Solar moratorium full speed reverse
This being the 4th of July, we would like to bring you a story about the power of the people (and possibly their elected representatives) in a democracy. You may remember a story we did a few days ago about the gov'ment, specifically the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), putting the big freeze on solar power projects on land it controls in six Western states until a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) was completed. We told you they wanted input from the public and apparently they got an earful and because of the "concerns expressed", they have announced a sudden reversal of the moratorium policy.
In researching this story we learned it wasn't just outraged citizenry that took action on the issue. According to KVBC in Las Vegas, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had just attended the opening of a solar manufacturing plant in that city, had vowed to have the moratorium reversed this year upon hearing about it. Other reports have the senator saying it was wrong, "especially when you consider that, as we speak, tens of millions of acres are leased to oil companies for drilling."
So now that we're back to "game on" is everybody happy? Not quite. A politician in San Bernardino County, 1st District Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, has announced his displeasure (PDF). In a news release he stated, "At a time when we are trying to protect habitat, provide for recreation, maintain the expansive beauty of the desert while providing for responsible growth, not to mention the expansion of desert military bases, we cannot afford to surrender vast areas of public land to solar energy projects." We don't know the local politics of this district where 50 applications for solar installations have already been filed with the local BLM office, but think it interesting to note that commentors of an article discussing Mitzelfelt's position were under the impression that he didn't have as much concern for halting housing developments on desert land that were erected by a company they claimed was a campaign contributor to the politician. As always, we wonder what our own commentors have to make of all this.
[Source: UPI / Daily Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
EV-1 5:57PM (7/04/2008)
I Say Horay ! ! ! :)
Horay for Harry ! ! ! =)
( Short enough this time ?)
;-)
Reply
Nick 6:54PM (7/04/2008)
Brad Mitselfelt is an example of a special interest politician. His ties to housing developers make him a corrupt man. Instead of focusing on the interests of American people, he focuses on his own special interests.
Write him what you think of his loathsome agenda:
http://joinbrad.com/index.html
(click the 'CONTACT' tab on the left column)
Reply
Brent 8:46PM (7/04/2008)
Message sent! :)
diffrunt 7:32PM (7/04/2008)
A politician is an unemployable lawyer
Reply
Lad 8:36PM (7/04/2008)
Winston Churchill said it best: "Be quite when your political opponent is committing political suicide."
This guy should be exposed for who he is...another politician working with industry (housing track developers) to the detriment of the very people he represents. I urge his voters to vote him out of office. We have way too many politicians linked up with special interest at the national level...we don't need any more holdups on building critical clean power stations caused by petty local political hacks.
Reply
fnc 11:34PM (7/04/2008)
"maintain the expansive beauty of the desert"
*LOL*
I'm always amused by people who get all "OMG WE'LL COVER UP THE DESERT WITH SOLAR PANELS!" I say drop them off in the middle of the desert and leave them there for a while, then maybe they will learn what "expansive" really means.
I was glad to hear about the reversal though.
Reply
Michael 10:11AM (7/05/2008)
My first response when I heaMy first response when I heard this news was excitement, but at the same time, I am slightly worried. Just because a company is installing solar does not mean that they are moral and conscious of the environment.
I worked on EIS statements on both the side of the government and for companies for many years and even though they come with a lot of fluff, do cover many important factors. What will they do if there is a gas spill? What roads will they take to the installation site (most likely there will not be any)? Are there any endangered species in the area?
I believe all of these questions have relatively easy solutions, but ones that have to have a response if the problem occurs. I don't think this is nearly as complicated as a pipeline that crosses 2,000 miles and 900 water bodies, but that it still has questions that need to be answered before installation begins.rd this news was excitement.
Michael
Reply
kballs 2:16PM (7/07/2008)
I think the point learned from all of this is to hold solar installations to the same standard as housing developments, oil drilling, etc. It has been shown the BLM is not imposing some environmental impact study period for it's oil leases, so it doesn't make sense to impose them for solar at this time.
You can't be extra careful and concerned about the impacts of solar plant construction (just because it's a new trend) but give all of the other types of existing land usage a pass (which are still on a bigger scale than solar). You have to impose standards on all parties at the same time.
Nikax 11:04AM (7/05/2008)
just to play devil's advocate: it's interesting that when, say, someone wants to mine or drill or build on federal lands, an environmental group will demand an Environmental Impact study (which, in part, greatly delays the project and adds to its cost), and when a project such as this comes along that appeals to environmental groups then the Environmental Impact statement is a tool of special interest groups. And someone the Solar Industry isn't a special interest group.
Just saying ;-)
BTW, last I checked, Harry Reid is a politician, and one of the most powerful ones.
Reply
GoodCheer 11:40PM (7/05/2008)
Guys, don't misinterpret what's going on here: And EIS is a federally mandated component of any proposed energy project of any sort. All these solar projects will have EISs just like any new coal plant or hydro dam would.
The freeze was on accepting new applications for review (applications that included EISs), meaning that they would not even consider granting any construction permits, even for projects that had crossed all their "t"s and dotted all their "i"s, and had sparkling EISs that indicated no negative impacts whatsoever.
These solar projects, which are now once again being considered, will have every bit as much regulatory oversight as any other major infrastructural project.
hodad66 1:31PM (7/05/2008)
Keep up the pressure citizens! We need alternatives now!
To heck with big oil and the MIC.
Reply
Joce03 6:35PM (7/05/2008)
I especially like the "not to mention the expansion of desert military bases" argument! I may be wrong, but if there is one thing America has enough of, its military bases.
Reply
huston 9:50PM (7/05/2008)
"At a time when we are trying to... ...maintain the expansive beauty of the desert while providing for responsible growth, not to mention the expansion of desert military bases..."
Wait. What?! Maintaining the beauty of the desert goes hand-in-hand with expanding military bases since when?
Seriously...I'm not going to get in to the political argument angle of all this because I could go on all day...but just using logic to argue this one, what's more important? More soldiers or a more sustainable energy source than coal?
Reply