I thought the discussion of “copper from US lands only for US residents and profits only from US companies.”   For example, my understanding is that the Forest Service is only allowed to export logs internationally from the Tongass  (surely there is someone out there who knows more than I do.)  But to be fair, wouldn’t that apply to all corporations that make money from federal land or offshore?   The problem with that, though, is that many corporations are international. So what exactly would that mean and how far does it go?

I know very little about corporations, but when folks don’t want something,  foreign ownership becomes a talking point, and, as it happens, I noticed that offshore wind tends to be foreign-owned. So I asked my new friend Chat GPT:

what wind and solar installations on federal land are owned by US corporations?

********************

Short answer: many—probably most—utility-scale wind and solar projects on U.S. federal land are owned (at least partly) by U.S. corporations or U.S.-based subsidiaries—but the ownership structures are often mixed, with foreign investors, tax-equity partners, and infrastructure funds involved.

Below is a grounded, example-based breakdown so you can see what’s actually on federal land and who owns it.

---

1) First, what “on federal land” means

Most projects you’re asking about are authorized by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or, for offshore wind, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

• These are not federal-owned power plants
• They are typically private projects on federal leases/right-of-way
• As of recent counts, dozens of wind and solar projects are approved on public lands, totaling thousands of MW

---

2) Major wind & solar projects on federal land with U.S. corporate ownership

Solar (BLM land, mostly Southwest)

Gemini Solar Project (Nevada, BLM land)

• Owner/developer: Primergy Solar
• Backing: Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners (global, but major U.S. operations)
• Status: One of the largest U.S. solar projects (~690 MW)

👉 Ownership takeaway: U.S.-based developer, but financed by international capital.

---

Copper Mountain Solar (Nevada, BLM land)

• Owner: Sempra Infrastructure (part of Sempra)

👉 Clear U.S. corporate ownership

---

Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (California, BLM land)

• Owners (various stakes over time):
  • NextEra Energy Resources
  • GE Energy Financial Services

👉 Primarily U.S.-owned (though ownership stakes have shifted)

---

Topaz Solar Farm (California, near federal land interfaces / rights-of-way)

• Owner: Berkshire Hathaway Energy

👉 Fully U.S.-owned

---

Wind (BLM land or federal nexus)

Alta Wind Energy Center (California, federal land interconnections/approvals)

• Owner: Terra-Gen
• Financing partners include U.S. institutional investors

---

Western Spirit Wind (New Mexico, BLM land)

• Developer: Pattern Energy

👉 Note: Pattern has had Canadian pension fund ownership, so not purely U.S.-owned.

---

Chokecherry & Sierra Madre Wind Project (Wyoming, BLM land)

• Developer: Power Company of Wyoming

👉 Clear U.S. ownership (Anschutz is a U.S. billionaire-owned firm)

---

Offshore wind (federal waters—important edge case)

These are federally leased but often not U.S.-owned:

• US Wind → partly owned by Italian firm Renexia + U.S. investment funds
• Many others (Ørsted, Equinor, Avangrid) are European-controlled

👉 Offshore wind is much less U.S.-owned than onshore.

---

3) Big U.S. companies that commonly own projects on federal land

These firms frequently appear across BLM project lists:

• NextEra Energy Resources
• Berkshire Hathaway Energy
• AES Corporation
• Clearway Energy
• Invenergy

👉 These are core U.S. owners/operators of projects on federal land.

---

4) The key reality: ownership is often hybrid

Even when a project is “U.S.-owned,” it usually involves:

• Tax equity from U.S. banks (e.g., JPMorgan, Bank of America)
• Infrastructure funds (often global)
• Joint ventures

So you’ll often see:

• U.S. developer + foreign capital
• U.S. utility + pension fund investor
• Foreign developer + U.S. financing

---

5) Bottom line

• Yes—many wind and solar installations on federal land are owned by U.S. corporations, especially:
  • Solar in the Southwest
  • Onshore wind in the West
• But:
  • Ownership is frequently shared or layered
  • Offshore wind is largely foreign-led
• The federal government:
  • leases land—it does not own the projects

---

If you want, I can build you a comprehensive table of every BLM-approved project with ownership breakdown (U.S. vs foreign)—that’s doable but takes a bit of structured compilation.”

 

I’m posting this because while onshore and offshore wind have different technologies, costs and impacts, concerns of industrialization of landscapes are consistent.  I’ve noticed much reporting on “Trump’s War on Wind”, which tends to make invisible (non-Trump) people’s concerns with the technology and preference for other choices for energy production.  People with concerns have also been maligned as tools of the O&G industry or closet Trumpians or whatever. Robert Bryce keeps a database of rejections and restrictions on wind, solar and batteries from around the world, for those of you who are interested.

In the West, onshore wind tends to located far from cities which also require building sometimes extensive transmission as well.  And you might remember the December 24 post-election approval of the Lava Ridge project by the Biden Admin (opposed by the Governor of Idaho).

According to Wikipedia:

Most of the project’s power will be exported through the already approved Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP), also being developed by LS Power, which runs south to Las Vegas and Southern California.^[1]

Western onshore can have the “green colonialism” vibe (from Governor Little’s letter “to give California electricity from Idaho), as well as tension with “protection” of federal lands. that may not exist for coastal offshore, which is located close to dense energy-using communities.

Anyway, yesterday I received an interesting press release (for those of you who follow the political angle, Governor Sherrill is a D.)  She seems to be doubling down on solar plus batteries, nuclear and gas and not so much wind.  Perhaps the tide (so to speak) is turning?

I’m reposting the full press release from Save LBI below.

********************

Save LBI Encouraged by Governor Sherrill’s Energy Approach as a Responsible Alternative to Costly and Damaging Offshore Wind.

Long Beach Township, NJ, February 10, 2026 – Save LBI Inc., which has long opposed New Jersey’s risky and expensive offshore wind buildout, supports Governor Mikie Sherrill’s Executive Order No. 2 declaring an electricity affordability emergency and directing a shift toward solar and advanced nuclear production, modernized natural gas plants, and policies that reduce peak electricity demand, and provides suggestions to foster that approach.

“For years, we have warned that overreliance on offshore wind would drive up electric bills, threaten grid reliability, impair our onshore military radars, harm marine life and industrialize our coastal waters with only minimal and uncertain benefit,” said Bob Stern , a Ph.D. scientist and president of Save LBI. “The new order appears to recognize the many failings of offshore wind as it pivots to energy sources that are less costly and more reliable”.

A Practical, Consumer Focused Path Forward

The Executive Order correctly identifies the core of the crisis: rapidly rising demand (driven in part by data centers and “ghost load” colliding with a shortage of dependable supply in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) wholesale electricity market. Capacity prices have exploded, adding billions in new costs to New Jersey families and businesses. We commend the Governor for:

·        Accelerating distributed and utility-scale solar. By fast-tracking distributed and utility-scale generation projects, the State is making the right moves toward local, modular resources that can be built in short time frames.

·        Modernizing existing natural gas plants instead of forcing premature retirements. Directing the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to expedite permits for efficiency upgrades and capacity improvements acknowledges that modern, more efficient gas plants remain essential to keeping the lights on and prices in check.

·        Recentering nuclear power as a backbone of reliability. Creating a Nuclear Power Task Force to pursue advanced nuclear generation is a critical step toward a long-term, zero emission, and almost always on resource that does not depend on weather or volatile commodity prices.

·        Cutting red tape and fixing interconnection bottlenecks. The Order’s focus on faster, more predictable permitting and improved interconnection processes will remove some of the key obstacles that have stalled responsible energy projects.

Additional Steps for New Jersey To Consider

To maximize the benefits of this new approach to electric energy and further protect consumers and the power grid, Save LBI is offering a number of suggestions for the State to consider :

·        Have the NJ Board of Public Utilities (BPU) proceed with an advanced nuclear solicitation process to select specific projects in parallel with, and informed by the Nuclear Task Force work, and consider as one selection factor the co-location of new facilities with AI data centers and industrial or energy production facilities such as at Oyster Creek where Holtec International is proposing to build four Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

·        Explore opportunities for new natural gas generation capacity, especially those that would make efficient use of the new Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) gas supply system.

·        Review the DEP’s reasons for the disapproval of the Competitive Power Ventures Keasbey Energy Center natural gas electric generation project and whether the sponsor is still interested in pursuing that project.

·        Prioritize utility-scale solar; require that BPU issue awards sooner than the 270-day review period in the Executive Order so facilities can be placed in service prior to December 31, 2027 and receive federal tax credits.

·        Implement aggressive demand-side energy management and efficiency standards.

·        Revise pricing practices to require AI data centers and other very large electricity users pay the full cost of the added supply of electricity they demand.

·        Provide training and educational programs on skills important to nuclear and natural gas generation projects.

·        Review New Jersey‘s environmental justice law and rules as regards the siting of electric generation facilities; it is unclear why more stringent air quality standards and procedures should be applied to communities based on income or minority status, as opposed to existing pollution levels wherever those occur.

·        Modify the current requirement in the State Energy Master Plan that all electricity sold in New Jersey by January 1, 2035 come from clean energy sources. The requirement is unrealistic and contrary to the reliability and affordability goals of the Executive Order. It has distorted sound energy source planning, which has been and will always be a balancing of source affordability, reliability, longevity, and environmental impact. Additionally, it should be clear by now that no electric energy source is environmentally “clean.”

·        Codify a new renewable energy generation solicitation policy that places a moratorium on offshore wind generation and related transmission projects, and requires, prior to any future State awards, a full, independent and transparent cost-benefit, reliability, and environmental review that is benchmarked against advanced nuclear, solar, natural gas and energy efficiency alternatives.

·        Withdraw from the State Agreement Approach under which NJ requested that PJM design a customized transmission “backbone” specifically for offshore wind. This unprecedented request from NJ forced PJM to divert engineering resources away from standard project queue work.

Conclusion

“Executive Order No. 2 is an important course correction for New Jersey’s energy policy,” Stern concluded.  “It squarely addresses the affordability and reliability crisis, emphasizes distributed and dispatchable resources, and accepts advanced nuclear and modernized gas as essential pillars of a balanced system. This is a far more responsible and sustainable path than doubling down on costly, environmentally damaging and uncertain offshore wind projects.”

At the same time, additional work is needed. Save LBI looks forward to working with the Administration, the BPU, the Legislature, and local communities to implement the new energy plan, and strengthen it with realistic policies and additional measures to ensure New Jersey residents have access to reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy for decades to come. Save LBI recently formed a sister organization, Save LBI Advocacy, that will be engaged in legislative affairs.

 

It’s important to point out when we agree with others.. I have to give our friends at CBD credit for consistency in looking at threats to species. When groups like Audubon or Sierra arm-wave and “but climate change will kill all the birds!” not addressing alternatives, be it siting or alternative forms of energy production. You don’t have to be a solar and wind “hater” to wonder, at this point, whether we can decarbonize with smaller footprints and closer to existing transmission lines.

We’ve been looking at different actors in the energy space. A very important set of actors are scientists. They’re everywhere, modeling the future, looking at economics, labor and supply chains. But since there are so many sciences involved in one technology in one place, let alone with trade-offs among different technologies in different places, it’s hard to say what particular kind of research and which scientists, in which discipline, should be given more weight. Some climate scientists feel that decarbonizing is the most important thing; people who study species tend to think species are the most important thing. They are all entitled to their beliefs and it’s hard to argue that the “best available science” leads in one policy direction.

Because there are different species, in different places, with different uncertainties about how infrastructure will affect them. But back to intentions, I’m sure that every scientist has good intentions.. they just disagree about what’s possible, likely and important. Again, to quote Sowell “there are no solutions, only trade-offs” and the role of scientists of different ilks is to lay out what the trade-offs are.. within their own discipline.

It’s kind of fun to look afar at East Coast offshore wind and see how Michael Shellenberger talks about this. Shellenberger is very unpopular in different circles, I understand. I have no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of his writing, but I would guess there really is a whistleblower who is really telling him his or her opinions. I think it will sound very, very familiar. I am posting a long group of excerpts as I am not sure his post is paywalled or not.

But now, a scientific report, which reflects the official position of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reveals that the approval of the Empire Wind project off New York and New Jersey violated this law.

I think the ROD actually is the “official position” and was signed by NMFS, BOEM and ACE. And as we know, making the claim that a decision “violated NEPA’ is fairly easy to make. The ROD appears to be 201 pages (!). But apparently there was also some kind of report by folks at NMFS.

“The Empire Wind NEPA process was flawed in several respects,” it concludes, “resulting in a lack of rigor in analysis and limited information for decision makers to consider.”

The scientist who authored the report works for the U.S. government’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is also known as NOAA Fisheries. It is part of the Department of Commerce, and which serves in an advisory capacity to the Department of the Interior on marine issues, including offshore wind development. The person spoke exclusively to Public.

The report cited “incomplete data,” “lack of spatial planning,” and the introduction of new data too late in the process to review. “These deficiencies limited the ability to avoid and minimize conflicts between development and marine resources at both stages…. Mitigation measures were limited or not adopted despite reasonable options being available to address habitat destruction and alteration.”

NMFS scientists had previously raised similar objections to the Revolution Wind and South Fork Wind projects.

These areas are no ordinary patches of ocean, stress scientists. They are spawning grounds, migratory corridors and crucial feeding habitats for marine life, including the North Atlantic right whale, which is teetering on the brink of extinction.

***********

NMFS raised similar concerns about South Fork Wind and Revolution Wind, both sited directly on top of Coxes Ledge, another ecologically rich seafloor ridge in southern New England. Like Cholera Bank, Coxes Ledge is an essential spawning ground and habitat, yet BOEM approved both projects despite repeated warnings from NMFS scientists.

“The pattern is unmistakable,” said Linowes. “Fragile habitats identified, risks spelled out, recommendations made—and then ignored. Taken together, Empire Wind, South Fork, and Revolution Wind reveal a broader failure in the permitting system.”

BOEM and Empire Wind developers ignored multiple red flags, the NMFS report on the project shows. They did not consider the impact of “turbine blade failures that occurred in July 2024 in Vineyard Wind 1 and a persistent 2024 fish kill associated with Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind,” noted the report. These events reflected possible outcomes that should have informed the review process.

It looks to me as if the FEIS was finalized in 2023, so that explains why it might not have covered things that happened in 2024.

The NMFS scientist described a difficult work environment, one where scientists were trying to save a whale species on the brink of extinction, but experienced heavy pressure from Biden administration officials to approve projects.

“We’re developing one for the largest offshore wind energy areas on earth in one of the last known winter foraging habitats for endangered North Atlantic right whales,” the NMFS scientist said. “There could be large-scale oceanic effects that could alter right whale feeding.”

The scientist gave input to a 2022 letter sent by a top National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist, the “Chief of Protected Species,” which warned that wind energy could make the North Atlantic right whale extinct. “Disturbance to right whale foraging,” said the NOAA scientist, Sean A. Hayes, “could have population-level effects on an already endangered and stressed species.”

After Hayes sent the letter, Biden administration officials confronted the scientists involved. “Why did you send that letter?” one of the political appointees asked.

“It was a stressful period of time,” said the NMFS scientist. “We needed to be careful of how we communicated because [we were told], ‘These projects were going forward and there’s not much more to say.’”

The Biden appointees worked to ram through the wind energy projects quickly. “The administration went hard and aggressive with goals so large that even the offshore wind energy industry didn’t feel like they could meet them. Timelines were short. Every major sea basin has planning efforts, even the Hawaiian Islands. It was constant. By January of this year, there were 14 offshore wind energy projects with construction operation plans that had been completed.”

I should note that the same kind of pressure to approve and speed up was felt by some BLM folks with regard to projects in the West, according to reports I received.

The leaked NMFS report warns that the Empire Wind project could disrupt the Mid-Atlantic’s “Cold Pool,” a band of nutrient-rich water that provides food to marine life. “Alterations to wind fields and the ocean–atmosphere interface,” said the report, “have the potential to modify both atmospheric and hydrodynamic patterns, potentially on large spatial scales up to dozens of miles from the offshore wind facility.”

NMFS urged BOEM to require detailed monitoring of Empire Wind’s effects, including how turbine wake turbulence might alter ocean structure over time. Those recommendations were ignored. Without such tracking of offshore wind, regulators and communities are left in the dark about how this massive build could reshape one of the Mid-Atlantic’s most important ocean features, creating a cascading effect throughout the ecosystem.

How did the government appointees justify giving environmental permits to the wind companies?

“There’s a dogma that if it’s renewable, it’s unicorns and rainbows and there’s no impacts and we’re saving the world,” said the person. “And we as scientists just don’t buy into that. Like, where’s the evidence? You’re harvesting energy — wind energy — from an ecosystem. That can alter the oceanographic conditions and change [ecosystem] productivity at large scales. In Europe, they were seeing wind wake effects, not just right next to the turbine, but 40, 60, 80 kilometers away.”

But back to the question of intention.. was the push for speed about palm-greasing, or about good intentions about climate change or some mix? Or more importantly, perhaps, does it matter? Even if you think that climate is super-important, at what point do you prefer some technologies over others and on what basis?

While I was looking for photos, I found this by CBS news. in a story about how the Empire Wind is back on track after a stop-work order.

There are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. While wind turbines can pose a risk to birds, wildlife conservation organizations say they support the responsible development of offshore wind because climate change is a bigger threat.

I think linkages are sometimes hard to prove, at the same time, they are used in some cases and not others. When are we precautionary, and when are we “what the heck, let’s go for it!” As to those “wildlife organizations,” they support “responsible” development.. which again, leaves a great deal open. Did they support this project? One or more names would be handy.

If you want more info on each New England offshore project and the status, here’s a good article. For each wind project it shows the current status, litigation and impacts under the current Admin.

1) My post yesterday led to a massive misunderstanding.. especially with my friends at Basin and Range Watch. So I want to clear it up. My specific point was that a) we don’t know what peoples’ motivations are, 2) what I didn’t say is that sometimes we don’t know what our own motivations are, so 3) ascribing them negative intentions is something that is thought not to helpful in Wisdom and psychological literature. The only thing I’m adding to all of this is “I don’t think it’s helpful in policy either.” Perhaps that wasn’t clear, or I didn’t make my case well enough. It seems like a sideshow that leads to not listening to those who disagree, when we have really important disagreements to work through. When listening builds bonds that can carry us through whatever challenges life presents our society, whether climate and energy, or something else.

2) To that end, I thought I had made the case that “NIMBY” is not a helpful word. That people affected by changes that will make their life worse, in the name of someone else’s idea of a greater good, have a legitimate reason to ask “does it have to be? does it have to be here?.” Whether it’s an oil and gas operation, a wind farm, a concrete plant or a Buc-ees (my least satisfying volunteer opportunity ever was as a member of the El Paso County planning commission). So I was arguing that we should put that derogatory term out to pasture.

3) Sadly, some Basin and Range Watch folks thought I said that they were NIMBYs. First of all, I explicitly (or so I thought) had said I didn’t want anyone to use the term. Second, I had put them and CBD in the “consistent regional or national” category, not the “local” category. Maybe these categories aren’t separate. Maybe if we went back to Doug Bevington’s book, they would all be considered “grassroots.” Still I think that there’s a difference between, say, Save LBL and Basin and Range Watch. Save LBL is against wind projects, for example or Elbert County Environmental Alliance. These groups seem to be people who have coalesced against specific projects, while CBD and Basin and Range Watch seem to be more broad in their environmental concerns.

4) A couple of people have brought up to me “but oil and gas companies have done bad things in pursuit of profits”- indeed they may have done bad things, and those should be called out. However, any corporation, whether it be oil and gas, wind, solar, the New York Times, Xcel Energy, or whatever are driven by profits. Some say that “if o&g folks had not spread disinformation, we would be further ahead in decarbonization.” But we could also say “if folks had acknowledged that the transition was not going to be easy upfront” or “if folks had listened to the Hartwell Paper when the cap’n’trade idea didn’t work out” or even “if folks had focused more on building infrastructure and less on various financial gimmicks of various kinds.” Probably time to dig up that old Eric Hoffer quote:

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

5) Again, when I said that ENGOs are not responsible for producing things, I meant physical things like energy. So “no” can be a final answer for them, whereas it can’t be a final answer for the broader society. Even for us to turn our computers on, someone has to be producing electricity and getting it through the system. We have to have something new, or something more, somewhere.

There was a comment on Doomberg this morning which might be relevant:

The electrical grid is the largest machine humanity has ever built. It’s a living, breathing system of staggering complexity—millions of components, endless streams of resources, and armies of workers, all operating in miraculous synchrony. Flip a switch, and light appears, but behind that simple act lies a choreography so intricate that no single element can be taken for granted.

This is where our modern debates go off the rails. Politicians and pundits fixate on one input—fuel—while ignoring the countless other components that must function in lockstep to deliver electricity on demand. Such tunnel vision is how we end up in today’s precarious situation: chasing shiny new energy sources without respecting the machinery that makes energy usable in the first place.

My point though, is.. here we are. Right now. Technology has changed. Demand has changed via data centers. Many of the proposed decarbonization technologies and supporting technologies and infrastructure are not ready for prime time.. the horses aren’t even at the starting gate. Inflation has changed the economics of different build-outs. National security (ability to access components, and the security of the infrastructure itself) and some folks’ concern about specific technologies that seem to need protracted subsidies are also issues. There have been efforts by communities in the US and around the world against solar and wind (and new transmission) siting. Where do we go from here? I don’t know and my point was originally that focusing on different groups’ motivations is not particularly useful in moving forward.

My observation is that attributing intention is something that’s fairly casually done and yet not generally a good or helpful idea. Both Wisdom literature and the discipline of psychology tend to agree. From my perspective as a pragmatist, it is not helpful to any policy dialogue, and tends to be a distraction from engaging with individuals with different perspectives. It can be dismissive of others’ views, and lead to poorer relationships and mistrust.

The first time I ran into this was the famous letter by Congressperson Grijalva to Roger Pielke, Jr. and others.. as Hayward wrote at the time:

Hayward, from Pepperdine, wrote on Power Line that he has received “no grants, honoraria, consulting fees, good karma baubles, or even Christmas cards from any fossil fuel interest, though I’d be proud and open about it if I did.” He also questioned the wisdom of judging scientists’ work based on who pays for the research.

“Is the good congressman really telling us that he is incapable of assessing factual claims and judgments about the wisdom of policy on the merits alone?” he wrote. “That doesn’t speak well of his probity.”

********
Like Attracts Like in Political and Policy World

One more thing before we get started.. I’ve noted in some cases that folks think because politicians, reporters or scientists are funded by certain groups, their outputs are not to be trusted, as they are influenced by those groups.  But in my experience, the funders tend to affiliate with groups or individuals who are already sympathetic to their cause.  There’s a moral judginess about “toadiness to funding” vs. “like tends to like” that again, I think, puts a moral mantle on disagreements that are best engaged directly and with mutual respect. Let’s take two hypothetical examples.

R Congressperson from Colorado..  takes contributions from O&G industry. Already supports industry for producing useful products, hiring people and paying taxes.

R Senator from Iowa.. takes contributions from wind industry. Already supports industry for producing useful products, hiring people and paying taxes.

Reporter funded by NGO .  Already agrees with position of NGO and picks stories and tells them in a way that supports NGO’s worldview.

So I’m not sure anyone here is in a position to parse out “like attracts like” from “follow the money”.  My point being that indeed we might expect different results from a study, say by Headwaters compared to PERC. Understanding the generalized worldview of an organization is helpful to understanding a given approach to research. I would explain that more by “if you weren’t somewhat aligned with those philosophies of those organizations, you wouldn’t work there,” rather than “the funding from X caused them to come up with X-friendly answers.”

**********************

It seems to me that energy sources and their locations reflect Thomas Sowell’s observation that “there are no solutions, only trade-offs.”  And of course, those of us with experience writing EIS’s know all about trade-offs, enumerating them and considering them.  Others, maybe, not so much.

So let’s start with a group of actors who aren’t responsible for wider outcomes and their intentions.

Religious Figures

Thanks to Jon for this quote about Oak Flat.

“The question remains: Which is more important? Respecting the ageless and undying dignity, rights, beauty and faith of the Apache Nation, or mining copper for financial gain for the proliferation of temporary creature comforts and for the eventual destruction of Mother Earth?”
https://www.globalsistersreport.org/environment/sisters-activists-praise-appeals-court-order-oak-flat-case?site_redirect=1

They have terrific intentions, but are not responsible for meeting peoples’ needs.  For me, “yes we need copper but we can get it elsewhere that would be better for the Apache and the environment” would be a less hyperbolic, and perhaps more helpful, discussion.

For some people,  see 10 common uses for copper, things like electrical wiring, plumbing and even renewable energy systems are necessities, not “temporary creature comforts.” But you can’t argue with the intention of “saving Mother Earth from human greed.”

Consistent ENGOs

Here I would put our  friends, Center for Biological Diversity, and more regional ENGO’s like Basin and Range Watch. “Not here” folks from the environmental perspective- consistently.  I’ll call them the Consistent NGOs. Their motivations are also pure and clear. But they don’t have to answer the question of “if not here, then where?” And that’s OK, but someone somewhere does.

Local Centered Groups

Then there are local groups that are against specific projects.  These projects could be mines, oil and gas, solar, wind, transmission, nuclear, biomass, oil refineries, uranium enrichment facilities, or even new developments.  Perhaps they are more organized than those against a new concrete plant or Buc-ees,  but the basic question is “do we really need it?” and “why here?”.   These are all cases where the benefits accrue more broadly, but the costs are borne by people living in a given location.  You will see that as an argument in some western wind and transmission.. “we get the impacts and California gets the electricity.” To me this is the ultimate challenge- to make the cases that whatever is really needed, and that it is needed specifically in that place.  In some cases, county master planning helps out with that, in other cases, not so much.  But that is the challenge for people who want new infrastructure of any kind.

It’s interesting to watch how what we might call “concerned locals” are portrayed by different sources.  The whole concept of NIMBY’s is that some form of Greater Progress is being held up by people who disagree with a given change, say densification or even new transmission lines.   We can get the impression (from some outlets) that there are Good People who don’t want oil and gas development and Bad People who are against, say, wind development.  And that’s where the locals are accused of accepting oil and gas funding.  Which really ticks them off, it’s fair to say. In fact, it can lead to questions like “if those sources are making stuff up about me and the people I know, why should we believe them about other things?”.

This is also true of transmission lines, which are needed to move electricity from the sources in more rural areas to the urban population. Anyway, this seems to be the first place that “motive-questioning” enters the picture.

Other ENGOS – Need for Wind and Solar Buildout plus Transmission Trumps Protection

Groups like the Sierra Club and Audubon have decided that the dangers of climate change outweigh the need to protect wild places. Audubon has studied how to make transmission lines less dangerous to birds.  Their view seems to be “we need to do this to save birds, therefore let’s figure out ways to minimize disturbance.”

The Sierra Club has definitely put its finger of the scale. Their view of offshore wind does not line up with many locals.. Also they are committed to decarbonizing the grid 80% by 2030??

Offshore wind turbines provide reliable, pollution-free energy to high populations on the coast and will create jobs, help stabilize energy prices, and ensure our families breathe clean air.

And apparently they are still against nuclear as part of the solution, although in 2021, a group of climate scientists asked them to reconsider.

A universal opposition to nuclear power is no longer tenable in the 21st century given the staggeringly difficult challenge of rapid and permanent decarbonization. Nuclear generation is carbon-free, low-impact, and much is already built. The 2018 Special Report from the IPCC even suggests that the pathways compatible with limited warming will require an increase in global nuclear power production. The premature shuttering of existing nuclear power plants stands in stark opposition to the stated carbon goals and organizational values cited by the Sierra Club. Such closures threaten to offset the climate benefits of increased renewable generation; generation that should be used to displace coal, oil, and fossil gas. Given the critical need to reduce carbon emissions, we hope our organizations can agree that fossil generation must be phased out first.

We don’t need to question their motivations.. just the practicality of their ideas. Because they are the first groups to propose a fleshed-out alternative and make the judgment call that it will be worth it environmentally, socially, and economically.

**********
So there you have it.. different groups, all with great intentions disagree. But none of these groups are responsible for delivering anything to anyone.

Next post: IV. Sidetrip to Lava Ridge and the Sierra Club

A few weeks ago I started receiving messages about  “Trump’s war on renewable energy.” I thought I’d look into it a little more. That was a few weeks ago.. yesterday, in the middle of my working on this post, the President himself posted..

OK, then. We know how the President feels.. but what is the federal nexus for approvals – except on federal land (or I guess new facilities requiring transmission across federal land)?  And offshore definitely requires approval by BOEM in Interior. He also mentions “farmer destroying solar” which is definitely not all solar (parking lot solar, home solar, desert solar and so on).  But that would be on private lands, conceivably, since very little federal land is farmed so at the same time when federal officials describe their druthers, we have to ask “how will this pan out in reality?”

First let’s go to Secretary Rollins, who is of interest since the FS is in USDA.

Secretary Rollins also announced that USDA will stop funding solar farms on farmland. The federal nexus of this seems to be REAP grants..

“With REAP grants covering up to 50% of project costs and tax credits accounting for another 30-40%, farms can access solar with minimal investment,” said Inigo Rengifo Melia, CEO of Concentro.

But the example in the story was a brewpub in New Hampshire, which seems like a great place to visit and indeed the solar panels are on farmland, but if there is payback like this..

And in New Hampshire, Blasty Bough Brewing Company in Epson, New Hampshire secured a REAP grant that enabled the brewery to install a 182-module, 87 kW ground-mount solar array that offsets more than 100% of their energy consumption.

The brewery’s owner estimated it saves about $23,000 a year in electricity costs. The system, which has a 25-year warranty and 40-year estimated lifespan, is offsetting 69 tons of CO2 a year, the equivalent to removing 15 gasoline-powered vehicles from the road for a year or avoiding 69,629 pounds of coal combustion. The payback period is estimated to be less than five years.

Folks might wonder whether loans might be more appropriate than grants for this kind of project. The other problem is that Rollins’ concern is that too much farmland is going out of production because commercial solar is a better deal to farmers than farming. But that doesn’t have to do with the REAP program at all. All very confusing.

So as we wade through these media reports, I thought I’d make a list of things to keep in mind. Because many reporters are not experts and can elide things that are not alike.  Or resort to AI.

(1) I think we have to be careful about what President Trump himself says, and what are the efforts of various Administration actors (most notably, in this case, DOE Secretary Chris Wright, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, as well as Agriculture Secretary Rollins), and what Congress did in OB3 and will do in the future. I think it’s fair to say that President Trump is not a fan of wind, while others on this list might be more “all of the above.” In fact, the OB3 could be seen as also all of the above-ish.

(2) We have to be careful about mixing policies that affect federal land vs.private land.

(3) We have to be careful about generalizing from wind to “wind and solar” to to “all renewables.” Wind, especially offshore, has a variety of unique issues, including marine mammals, interference with military efforts, and even profitability.

(4) Some people and groups can be for technologies that require mining, and against domestic mining projects at the same time.

(5) Stories about not-preferred activities will always bring up whether the corporations involved are domestic or not. It seems like if we are going to talk about that, then it would partially depend on how much the country of origin is a current ally. For example, the company behind the Oak Flat controversy is foreign-owned by Australian companies. I think it’s probably best to be specific about the country when this is mentione

Let’s start with the definition of renewable energy..there is also “clean” and “green” but those seem more like marketing terms to me.

I went to Wikipedia..

Renewable energy (also called green energy) is energy made from renewable natural resources that are replenished on a human timescale. The most widely used renewable energy types are solar energy, wind power, and hydropower. Bioenergy and geothermal power are also significant in some countries. Some also consider nuclear power a renewable power source, although this is controversial, as nuclear energy requires mining uranium, a nonrenewable resource.

I thought that this was an interesting definition (of course, it’s Wikipedia)  as solar and wind require mining as well, not to speak of batteries to store their energy also requiring mining. None of the panels, blades or battery for backup lasts forever, so some mining needs to take place through time.  I guess the difference is that the fuel isn’t mined, but the replaced structures are? Or we don’t consider backup as necessary? Confusing! Plus the carbon component or lack thereof doesn’t seem to enter in to the definition. And of course bioenergy is on this list even though folks critique using wood (as we have seen, the discourse tends to mix leftovers from southern pine plantations, with using leftovers from fuel treatments, with “cutting down forests for energy.”)

From the Center for Western Priorities

Interior’s War on Renewables accelerate

Here’s what they said:

Friday, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order intended to make it more difficult to permit wind or solar projects on national public lands. Secretarial Order 3438 Managing Federal Energy Resources and Protecting the Environment suggests existing laws “give rise to the question on whether the use of Federal lands for any wind and solar projects is consistent with the law. Given these projects’ encumbrance on other land uses, as well as their disproportionate land use when reasonable project alternatives with higher capacity densities are technically and economically feasible.”
The order directs the Interior department to evaluate projects based on “capacity density,” or the ratio of a project’s energy generation potential to its footprint on the landscape, compared to “reasonable alternatives” to the proposed project. By this metric, the order asserts, “wind and solar projects are highly inefficient uses of Federal lands.” The order does not mention consideration of other impacts such as carbon emissions.

I don’t see why the footprint isn’t an important thing and shouldn’t be considered along with everything else; many of our traditional grassroots ENGOs are against these projects because of their impacts over large areas.  It is also true that wind and solar require in many cases, additional transmission lines.  Which use up land, cost money, need to be maintained, and can fall prey to wildfires or security issues.  Many folks in the space think that the solution is to tie grids together, or develop batteries or both.  But going back to the definition of “renewables,” conceivably batteries are made from non-renewable minerals as well. Do the terms “green” “clean” “renewable” “intermittent” and “firm” mean anything, or should we just refer to the specific technology, all of which have their own pluses and minuses? There’s also the fact that some technologies are not yet ready for prime time, and there’s uncertainty around that as well.

I’ve found in general that abstraction is not our friend when it comes to policy; it enables people to talk past each other more readily.

My take: this shouldn’t be a site- by- site thing, especially now when data centers are firing up new natgas and nuclear to meet their needs?  The question is “given how conditions have changed because of the new demand from data centers, and the general lack of local support (we’ll look into that more in a future post), should there be a re-look at pros and cons and physical, technical and labor needs for different energy sources, including backup for intermittents and new transmission?- perhaps an energy programmatic EIS?

Friday’s secretarial order is the latest in a series of policies aimed at crippling renewable energy.  July 7, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14315  intended to end any government incentives for renewable energy projects. The Interior department issued a number of follow-up policies in recent weeks, including a requirement Sec Burgum personally review all wind and solar project proposals, and an order directing the department to identify and consider eliminating any policies that encourage wind and solar development.
[has no idea what he is doing at all! or even cares!]

Again, the term “renewable energy” is used when they mean wind and solar.  The parenthetical is from CWP, not me. When I looked at the EO14315 it looked like it was implementing the OB3, with some extra verbiage.

The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a review of regulations, guidance, policies, and practices under the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction to determine whether any provide preferential treatment to wind and solar facilities in comparison to dispatchable energy sources. The Secretary of the Interior shall then revise any identified regulations, guidance, policies, and practices as appropriate and consistent with applicable law to eliminate any such preferences for wind and solar facilities.

So this is not about “renewables”; it is only about solar and wind.  And what do solar and wind have in common with each other, but not with other renewables?  They are intermittent and if alone, require some kind of backup for times they aren’t available.

But to wade into this, we also need to define dispatchable

Dispatchable generation refers to power sources that can be controlled or adjusted to meet energy demand at any given moment. These assets’ ability to quickly respond to changes makes them crucial for maintaining grid stability, especially during peak demand.

I don’t want to be picky, but I think public policy discussions are better if all parties in the discussion know specifically what they are talking about.

What else is on the list of the War on (Some but Not Other) Renewables ? Sec. Burgum is personally reviewing all wind and solar project proposals.  The “personally” is unusual, but new Admins holding up projects they don’t want by reviewing them is not particularly unusual (been there, seen that). And CWP left out the “on federal lands” part, which we know because he’s the Interior Secretary, but the AP story the CWP linked to says..

About 10% of new solar power capacity under development is on federal lands, said Sylvia Leyva Martínez, a principal analyst at the Wood Mackenzie research firm. Those projects could be delayed or canceled if Burgum does not issue permits for them, she said. Related projects such as transmission lines could be affected, too, she said.

While only about 1% of the combined capacity of pending wind projects are on federal lands, delays could affect nearby infrastructure that supports renewable projects, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Diego Espinosa.

1%?

The law retains incentives for technologies such as advanced nuclear, geothermal and hydropower through 2032.

Note: when Colorado Governor Jared Polis was Chair of WGA he led an initiative called “the heat beneath our feet” on opportunities for geothermal, which is  carbon-free, has a small footprint, is dispatchable, and doesn’t involve nuclear minerals.  There was an article in Forbes about it a few days agao.

Now Secretary’s Order linked  by CWP above as  “eliminating any policies that encourage wind and solar development” (SO 3437) is fairly interesting on its own. I don’t read it that way. I read it as “we need to look at a bunch of things to get an idea of the whole enchilada of what’s going on, and we need to review the court cases.” But maybe someone else can pick up on that. I hope that these reviews and reports will be available to the public when completed.

Sec. 5. Directives. Consistent with the aforementioned-Presidential directives and governing laws and regulations, within 60 days of the issuance of this Order, the Office of the Secretary, in co-ordination with the Deputy Secretary, the Solicitor, and each Assistant Secretary, shall submit to me the report required under section 5 of EO 14315. In doing so, the report shall be consistent with the ongoing reviews described above and:
a. Each Assistant Secretary, within 30 days of the issuance of this Order, shall do the
following:
1. Conduct a review of any regulations, guidance, policies, and practices
within their jurisdiction, including but not limited to, those related to the
following decision-making processes or components of those processes:
A. Land use and site authorizations, including but not limited to the
following:
i. Right-of-Way (ROW) authorizations.
ii. Plan of Development approvals.
iii. Land Use Plan amendments and revisions.
iv. Area of Critical Environmental Concern designations.
v. Site Testing and Monitoring authorizations.
vi. Commercial leases.
vii. ROW assignment or transfer approvals.
viii. Performance and Reclamation Bonding approvals.
B. Environmental and wildlife permits and analyses, including but not
limited to the following:
i. Environmental analyses, including environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements.
ii. Biological assessments and biological opinions, including
for marine mammals and fisheries.
iii. Incidental Take permits.
iv. Programmatic Eagle Take permits.
v. Migratory Bird Treaty Act compliance consultation.
vi. Cultural Resources consultations.
vii. Visual Resource Management analyses.
C. Processes related to Tribal and Native lands, including but not
limited to the following:
i. Leases on those lands.
ii. ROWs across those lands.
iii. Tribal environmental impact review.
iv. Tribal consultation.
D. Commercial and financial authorizations, including but not limited
to the following:
i. Rental and royalties’ determinations.
ii. Cost recovery agreements.
iii. Financial assurance/surety bonding reviews.
E. Other actions and authorizations such as the following:
i. Temporary use permits.
ii. Access road authorizations.
iii. Utility corridor concurrences.
iv. Land withdrawals.
v. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act determinations.
vi. National Trail System Impact evaluations.
vii. Effects on units of the National Landscape Conservation
System.
viii. Raptor Nest Removal permits.
ix. Co-ordination with the Department’s Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance.
2. Consult with other agencies, as appropriate, in carrying out the review
required under section 5.a.1. of this Order.
3. Assess whether particular projects are in the public interest and consistent
with the requirement that the Department manage public lands for multiple
uses, protect environmental concerns, earnestly value public participation,
coordinate with other government entities, and make decisions in
conformance with land-use plans

Their (the Department’s) argument is that maybe the last Admin had policies that inappropriately favored solar and wind. One example.

BLM rents and capacity fees were arbitrarily reduced by roughly 80 percent below fair market value for wind and solar projects.

I don’t know that that’s true, but maybe someone knows. Inappropriate, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe the Admin would say that they are not  “eliminating any policies that encourage wind and solar development” but “leveling the playing field” or “featuring renewable and other sources that are not intermittent.”  Or perhaps considering environmental impacts that may have been downplayed in the last Admin.

Next post on EnergyWatch: Do the Offshore People Have a Lesson for Onshore People?

I started a post with this…

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.

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.