New Sage Grouse Draft Plan Released: Incorporates Ideas from Obama and Trump Admin Plans

 

This is a great article by Scott Streater of E&E News; fortunately a TSW reader forwarded it to me, as it has a paywall.  It’s pretty comprehensive and hard to excerpt from, but I’ll try.

Here’s the link to the BLM press release, public meetings and the DEIS.  Here’s the BLM’s title and tagline;

BLM proposes stronger greater sage-grouse conservation plans

Analysis uses best available science and lessons learned to benefit species and western communities

I’ll try to hit the main points of the Streater article.

  1. It blends some of the Obama decision and the Trump era decision. Perhaps some horse-trading with western Govs? Or realizing that the 2015 approach doesn’t fit with desired renewable buildout?

In essence, the proposal outlined in a draft environmental impact statement Thursday is a compromise that a BLM news release emphasized draws on “the most successful components” of the Obama administration plans in 2015 that mandated protections for the most sensitive grouse habitat across 10 states and revisions to those plans the Trump administration approved in 2019 that gave states more leeway to greenlight projects near grouse breeding grounds and other sensitive habitat.

2.  Sgamma thinks that it’s an improvement

“It’s positive that the preferred alternative seems to be a blend between the other approaches and prior plans, which indicates that BLM is trying to find a workable balance,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance.

3. WEG and CBD don’t like it.

People familiar with the plan under development at the BLM previously said they expected the proposal to include 11 million “acres of critical environmental concern” to safeguard priority grouse habitat. But the preferred alternative released Thursday did not include ACEC designations, which provide strict land-use regulations that would severely limit livestock grazing, recreation and other activities. Other alternatives, which could still be selected in the final plan, do include the conservation designations.
The proposal would also remove one of the most contentious aspects of the 2015 plans: the designation of 10 million acres of “sagebrush focal areas” considered vital to the bird’s survival, where mining and oil and gas development would be prohibited. These areas will now be managed as priority habitat management areas.

My understanding is that the focal areas were added at the last minute by folks in DC, and stuck in some craws of some State folks who had worked collaboratively on effort.  If you remember from my story on  it, that my source said:

Folks from Garfield County, CO did a FOIA and found out that the changes were associated in time with meetings with various environmental organizations, including Pew. One particular idea added during these last changes was the idea of “focal areas”. The States went ballistic.

The Governors sat down with Secretary Jewell and tried to negotiate.

4. Pew Does Like It

For whatever reason, Pew seems to have an outsized influence on federal decision making under this Admin and also the Obama Admin, so this could be significant.

Marcia Argust, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts’ U.S. Conservation program, applauded the BLM “for bringing the latest science, including planning for climate impacts, to this round of sage grouse plan updates.”

5. If Grouse don’t like roads and footprints of O&G operations, they probably don’t like roads and footprints of renewable energy and transmission lines.

This has become an issue as the Biden administration works to build renewable energy projects on federal lands as well as the transmission lines needed to carry that green energy to market. BLM press materials announcing the proposal mentioned “clean energy projects” in discussing how the plans will allow for multiple uses “in a manner that limits impacts to sensitive resources and can also help combat climate change — the main driver of greater sage-grouse habitat loss.”

Actually, what the press release says is  “Populations once in the millions now number fewer than 800,000, largely due to habitat loss exacerbated by climate change, such as drought, increasing wildfires, and invasive species.”   Habitat loss seems to be the actual main driver, not climate change.

6.  RMP Amendments Around 2015 Sage Grouse Plans for Transmission Lines.

The BLM this month announced it was exploring amending three federal land-use plans to work around mandates in the 2015 grouse plans limiting the size of transmission lines and their proximity to priority grouse habitat. The BLM concedes it might need to do so in order to approve the 235-mile-long Greenlink North power line in Nevada that’s a Biden administration priority due to renewable energy

Hopefully those transmission lines will be well-maintained..and not cause further fires which are bad for sage grouse.

Energy News II: LNG Exports and Met Co-location of Renewables Idea

LNG Exports

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”.

Musician Has Federal Lands Co-Location Idea

Interesting idea of musician Met: Co-locating O&G and renewables on federal land. 

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.

Energy News I: Western Solar Plan Public Meetings: First Virtual Session Tomorrow February 5, 2024

Once again, I’m grateful for reporting by Sammy Roth of the LA Times.  Interesting that for this particular piece, he’s a columnist not a reporter.  I hope you can read the whole thing.  It’s interesting that Sammy says “the western solar plan sounds scary. But it’s better than climate change.” In my view, there are a variety of other decarbonization options.  Are renewables the only answer? No. Are renewables on federal lands the only way to get renewables? No. Could anthropogenic climate change occur even if the US were net-zero? Yes.

Members of the public can still weigh in. Before finalizing the Western Solar Plan, the Bureau of Land Management will host eight public meetings to gather input, including two Zoom meetings, the first of them this Monday at 10 a.m. PT.

Federal officials are also finalizing a regulation that would dramatically reduce the fees paid by renewable energy companies with projects on public lands. Another regulation nearing completion would put ecosystem protection on an equal footing with energy development — one more effort to strike the right balance between clean power and conservation on federal lands.

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

The Biden administration released its long-awaited Western Solar Plan last month, laying out a vision for where sprawling solar farms should be allowed — and where they should be blocked — across 11 Western states, including California. The plan covers 162 million acres overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and tentatively concludes that companies should be able to propose solar projects across 22 million acres — an area roughly the size of Maine.

****

Note: that’s only solar, not solar plus wind.

Weiner also described the federal government’s maps as “grainy,” saying they offer “more of a 30,000-foot view than a ground-level view” of which public lands are suitable for solar. It will be up to developers to study specific sites themselves.

Federal officials “don’t have the resources to do that level of planning,” Weiner told me.

I was intrigued to hear a similar observation from one of the most vocal critics of solar on Western public lands.

That would be Patrick Donnelly, who lives near Death Valley National Park and is Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group. He told me his biggest problem with Biden’s plan is that it’s a “desktop exercise” that uses “a pretty arbitrary set of criteria” to determine which lands should be closed off to solar. Federal officials, he said, failed to take advantage of “on-the-ground knowledge” to more precisely map out appropriate development zones and protected areas.

***********

The federal government’s criteria for deciding which areas should be off limits to solar — including endangered species habitat, popular hiking spots and places sacred to Indigenous tribes — “didn’t flag areas that should be obvious,” Donnelly said.

As I talked with Donnelly, Weiner and others, I kept thinking back to something that Tracy Stone-Manning, the Bureau of Land Management’s director, told me when I interviewed her at an environmental journalism conference in April.

To speed up solar and wind development on public lands, she said, her agency needs a lot more money from Congress to hire additional staff members, who can more thoroughly map out the best spots and conduct environmental analyses.

“The biggest problem is having enough people to do the work,” Stone-Manning said.

At the time, that sounded to me like a bit of an excuse. Now I find myself nodding along.

As long as Republicans retain at least partial control of Congress — they currently run the House — more money for clean energy isn’t likely. It almost certainly won’t happen if Donald Trump returns to the White House. Elections have consequences.

What I thought was interesting about this is the idea that more staff can “thoroughly map out the best spots”.  If that were the case, then, wouldn’t it be letting leases and companies bidding on them rather than developers picking sites? I’m not sure how that currently works.  It could be like an oil and gas leasing decision, then someone leases it, then an APD-equivalent kind of analysis for the specific site.  But then that might be three levels of NEPA, this programmatic, a “leasing decision-like” level and an “APD-like” level.

I also wonder about what Stone-Manning says about “enough people”.. if the FS can have contractors do NEPA work funded by proponents (with ultimate authority and review by Feds) why not the BLM?  Maybe someone understands these legal underpinnings.

Also it almost sounds like Sammy is saying “vote for R’s if you want pristine federal landscapes..”

The Bureau of Land Management estimates that over the next 20 years, solar projects will be built across nearly 1 million acres under its jurisdiction in the West — the 700,000 acres I mentioned above, plus an additional 280,000 already open to solar developers in the California desert under an Obama-era federal plan. That’s three times as many acres as the agency estimates will need to be dedicated to solar on all other lands, public or private, in the 11 Western states included in the new plan.

Does that make sense? Should public lands be responsible for hosting three-quarters of the West’s solar farms?

As a lover of those gorgeous landscapes — some of my most cherished memories include backpacking Wyoming’s Teton Crest Trail and camping in Death Valley — my gut reaction is, “No.” Even the federal officials behind the Western Solar Plan seemed to agree, writing that the amount of public land they assumed would be needed for solar was “likely an overestimate.”

For some conservationists, those questionable numbers are one of several reasons the idea of opening 22 million acres of public lands to possible solar development “doesn’t really pass the laugh test,” in the words of Matt Kirby, senior director of energy and landscape conservation at the National Parks Conservation Assn., an advocacy group.

“Why open up all that land and let industry choose?” he asked.

Kirby would prefer to see the Biden administration ditch its current “preferred alternative” — the one with the 22 million acres — and instead select Alternative 5, which would limit solar applications to 8 million acres of previously disturbed lands.

“We’re now in a situation that essentially puts industry in the driver’s seat,” Kirby said.

Members of the public can still weigh in. Before finalizing the Western Solar Plan, the Bureau of Land Management will host eight public meetings to gather nput, including two Zoom meetings, the first of them this Monday at 10 a.m. PT.

I also thought that it was interesting that John Podesta is the “senior advisor to the President for clean energy innovation and implementation.”  It seems like more and more, effort which have a substantial technical component are led by people with no technical background.  This seems to me as if it could be a problem, since there are many pathways to decarbonization, and choosing among them would tend to have a technical element.  I’d be for an open discussion and analysis of all alternatives, including costs, social and environmental impacts, technical feasibility, availability of needed material, national security and domestic job implications, and including the fact that different technological horses in the race will have unknown success (uncertainties and scenarios).  It’s kind of funny that none of this is done, and yet all the analysis is done by someone at a BLM Field Office on a particular piece of ground.

For the record, I don’t think it’s pay-offs to CAP by solar and wind purveyors.. or that nuclear hasn’t paid enough into D coffers.  I think some super-important people have “all renewables” as an ideological bent, no matter what the outcome and to whom.  And I think that the lack of rationality makes people suspicious, which makes them suspicious of “the climate change issue.”

Anyway, back to Sammy.

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

wrote in the fall about “Uncommon Dialogue,” a Stanford University initiative that produced a first-of-its-kind agreement in which a dozen prominent developers and environmental groups pledged to work together to limit ecosystem damage from solar farms. Their dialogue continues, with six working groups crafting development guidelines and policy recommendations.

One of their goals is to come up with incentive programs that encourage companies to build fewer solar farms on pristine public lands and more on already disturbed areas such as Superfund sites, landfills, former mines and water reservoirs — places where it’s typically more expensive to build. The “Uncommon Dialogue” partners also hope to promote solar development on farmland, which helps save water in drought-stressed regions but can provoke opposition from neighboring farmers.

Dan Reicher, the Stanford University researcher and former Clinton administration official who launched and leads the initiative, told me he expects most solar projects in the United States to be built on private lands, rather than public lands.

“The vast proportion is going to be on private agricultural lands,” he predicted.

President Biden’s solar plan forecasts a different outcome, at least for the American West.

Let’s Compare: Concerns About Offshore vs. Onshore Wind and the Save Long Beach Island Report

from this https://www.nature.com/articles/s44183-022-00003-5 open access review article

One  interesting thing about this to me is that Eastern coastal people with concerns about offshore wind seem to be as easily dismissed by (some) media folks as our own incipient-Bundy interior westerners.  I also “met” an interesting fellow, Bob Stern, involved in this issue in, of all places, a CEQ webinar on the proposed NEPA Phase II regs.   Bob sent it to me as a media representative, so let’s see how other outlets will cover it.

But first, let’s check out the Society of Environmental Journalists backgrounder on offshore wind. This isn’t very objective..it basically says if you’re against offshore wind in your area, you must be a Republican, a fisher, and/or a NIMBY. An obvious problem with this interpretation is that the northeastern States involved are traditionally not Republican.  I’m really not sure why the go-to explanation for disagreements seems to be partisan politics, at least in some quarters. I understand that political reporters would filter information through that lens, but environmental journalists?

The politics of offshore wind farms

On the political front, many Democrats and climate hawks are trying to support offshore wind because they see it as a key renewable energy source to replace carbon-spewing fossil fuel power plants.

Some utilities — NextEra Energy, Dominion Energy and ClearWay Energy — like it because it’s cheaper and is geographically suited.

Certainly, the Biden administration supports offshore wind enthusiastically. For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act had money for it, mostly in the form of tax breaks.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also had money for it. But because such legislation requires compromise, and because West Virginia’s Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (who is fossil fuel-friendly) is needed for many deals, there is a catch.

The federal government, via the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, cannot issue a lease for offshore wind development unless the agency has offered at least 60 million acres for oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf.

Others besides fossil fuel industries oppose offshore turbines. Many in the fishing industry, for instance, believe that mammoth wind turbines could disrupt traditional fishing areas and reduce their catch. Fishery groups (such as Maine lobstermen) tend to lobby against offshore wind.

Former President Donald Trump, criminal defendant and GOP presidential front-runner, does not like offshore wind at all. The story really starts back in 2006, when he bought land in Scotland to build a golf resort, then later discovered that a wind farm was to be built offshore that he felt would spoil the resort’s ocean view.

This led to a series of legal battles that Trump lost — although the resort did get built. The subsequent Trump administration was very slow to sign off on offshore wind permits.

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

Media coverage (and disinformation) a factor

Trump, who hates “windmills,” sparked a lot of media attention when he started this fall with rants about offshore wind harming whales. Or, to be precise, that offshore wind turbines (of which there are still very few) are driving whales “crazy” and “causing whales to die in numbers never seen before.” Like many things Trump says, this is not true.

Media fact-checked these statements, but in doing so they amplified and repeated them. Whales strand themselves, often in groups, quite often, and have been doing so long before offshore wind was even a glimmer in Biden’s eye.

Historically, scientists have not been able to understand the causes of most whale strandings. (Ship strikes do cause individual whale deaths, as we know from physical necropsy evidence.) Among the debunkers were BBC NewsCNN and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It’s not just Trump. When Ørsted canceled its two New Jersey projects in November, the Republicans took what E&E News called a “victory lap.” It has become more than just a New Jersey GOP political thing.

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

Whenever  I hear the word “debunked” about a complex scientific issue, I know someone is flirting, at least, with bamboozlery.

I would bet that the relationship between whales and industrialization of seabeds is any form is complicated.  Perhaps whales are the sage grouse of the East Coast (roads/piles for oil and gas are bad: roads/piles for wind are good.  At least in the west, though, we have folks like CBD whose concerns seem invariant as to the source of the disturbance.  Does the East Coast have similar ENGOs?

Anyway,  I’ve uploaded the Save Long Beach Island OffshoreWindAlertReport, and I’ll note below some apparent resemblances between offshore wind projects in the East and onshore wind in the West. Now I know that there are many TSW folks with experience in BLM siting of renewables so hopefully you all can add background and context.

Difference.. Coastal wind would be used locally (with increase in electric costs); Western wind- shipped to Coasts or other high population areas.

Similarity.. Should avoid important wildlife migration routes

(From SLBI report) The green line represents the right whale’s primary historic migration range. The red lines represent the distances from the various wind complexes where the noise level will exceed 120 decibels, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) criterion for disturbing the whales behavior, which they will very likely try to avoid. There is essentially no route the NARW could take to stay within its historic migration range and avoid the 120 decibel and higher noise levels, thereby blocking or seriously impairing its migration that is essential to its survival.

Possible Difference: vessel navigation risk, DOD national security, radar interference, sonar, for offshore.. may be some of that in onshore, but I haven’t navigated those EIS’s.

Possible Similarity:  decommissioning issues

(From SLBI report) The BOEM also does not have a stellar track record with regard to other easier decommissioning efforts. A General Accountability Office report found that it collected only eight percent of the revenues needed to do the necessary decommissioning of oil and gas facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. It also found that ninety-seven percent of the seabed pipelines have been left in place.

I haven’t checked the BLM track record (not much wind development on FS).

Possible Similarity: Lack of decarbonization programmatic look and choices of technologies/locations;at the same time I think the BLM does a better job on having alternatives in EIS’s. I also think  BLM has more of a history of programmatics (e.g. the 2005 wind energy programmatic EIS, and the 2023 Solar Programmatic EIS)

(From SLBI report) All major decisions, such as the turbine area location, the number of turbines and their size, are made by the applicant and by unelected federal and state agency staff with no EIS preparation or public input. The result has been some obvious mistakes such as the siting of wind energy areas in the path of or adjacent to migration corridors of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
At the end of that decision process a project EIS is offered to the public for its purported input to the process, that is far too lengthy, difficult to read, offers no real options to weigh in on, does not disclose many major adverse impacts, and is replete with inconsistent, unsupported conclusory statements dismissing impacts, as opposed to presenting the actual significant impacts.

Nowhere in this entire process are true alternative turbine locations, project sizes, or turbine powers presented to the public for genuine input.

Any other similarities or differences you want to point out?

Undermining science to undermine renewable energy

 

We’ve talked a little about energy transmission, especially in conjunction with renewable energy production, and the need to improve the electrical grid.  One thought seems to be that conservation interests are a barrier to that.  It turns out that the coal industry may be an even bigger barrier.  At least, here’s an example from the Trump Administration.

The Seams study demonstrated that stronger connections between the U.S. power system’s massive eastern and western power grids would accelerate the growth of wind and solar energy—hugely reducing American reliance on coal, the fuel contributing the most to climate change, and saving consumers billions.

But a study like Seams was politically dangerous territory for a federally funded lab while coal-industry advocates—and climate-change deniers—reign in the White House.

According to interviews with five current and former DOE and NREL sources, supported by more than 900 pages of documents and emails obtained by InvestigateWest through Freedom of Information Act requests and by additional documentation from industry sources, Trump officials would ultimately block Seams from seeing the light of day. And in doing so, they would set back America’s efforts to slow climate change.

The fallout was swift: The lab grounded Bloom and Novacheck (the lead researchers), prohibiting them from presenting the Seams results or even discussing the study outside NREL.  And the $1.6 million study itself disappeared. NREL yanked the completed findings from its website and deleted power-flow visualizations from its YouTube channel.

If NREL researchers are able to work unencumbered by political concerns and release Seams in its entirety, it could help point the U.S. toward a greener future, in which a robust economy runs on renewable energy. But for now, Seams is demonstrating an unintended finding—that when administrations stick their hands into scientific research, politically inconvenient truths are in peril.

The author indicated later that Congress had demanded that the study be released (and here it is).

This story is another example of political interference in science production and distribution.  I remain a strong skeptic that the pro-environment side can match this kind of interference by the coal lobby and “climate-change deniers” (as some have suggested here, including self-proclaimed climate-change “skeptics”).  It also seems obvious that this direct intervention is a lot more influential than any bias that exists in research funding.

Friday Roundup: Renewable Resistance, European Wolf History and King Cove Update

Lava Ridge Wind Project Extended Post- DEIS and Comment Period into Next Administration

It seems like the Biden Admin is doubling down on efforts by their conservation friends (e-bikes, Monumentizing, conservation leasing), and possibly throwing their renewable friends under the bus.
People didn’t want Lava Ridge, but then local people seldom want big wind projects. So I wonder what the political calculus was about this one? If someone knows the inside scoop, please share at my email on the donate widget to the right. Privacy provided.

Still No Wolves For You, And Some Wolf History

Colorado Sun article. There was an initiative put on the state ballot to reintroduce wolves, even though they were moving down on their own from Wyoming.  Colorado Parks and Wildlife seems to have done an excellent job of listening to people about this and coming up with a plan.

Well worth a read.

One thing that caught my eye was this:

Lambert credits the negative perception of wolves to a much older source: the colonization of North America.

“When white, colonizing Europeans hit North America, they were kind of shocked to encounter animals that they had completely extirpated in Western Europe,” she said.

One thing I have found is that not many people are familiar with European history at the points when people left for what is now the US. If we took the timing of Spanish colonists in Santa Fe (since the British weren’t here in the west at that time) as 1610, well.. here’s what Wikipedia has to say about wolves in Western Europe (check out the decline).

If we take Spain specifically, here is a journal article that says:

Wolf records were widely distributed in mid-19th century Spain, being present in all its mainland provinces. The probability of occurrence was positively associated with landscape roughness and negatively with human population density and the landscape suitability for agriculture.

Perhaps the story is simpler. Wolves ate livestock there and were killed.  People moved to North America, where wolves ate livestock and people killed them. Also there’s the issue of wolves killing people, which Wikipedia also has an entry on.  My point is not that wolves are currently killing people here in the US; my point is that it was not unreasonable for people from countries where wolves-killing-people happened at times that wolves-killing-people was going on, to be afraid of wolves-killing-people.  For example, if you migrated to the US from India in the 1800’s, at least from the provinces mentioned below, it would seem fairly reasonable.

Records of wolf attacks in India began to be kept during the British colonial administration in the 19th century.[33] In 1875, more people were killed by wolves than tigers, with the worst affected areas being the North West Provinces and Bihar. In the former area, 721 people were killed by wolves in 1876, while in Bihar, the majority of the 185 recorded deaths at the time occurred mostly in the Patna and Bghalpur Divisions.[34

There’s a Denver Post story with more interesting details about the other States’ willingness or not to give up their wolves. For example,

Montana officials, too, are still considering Colorado’s request, said Brian Wakeling, game management bureau chief at Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission would make the final decision on whether to send wolves to Colorado.

Under state law, Montana wildlife officials would have to complete an environmental assessment before the commission could make a decision, he said. They may also want to complete a more rigorous environmental impact statement because of the controversy surrounding wolves, which could slow down decision-making, Wakeling said.

“It’s hard to sit here today and tell you whether that would take six months or a year,” Wakeling said.

Then there’s getting a 10j rule from the feds. The deadline, based on the initiative is Dec. 31.

*****************************
Wind and Solar Resistance: Not Just Here

Robert Bryce wrote a lengthy piece on his Substack, summarizing local resistance around the world as well as links to his Renewable Rejection Database. Here’s one example from Israel. I wonder how many other rural people feel “an almost sacred bond” for land “passed down by generation.” The concept of “you need to lose so that other people can win” is an uphill push politically. Much depends on “what are the alternatives?” and our sympathies for the people feeling the pain.

On June 24, The Times of Israel reported that “The head of the Druze community in Israel, Sheikh Muafak Tarif, has warned the government to stop the work to construct wind turbines in the Golan Heights, or face ‘a reaction the country has hitherto not seen.’” The article continued, saying the wind project has:

Angered Druze villagers who see the project as a threat to their agrarian way of life, an encroachment on ancestral lands and a solidification of what they view as Israel’s occupation of the territory. They contend that the giant, soaring poles and the infrastructure needed to construct them will impede their ability to work their plots. They also say the turbines will disturb the almost sacred bond they feel to their land, which is passed down by generation and where families go for fresh air and green space.

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

Native Alaskans Flout or Flaunt: King Cove Version

I’ve been trying to reverse engineer who really has the ear of the Biden Admin by noting when they flout the wishes of Indigenous people and when they flaunt them. Certainly the recent Monumentizing in Arizona was a flaunt. King Cove, however, remains a flout. From June of this year, on Alaska Public Media.

The Trump administration agreed to a land swap in 2019 that would allow construction of the road. But President Biden’s Interior secretary, Deb Haaland, said the department wouldn’t go through with it and moved to pull out of the agreement this March.

On June 15, the court of appeals sided with the Department of the Interior, and granted Interior’s motion to dismiss the case.

“We’re glad to see the Izembek court case wrap up after the Interior Department’s withdrawal of the challenged land exchange,” said Bridget Psarianos, an attorney with Trustees for Alaska, a non-profit environmental law firm.

But lawyers for King Cove argue that the land exchange is still valid. They say the land exchange agreement can only change if a future court rules favorably on the decision to withdraw, and that they couldn’t just dismiss the motion in court.

“We believe the land exchange is still legal and valid,” said Della Trumble, the chief executive of King Cove Corp. in a statement. “As Native people, we will continue to fight for our rights and demand tribal consultation, which the Department of Interior failed to honor before executing its March 14, 2023 decision to terminate the land exchange.”

Although the Department of the Interior pulled out of this particular land swap, it said it’s looking into alternatives.

Who were the plaintiffs?
National Audubon, The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Watch, Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, and Sierra Club.

Transmission Line Build-Out Across the West: Impacts to Wildfire and from Wildfire

Bob Berwyn/Summit Daily NewsThe U.S. Forest Service wants to clear dead trees from powerline corridors in the White River National Forest. Falling trees or a fire have the potential to affect wide areas of the western power grid.(from this 2009 story) https://www.aspentimes.com/news/feds-want-forest-input-on-colorado-powerlines/

Folks have been telling me that transmission lines don’t have as much chance of causing wildfires as distribution lines.  Naturally, I was interested in the details of why this is the case. A great big shout-out to BLM NEPA folks who have to examine all these things in detail.  I’ll give you some highlights from the Transwest Express EIS (which actually is a generally magnificent EIS with info on everything anyone, or at least I, can possibly imagine).  What I like about NEPA docs is that usually the authors don’t have a particular axe to grind, their job is to discuss the pros and cons, hopefully so regular people can understand them.

I’ve organized the risks about wildfire (causing them) and (being harmed by them).  If we believe (I don’t, thanks to fire suppression folks) that wildfires will increase by 50 %  (or whatever) due to climate change, does it make sense for us to decarbonize with sources that will need thousands of miles of transmission lines through wildfire-prone areas?

Workers Doing Construction and Maintenance

Impacts to ignition points from operation or maintenance activities such as welding, vehicle ignition, blasting, blading, and overland travel would be similar to those described under Section 3.21.6.1, Impacts from Terminal Construction and Operation. In addition, the presence of the energized transmission line could increase the risk of wildland fire ignition in areas of high fire risk and lightning strikes. Lightning protection would be provided by overhead shield wires on the top of the line.

Failure of Transmission Structures

Fires where power lines are located can be started by contact between the conductors and/or insulation and anything flammable or that could create a spark such as vegetation, floating or wind-blown debris, bullets, airplanes or helicopters, or other conductors. Failure of transmission structures could occur as a result of intentional damage (e.g., vandalism, terrorism), natural disasters, vehicle or aircraft collision, or a design or engineering flaw in a system component. However, the conductors and structures for high voltage lines tend to be of sufficient size to be resistant to physical damage. In addition, the transmission line would be protected with power circuit breakers and line relay protection equipment. If a conductor or component failure occurs, power would be automatically removed from the line. All buildings, fences, and other structures with metal surfaces located within 300 feet of the alignment would be grounded to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved.

High  Voltage vs. Lower Voltage and Distribution Lines

Here’s the answer to our question about the different kinds of lines, it’s about height and spacing:

While the risk of wildland fire ignition does increase with power lines, high-voltage power lines are much less likely to cause wildland fires than lower voltage and distribution lines due to their height and spacing, which limits contact with other lines, vegetation, and debris. In addition, the applicant will implement the Vegetation Management Plan described in Section 3.5, Vegetation, and Appendix D, POD, to minimize contact and or arcs with vegetation. The Vegetation Management Plan is designed to maintain trees and shrubs within certain heights to limit direct contact with the line, as well as prevent arcs from the power line to trees. A key component of the Vegetation Management Plan is the identification of hazard trees. Hazard trees are defined as trees located within or adjacent to the 250-foot-wide transmission line ROW that present a hazard to employees, the public, or power system facilities.

Looking for more exact numbers, I found a cite in this article

For example, per mile of power line, distribution lines are three times more likely to cause ignitions compared with transmission lines [19]

And that cite was to this paper:  Pacific Gas and Electric Company, “Pacific Gas and Electric Company Amended 2019 Wildfire Safety Plan,” Tech. Rep., 2019

I don’t know if there is better info out there somewhere, please put in comments if you find any.

Impacts to Fire Suppression Activities (Good and Bad Impacts)

If a wildland fire occurs near the Project, wildland firefighters and fire suppression efforts could be negatively and positively impacted. The ROW and structures could be an obstacle, and another feature requiring fire suppression efforts. The energized line during fires could be a risk to fire fighters on the ground, and could limit the area in which aircraft could assist in fire suppression activities. The Project would alter fire suppression priorities during wildland fire events. In portions of the route, the Project may be the only infrastructure in the area, and as such may be an obstacle to letting a fire burn safely to natural or engineered containment boundaries. The energized line and broken conductors can deliver currents long distance, especially if the line or conductors come in contact with linear features such as fences. Smoke particles can carry electrical charge, and dense smoke can allow arcing from the
conductor to the ground. If the Project is not de-energized during a wildland fire event, buffers would be required around structures and conductors for the safety of fire personnel. Positive impacts from the Project on wildland fire suppression would include the development of a 250-foot-wide transmission line ROW and additional access roads acting as fire breaks, and providing access to fire personnel. In addition, the vegetation management associated with the Project could decrease fuel loads, and fire intensity and severity within the ROW.

The presence of the transmission line does increase risk of ignitions through increased access. However, more importantly, it prevents the use of certain fire and fuels management tools (prescribed fire or wildland fire use) in the vicinity of the transmission line. Additionally, it requires a prioritization to suppress fires in and around the line to protect human lives and infrastructure. This, in turn, can result in fiscal impacts to the agency due to the risk of ignitions to suppress, additional values to protect, and the reduction in areas that wildland fire can be used to meet land management objectives. Additional risks include increased potential for undesirable fire effects and increased risk to fire suppression personnel.

But the Same ROW and Roads That Are Good For Fuel Breaks Are Also Bad For Ignitions

Increased access through the new and upgraded network of access roads and the maintained ROW would increase recreation traffic, and trespassing which would increase the potential for more vehicle and human caused ignitions. However increased access roads would increase fire breaks, and allow easier access for fire suppression activities during wildland fire events.

And Some Places Won’t Be Fuel Breaks

Level 1 and 2 (Wire Zone) vegetation management levels (as described in Section 3.5, Vegetation), would create fuel breaks within forested areas. Fuel breaks can assist in wildland firefighting by slowing down fire growth, reducing fireline intensity, and providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities. Level 2 (Border Zone) and 3 vegetation management levels would not receive intensive vegetation management within the ROW, and may not provide a substantial fuel break should a fire occur near the Project. In sage-grouse habitat, the BLM’s WO-IM 2013-128 (Sage-grouse Conservation in Fire Operations and Fuels Management) includes forming partnerships with linear ROW holders to maintain fuel breaks, which reduce fuel continuity and serve to protect at-risk landscapes. As the majority of sagebrush is under the height limits outlined in the Vegetation Management plan, vegetation clearing in TransWest Express EIS Section 3.21 – Wildland Fire 3.21-23 Final EIS 2015 sagebrush would typically not occur. However, the implementation of fuel breaks of sagebrush habitat
could provide a benefit to sage-grouse management by facilitating fire suppression, reducing the acres of habitat burned, and limiting vegetation clearing in suitable habitat.

I wonder if groups that are against hazard tree removals from roads are also against 250 foot transmission ROW’s? Or  in Bob Berwyn’s story

The proposal would allow the Forest Service or utility companies with powerlines on the three forests to fell and remove all hazardous trees within approximately 200 feet from the centerline of transmission lines and within 75 feet of centerline of distribution lines.

And finally, are wildfires bad for transmission lines? The flip side of the other question. I couldn’t find the answer easily in the voluminous BLM EIS (maybe we need machine learning to help find things in lengthy environmental docs) but here is one from Southern Cal.

The potential for wildfires to impact the operation of transmission facilities is a concern which must be considered when siting new transmission lines. This is particularly true for transmission lines passing through the southern portion of San Diego County due to the history of wildfires in this area. SDG&E’s existing 500 kV line, the Southwest Powerlink (SWPL), has experienced a number of outages as a result of wildfires along this transmission corridor. A second 500 kV line, collocated for the entire distance between the Imperial Valley and Miguel substations, would be expected to experience a similar outage frequency. The simultaneous loss of both transmission lines could pose a significant reliability concern for SDG&E.

Then there was the threat to California’s electricity grid from the Bootleg Fire. Now, I think that NEPA wise, solar and wind build-out to feed those transmission lines would be a connected action (?) but I didn’t go there.  Finally burying transmission lines is a thing, but apparently too expensive, and not even doable for cross-mountain transmission.

 

When Mitigation and Adaptation Collide: Wildfire Ignitions and 57% More Transmission Lines by 2030

https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report

Increasing risk of wildfire in 2050 (not that I necessarily believe this, but) from First Street Foundation

Power Lines Start Fires

1. As we have seen in various wildfires, power lines can start fires.  This particularly seems to happen under windy conditions, which makes for fires that are hard to control and in some cases, air resources can’t be used during these high wind events. Large transmission lines are not as  susceptible, we would think.  But how do people know when a major one is proposed in their neighborhood if it’s the “safe” kind or the “unsafe” kind?

Too Expensive to Protect, Need to Shut Off Instead

2. It’s a lot of work and money to maintain power lines, so much so that PG&E is thinking of changing their strategy to “just shut them down” instead, see this WSJ piece. Fires start, people sue, and ratepayers ultimately pay the bill, raising rates.  Do we expect more bad fire weather conditions due to climate change? That would mean more times for electricity to be turned off.  Who is likely to be able to afford back-up generators or batteries? If we’re cutting down on gas and there may be a shortage of battery minerals… This might be difficult as well.

Instead, the company will rely more heavily on new power-line settings in areas at high risk of fire. The lines shut off within a tenth of a second when branches or other objects touch them, reducing the risk of sparks.

Industry officials say customers may experience more power outages in coming years if the company’s scaled-back approach to tree trimming results in more branches hitting wires. The company said it would work to assess outage-prone circuits and address the issues with targeted tree clearing and other safeguards.

PG&E says the new approach will be both safer and less expensive as it works to permanently reduce wildfire risk by burying 10,000 miles of power lines in the coming years, an ambitious plan expected to cost at least $20 billion. The company is challenged in its ability to raise capital following a complex bankruptcy restructuring and has been working to cut costs in order to fund the work.

So people sued them, so they went bankrupt and have to do the best they can with the funding available. At least until the next cycle of wildlife/litigation/bankruptcy where one might expect them to have even less money.

From a Reuters story on the power grid:

“We shouldn’t have to worry about people dying because someone flips off the electric switch.”

Jana Langley, of Mesquite Texas, whose father had several strokes during a prolonged outage in the 2021 Texas deep freeze.
We Need 47,300 Miles More Power Lines by 2035; Do These Have Fire Risk?
This is an important question to many residents involved in siting of transmission lines.  What makes these new power lines different than the ones power companies can’t afford to maintain? After all, this is Front Street’s Wildfire Risk Map (no I don’t believe it’s accurate but predicting 2050)..

3. The New York Times editorial board opined:

The United States needs 47,300 gigawatt-miles of new power lines by 2035, which would expand the current grid by 57 percent, the Energy Department reported in February. A 2021 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine arrived at a similar figure. To hit that target, the United States needs to double the pace of power line construction.

and what could go wrong with the well-intentioned “federal pre-emption of state and local authorities” which “would only apply to major projects of national importance..”

According to CNBC:

Building transmission lines is more important for distributing renewable energy than it is for using fossil fuels because with coal, natural gas or nuclear baseload energy, the source of energy can be moved to where it is needed.

“With renewables, you can’t do that,” Robb said. “You’ve got to generate power where the sun is shining and where the wind is blowing.” Insufficient transmission lines have become a major “bottleneck” in deploying renewable resources, Robb told CNBC.

Does anyone think (no, I don’t think nuclear is a fossil fuel)  maybe nuclear has some practical advantages-  if we didn’t have to build new power lines (which we’re not probably going to actually build), plus wouldn’t it be safer and more secure than running new transmission lines across the country? Plus, I will predict that we’re actually not going to expand the grid by 57% by 2035; people, supply chains, funding and practicalities of all shapes and sizes, including pushback by those affected.  There’s a vaguely colonialist undertone as well.. like negatives accruing to some states and cheaper energy to others.. as in this Reuters story:

A swathe of grid expansions are needed in Central U.S. to pursue national renewable energy goals and lower power prices in neighboring regions, the Department of Energy said in a draft transmission study.

This kind of “some win some lose” does not go unnoticed by affected communities.

In this Reuters story, apparently we have enough problems with the power lines we have, that need to be fixed.

As the weather gets wilder, the grid gets older. The U.S. Department of Energy found that 70% of U.S. transmission lines are more than 25 years old in its last network-infrastructure review in 2015. Lines typically have a 50 year lifespan. The average age of large power transformers, which handle 90% of U.S. electricity flow, is more than 40 years. Transformer malfunctions tend to escalate at about 40 years, according to research by reinsurance provider Swiss Re.

***

Next post:

Some Impacts of Transmission Lines and Audubon’s Point of View

Fervo Enhanced Geothermal Breakthrough and WGA “Heat Beneath our Feet” Recommendations for BLM and FS

Drilling rig at Fervo Energy’s Project Red in Nevada (source: Fervo Energy)

 

 

Fervo Energy says it has geothermal energy breakthrough. This was a story in Bloomberg News, but can be seen on the Financial Post website here.

Fervo has an interesting explanation of how their technology is different here. But I think the news story is about more general successful testing.

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

How Fervo Expands the Geothermal Landscape

Fervo leverages horizontal drilling, distributed fiber optic sensing, and multi-zonal completion techniques to introduce fluid and increase permeability in the subsurface. By injecting water underground and creating pathways in the rock for that water to flow, Fervo no longer has to worry about finding perfect, naturally occurring hydrothermal resources.

Instead, Fervo can focus on analyzing the temperature profiles of different prospects. Geothermal electricity generation is typically economic at temperatures greater than or equal to 150C. With existing drilling capabilities, Fervo seeks to tap into these resources less than 4 km  beneath the surface, which offer nearly 300,000 MW in capacity.

Looking for land with subsurface temperatures greater than 150C at less than 4 km is significantly easier than looking for land with the same temperature requirements and ample permeability. When temperature is the sole constraint, geothermal becomes a much more scalable resource.

Next-generation geothermal technology could deliver over 250,000 MW of 24/7 carbon-free power to the grid, more than 8 times the amount of estimated capacity associated with undiscovered hydrothermal resources and more than 25 times the amount of capacity provided by identified hydrothermal reservoirs. With strong transmission, this power could support communities across the country, far beyond the western U.S.

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

Here’s what the Western Governors did with their geothermal initiative. I bolded the parts of particular  interest to us. Going back to our data theme this week, thought, perhaps “people’s views and concerns” should be in a database somewhere along with the technical data. But maybe those get incorporated in the “priority leasing area” development effort?

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

As part of the bipartisan Heat Beneath Our Feet initiative, the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) has published a comprehensive report detailing the group’s recommendations and strategies to accelerate the deployment of geothermal technologies across the Western U.S. states. The full report can be viewed here.

The Heat Beneath Our Feet initiative was launched by the WGA under the leadership of Governor Jared Polis of Colorado in mid-2022. The goal was for the WGA to evaluate geothermal energy technology development in the Western States and assess the potential benefits it would offer. This was followed by a rigorous process of engaging with over 500 stakeholders through online surveys, tours, work sessions, and a webinar series.

The report also highlights several case studies of geothermal development in various U.S. states, as well as recaps of the many tours and workshops conducted as part of the Heat Beneath Our Feet Initiative.

After examining the various market, technology, and policy factors that affect the development of geothermal resources, the report proposed the following recommendations:

Improve resource assessment and data collection

  • Increase federal funding for resource assessments – “Congress should provide USGS and DOE with funding to increase the pace and scale of data collection, mapping and resource assessments and facilitate collaboration with state geological surveys. DOE should also leverage synergies with other programs, such as USGS’s Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (MRI) that are complementary efforts and in which states are already partners, to expedite efforts to assess geothermal resources. “
  • Coordinate with states to target resource areas with greatest potential – “States serve a critical function as primary sources and stewards of geospatial, scientific, and technical datasets that support the development of renewable energy resources. State geological surveys should have the opportunity to provide input and recommendations on where USGS and GTO prioritize resource assessment efforts in their states. “
  • Improve the federal repository of relevant geothermal development data and the ability to interact with it – “The federal geothermal data repository should seek to incorporate data relevant to those factors, such as mapping overlays of critical habitat for endangered species, hydrological data, and existing transmission capacity… This federal repository could build on NREL’s Geothermal Prospector and should be publicly available and easily accessible online.”
  • Leverage data from the oil and gas industry – “Both (oil and gas, and mining) industries rely heavily on subsurface expertise that could help reduce the exploration and drilling costs of the geothermal industry. These operators should be encouraged to share data from existing operations with geothermal developers. Further, public-private partnerships with DOE should be encouraged to reduce the cost of drilling for geothermal wells through project demonstration grants.”

Mitigate risk in drilling and exploration

  • Continue federal investment in reducing uncertainty in geothermal exploration – ” Congress should extend authorization and increase funding for the Hidden Systems Initiative… for the research and development of innovative subsurface technologies.”
  • Explore models to help developers secure financing for exploratory drilling – “DOE should explore the feasibility of cost share programs, such as guaranteed loans, insurance, and grants, and assess the effect these mechanisms would have on the geothermal industry.”
  • Extend existing tax incentives for the oil and gas industries to geothermal development – “Despite the similarity of exploration activities in the geothermal and oil and gas industry, some regulatory and tax incentives that currently apply to exploratory wells drilled for oil and gas do not apply to geothermal exploration. Congress should extend this tax treatment to the geothermal industry.”

Optimize permitting and improve regulatory certainty

  • Provide tools and resources to help proponents navigate the geothermal development process. – “DOE should coordinate with states to maintain publicly available resources detailing the state and federal requirements that apply to geothermal development in each state.”
  • Increase agency capacity for leasing and permitting. – “The Department of the Interior (DOI), USFS, and Congress should ensure that the relevant agencies are adequately staffed to review permits in a timely fashion. DOI and USFS should also ensure agency staff have access to technical experts to build staff expertise in geothermal development.”
  • Develop streamlined processes for geothermal leasing on par with other energy categories. – “BLM should establish priority leasing areas for geothermal energy, as it has done for wind and solar energy in Instruction Memorandum No. 2022-027.”
  • Expand oil and gas exploration regulatory efficiencies to geothermal development. – “Congress should expand Section 390 (of The Energy Policy Act of 2005) to include geothermal exploration, which would allow agencies to use the existing categorical exclusion to facilitate increased geothermal exploration and the discovery of new resources without compromising environmental protections.”
  • Fund research on the water usage of EGS. – “DOE should fund water efficiency research as part of the Enhanced Geothermal Shot and related EGS efforts.”
  • Collaborate with tribes and communities, including consultation prior to and during project development. – “Where relevant, it is important to consult tribes at the beginning of a potential geothermal project and ensure that the resource is developed in a way that does not damage sensitive historical and cultural resources.”

Expand funding opportunities

  • Expand funding for demonstration projects. – “Congress should expand funding for programs that support geothermal demonstration projects such as those under the DOE Loan Program Office’s Title 17 Clean Energy Financing program… Congress should continue to fund the FORGE project and establish additional EGS demonstration projects in the West.”
  • Encourage development in energy transition communities. – “DOE should target funding towards these (energy) communities for the conversion of existing oil and gas wells to geothermal energy as part of a just transition.”
  • Increase funding levels for the Geothermal Technologies Office. – “Congress should appropriate sufficient funds to the GTO to establish a strong research and development capability and to execute the recommendations contained in this report… Appropriations in recent years have been significantly below the authorized level.”

Implement incentives for consumer adoption:

  • Expedite the deployment of tax incentives, rebates, and end-user applications. – “The Inflation Reduction Act both increased and expanded the tax credits and rebate program for the installation of geothermal heating systems. The Internal Revenue Service should move quickly to implement these programs so that consumers can begin taking advantage of them as soon as possible and define domestic content requirements in as expansive a manner as permissible under federal law.”

Develop workforce and contractor ecosystem

  • Create opportunities for workers and communities affected by the energy transition – “Congress should establish a mechanism within DOE that leverages existing expertise and relationships in the national labs to conduct education and workforce development. Congress and DOE, in conjunction with other federal agencies, should also consider opportunities to target these communities with resources and training, and collaborate with relevant trade unions to expedite its deployment in communities.”
  • Support workforce development in the geothermal industry. – “Policymakers should support the development of industrywide training opportunities and collaborate when applicable with trade unions that perform this work. The industry should work closely with states to develop and scale up training pathways to meet this workforce demand.”

Increase awareness and education to develop geothermal markets

  • Develop guidance for policymakers, regulators, and utilities to conduct cost-benefit analyses of geothermal energy – ” Greater awareness of the firm, clean nature of geothermal energy could build more confidence in the resource and lead to utilities encouraging geothermal solicitations in their bids. DOE should develop guidance on how to incorporate the full value of geothermal projects into resource planning.”

Friday News Round-up: Wind vs. Environment and Politicians From Different Parties Agreeing

From left to right, Siemens Energy North America President Rich Voorberg, Utah Office of Energy Director Gregory Todd, Colorado Energy Office Advisor James Lester, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, Gov. Mark Gordon and Nevada Office of Energy Director Dwyane McClinton participate in a groundbreaking ceremony June 20, 2023 for the TransWest Express transmission line in Carbon County. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)

We’ve been covering the tension between protectionist interests and renewable energy developers.
Here’s a few more.

1. Prairie-Chicken Listing Expected to Put Wind Farms in Crosshairs

At TSW we can’t afford a subscription to Bloomberg Law but here’s the link for those who have access. Definitely sounds interesting.

A Biden administration proposal to list the lesser prairie-chicken as endangered in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico could stymie oil and gas development in the largest U.S. petroleum basin, environmental attorneys say.

And one warns it could devastate another energy source—wind power.

2.  Wind turbines dry soil in Chinese grasslands.

Paper by Wang et al. open access.

 Our research shows that the operation of wind turbines will cause significant drying of soil, and this drought effect differs significantly according to season and wind direction. Our results show that 1) the soil moisture within wind farms decreases most significantly, with a decrease of 4.4 % observed; 2) in summer and autumn, the declines in soil moisture in the downwind direction are significantly greater than those in the upwind direction, with the opposite occurring in spring. (3) Wind farms aggravate the soil drying in grassland areas, which may have impacts on grassland ecosystems. Therefore, when building wind farms, we need to better understand their impacts on the environment.

I’m not pointing this out to say “wind turbines are bad”; more to say that this is one piece of information that has not yet been included in future models.  With the quantity of wind turbines some project, they themselves will  have impacts on climate and need to be included in models. But we don’t know how many there will be, nor exactly the impacts.  And so it goes…

A Special TSW Feature.. Members of Both Parties Agree on..

3,  New Transmission Lines Should Take Less Than 12 Years to Get Approved and… Climate Urgency

Thanks to reporter Dustin Bleizeffer of Wyofile- the whole story is interesting. Mark Gordon is the R Governor of Wyoming.

 

Though Gordon and the Interior officials often clash on energy and federal land use policy fronts, they all hailed TransWest Express — as well as the Chokecherry Sierra Madre wind energy project that will energize the line with 3,000 megawatts of power — as vital steps toward boosting clean energy to help address a climate emergency.

“We know that the time to act on climate is now,” Haaland said. “From coastal towns and rural farms to urban centers and tribal communities, climate change poses an existential threat. Not just to our environment, but to our health, our communities and our economic well being.”

“Gathered here,” Gordon said, “we see the first steps that we’re taking to make sure that we take the action that’s absolutely necessary to keep us from climate peril.”

***

“Because there is an urgency as we see climate change, we know that we don’t have time to waste,” Gordon said. “We have to move with diligence forward to make sure that we address the issue of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with alacrity and diligence and with dedication.”

4.   We Should Use Current Information in Decisions and Note Conflicts of Interest

Roger Pielke, Jr. testified at a Congressional hearing. You can read about it on his Substack.

Here’s a place of agreement as well.

Specifically, I referred to the misuse of outdated climate scenarios and our old friends RCP8.5 and RCP4.5, which you can read about in more detail below. Readers here will know that outdated climate scenarios are a big problem.

For me, it was notable that my testimony was favorably received by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) on the right and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Tim Caine (D-VA) on the left.

In fact, in his closing remarks Senator Whitehouse read from a recent post The Honest Broker on conflicts of interest in climate research:

Experts monetizing their expertise is one important reason why people become experts, and there is no problem with people seeking to make a buck. But where expertise and financial interests intersect, things can get complicated. That is why there are robust mechanisms in place for the disclosure and mitigation of financial conflicts of interest . . . All of this is just common sense. Your doctor can’t prescribe you drugs from a company that pays him fees. You wouldn’t think much of a report on smoking and health from a researcher supported by the tobacco industry.

In case you wonder what that has to do with climate, it turns out that some papers defending RCP 8.5 happen to be from people in consulting firms whose models are based on 8.5 and are advising their clients based on 8.5.  Which is not wrong, necessarily, as Whitehouse says, but needs to be disclosed.