhere. There was a Blue Ribbon Commission, who reported back in 2012 recommending “consent-based siting” and in May 2024 the Department of Energy initiated the process (better late than never, I guess).
I wasn’t aware that the feds are on the hook for this: “A Multi-Billion Dollar Leak at the Treasury.”
But moving them to a single federally operated site would allow the department to begin accepting wastes from the utilities they signed contracts with in the 80s and 90s. The contracts called for the government to start receiving shipments in January 1998, and the courts have ruled that the government must pay for breaching those contracts, reimbursing the utilities for all their extra costs.
The audit, in November, estimates the compensation that the government will have to pay until it starts taking the waste, but does not give a date for that event. Twelve to fifteen years is probably the earliest that can be hoped for. It says in a footnote that the government’s liability is “in the range of between $37.6 billion and $44.5 billion,” of which $11.1 billion has already been paid. The fact that operators are applying to extend their licenses to 80 years means the government’s tab is getting bigger. And the money does not come out of the Energy Department’s budget; it is paid for by the Treasury’s “Judgment Fund,” the same account you collect from if you sue because your car was rear-ended by a government car. The fund is automatically replenished, without a vote by Congress, which has reduced the visibility of the problem.
****************
Idaho Windfarm Not Popular with Public, Elected Officials
I think we’ve spoken of this before. One BLM retiree I spoke with, who had worked in the area, didn’t think this should have been approved due to sage grouse issues and the location of the Japanese internment camp, as well as the opinions of the local community and state officials, apparently including the Governor.
Fortunately, if new Admins were to follow up as with the Alaska Roadless decision, a new Admin could simply issue a new ROD from the old EIS, thereby saving government employees and the public time and expense. Anyway, this is apparently not “consent-based siting.”
*******************
Not Enough Conflicting Uses on BLM, Why Not Data Centers?
This policy memo outlines the key considerations for leveraging federal lands to develop AI-centric computing hubs. It begins with an analysis of the legal and regulatory foundations that enable such endeavors, then explores how carefully structured PPPs can incentivize private investment while ensuring alignment with national goals. Subsequent sections will detail essential siting criteria, highlight potential candidate regions, discuss how to integrate lessons learned from renewable energy initiatives, and recommend criteria for environmental, security, and workforce considerations. Together, these insights map a course forward that marries private-sector capabilities with federal stewardship, ultimately enhancing America’s AI infrastructure, competitiveness, and national security.
************************
The Strategic/Military Importance of Antimony at Forest Service Mine
It’s interesting how much we discuss vegetation for “what the FS should be doing” as in Jim’s “naturalness”. But there are other uses to which that concept does not apply.
Doomberg, a financial analyst/energy site rarely mentions the Forest Service so I took note of this:
“Meanwhile, the US is urgently working toward reopening the Stibnite mine in Idaho. Despite widespread local opposition to the plan, government approval could come in a matter of days. We would be shocked if final approval is not granted. This report is from early September:
“The US Forest Service issued a draft record of decision Friday authorizing a gold mining company to resume operations at Stibnite Mine in Central Idaho’s Payette National Forest, a proposal that would become one of the largest gold, silver and antimony mines in the United States. Friday’s draft record of decision begins a 45-day objection period where the public can comment on the draft record of decision and a 45-day resolution period. After that, the US Forest Service can issue a final record of decision, which supporters of the project said could happen before the end of the year….
Officials with Perpetua Resources, formerly Midas Gold, are seeking approval to resume mining at Stibnite Gold Mine. In a statement released Thursday, officials with Perpetua Resources said they plan to mine for gold and unlock the United States’ only reserve of a mineral called antimony, all while cleaning up historic mine waste. Perpetua Resources says antimony can be used to develop liquid metal batteries and ammunition.”
But what was most interesting to me was the background info on antimony, again, from Doomberg.
It is difficult to overstate antimony’s role in military applications. A small amount of antimony alloyed with lead significantly hardens the material, making it far more suitable for ammunition. The widely used Lyman #2 alloy consists of 90% lead, 5% antimony, and 5% tin, whereas the popular Hardball casting alloy contains 92% lead, 6% antimony, and just 2% tin. Pulling antimony out of these formulations is no easy task, as the high-precision casting machines used to produce bullets are optimized for specific recipes. The US might be a global leader in bullet manufacturing today, but if a chronic antimony shortage were to materialize, production would all but grind to a halt.
Antimony is also used in the manufacture of “tanks, submarines, warships, communication systems, night vision goggles, infrared sensors, and other military technology.” During World War II, Japan’s invasion of China choked off the supply of antimony to the US, setting off an urgent search for domestic sources. It was discovered that antimony could be recovered as a byproduct of gold production at the Stibnite mine in central Idaho. Stibnite would go on to produce 90% of the country’s needs during the war, and its operations continued until 1997.
Today, the US sources 80% of its antimony needs via imports, predominantly from China. A significant lead-acid battery recycling supply chain fills in the remainder of its supply. The escalating trade war has sent prices soaring to record heights, with benchmark prices up sevenfold from 2020 levels.
The Eagle Valley Clean Energy biomass plant in Gypsum closed last month after its owners filed for bankruptcy protection. There are 7,000 tons of shredded forest slash at the facility. The leading bid for the biomass operation is a real estate company. (Jason Blevins, The Colorado Sun)
And the struggle for the Holy Grail of use of fuel treatment material continues… interesting article from the Colorado Sun. Shout-out to Jason Blevins!
The story starts with the closure of the biomass plant in Gypsum.
The pioneering biomass plant in Gypsum — the first in the state to begin converting shredded beetle-kill trees into electricity — has shut down and its owner has filed for bankruptcy protection citing more than $40 million in debt.
There’s a discussion of why that happened. But the reporter, Jason Blevins, also talks about some other current efforts of interest.
Still, there are innovations and opportunities circling Colorado’s forest trash.
Xcel Energy wants to convert the coal-fired power plant in Hayden — which is set to retire in 2028 — into a 19-megawatt biomass facility that would burn forest waste and pine beetle-kill wood to generate enough electricity for 36,000 homes a year.
California-based Charm Industrial in July opened a facility in Fort Lupton that processes agricultural waste and wood slash collected from Front Range forests into a biomass liquid called Bio-oil, which it then injects into orphan oil and gas wells. The company has collected more than $100 million from investors and partnered with companies like Google, J.P. Morgan, Meta and Stripe that paid $53 million to reduce their carbon footprints by permanently removing carbon from the atmosphere.
The Loveland-based Biochar Now burns shredded trees collected from forests in 40 high-heat, oxygen-deprived kilns at a facility in Berthoud to create biochar, a sort of charcoal that is used for improving soil, adding to livestock feed and filtering water. The process captures carbon dioxide before the wood rots on a forest floor and releases greenhouse gases. And like Charm Industrial, the innovative Biochar Now sells carbon offsets to companies seeking to green up operations.
The newly formed Colorado Mass Timber Coalition works to encourage timber products in new buildings and bolster the economics around local timber harvested from on the state’s forests. The group has 280 members, up from 70 in April.
The growing number of members reflects interest and opportunity in finding uses for forest products in Colorado, said Will Lepry, the first director of the coalition who took over in April.
“The more end markets we have the cheaper it is to manage the forest to make them healthy,” Lepry said. “It’s not good that the Gypsum plant is shut down. That’s one less place for slash to go. That means it’s going to be left in place or burned in slash piles instead of being used to create energy.”
******
As to the oil sequestration, whatever works to get the material used… But will Google and Meta still want to do it when they are running their own nuclear plants?
I’m generally not a fan of carbon offsets either, seems like excessive analysis and accounting for any actual climate benefit.. the hot air to actual sequestration ratio seems too high, but again, whatever works, and if big companies want to pay for it, more’s the better.
Anyway, here’s Scott Fitzwilliams’ perspective:
***********
Looking at biomass as an energy source is the wrong perspective, said Scott Fitzwilliams, the head of the White River National Forest.
“This is not about making energy. It’s about treating forests,” Fitzwilliams said.
The 2.28 million-acre White River National Forest uses mechanized timber harvesting to treat about 2,000 acres a year as part of its fuel-reduction wildfire mitigation and vegetation management program. It pays contractors as much as $2,500 an acre for that work. About 45% of the slash and scrap wood harvested by those contractors was delivered to the Gypsum plant for biomass-generated electricity.
“The loss of this plant is really disappointing for our vegetation program,” Fitzwilliams said. “We are not exactly sure if there will be someone else to fill that void and take that material.”
Wait, with Forest Range Products, has ongoing mitigation projects on public land around Summit County, Vail, Eagle, Glenwood Springs and the Roaring Fork Valley. He charges the Forest Service cost plus 10% and the bankruptcy of the Gypsum biomass plant will end several of his company’s wildfire mitigation projects. Without the contract with Holy Cross, “the power plant is not worth anything,” Wait said.
As the bankruptcy sale moves through the process, Wait hopes Holy Cross members can urge the co-op to keep biomass in the energy provider’s renewable portfolio.
“Biomass has always been expensive,” Wait said. “But the price for this plant is cheap and the benefits are just so huge.”
Trying to make biomass energy economical is a challenge as the cost of wind and solar energy drops. Burning slash for energy should be seen as a tool for reducing the cost of wildfire mitigation, Fitzwilliams said, not as a rival for cheaper natural gas, solar and wind energy. He toured Europe a few years ago to study the vibrant biomass industry in places like Germany and Austria, “where it is heavily, heavily subsidized,” he said.
“It’s just too labor intensive and equipment intensive — with very technical machinery — to not have that subsidy,” Fitzwilliams said. “In Europe, where freezing to death or not depends on (Russian President Vladimir) Putin, the incentives to subsidize other energies like biomass are very high.”
In the Western United States, those incentives should include reducing the threat of a wildfire that costs $20 million to $50 million to fight, Fitzwilliams said.
“Our public policy folks should focus on forest health and whatever beneficial consequence is great,” Fitzwilliams said. “Spending $600,000 on a treatment that prevents a $50 million wildfire is a good investment and it protects watersheds for so many rural communities. I think we need to look at biomass in a different way.”
Sidenote: I don’t know if Scott is using LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) or just generalized info to say that wind and solar are cheaper and decreasing. Doomberg has an excellent critique of LCOE but is sadly paywalled. If folks are interested, I can excerpt in another post.
When Holy Cross partnered with the plant in 2013, the energy provider was hoping to have 20% of its power coming from renewables. Now, the nonprofit electric co-op serves its 45,000 members with about 90% of its electricity coming from clean energy, and most of that is coming from solar and wind farms. The Gypsum biomass plant provided about 7% of the co-op’s energy and was among the first renewable providers enlisted by Holy Cross. The co-op paid a lot for biomass electricity back then.
“It was great because it was a consistent supply but it was our most expensive source. Because it was built 20 years ago and renewable was expensive at the time and we chose to spend more at that time because we thought renewables were important,” said Jenna Weatherred with Holy Cross. “At this point, renewables are our cheapest form of energy.”
Weatherred said the Gypsum plant cost a lot to run, especially compared to solar and wind energy generators.
“It’s really expensive to cut down beetle kill and drive it over to the plant,” she said.
***********
The Cost Problem
I wonder in what sense solar and wind are cheapest. Conceivably they need batteries, or natgas or coal backup when “the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.” Whereas conceivably woody material is available all the time and could serve as backup to intermittent renewables? But maybe they are talking about the price at a certain amount of time that the utility pays? When some people say this, they mean the Levelized Cost of Energy calculation. Doomberg, being of the financial mindset, had a comprehensive piece on this, but is paywalled, so if folks are interested, I’ll excerpt the main points.
We all know “it’s expensive to cut down beetle kill and drive it to the plant.” It’s also expensive to burn slash in piles and conceivably add to CO2 in the atmosphere (social cost of carbon, which I think is a bogus number, but the USG has spent a great deal of $ figuring out how to calculate it, and I think judges have required it on EIS’s), or the costs of escaped pile burns, or the health costs of smoke from the piles.. So I guess it’s another one of the those trade-off problems, where financial calculations are not necessarily holistic about considering the options. Certainly there are costs and benefits that accrue to energy from wood waste that aren’t accounted for in the utility’s analysis. If I recall correctly, in my interview with Brad Worsley of BioNova Power in Arizona, utilities want the cheapest source (and may be required to use it by regulation), and h was arguing for a Production Tax Credit to help it pencil out.
It’s not the first time a biomass processor has shut down in Colorado. Earlier this year Greenbacker and its subsidiary Eagle Valley Green Energy filed for bankruptcy in U.S. District Court in Denver. The Rural Utilities Service in the Department of Agriculture is cited as the top creditor with secured claims, owed $35.4 million from a 2013 loan. The filing includes $4.6 million in unsecured claims from dozens of contractors and service providers. The filing cites $3.2 million owed to the Greenbacker Renewable Energy Corp. The filing also notes more than $630,000 owed to West Range Forest Products. The Gypsum-based West Range has long-term stewardship contracts with the Forest Service, tasked with logging operations across several regions.
It’s past time for a follow-up to Sharon’s post on the BLM’s western solar plan. The final plan was released at the end of August. The BLM says it received 162 formal protests during that 30-day protest period that are being reviewed (but apparently won’t release the names of the parties, unlike the Forest Service objection process).
A number of conservation groups have protested the failure to protect the integrity of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. Lynn County, Nevada, just southeast of Reno, is concerned the proposed plan will “result in fiscal impacts as it will be left to deal with speculative solar applications in inappropriate areas.” Apparently, the Western Congressional Caucus doesn’t like it because it “risks taking lands offline for purposes other than solar use, limiting the potential for mining, grazing and public access.” And, of course, enviros are unhappy, too.
According to the BLM,
“It would make over 31 million acres of public lands across 11 western states available for potential solar development, driving development closer to transmission lines or on previously disturbed lands and avoiding protected lands, sensitive cultural resources and important wildlife habitat.
Steering project proposals away from areas where they may conflict with other resources or uses will help ensure responsible development, speed the permitting process, and provide greater predictability to the solar energy industry.”
That sounds like good planning. However, a scientist says that, instead, “It makes available to solar areas that are ecologically sensitive, areas that include sensitive species. It stands to significantly impact and alter ecosystems across the Great Basin and Mojave Desert.” The federally threatened desert tortoise is a particular concern.
The Center for Biological Diversity would have opted for an alternative that prioritized already developed or degraded areas on public lands and rooftop solar on structures. There seems to be some debate about whether it is necessary to essentially plow up the desert in order to install solar facilities. But things may be different in Wyoming, where local conservationists see this as additional protection for big game habitat.
There are also questions about how responsive the BLM will be to site-specific concerns that arise when more information is available for a proposed project. We have an early example of that with the Rough Hat Clark Solar Project in Nevada. According to E & E news, “The Bureau of Land Management is paving the way for a major solar power project to be built in a valley west of Las Vegas despite the objections of environmental groups that have petitioned the agency to protect the region.”
This is obviously a very large-scale planning effort, where it is not possible to identify more localized issues (though it seems like there was local knowledge that was provided by the public that might have been incorporated). The total acreage “available” is admittedly much greater than what is needed, so presumably further “unavailability” is expected and will be provided as future projects are considered. As a Wyoming representative of the Wilderness Society put it, “The implementation is going to matter.” A final decision is expected by the end of the year.
I promised to find a comprehensive description of the Manchin-Barrasso bipartisan permitting bill when the dust had settled and the permitting reform folks had time to analyze it. The Bipartisan Policy Center does good work on permitting reform, and sure enough, they have a comprehensive report on it, helpfully titled “the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024: What’s in the Bill.”.
The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA) presents a crucial opportunity to accelerate and streamline the energy infrastructure permitting process that is vital for the U.S. to ensure affordable, reliable energy while reducing emissions.
As with all compromise bills, stakeholders will probably like many provisions but dislike others. Luckily for those on both sides of the aisle, the legislation has more to like than to dislike.
If you care about:
energy affordability and reliability, the leasing and transmission provisions will help achieve that
supply chains for clean technology, the mining provisions will help accomplish that
reducing emissions, the provisions on transmission, geothermal resources, and renewables, along with the categorical exclusions, will help with that
project certainty across the board, the judicial review provisions are important
This explainer summarizes the key provisions in the EPRA and contextualizes their importance.
There’s a great deal in the BPC report, including many details of interest to the FS and BLM. Folks may be interested in:
Judicial Review
Judicial review allows individuals and groups to legally challenge federal actions, including agency decisions on permits and siting under federal law. Under current law, aggrieved parties can file lawsuits for up to six years after an agency makes final permitting decisions on energy projects. This creates a legal limbo that drives up costs, even if developers ultimately prevail in the legal challenges, as is usually the case. Both fossil and renewable projects face these legal challenges; in fact, a recent study found that solar projects face the highest litigation rate. EPRA contains three major provisions concerning judicial review:
Reduced Statute of Limitations (Section 101): Reduces the deadline from six years to 150 days (five months) for filing lawsuits against an agency action approving or denying the permitting of an energy or mineral project. This change will help reduce uncertainty, so project developers know if they have a final yes or no to proceed. The tighter deadline is on the aggressive, but reasonable, side of what members of Congress have been considering. It is shorter than the two-year deadline that exists for transportation projects but longer than the 90-day deadline proposed in the GOP’s energy and permitting bill, H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act. That bill passed the House in 2023 in a 225-204 vote.
Deadline on Agency Remand (Section 101): Directs courts to set a time limit for an agency to act on a remand—when a court sends a decision back to an agency for further consideration or when a judge vacates a permit—not to exceed 180 days (six months). Federal agencies currently face no deadline to act, so this provision provides greater certainty.
Expedited Review (Section 101): Requires courts to prioritize cases reviewing an agency permitting decision for an energy or mineral project, moving the case up the docket.
Combined, these three judicial review provisions will modestly increase timeline certainty for energy and mineral projects. Broader changes concerning judicial review would fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee rather than the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
This bill is only for energy projects, but this intervention might be helpful for fuel treatment projects.
Deadline on Agency Remand (Section 101): Directs courts to set a time limit for an agency to act on a remand—when a court sends a decision back to an agency for further consideration or when a judge vacates a permit—not to exceed 180 days (six months). Federal agencies currently face no deadline to act, so this provision provides greater certainty.
Expedited Review (Section 101): Requires courts to prioritize cases reviewing an agency permitting decision for an energy or mineral project, moving the case up the docket.
I don’t know whether judges would go along with the expedited review.. seems sort of separation of powers-ish. But the Senate has access to many wise and knowledgeable attorneys so..
Combined, these three judicial review provisions will modestly increase timeline certainty for energy and mineral projects. Broader changes concerning judicial review would fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee rather than the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
I figured I’d pick out some new CEs envisioned by the bill.
Transmission CE
Categorical Exclusions for Certain Transmission Activities (Section 209): Directs DOI and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create new categorical exclusions for the following activities related to transmission: building transmission facilities within rights-of-way corridors; upgrades to existing transmission and grid infrastructure within rights-of-ways or on previously disturbed land; and deployment of energy storage technologies on previously disturbed lands. These categorical exclusions currently exist at DOE but not at DOI or USDA, which are more often responsible for reviewing projects in need of the exclusions. Sharing relevant categorical exclusions across agencies was a key recommendation in BPC’s Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Infrastructure Task Force Report, The Role of Categorical Exclusions in Achieving Net Zero.
Geothermal CE
Geothermal Categorical Exclusions (Section 208): Directs DOI and USDA to adopt categorical exclusions under NEPA for the exploration of geothermal resources on federal lands. This measure codifies and expands BLM’s recent actions and adds parity to oil and gas categorical exclusions in existing statute.
I thought this aside was interesting.
Some environmentalists will be concerned about the revised schedules for oil and gas leasing. It is important to note, however, that increased domestic oil production does not necessarily translate to increased global oil production, just as reduced domestic oil production does not necessarily lead to reduced global oil production. It is a global market, and other countries ramp production up or down in response to the basic economic law of supply and demand.
This seems like an important point that sometimes gets lost. We might expect this topic to heat up (again) as the election nears.
Sorry this image is so fuzzy, pulled from news video.
This may be of interest to other folks…. dried grass and high winds are nothing new to the Front Range of Colorado. However, after the Marshall Fire, a concern over liability on the part of Xcel Energy may well be new, hence.. preventative as well as accidental outages.
The news follows the utilities company’s Sunday prediction that it could take through Monday or longer to restore power to more than 87,000 Xcel customers statewide who were still experiencing outages by 5:45 p.m. on Sunday.
As of Monday morning at 10:25 a.m., over 750 outages were reported by just over 29,000 customers in the Denver area, whereas the Boulder area still saw close to 225 outages affecting roughly 12,000 customers, according to the Xcel electric outage map.
A total of more than 150,000 were impacted by the loss of power — severe weather caused outages for around 100,000 customers, while another 55,000 in six counties had their power shut off by Xcel in an effort to prevent wildfires.
“For the first time in Colorado, Xcel Energy conducted a public safety power shutoff,” said spokesperson Tyler Bryant in a Sunday statement. “While many customers will have service restored later today, with the significant number outages from this weather event, this restoration process will extend into Monday, April 8 and possibly longer for some customers.”
With more than 400 crew members working on restoring power to more than 600 miles of affected lines, the company had addressed the needs of about 63,000 customers by Sunday evening.
Because Xcel changed its system settings during the extreme winds to restrict automatic power restoration, “this safety measure means power outages are likely to last longer than they typically would,” Bryant said.
Since we have both high wind and dried grass in the winter, perhaps electrifying everything is not a very resilient approach? Just a thought. Also, on the app Nextdoor, there was a certain (large) amount of unhappiness with the way this rolled out (although Xcel had its defenders, and lots of appreciation for employees working to get power restored). A critique From one neighbor:
1. Confusing messages sent out before cutting off our power.
2. No map provided in advance that would have helped know if any businesses, friends, neighbors still had power.
3. Outage map provided after power cut off that is just as useless.
4. Automated emails sent after power cut off assuring us that they are working diligently to get the power back on. Which we know they are not.
5. Another automated email sent out asking what we think of the new electricity rate structure.
6. They have now said that people preemptively shut off have lower priority than those who lost power due to the storm 🤦 Hard to think how they could have done this any worse.
Another thought.. a human being might want to review automated emails prior to sending to see if they fit the current situation.
Pacific Gas & Electric cut power to more than 700,000 customers in 34 counties early Wednesday because of high winds. Some households were without electricity for 72 hours, a spokesman said. Southern California Edison shut off electricity to more than 24,000 customers, also starting Wednesday.
The biggest failure, experts and customers alike said, was communication. Residents complained they did not receive adequate notice of the shutdown or no notice at all and could not get on the utilities’ websites.
Lessons learned from the shutdowns are critical because more will take place, experts said.
“I suspect for the next few years these are going to occur,” said Severin Borenstein, faculty director of UC Berkeley’s Energy Institute. “No one involved in this thing thinks it was a one-time event.”
The California Public Utilities Commission on Monday ordered PG&E to take immediate corrective actions, and Gov. Gavin Newsom called on the utility to give residential customers who lost power $100 rebates.
Commission President Marybel Batjer told PG&E it must try to restore power within 12 hours in the future, reduce the size of outages, develop systems to ensure call centers and the website are accessible and develop a “communication structure” with counties and tribal governments so they can respond to emergencies.
“Failures in execution, combined with the magnitude of this … event, created an unacceptable situation that should never be repeated,” Batjer said.
He said the state should create some sort of committee that includes public safety officials, elected officials, utilities and the Public Utilities Commission to make power shut-off calls in the future.
Utilities have sparked fires for decades, but they are now more destructive because of droughts produced by climate change and the movement of people into more remote, highly vegetated regions, experts said.
Southern California Edison’s customers complained the utility failed to give them adequate warning.
They hit the utility with questions about the timing, criticism over lack of immediate notice and outrage over spoiled food, stress-related health effects and fears that trapped cars beneath electric garage doors would leave people stranded in the event of a fire.
“We strive to keep the customer informed always, but we may not be able to depending on circumstances,” said Edison spokesman Robert Villegas.
Anyway, the article has interesting lessons learned and ideas for improvement (that could have helped Xcel) .. but given the warning timeframes, maybe it’s best to be ready for a shutoff, even if you live far from the WUI.
Here’s the PSA from Xcel:
Put together an outage kit
Include things like flashlights, batteries, portable chargers, a phone that does not require electricity, a non-electric clock, bottled water, non-perishable food, a manual can opener and a first aid kit
Make sure your computer is protected from surges
Keep devices charged
“Customers who use medical equipment that relies on electrical service should take steps to prepare for extended outages,” Xcel said.
Other things to consider include lighting options for when the power goes out, using a cooler to avoid opening the fridge and using a generator.
“For customers with power outages, you may want to unplug appliances containing electronic components, such as televisions, microwaves, and computers to prevent damage as power is being restored,” Xcel said.
Last year, Sammy Roth wrote a piece on the problem of reliability with regard to tolerating more blackouts during the transition time to solar and wind energy storage technologies.
Of the hundreds of people who responded to my question, most rejected the idea that more power outages are even remotely acceptable — for reasons beyond mere convenience. A former member of the L.A. Department of Water and Power’s board of commissioners wrote that “someone dies every time we have a power outage.” An environment reporter in Phoenix — where temperatures have exceeded 110 degrees for a record 20 straight days — said simply, “Yikes.”
Moura expanded on his skepticism by noting that modern life is more reliant on electricity than ever before.
Those of us lucky enough to have air conditioning depend on it to stay safe during heat waves — which can already kill thousands of people and are only getting more dangerous as fossil fuels warm the planet. Elderly people and individuals with certain health conditions are more vulnerable to heat illness and sometimes need electricity to power their medical equipment, such as ventilators, dialysis machines and motorized wheelchairs. Our refrigerators, cellphones and internet service all depend on reliable electricity.
“It’s not really about keeping the lights on. It’s about keeping people alive,” Moura said.
Two years ago this month, California narrowly avoided rolling outages after wildfire smoke knocked out electric lines that carry large amounts of power from the Pacific Northwest. The state again toed the precipice during a hot spell last September, fending off blackouts only after officials sent out an emergency alert to millions of mobile phones begging people to use less power.
Again and again, I’ve found myself asking: Would it be easier and less expensive to limit climate change — and its deadly combination of worsening heat, fire and drought and flood — if we were willing to live with the occasional blackout?
Federal officials Thursday denied preliminary permits for multiple pumped storage hydroelectric projects proposed on the Navajo Nation that would have required vast sums of water from limited groundwater aquifers and the declining Colorado River, citing a lack of support from tribal communities.
In the order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced it was implementing a new policy requiring that any project proposed on all tribal land must gain the respective tribe’s consent to be approved, a move that local tribes, opposed to the proposed hydroelectric projects, had been calling for. The decisions pave the way for increased tribal sovereignty in energy-related projects seeking federal approval across the country.
“This is a federal commission acknowledging tribal sovereignty,” George Hardeen, a spokesman for the Navajo Nation president’s office, said. “If a company wants to do business on the Navajo Nation, it, of course, needs to talk to and get the approval of the Navajo Nation. And in the eyes of FERC, that has not yet happened.”
I notice the caveats “all Tribal land” so maybe not where projects are partially on Tribal land? It seems to me like Tribes should be able to approve any projects on Tribal land. Maybe some readers in the legal space can help clarify. And what energy projects does FERC regulate exactly? Transmission?
If energy policy were only linear and rational.. first we’d ask Tribes and locals and environmental organizations what kind of build out they want, and the impacts on critters, plants and water supplies, and then assess what energy sources and transmission would best avoid those areas and impacts. Seems like proposing a seemingly endless series random projects (some pumped hydro storage here, some geothermal there) and getting shut down project by project is not going to resolve the climate emergency anytime soon.
Anyway, the story is interesting and not paywalled so I recommend reading the whole ting. No paywalls seems to be the case for news funded by foundations because they want their version of the news to get out there. I’m just noticing a pattern here, as my media bills go up and my access to media goes down.
I guess the big news is the Admin’s LNG export infrastructure pause. I think the Admin’s reasoning was climate-related, or at least related to desires of certain climate activist types. The Admin claimed that the analysis was out of date. Which I think is true, since there has been a war in Ukraine and hopeful a general reduction in Russian LNG exports to them. Except that those need to be replaced by someone or something. In the absence of our contribution, would that mean that worldwide supply would go down, which means Russia could make more money.. and our European allies trust us less. This is all pretty obvious, but what I hadn’t heard in most of the coverage was that if exports are cut off, then it’s a boon to our own domestic gas prices (so will we use more?), and a boon to chemical industries who will make more profits (and produce more? with environmental implications?). Thanks to Doomberg for that additional information. Who knows? This seems to me like silly season fire hose flailing to get support from certain quarters (the Bill McKibben/John Podesta/random activists nexus), seemingly more of a political symbolic gesture than actually reducing emissions. And yet.. wars use a great deal of carbon, so wouldn’t we want to starve Russia of profits?
I guess there are two questions in my mind: 1) will restricting exports have any net impacts on carbon emissions? 2) will restricting exports actually cause more carbon to be emitted due to the actions of other countries? (e.g. continuing to fund war, firing up coal plants)?
The industry association Eurogas was quick to condemn the move:
“Europe is committed to phase out its dependency on Russian gas in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and has tied this shift to its 2050 climate goals. In achieving both, imports of US LNG have increased by both volume and importance, and have helped to stabilise gas and electricity prices for European consumers. However, current volumes of LNG coming from the US still leave a supply gap, for which we must continue to increase imports, rather than scale them back, as has been put forward by some interests in the US’ governing institutions.
If additional US LNG export capacities don’t materialise it would risk increasing and prolonging the global supply imbalance. This would inevitably prolong the period of price volatility in Europe and could lead to price increases with the consequent implications that would have for economic turmoil and social impact.”
Now if Europe has economic and social turmoil, it’s possible that they might elect folks who don’t care about energy transitions that much and reduce efforts.. so there’s another potential impact.
So glad, I’m not involved in any EIS’s for these…it’s not clear to me what’s “reasonably foreseeable”.
The idea began a little over two years ago with researchers at Planet Reimagined, a climate-focused nonprofit co-founded by Met. He said they mapped the federally leased oil-and-gas land and then worked with someone from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to determine the photovoltaic potential and the annual wind speeds on those leases. “There’s so much opportunity,” Met said.
New renewable generation can be built more quickly and cheaply on these sites, Met said. For instance, wind and solar applications could reuse the environmental site data collected for the original oil-and-gas project’s approval, cutting years off the environmental assessment process, he said. Sites often already have infrastructure including roads and power grid connections, reducing building costs and time.
Co-locating also avoids adding to the competition for land between conservation, agriculture, renewables, industry and other uses. It can also help transition the business of small, mom-and-pop oil-and-gas producers, their communities and their workers. Independent operators with a median of 12 employees produced 83% of U.S. oil and 90% of its gas in 2019, according to the latest data available from the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Now I don’t remember seeing electric lines to O&G rigs and production equipment out on federal land, which seems like it could be a problem. So I asked a person online who is familiar with the industry (and if TSW readers know more, please help out.)
The great majority of Federal O&G leases are in remote areas and most are probably are not connected to the grid. The drilling rigs have their own electric generation equipment, which moves on with the rig after the well is drilled. Most production equipment do not require electric service. However some centralized facilities serve multiple wellsites, and those sites generally source their electrical need from small onsite generators, or if they happen to be near a municipal infrastructure, they will connect to local utility lines. In many cases, production equipment can operate on a small amount of electricity produced by a small solar panel with battery backup. The point being, not much electricity is required for the average operating site.
It seems like it might be a good idea, but we run into the need for those pesky and expensive transmission lines again. Perhaps building them along existing roads would not be so bad. Anyway, it’s a novel and interesting idea from an unusual source.
Photo is from AP story on SunZia transmission line (see last story below).
Utes Supports Rail Transport of Crude Oil. These Utes seem fairly invisible in the media reports on the Forest Service permit for the oil train. I looked at several news stories about the Forest Service decision on the railroad. The AP story did not mention the Utes. All of the Colorado stories I reviewed did not mention them. Only the Salt Lake City Tribune, in my review, mentioned them.
The Ute Indian Tribe, whose reservation is in the Uinta Basin, and Utah’s elected officials support the railway, arguing that it would boost struggling local economies and aid domestic energy production.
Here’s a link to an op-ed I think I posted before. Title: “Opinion: Blocking the Uinta Basin Railway is another injustice to the Ute Indian Tribe Hickenlooper, Bennet and Polis are wrong to oppose this project needed for the reservations.” It’s one thing for your opinions to be ignored; it’s another to be mostly invisible to the media, at least compared to the examples below.
“There are so many reasons why this mine doesn’t belong where it is,” said Amber Reimondo, the energy director with the Grand Canyon Trust, an environmental group focused on protecting the region. “And the fact that it is allowed to operate is a stark example of the weaknesses in our regulatory system.”
Across the south-west, local communities and tribes have been pushing back against uranium mining proposals, including in Utah, where the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is concerned about air pollution from a nearby Energy Fuels mill facility. Similar tensions have arisen around lithium mining in the west, as a need for the metal in clean energy components grows.
Pattern Energy officials said Tuesday that the time has passed to reconsider the route, which was approved in 2015 following a review process.
“It is unfortunate and regrettable that after a lengthy consultation process, where certain parties did not participate repeatedly since 2009, this is the path chosen at this late stage,” Pattern Energy spokesperson Matt Dallas said in an email.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Tohono O’odham Nation, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the nonprofit organizations Center for Biological Diversity and Archaeology Southwest.
“The case for protecting this landscape is clear,” Archaeology Southwest said in a statement that calls the San Pedro Arizona’s last free-flowing river and the valley the embodiment of a “unique and timely story of social and ecological sustainability across more than 12,000 years of cultural and environmental change.”
The valley represents a 50-mile (80-kilometer) stretch of the planned 550-mile (885-kilometer) conduit expected to carry electricity from new wind farms in central New Mexico to existing transmission lines in Arizona to serve populated areas as far away as California. The project has been called an important part of President Joe Biden’s goal for a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.
Work started in September in New Mexico after negotiations that spanned years and resulted in the approval from the Bureau of Land Management, the federal agency with authority over vast parts of the U.S. West.
The route in New Mexico was modified after the U.S. Defense Department raised concerns about the effects of high-voltage lines on radar systems and military training operations.
Work halted briefly in November amid pleas by tribes to review environmental approvals for the San Pedro Valley, and resumed weeks later in what Tohono O’odham Chairman Verlon M. Jose characterized as “a punch to the gut.”
SunZia expects the transmission line to begin commercial service in 2026, carrying more than 3,500 megawatts of wind power to 3 million people. Project officials say they conducted surveys and worked with tribes over the years to identify cultural resources in the area.
A photo included in the court filing shows an aerial view in November of ridgetop access roads and tower sites being built west of the San Pedro River near Redrock Canyon. Tribal officials and environmentalists say the region is otherwise relatively untouched.
