Where should California build large-scale solar projects? Here’s how to weigh in | Opinion
As California scrambles to reach its statewide climate goals — to conserve 30% of California lands and coastal waters by 2030 and to completely transition to renewable energy by 2045 — the Bureau of Land Management is drafting new guidelines on where it will site large-scale solar projects on public lands in the west.
Regulators and conservationists alike are asking the same question: How can we balance the need for renewable energy with our responsibility to protect nature from large-scale development projects?
On one hand, there’s the very real threat of climate catastrophe. With increasingly dangerous temperatures and the ever-increasing threat of drought and wildfires, Californians have become acutely aware of this threat.
To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we’re quickly building renewable energy infrastructure. In many cases, this means utility-scale solar farms — large plots of land where solar panels stretch into the horizon. Just one of these large-scale projects can provide enough electricity to power tens of thousands of homes.
Opinion
But some of these solar farms are on track to be built on undisturbed, ecologically important lands, potentially accelerating the extinction of species like the sage grouse and desert tortoise in a well-intentioned attempt to solve our climate crisis.
Other land-sparing forms of renewable energy like rooftop solar have made steady progress in California. But relying on them will not be enough to hit our ambitious climate goals. Indeed, California is already falling behind in hitting those goals. If we want to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, utility-scale solar must be part of the picture.
Again, there’s the question: How do we support the growth of renewable energy while still recognizing the critical need to protect natural ecosystems and communities?
Right now, the Bureau of Land Management is grappling with this daunting challenge by updating their framework for where solar can (and can’t) be developed on public lands in the west, including many areas right here in California. The agency will evaluate five “alternatives,” each of which would use different criteria to open varying amounts of public land to solar development applications
The Bureau’s efforts are commendable and come at a time when the agency is also in the process of finalizing its “Public Lands Rule” to put conservation, recreation and cultural resource protection on equal footing with other uses of public lands after decades of prioritizing extractive industries. The agency’s solar plan is one opportunity to embrace this bold vision and advance both the Biden administration’s — and California’s — climate and conservation goals.
At the Sierra Club, one of the country’s largest and most influential environmental groups, we’ve been working to achieve the right balance. We believe large-scale renewable development should be prioritized on structures or lands that have already been degraded from their natural state and remain impacted, disturbed or degraded by human activities. It is critical that local communities —especially those historically impacted by fossil fuel pollution — are engaged, and that Tribal Nations are meaningfully consulted in the development process.
When it comes to the Bureau of Land Management’s Solar Plan, it has an option (known as “Alternative 5”) that embodies these principles best. This option focuses on solar development on previously disturbed lands close to transmission lines and leaves far more land available for solar development than the 700,000 acres necessary to meet our critical climate commitments.
There’s an urgent need right now to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management gets this right. Anyone interested in helping them do so should submit a public comment to the agency in support of Alternative 5 by their April 18 deadline.
Barbara Leary is the chair of the Sacramento Chapter of the Sierra Club.
