The Biden administration, continuing its new environmental policy initiatives on public lands in the western U.S., is proposing financial incentives for developing wind and solar energy projects on federal land. The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management last week (June 15) moved to substantially cut fees for use of its land and streamline review of applications for renewable energy uses.
The proposed rule would “adjust acreage rents and capacity fees for solar and wind energy, provide the BLM with more flexibility in how it processes applications for solar and wind energy development inside designated leasing areas, and update agency criteria on prioritizing solar and wind applications.” The new policies would amend BLM’s existing right-of-way regulations under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The proposed rule has a 60-day comment period, with three public meetings set.
In a news release, BLM said the new rule would “reduce fees for these projects by around 80%, facilitate development in priority areas by streamlining review of applications, and deliver greater certainty for the private sector.” BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning, a Montanan, said, “Our public lands are playing a critical role in the clean energy transition. This proposed rule would allow the BLM to continue leading the way on renewable energy while furthering President Biden’s commitment to building a clean energy economy, tackling the climate crisis, promoting American energy security, and creating jobs in communities across the country.”
The Biden administration’s BLM has approved 10 solar projects, 8 geothermal projects, and 17 transmission gen-tie projects connecting renewable projects to the grid, on approximately 23,396 acres of BLM-managed public lands. BLM says these projects “are expected to produce 8,160 megawatts of electricity.”
BLM says it is processing 74 utility-scale clean energy projects proposed on public lands in the west, including solar, wind, and geothermal projects, “as well as interconnected gen-tie lines that are vital to clean energy development on non-federal land.” The projects could add up to 37 GW of renewable generation to the western electric grid.
The new rulemaking is the second recent BLM proposal to move the agency and the Interior Department away from the Trump administration’s legacy as a handmaiden to entrenched economic and political interests in the west. In April, BLM proposed a rule that would add conservation as a valid use of federal land as part of the law’s provisions for “multiple use” of its holdings. At the time, BLM said, “The proposed Public Lands Rule provides tools for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to improve the resilience of public lands in the face of a changing climate; conserve important wildlife habitat and intact landscapes; plan for development; and better recognize unique cultural and natural resources on public lands.”
The April initiative has been getting a lot of backlash from the west, leading BLM to extend the comment period on the rulemaking to July 5, adding 15 days to the opportunity to comment, for a total of 90 days. BLM’s Stone-Manning said BLM has received many comments during the first 75 days, with five public meetings. “This extension will allow us to continue to work with the public to make sure that the final rule is durable and effective,” Stone-Manning said.
Traditionally dominant ranching, farming, and mineral interests in exploiting BLM lands, overwhelmingly Republican, have been railing about the conservation rule. The Brownstein law firm commented, “Opponents of the proposed rule are concerned that it would accelerate the degree to which multiple uses are being minimized on public land in favor of conservation becoming the predominant management priority. They would argue that this runs counter to the original intent of Congress under FLPMA and that the hundreds of millions of acres already withdrawn from the public domain were to ensure that there were indeed landscape-level conservation protections in the form of national parks, wildlife refuges, national monuments, wilderness areas and other special designations, including those protected through land use planning actions. Further, it would be highly unusual to expect that any lands that are designated to be managed for conservation purposes are ever subsequently available for multiple uses, including any extractive purpose.”
Six western governors – South Dakota’s Kristi Noem, Idaho’s Brad Little, Montana’s Greg Gianforte, Nevada’s Joe Lombardo, Utah’s Spencer Cox, and Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon on June 14 wrote to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland criticizing the conservation proposal. They wrote, “The Proposed Rule could push BLM lands into a protection-oriented management regime more akin to the National Park Service than an agency statutorily obligated to promote multiple use and sustained yield.”
In Congress, Utah Rep. John Curtis, vice chairman of the House National Resources Committee’s federal lands subcommittee, is spearheading legislation to block the BLM conservation rule, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. The newspaper wrote, “If passed, Curtis’ bill, HR3397, would call on BLM to withdraw the rule. The other three members of Utah’s U.S. House Delegation have signed on as co-sponsors. The bill would also prevent BLM from implementing a similar rule in the future.”
The Curtis legislation is unlikely to become law.
–Kennedy Maize