The Bureau of Land Management’s proposal to expand its Western solar energy initiative should be modified to carve out big game migration routes and critical wintering habitat in Wyoming, according to several conservation groups.
But the agency’s “programmatic” environmental impact statement at least provides a high-level blueprint to avoid piecemeal leasing decisions that often lead to conservation and energy development conflicts, they say.
“So often our work is defined by being reactive to circumstances and policies we really didn’t have any control over,” Wyoming Outdoor Council Energy and Climate Policy Director John Burrows said. “This is an exception to that and a really neat opportunity for us to be weighing in proactively to reduce conflict.”
The deadline for public comment on the BLM’s Western Solar Plan is April 18. (Click here to learn more about the proposal, and click here to submit a comment to the BLM.)
The BLM wants to increase solar energy production on federal lands 15-fold over the next 20 years, from about 9,200 megawatts to 130,000 megawatts, according to the agency. BLM’s proposal includes five alternatives for where it might offer leases for industrial-scale solar energy development, including the 18 million surface acres the agency manages in Wyoming.
The agency’s preferred plan, Alternative 3, would offer up about 3 million acres for solar energy leases in Wyoming (an area roughly the same size as Campbell County). However, the agency anticipates that commercial demand for solar energy on BLM lands in Wyoming is not likely to surpass 30,000 acres, based on market analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy.
“The purpose of this whole effort is to identify and hone in on where projects should be and should not be sited,” Burrows told attendees of a public webinar hosted earlier this month by the Wyoming Outdoor Council and The Nature Conservancy.
“We feel, unequivocally, that there is enough room for 30,000 acres of solar development on public lands to be sited in a way that’s not heavily impactful to wildlife and conservation resources in the state of Wyoming,” said Justin Loyka, The Nature Conservancy’s energy program manager in Wyoming.
Reached for comment, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association told WyoFile it has concerns regarding the BLM’s solar energy initiative, particularly “when it removes land from livestock grazing,” the association’s Executive Vice President Jim Magagna said.
Solar energy facilities can be adapted to coincide with livestock grazing — especially sheep, Magagna said. But that’s mostly a prospect afforded to private landowners who can negotiate such terms. “As I understand the BLM [plan], maintaining grazing would not be a goal of the agency.”
Increasing interest in Wyoming solar
Solar energy developers have announced several plans for large photovoltaic projects in Wyoming in recent years — mostly on private land.
Cowboy Energy’s Goshen Solar project would span some 1,200 private surface acres near Yoder to generate 163 megawatts of electricity.
Canada-based Enbridge Inc. has proposed a 400-megawatt solar and 136-megawatt battery storage project south of Cheyenne, spanning some 4,000 private surface acres.
BrightNight LLC’s proposed Dutchman Renewable Power Project, located on private land 1.5 miles northeast of Glenrock, would generate 499 megawatts of solar energy and include battery storage, according to the company.
The city of Cheyenne is in talks with developers to co-locate a 50-megawatt “cattle voltaic” solar facility on lands the city leases for grazing.
So far, there’s only one solar energy facility on BLM lands in Wyoming: Power Global’s Sweetwater Solar farm north of Green River has a generation capacity of 100 megawatts.
The flood of new interest in developing solar energy in Wyoming follows years of technological advances that make commercial-scale photovoltaics possible in more northern reaches, according to Burrows. Federal tax credits for solar energy in the Inflation Reduction Act also help make it “very cost competitive,” he said.
Now, the federal government wants to ensure that federal lands play a role in meeting congressional and Biden administration goals to boost renewable energy. But there’s a lot at stake for balancing federal ambitions to encourage renewable energy development while protecting other landscape uses and values.
“So that combination of factors is really leading to what we think will be a growth in solar energy,” Burrows said, “and a growth in solar energy that will impact our public lands.”
The Sweetwater Solar facility, for example, is a “case study” for how not to site solar energy in Wyoming, according to the Wyoming Outdoor Council.
Wildlife impacts
The Sweetwater Solar facility spans a portion of Highway 372 and occupies a migration route and crucial winter range for pronghorn. Solar facilities are required to be fenced off, which resulted in a “total habitat loss for pronghorn” and led to mass casualties, including an incident where thousands of pronghorn funneled onto the busy highway the winter after the facility was built, according to Wyoming Outdoor Council Wildlife Program Manager Meghan Riley.
“This just illustrates that it matters where we put these projects,” Riley said.
At the onset, the BLM has removed Wyoming’s sage grouse core areas from consideration for solar energy leasing — a move that conservation groups say will avoid drawn-out regulatory and legal battles. However, the BLM’s current proposal doesn’t exclude defined big game migration corridors or crucial winter habitat.
“We’re going to have to address that,” The Nature Conservancy’s Loyka said.
Several conservation groups in Wyoming say they prefer the most restrictive “Alternative 5” in the BLM’s proposal, which would limit solar leasing opportunities to within 10 miles of existing electric transmission corridors.
But even that alternative doesn’t go far enough to assuage concerns over big game winter habitat and migration routes.
The Wyoming Wilderness Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and others say they will press the BLM to exclude such vital habitats regardless of which alternative it ultimately chooses.
“We still think there needs to be more protections in those alternatives to ensure that wildlife habitats and migration routes are being protected,” Burrows said.
Good discussion and comments. This got me thinking about the benefits, advantages and disadvantages of solar versus wind. I put this question to Gemini (AI, Google):
Wyoming (and the nation, for that matter) is having a debate about the use of public BLM lands for energy production. All of that open land in Wyoming can and has been successfully used for both solar and wind generation of electricity. Both solar and wind are competitive with conventional coal and gas power plants and they are the future in terms of reducing atmospheric CO2 (global warming). However, both solar and wind energy farms are not good for agricultural grazing and the native wildlife, in different ways. The other complication is some areas are advantageous for solar (more hours of sunshine) and some areas are advantageous for wind (mountain passes). Weighing all of the pros and cons of wind and solar production of electicity, which of the two is the most economical in terms of capital cost, return on investment, and minimal impact on land usage?
Here’s what Gemini said, and they had one good idea: Minimize the land usage by co-habitating wind and solar generators. Here’s the complete response to the question:
Deciding between solar and wind energy in Wyoming depends on specific factors, but here’s a breakdown to help you weigh the options:
Land Usage:
Solar: Requires more land per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced compared to wind. Utility-scale solar farms can disrupt grazing land.
Wind: Turbines take up less space per MWh, but their footprint can disrupt grazing patterns and wildlife migration routes.
Capital Cost & Return on Investment:
Solar: Costs have been steadily decreasing, but upfront capital costs tend to be higher than wind. However, solar farms require less maintenance and have a longer lifespan.
Wind: Lower upfront costs than solar, but turbines require more ongoing maintenance and have a shorter lifespan.
Environmental Impact:
Solar: Minimal impact during operation, but manufacturing and installation can have environmental costs.
Wind: Can cause bird and bat fatalities, though newer technology is mitigating this.
Wyoming’s Advantages:
Solar: The state has excellent sunshine hours, making solar a good option in many areas.
Wind: Wyoming has strong, consistent winds in many regions, ideal for wind turbine production.
Considering these points:
Land with less grazing potential might be better suited for solar.
Areas with strong, consistent winds might be better for wind turbines.
Here’s a possible approach:
Focus on wind development in areas with high wind potential and lower grazing value.
Develop solar in areas with good sun exposure and less grazing significance.
Co-locate wind and solar farms where possible to minimize overall land impact.
Overall:
It’s difficult to say definitively which is “more economical” for Wyoming as a whole.
A balanced approach, considering wind and solar’s strengths and weaknesses, along with careful land-use planning, might be the most optimal solution.
For a more data-driven decision, further research into the specific economics of proposed wind and solar projects in Wyoming would be beneficial.
Beware of the Nature Conservancy. Smooth talkers who kowtow to this administration’s plan for solar panels and wind turbines on the public’s land to solve The Crisis. Larry Skow makes sense. Put your solar panels on existing structures. I’ve heard the Nature Conservancy tap dance around that suggestion.
Question I have is. Why don’t they put solar panels on top of every state/federal/USPS building there is and generate and sell power back into grid. With battery system they would be net generating power and get check from power company. Every city county state federal building could be used. Do something useful to taxpayers. Take load off us.
More parceling out of Wyoming. Let the sheep eat the top off every plant while they pass by. That is land management style down in old southwest Wyoming. Grift is in the air, that’s for sure. I have a question? Do Golden Eagles have an established dollar value when remains can be attributable to a certain cause? Are our raptors, owls, hawks, eagles going to be sacrificed completely. Every time there will be some kind of advance in tech, it will require surface area and the people need to do all that is possible to limit up coming development and stop further cloistering of oilfield activity at Trappers’ Point and the rest of the state.
Covering up crucial wildlife habitat is better than keeping sheep away for a few months every year? The Sweetwater Solar farm took away valuable habitat for many wildlife species without even considering the impact to a KNOWN pronghorn migration corridor. That habitat is now gone forever. In the name of green energy? Really? Tell me…what’s worse? Losing it forever, or just till the grass grows back after the sheep are gone? Just because it’s “green” doesn’t make it right. What a joke. Hypocrisy disguised as good for the world. Except for the antelope that all died. “Green” energy is all about $$$, just like oil. NO difference from my point of view.
This is concerning. We should not cover thousands of acres of the public trust with intermittent generation that has no capacity. We have not even begun to see the negative impacts. All in the name of the climate cult and lining the pockets of green grifters. With our tax dollars.