[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICAN ENERGY INITIATIVE:
IDENTIFYING ROADBLOCKS TO
WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY ON
PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS,
PART I--DOI OFFICIALS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Friday, May 13, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-362 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, May 13, 2011............................. 1
Statement of Members:
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Abbey, Hon. Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 43
Bromwich, Hon. Michael R., Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of
the Interior............................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Additional materials supplied:
Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, Letter submitted for the record to
President Obama from various environmentalists,
conservationists, and clean energy advocates in support of
development of offshore wind along the Atlantic Seaboard
dated March 7, 2011........................................ 34
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ``AMERICAN ENERGY INITIATIVE: IDENTIFYING
ROADBLOCKS TO WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY ON PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS, PART
I--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICIALS.''
----------
Friday, May 13, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:28 a.m. in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn,
[Acting Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Bishop, Thompson, Tipton,
Labrador, Fleischmann, Runyan, Markey, Holt, Costa, Sablan,
Lujan, and Pierluisi.
Chairman Lamborn. The Chairman notes the presence of a
quorum, which under Rule 3(e) is two Members. The Committee on
Natural Resources is meeting today to hear testimony, and
before I talk about the specifics there, a couple of points of
personal privilege.
I would like to say first of all that our thoughts are with
Chairman Doc Hastings, who is laid up back in Washington, and
not feeling well, but I think he is improving. He had some
medical issues. So that is why he could not be here today, and
he would want to, and that is why I an filling in.
And I want to thank also our two important witnesses for
being here. We wanted to start right on time, but we had votes
interfering with our schedule, and so thank you for your
patience and being here right now.
OK. The hearing today is titled ``American Energy
Initiative: Identifying Roadblocks to Wind and Solar Energy on
Public Lands and Waters, Part One--Department of the Interior
Officials.''
Now, under Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee. However, I ask
for unanimous consent to include any other Members opening
statements in the hearing record if submitted to the Clerk by
close of business today. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
And now I recognize myself for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Chairman Lamborn. This week the House took important action
to expand American energy production by passing three
bipartisan offshore drilling bills. These bills will unlock our
oil and natural gas resources that have been placed off-limits
by the Obama Administration, create 1.2 million jobs, and
reduce foreign imports by one-third.
There are different perspectives on it, and maybe that will
be part of our discussion here today, but that is my
perspective. These bills represented the first important steps.
However, our work on this Committee is just beginning.
As Chairman Hastings has repeatedly said, there will be an
array of energy bills coming from this Committee as part of the
House Republican's American energy initiative that will focus
on expanding all types of energy production, including
renewable.
The Obama Administration has taken steps to increase
production of both wind and solar power, and we recognize that.
However, there are significant questions about the
implementation of these policies, and today we will examine
roadblocks to the development of wind and solar power on public
lands.
Our Federal lands are intended to be multiple-use lands,
open to recreation, energy production, and other types of job-
creating activities. Yet, too often we have seen attempts by
Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to place
our public lands off-limits to any type of economic activity.
This costs jobs and blocks crucial American energy
production. I understand that the Obama Administration has an
inherent distrust and opposition to conventional fossil fuels,
and that environmental concerns, even highly speculative,
unprovable speculations about the climate of the future, seem
to trump the everyday concerns of average Americans here and
now, such as jobs, affordable gasoline, and lessening our
reliance on foreign sources.
I disagree totally with that perspective, but I understand
it. What I don't understand is how catering to
environmentalists has even seemed to put the brakes on
alternative sources of energy, like solar and wind power.
The United States has some promising areas, especially in
the West, for solar energy development. The Obama
Administration claims that solar energy production is one of
its highest priorities. Yet, only a tiny fraction of public
land is even being considered for this use, and almost nothing
has actually been made available.
The Bureau of Land Management has created 24 solar energy
zones on public lands in six western States. However, of the
120 million acres of BLM land in these States, only 674,400
acres have been identified by the Administration as proposed
solar energy zones.
This means that the Interior Department is offering less
than one percent of this land for streamlined solar energy
production. Access to public lands is not the only hurdle
facing renewable energy projects.
Regulatory confusion, lawsuits, and permitting delays are
also stifling wind and solar development. For example, Bright
Source Energy's solar project in California was halted by the
BLM over last minute concerns regarding tortoises.
This suspension of the project came after the company had
already invested millions of dollars, and had gone through the
required permitting process. In 2010, BLM issued new policy
requiring approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service on
specific plans for addressing eagles.
This sudden change in policy resulted in significant delays
to numerous wind projects, and the wind industry estimated that
this rule cost $68 billion in wind power investment.
The Obama Administration has launched a ``Smart From the
Start'' wind initiative for Federal waters in the Atlantic. As
part of this initiative the Department issued a request for
interest on the potential for wind development in an area
located off of Massachusetts.
Despite receiving 11 submissions from 10 companies
expressing interest in leasing this area, the Administration
decided to reduce the area size by half. These are all examples
of what appear to be unnecessary roadblocks to renewable energy
production.
If changes need to be made to ensure these projects are
more than just talk and actually become reality, the Natural
Resources Committee is prepared to act. It quite frankly
boggles the mind that some of the biggest so-called proponents
of renewable energy are often the same people filing lawsuits
blocking renewable development.
But just because the environmental communities are actually
very fractured, and riddled with inconsistencies, doesn't mean
that Federal agencies should be paralyzed and ineffective.
Steps should be taken to reduce the regulatory uncertainty,
expedite the permitting process, and remove roadblocks in order
to appropriately expand the development of energy projects on
public lands.
I do thank again Director Michael Bromwich and Director Bob
Abbey for taking the time to be here today. I look forward to
your testimony, and exploring ways that we can work together to
overcome obstacles to renewable energy production on Federal
lands. And at this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking
Member for five minutes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Subcommittee Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
This week the House took important action to expand American energy
production by passing three bipartisan offshore drilling bills. These
bills will unlock our oil and natural gas resources that have been
placed off-limits by the Obama Administration, create 1.2 million jobs
and reduce foreign imports by one-third.
These bills represented the first important steps, however our work
on this Committee is just beginning. As Chairman Hastings has
repeatedly said, there will be an array of energy bills coming from
this Committee as part of House Republicans' American Energy Initiative
that will focus on expanding all types of energy production--including
renewable.
The Obama Administration has taken steps to increase production of
both wind and solar power, and we applaud them for that. However there
are still questions about the implementation of these policies and
today we'll examine roadblocks to the development of wind and solar
power.
Our federal lands are intended to be multiple-use lands--open to
recreation, energy production and other types of job-creating
activities. Yet too often we've seen attempts by Congressional
Democrats and the Obama Administration to place our public lands off-
limits to any type of economic activity. This costs jobs and blocks
crucial American energy production.
The United States has some of the most promising areas, especially
in the West, for solar energy development. The Obama Administration
claims solar energy production is one of its highest priorities, yet
only a tiny fraction of public land is even being considered for
opening and almost nothing has actually been made available.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has created 24 ``solar energy
zones'' on public lands in six Western states. However, of the 120
million acres of BLM land in these states, only 674,400 acres have been
identified by the Administration as proposed solar energy zones. This
means that the Interior Department is offering less than 1 percent of
this land for streamlined solar energy production.
Access to public lands is not the only hurdle facing renewable
energy projects. Regulatory confusion, lawsuits and permitting delays
are also stifling wind and solar development. For example:
BrightSource Energy's solar project in California was
halted by the BLM over last minute concerns regarding
tortoises. This suspension of the project came after the
company had already invested millions of dollars and had gone
through the required permitting process.
In 2010, BLM issued new policy requiring approval
from the Fish and Wildlife Service on specific plans for
addressing eagles. This sudden change in policy resulted in
significant delays to numerous wind projects and the wind
industry estimated that this rule cost $68 billion in wind
power investment.
The Obama Administration has launched a ``Smart from
the Start'' wind energy initiative for federal waters in the
Atlantic. As part of this initiative, the Department issued a
Request for Interest on the potential for wind development in
an area located off of Massachusetts. Despite receiving 11
submissions from 10 companies expressing interest in leasing
this area, the Administration decided to reduce the area size
by half.
These are all examples of what appear to be unnecessary roadblocks
to renewable energy production.
If changes need to be made to ensure these projects are more than
just talk and actually become reality, the Natural Resources Committee
is prepared to act. It quite frankly boggles the mind that some of the
biggest so-called proponents of renewable energy are of often the exact
same people filing lawsuits blocking renewable development.
Steps should be taken to reduce the regulatory uncertainly,
expedite the permitting process and remove roadblocks in order to
quickly and efficiently expand the development of energy projects on
public lands.
I want to thank Director Michael Bromwich and Director Bob Abbey
for taking the time to be here today. I look forward to your testimony
and exploring ways we can work together to overcome obstacles to
renewable energy production on federal lands.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman, and first of all, as we
turn our attention to renewable energy, I hope that Chairman
Hastings is successfully renewing his health back home in
Washington. Our thoughts and prayers are with him for a speedy
recovery.
America's public lands and waters are a virtually untapped
clean energy reserve, holding some of the world's best wind and
solar resources. Yet, in the first five months of this
Congress, renewable energy has been an invisible issue with the
Republican majority.
The majority claims to be for ``All 'of the Above,'' yet
have been entirely subsumed by their ``Oil Above All''
approach. This Committee has now passed three bills on the
House Floor, and not one includes anything on wind. Not one
includes anything about solar, or geothermal, or hydropower, or
anything but oil.
This is a continuation of the energy policy under President
Bush. Now, during the eight years of the Bush-Cheney Clean
Energy Moratorium, the Interior Department issued more than
40,000 permits to drill for oil and gas on public lands.
But of the more than 300 applications to build solar
facilities that came in during that time of the Bush
Administration, up until January 20th of 2009, exactly zero
applications were approved for solar, and only five wind
permits were approved.
Fortunately, as we will hear today, leveraging America's
renewable resources on public lands has become a top priority
at the Interior Department under the Obama Administration
because they have now lifted the permit moratorium on wind and
solar on public lands.
The largest solar power plant in the world, the first
offshore wind farm in America, and up to 10,000 megawatts of
other renewable energy projects, will soon commence
construction, all on America's public lands and waters.
The 3,800 megawatts of wind and solar projects permitted
just last year under the Obama Administration is 13 times more
than what was permitted during the entire eight years of the
Bush Administration.
I commend the Interior Department and our witnesses here
today on this progress, but I do believe that much more must be
done. The permitting time for wind and solar is measured in
months, and sometimes years, while the time for oil and gas
drilling permits is measured in weeks.
And you don't need a blowout preventer on a solar panel.
Wind turbines don't spill anything but wind. To even the
playing field, the Department needs to work with stakeholders
to complete the planning activities that will put the wind and
solar project permitting schedule on par with oil and gas.
This will take a greater budgeting commitment than we have
seen thus far from the majority. Earlier this week, the
Republican Appropriators set a funding mark for Interior and
the Environment that is nearly $4 billion short of the
President's request. That will not help get wind and solar
projects online faster.
Beginning with the voyage of the Pilgrims in 1620, millions
of people have ridden the strong winds of the North Atlantic to
my home State of Massachusetts, in search of greater freedom
and opportunity.
Today, those same winds are attracting investors, driving
technology development, and creating good-paying jobs. Later
this year, the Cape Wind project plans to begin planting 130
turbines, totaling 468 megawatts into the waters off the shores
of Massachusetts.
It will ultimately produce 75 percent of the power for Cape
Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. At this point, Cape Wind
won't be held back by a permit from the Interior Department, or
a power purchase agreement with the utility.
But it could be scuttled by a lack of financing. Like many
first-of-their-kind energy projects, financing support will be
critical to help Cape Wind secure the necessary private
investment.
Yet, under Republican budget plans, the only technology
worthy of Federal financing support is nuclear power. The
Republican 2011 spending plan in H.R. 1 actually rescinded the
$25 billion in loan guarantees authority for solar, and wind,
and Smart Grid, and efficiency, while keeping $22.5 billion
available for nuclear power. That is unbelievable.
It is ill-conceived policy decisions such as these that can
keep America from fully leveraging wind and solar power. This
is a very important hearing that we are having today, and I
hope the first of many on the subject. I thank the witnesses
for being here. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
First of all, as we turn our attention to renewable energy today, I
hope that Chairman Hastings is successfully renewing his health back
home in Washington. Our thoughts and prayers are with him for a speedy
recovery.
America's public lands and waters are a virtually untapped clean
energy reserve, holding some of the world's best wind and solar
resources. Yet in the first 5 months of this Congress, renewable energy
has been an invisible issue with the Republican majority.
Republicans claim to be for ``All of the Above,'' yet have been
entirely subsumed by their ``Oil Above All'' approach. This committee
has now passed three bills on the House floor, and not one includes
anything on wind. Not one includes anything about solar, geothermal,
hydropower or anything but oil.
This is a continuation of the energy policy under President Bush.
During the 8 years of the Bush-Cheney Clean Energy Moratorium, the
Interior Department issued more than 40,000 permits to drill for oil
and gas on public lands. But of the more than 300 applications to build
solar facilities that came in during that time, exactly zero were
approved. And only 5 wind permits were approved.
Fortunately, as we will hear today, leveraging America's renewable
resources on public lands has become a top priority at the Interior
Department under the Obama administration.
The largest solar power plant in the world, the first offshore wind
farm in America, and up to 10,000 megawatts of other renewable energy
projects will soon commence construction, all on America's public lands
and waters.
The 3,800 megawatts of wind and solar projects permitted just last
year under the Obama Administration is 13 times more than what was
permitted during the entire 8 years of the Bush administration.
I commend the Interior Department and our witnesses here today,
Director Abbey and Director Bromwich, on this progress. But I do
believe much more must be done.
The permitting time for wind and solar is measured in months and
sometimes years, while the time for oil and gas drilling permits is
measured in weeks. And you don't need a blowout preventer on a solar
panel. Wind turbines don't spill anything but wind.
To even the playing field, the Department needs to work with
stakeholders to complete the planning activities that will put the wind
and solar project permitting schedule on par with oil and gas.
This will take greater budgeting commitment than we've seen thus
far from the majority. Earlier this week, the Republican Appropriators
set a funding mark for Interior and the Environment that is nearly $4
billion short of the President's request. That will not help get wind
and solar projects online faster.
Beginning with the voyage of the Pilgrims in 1620, millions of
people have ridden the strong winds of the North Atlantic to my home
state of Massachusetts in search of greater freedom and opportunity.
Today, those same winds are attracting investors, driving technology
development, and creating good-paying jobs.
Later this year, the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts plans to
begin planting 130 turbines, totaling 468 megawatts, into the waters
off the shores of Massachusetts. It will ultimately produce 75 percent
of the power for Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket.
At this point, Cape Wind won't be held back by a permit from the
Interior Department or a power purchase agreement with a utility. But
it could be scuttled by a lack of financing. Like many first-of-their-
kind energy projects, financing support will be critical to help Cape
Wind secure necessary private investment.
Yet under Republican budget plans, the only technology worthy of
federal financing support is nuclear power. The Republican 2011
spending plan in H.R. 1 actually rescinded $25 billion in loan
guarantee authority for solar, wind, smartgrid, and efficiency while
keeping $22.5 billion available for nuclear power.
It is ill conceived policy decisions such as these that could keep
America from fully leveraging wind and solar power.
This is a very important hearing we're having today and, I hope,
the first of many on the subject. I thank the witnesses for being here
today and look forward to their testimony.
______
Chairman Lamborn. And thank you, Representative Markey, for
your comments, and now we will launch into witness statements.
As you probably already are aware, you are very experienced at
this, your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
record.
So we ask that your oral statements be limited to five
minutes. You need to hit the microphone switch before you talk,
and once again I will just say we have The Honorable Bob Abbey,
Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and The Honorable
Michael R. Bromwich, Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Thank you again, and
Mr. Abbey, you may start.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Abbey. Well, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss renewable
energy development on America's public lands. Since the
beginning of his tenure, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
has made the development of renewable energy one of his top
priorities.
As the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, I share
this goal and am pleased to report that the BLM is making great
strides in this effort. We are ensuring environmental
stewardship of our public lands, while fulfilling America's
potential for our future powered by renewable energy.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress established a
goal of permitting 10,000 megawatts of non-hydropower renewable
energy on public lands by the year 2015. It is the goal of this
Administration to permit this amount by 2012, three years ahead
of schedule.
In 2009, the BLM instituted a ``fast track'' process that
identified existing renewable project applications that were
far enough along in the permit approval process to be completed
by the end of 2010.
By year's end, the BLM had approved nine solar, one wind,
and two geothermal projects. Together, these 12 projects have a
permitting capacity of almost 4,000 megawatts.
The BLM has positioned itself to build on last year's
successes. In March of this year, the BLM announced 20 projects
on the 2011 priority list; 10 solar, 5 wind, and 4 geothermal.
In total, these 20 projects represent over 4,000 megawatts of
renewable energy potential.
All renewable energy projects proposed for BLM managed
lands will receive the full environmental review required by
the National Environmental Policy Act, and include
opportunities for public involvement.
The BLM and our partners within the Department of the
Interior engage in ongoing coordination and consultation
throughout the priority project process. The aim is to
effectively identify potential conflicts with projects early in
the process in order to focus permitting efforts on projects
that have the fewest conflicts, and are the most likely to be
approved.
In order to achieve the goals set by Secretary Salazar, we
have implemented a number of policies and engaged in program
level environmental analysis designed to ensure that renewable
energy development occurs in an environmentally responsible
manner, and that the American people receive a fair return for
the use of their natural resources.
The BLM has successfully used a programmatic environmental
impact statement process to evaluate BLM wide programs for
geothermal and wind energy, and we are now in the process of
completing one for the solar energy development program.
These programmatic EIS documents examine a range of
alternatives for establishing renewable energy programs on
suitable BLM managed lands, and amend resource management plans
necessary first step before the BLM can authorize specific
projects.
The BLM and the Department of Energy jointly published the
draft programmatic EIS for solar in December of 2010. The
public comment period for the solar programmatic EIS closed on
May 2, after two extensions to encourage greater input.
The BLM is currently reviewing comments and will use the
public's input to help determine the best path forward. We have
also recently implemented a number of policies regarding
renewable energy development.
These policies clarify NEPA documentation requirements and
expectations. They streamline the project application review
and approval process, and strengthen plan of development and
due diligence requirements.
We have established our renewable energy coordination
offices throughout the Western United States. These offices
have facilitated the efficient processing of applications for
large scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects.
Finally, there are also a number of BLM, State, and local
land use planning efforts underway to facilitate the future
development of renewable energy, including the BLM's Arizona
Restoration and Design Program, which is evaluating and
analyzing the potential of previously disturbed or contaminated
lands for solar energy development.
In closing, we are proud of the work that we have
accomplished in order to stand up a renewable energy program,
and a portfolio of projects that reflect the incredible
resource potential of America's public lands. Can we do better?
You bet we can, and we intend to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions that
the Committee Members may have at the appropriate time. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:]
Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Director,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss renewable energy
development on America's public lands. Since the beginning of his
tenure, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has made the development
of the New Energy Frontier on America's public lands one of his top
priorities. As Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), I share
that goal and I am pleased to report that the BLM is making great
strides in this effort--approving renewable energy projects on public
lands that will power millions of American homes, as well as
instituting ``smart from the start'' policies that ensure environmental
stewardship of our public lands while fulfilling America's potential
for a future powered by renewable energy.
The BLM is leading the nation toward the New Energy Frontier with
active solar, wind, and geothermal energy programs. In 2010, the BLM
approved the first nine large-scale solar energy projects on public
lands. These projects will have an installed capacity of 3,600
megawatts, enough to power close to 1 million homes, and will create
thousands of jobs. Additionally, the BLM has 29 authorized wind energy
projects on the public lands with a total of 437 megawatts of installed
wind power capacity. Geothermal energy development on the public lands,
meanwhile, with an installed capacity of 1,275 MW, accounts for nearly
half of U.S. geothermal energy capacity.
The BLM is working with local communities, state regulators,
industry, and other Federal agencies to build a clean energy future by
permitting the environmentally responsible development of renewable
energy on public lands. The BLM's groundbreaking work reflects a policy
approach that focuses on environmentally-responsible development of
renewable energy resources on the public lands with a fair return to
the American people for the use of their resources.
In his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, President Obama
charged the nation to make itself ``more secure and control our energy
future by harnessing all of the resources that we have available and
embracing a diverse energy portfolio.'' That call to action
specifically mentioned the accomplishments of the BLM and the DOI. This
testimony describes not only how far we have come in two short years to
answering this call, but also how we have laid the groundwork necessary
for a secure energy future powered by the nation's renewable energy
resources.
Renewable Energy Authorizations & Priority Project List
Promoting renewable energy on public lands is one of this
Administration's and this Department's highest priorities. In Section
211 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Congress declared that
before 2015 the Secretary of the Interior should seek to have approved
non-hydropower renewable energy projects (solar, wind, and geothermal)
on public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts
of electricity. It is the goal of this Administration to meet this goal
by 2012--three years ahead of schedule.
In 2009, the BLM instituted a ``fast track'' process that
identified existing renewable project applications that were far enough
along in the permit approval process to be completed by the end of
2010. These projects underwent full and comprehensive environmental
review and public comment periods before the BLM made permitting
decisions. While the BLM did not permit every project, in 2010, the BLM
approved 9 solar projects capable of generating 3,600 megawatts of
electricity. Additionally, in 2010 the BLM approved one wind project
and two geothermal projects through the ``fast track'' process with a
combined capacity of over 200 megawatts.
The BLM has positioned itself to build on last year's successes and
continues to move toward the goal of approving 10,000 megawatts of
renewable energy projects by the end of 2012. In March of this year,
the BLM announced 20 projects on the 2011 priority project list--ten
solar, five wind, and five geothermal projects. To be a priority
project, an applicant must demonstrate to the BLM, among other things,
that the project has progressed far enough to formally start the
environmental review and the public participation process. A 2011
priority project must also have the potential to be cleared for
approval by the end of 2011. The BLM is working to identify those
projects that are sited in areas that minimize impacts to the
environment.
All renewable energy projects proposed for BLM-managed lands will
receive the full environmental review required by the National
Environmental Policy Act, and include opportunities for public
involvement.
In total, these 20 projects represent over 4,000 megawatts of
renewable energy potential: 2,950 megawatts for the ten solar projects;
1,000 megawatts for the five wind projects, and 500 megawatts for the
five geothermal projects. The first of these projects, the 62-megawatt
Coyote Canyon geothermal project in Nevada was approved in March of
this year. Potential output on some of these projects may change
depending on the analysis and review of each project.
The priority list was developed using a collaborative process that
emphasized early consultation. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service provided input to the priority list.
Additionally, the BLM and its partners within the Department of the
Interior engage in ongoing coordination and consultation throughout the
priority project process. This coordination and consultation is
achieved in part through the Department's renewable energy coordination
group, which meets on a weekly basis to discuss current projects and
potential cross-jurisdictional issues that arise with these complex
authorizations. This group has been effective in identifying potential
conflicts with projects early in the process in order to focus
permitting efforts on projects that have the fewest conflicts and are
most likely to be approved.
``Smart from the Start'' Policies
In order to achieve the goals set by Congress and Secretary
Salazar, the BLM has implemented a number of policies and engaged in
program-level environmental analysis designed to ensure that renewable
energy development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner and
that the American people receive a fair return for the use of their
natural resources.
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements
The BLM has successfully used the Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) process to evaluate BLM-wide programs for geothermal
and wind energy, and is in the process of completing one for solar
energy development. A PEIS evaluates the environmental impacts of broad
agency actions, such as the development of major programs or the
setting of national policies. These PEIS documents examine a range of
alternatives for establishing renewable energy programs on suitable
BLM-managed land and amend resource management plans (RMP), a necessary
first step before specific projects can be authorized on BLM-managed
lands.
The BLM published the Wind Energy PEIS in 2005.The Record of
Decision amended 52 RMPs and identified over 20 million acres of BLM-
managed land as being suitable for wind energy development. The
decision also established policies and best management practices for
the administration of wind energy development activities and
established minimum requirements for mitigation measures.
The BLM published the Geothermal PEIS in 2008.The Record of
Decision amended 114 RMPs and allocated about 111 million acres of
Bureau-managed public lands as open for geothermal leasing. An
additional 79 million acres of National Forest System lands are also
open for geothermal leasing and administration by the BLM.
The BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) jointly published
the Draft Solar Energy PEIS in December of 2010. The Draft Solar Energy
PEIS estimates that up to 214,000 acres of public land could be needed
over the next 20 years for solar energy projects. Under the study's
Preferred Alternative, the BLM would establish a new Solar Energy
Program that would standardize and streamline the authorization process
and establish mandatory design features for solar energy development on
BLM lands. Under this proposal, the BLM would establish Solar Energy
Zones (SEZ's) within a larger area of approximately 22 million acres
that would remain open to solar energy right-of-way applications. The
proposed SEZs studied in detail in the Draft PEIS included about
677,400 acres preliminarily identified as areas most appropriate for
development, containing the highest solar energy potential and few
known environmental and resource conflicts. The analyses of the
proposed SEZs presented in the Draft Solar Energy PEIS shows that some,
but not all of those areas, would be good places for solar projects.
The BLM intends to prioritize solar energy development within SEZs
carried forward in the final record of decision, and projects located
in those areas would benefit from a more efficient, streamlined
permitting process. After two thirty-day extensions designed to
encourage greater public input, the public comment period for the Solar
PEIS closed on May 2. The BLM is currently reviewing comments and
suggestions and will use the public's input to help determine the best
path forward.
Renewable Energy Program Policies
While the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements provide the
overall framework for the BLM's renewable energy programs, the BLM has
also recently implemented a number of policies regarding renewable
energy development. This field guidance clarifies National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation requirements and
expectations; streamlines the project application review and approval
process; and strengthens Plan of Development (POD) and due diligence
requirements. Additionally, the interim final rules on segregation
(discussed below) will allow the BLM to temporarily protect lands that
are being considered for wind or solar development from new mining
claims. The following is a summary of recent BLM policy guidance that
will ensure responsible development of the nation's public land
renewable energy resources:
Solar & Wind Energy Applications/Pre-Application &
Screening--The BLM believes it is important for all parties to
engage in early coordination before committing significant
resources to processing solar and wind energy development
right-of-way applications. Under this guidance, the BLM will
not accept a solar or wind energy development right-of-way
application without holding pre-application meetings. Early
coordination and review helps screen out projects with the most
serious potential environmental conflicts and helps give
priority to applications with the highest likelihood of success
in the permitting process. The BLM follows a screening and
prioritization process that will help direct development to
low-conflict areas such as previously disturbed sites, areas
adjacent to disturbed sites, and locations that minimize
construction of new roads and/or transmission lines. (BLM
Instruction Memorandum 2011-61)
NEPA Compliance for Utility-Scale Renewable Energy
Right-of-Way Authorizations--Certain renewable energy projects
(e.g., concentrated solar) on public lands are somewhat
distinct from many other types of rights of way authorizations
due to their intensity of land use and the resulting potential
for significant resource conflicts. This guidance is designed
to help BLM field managers conduct NEPA analysis for these
utility-scale renewable energy projects. The policy includes
examples and guidance applicable to renewable energy right-of-
way applications that supplement information in the BLM's NEPA
Handbook, and will assist offices that are analyzing
externally-generated, utility-scale renewable energy right-of-
way applications. (BLM Instruction Memorandum 2011-59)
Solar & Wind Energy Applications/Due Diligence--The
due-diligence requirements of right-of-way applicants for solar
and wind energy development projects on BLM-managed public
lands are updated in this guidance. There have been some
instances where land speculators have filed applications for
solar or wind energy rights-of-way, in effect, blocking
applicants with serious interests in the potential development
of solar or wind energy resources on the public lands. The BLM
can reduce the effects of speculation by applying the applicant
qualification requirements of the right-of-way regulations and
requiring the timely submittal of a POD consistent with the
requirements of the regulations. This policy also emphasizes
the review of pending applications and the rejection of any
applications where the applicant cannot demonstrate the
technical or financial capability required by the regulations.
Requiring a proof of due diligence by the applicant through the
timely submittal of an acceptable POD ensures that applicants
are not holding lands for extended periods and precluding other
applicants with serious interests in potential development of
the public lands. (BLM Instruction Memorandum 2011-60)
Renewable Energy Project Segregation Rules--In April
2011, the BLM published two rules--a proposed rule and a
temporary interim final rule--to help resolve land use
conflicts that arise when mining claims are located in a
renewable energy project right-of-way application area after
the application is submitted but before the application can be
evaluated and acted upon. The two rules grant the BLM authority
to temporarily remove lands included in a renewable energy ROW
application and lands offered for wind or solar energy
development from land appropriations such as mining claims.
Under the two published renewable energy segregation rules,
lands with ROW applications for solar or wind energy
development could be segregated to ensure no new resource
conflicts will arise with respect to mining claims. Such
segregations would only be authorized as needed and would not
necessarily cover all lands where renewable energy ROW
applications have been filed. The rules would also provide for
termination of the segregation by the BLM upon the issuance of
a decision to issue or not issue a ROW for the wind or solar
proposal. (Federal Register Docs. 2011-10017; 2011-10019)
Other Renewable Energy Program Initiatives
The BLM continues to build the framework necessary for an onshore
renewable energy program, including initiatives beyond the PEIS and
recent policy developments. The BLM's establishment of its Renewable
Energy Coordination Offices (RECOs) in Arizona, California, Nevada, and
Wyoming and teams in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and
Oregon/Washington has facilitated the efficient processing of
applications for large-scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Park Service staff are co-located in
many of the RECOs to expedite coordinated review of renewable energy
projects. These offices play an integral role in the processing and
approval of renewable energy project applications on BLM-managed lands.
BLM-Arizona's Restoration Design Energy Project, funded under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, supports the
goals of building America's renewable energy resources and protecting
and restoring treasured landscapes. The purpose of this initiative is
to evaluate and identify disturbed, contaminated, and isolated lands in
Arizona that also have high renewable energy potential. The project's
draft environmental impact statement is anticipated to be completed in
late 2011. The final environmental impact statement is expected in fall
2012. The EIS will evaluate different types of disturbed lands,
including landfills, mines, and brownfields. Land use planning efforts
are also underway by BLM in other states to facilitate the future
development of renewable energy. These efforts include the Wyoming Wind
and Transmission Study, the California Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan, and the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy
Evaluation and Land Use Plan in California.
The Department of the Interior is working closely with other
partners to facilitate and encourage the development of renewable
energy development. On July 8, 2010, Secretary Salazar and Secretary of
Energy, Steven Chu signed an interagency Memorandum of Understanding to
develop a Solar Demonstration Zone on federal lands in Nevada to
demonstrate cutting-edge solar energy technologies. The Solar
Demonstration Zone will be located in the Nevada National Security
Site, withdrawn public lands administered by DOE's National Nuclear
Security Administration. The MOU will enable the DOE to support the
demonstration of innovative solar energy technologies at a scale fully
representative of the next generation utility-scale Concentrating Solar
Power (CSP) systems. These projects will serve as proving grounds for
new CSP technologies, providing a critical link between DOE`s advanced
technology development and full-scale commercialization efforts.
Finally, the BLM is striving to provide access to remote renewable
sources and to enhance the national electricity grid to ensure
reliability as sources of renewable energy are brought online. The BLM
is meeting these challenges through its land use planning processes and
through improvements to project siting and permitting reviews. The BLM
continues to work closely on these efforts with other Federal agencies,
tribes, states, and other entities.
Conclusion
The Department of the Interior and the BLM are proud of the work we
have accomplished in order to stand up a renewable energy program and a
portfolio of projects that reflect the incredible resource potential of
America's public lands. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
______
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you so much. Director Bromwich.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. BROMWICH, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Bromwich. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Markey,
and Members of the Committee. I thank you for the opportunity
to appear here today. I want to discuss the renewable energy
program of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation
and Enforcement, and our efforts to expedite the development of
the Nation's offshore wind energy resources.
BOEMRE manages the energy and mineral resources of the
Outer Continental Shelf. The Department of Energy estimates
that the total offshore wind potential is enormous, and the
Nation's vast offshore wind resources are located close to our
largest electricity demand centers.
Offshore wind energy is capable of providing significant
energy and environmental benefits, and it would also produce
considerable direct and indirect economic benefits.
Government estimates suggest that offshore wind development
would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt
installed in United States waters, including economically
depressed port areas that could become important in fabrication
and staging areas for wind turbines.
The Obama Administration has established ambitious, but
achievable, goals for offshore wind energy development in the
United States that require focusing on three central issues.
Number one, technology development. Number two, market barrier
removal; and number three, advanced technology demonstration.
BOEMRE is working closely with other Federal agencies,
State, local, and tribal governments, and other stakeholders,
to establish an effective process for locating and permitting
offshore renewable energy projects.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided the Secretary of the
Interior with the authority to administer an OCS renewable
program. This authority was delegated to BOEMRE, and then the
Minerals Management Service in March of 2006.
And in April of 2009, BOEMRE's final OCS renewable energy
regulatory framework was issued. The regulatory framework is a
comprehensive approach to managing the full scope of OCS
renewable energy activities, including an initial study and
leasing, site characterization and assessment, project
construction and operation, and cessation and decommissioning.
The framework reflects a renewable energy program based on
the following principles. First, consultation and coordination
with stakeholders of all kinds. Second, application of the
regulatory framework in the context of interagency planning
activities. Third, focusing on the multiple uses of the OCS,
and fourth, achievement of our program goals.
This framework and our process require us to work with a
wide array of stakeholders. Our most valuable consultation and
coordination tools have been a State-by-State intergovernmental
task forces.
They bring together all interested government parties to
facilitate information sharing, and informed decision making.
We have nine task forces on the Atlantic Coast, and one on the
Pacific Coast.
Since 2009, we have ought to streamline our location and
permitting processes for wind leasing, and development, and
have launched initiatives to support those efforts. The central
initiative is the ``Smart From the Start'' Program, which was
announced by Secretary Salazar on November 23, 2010.
``Smart From the Start'' in the offshore context is
designed to expedite commercial wind lease issuance on the
Atlantic OCS by doing several important things; streamlining
processes, including a more efficient NEPA compliance review;
identifying wind energy areas to stimulate investment in
Atlantic OCS wind leasing and development, and processing
transmission line proposals on a parallel, but separate, track
from generation projects.
We are identifying as WEAs, areas that have high wind
resource potential, and relatively low risk of potential
conflicts and use. BOEMRE will conduct an environmental
assessment to analyze potential impacts and effects associated
with issuing leases and conducting site characterization and
assessment activities.
If the WEA leads to a finding of no significant impact, we
will be able to issue leases promptly, and will not have to
prepare an environmental impact statement at that stage. This
will allow developers to acquire leases on an expedited basis
and enable them to more easily finance their projects.
BOEMRE will conduct a full EIS when the lessees submit a
construction and operations plan for review. BOEMRE has already
began this process offshore at New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
and Virginia.
A regional WEA is being prepared and consultations are
being conducted to address the potential environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of lease issuance and site
characterization surveys, and site assessment activities.
In addition, BOEMRE has repeatedly engaged non-government
organizations, individually and in groups, to obtain feedback.
We conducted several stakeholder information gathering sessions
while we were developing the framework, as well as workshops on
the draft and final regulations.
All of these initiatives are helping us to identify areas
with relatively few impediments to offshore wind development,
and move forward quickly and efficiently to promote the
establishment of an offshore renewable energy industry.
In sort, the Obama Administration has set ambitious, but
achievable, goals to move forward with the development of
domestic renewable energy. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here, and
it will be my pleasure to answer any questions that you or
other Members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bromwich follows:]
Statement of Michael R. Bromwich, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss the renewable energy
program of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement (BOEMRE) and our efforts to facilitate and expedite the
development of the Nation's offshore wind energy resources.
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Wind Resources and Energy Development
Goals
BOEMRE manages the energy and mineral resources of the OCS, which
comprises some 1.7 billion acres of submerged lands generally located
between 3 and 200 nautical miles off the continental U.S., Alaska, and
Hawaii. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the total
offshore wind potential is over 4,000 gigawatts (GW) for areas up to 50
miles from shore with average wind speeds of 7 meters per second or
greater at 90-meter elevation. This estimate includes the resources of
the Great Lakes and the coastal submerged lands under state
jurisdiction, which are not managed by BOEMRE. However, OCS lands
constitute the vast majority of what DOE considers ``offshore'' in its
wind energy estimate.
According to a report prepared and issued jointly by DOE's Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and BOEMRE earlier this year,
each average GW of wind power capacity can generate 3.4 million
megawatt-hours of electricity annually.\1\ This amount of power would
replace the use of 1.7 million tons of coal or 27.6 billion cubic feet
of natural gas and reduce the carbon emissions associated with those
fossil fuels by 2.7 million metric tons. The Nation's vast offshore
wind resources are located close to our largest electricity demand
centers, allowing offshore wind to compete directly with fossil fuel-
based electricity generation. Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic coastal
states especially can benefit from OCS wind resources to meet ambitious
renewable portfolio standards and related policy goals calling for the
use of a stable and clean supply of energy resources for electrical
generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A National Offshore Wind Strategy, Creating an Offshore Wind
Energy Industry in the United States, February 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these energy and environmental benefits, offshore
wind energy development would have considerable direct and indirect
economic benefits. The National Offshore Wind Strategy suggests that
offshore wind development would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs
per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters. Many of these jobs would
be located in economically depressed port areas that could become
important fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture,
installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines.
The National Offshore Wind Strategy addresses these goals and
discusses three focus areas that are central to achieving them--(1)
technology development, (2) market barrier removal, and (3) advanced
technology demonstration. BOEMRE is working closely with DOE and with
other federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, and other
stakeholders to establish an effective process for siting and
permitting offshore renewable energy projects.
OCS Renewable Energy Regulatory Framework
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided the Secretary of the
Interior with the authority to administer an OCS renewable energy
program. This authority, including the mandate to promulgate necessary
regulations, was delegated to BOEMRE (then the Minerals Management
Service) in March 2006. In early 2009, at the start of the Obama
Administration, a draft rule had been issued, but a final regulatory
framework was not yet promulgated. On taking office, Secretary Salazar
addressed the remaining issues, leading to the publication of BOEMRE's
final OCS renewable energy regulatory framework on April 29, 2009.
The regulatory framework is a comprehensive approach to managing
the full life cycle of OCS renewable energy activities, from initial
study and leasing, through site characterization and assessment and
project construction and operation, ultimately to cessation and
decommissioning. The regulatory framework reflects a renewable energy
program based on the following principles:
consult and coordinate with federal, state, local,
and tribal governments and other stakeholders;
apply the regulatory framework in conjunction with
interagency-led planning activities;
focus on multiple use of the OCS; and
work within current authorities and responsibilities
to achieve program goals.
With over 20 existing laws and Executive Orders that apply to the
OCS, consultation and coordination is critical to a successful
renewable energy program. As BOEMRE strives to facilitate sustained
development of a domestic offshore wind industry, we are working with a
wide array of stakeholders to work together to find ways for offshore
wind projects to proceed with minimal adverse effects on other uses and
resources. Our most valuable consultation and coordination tools have
proved to be the state-by-state intergovernmental task forces that we
have established. These bodies bring together all interested and
affected government parties to facilitate information sharing and
foster informed and efficient decision-making. To date, we have nine
task forces on the Atlantic coast that are helping BOEMRE to proceed
with commercial wind energy leasing, as well as one on the Pacific
coast that is working on marine hydrokinetic energy from waves,
currents and tides.
Since the OCS renewable energy regulatory framework was established
in 2009, Secretary Salazar and BOEMRE have sought to outline, refine,
and streamline our siting and permitting processes for wind leasing and
development. We have launched several initiatives to support our
efforts that I will summarize briefly.
Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium
In early 2010 Secretary Salazar invited the governors of the
Atlantic coast states to join with the Department of the Interior in an
Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium (AOWEC) for the purpose of
facilitating federal-state cooperation and coordination for the
efficient, expeditious, orderly, and responsible development of wind
resources along the Atlantic coast. On June 8, 2010, the Secretary and
11 governors signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the
scope and objectives of the Consortium and establishing working groups
charged with formulating an action plan addressing issues relating to
(1) siting and permitting, (2) data and science, and (3) investment in
infrastructure. DOE is serving an advisory role to BOEMRE by assessing
national infrastructure investment requirements as described in the
National Offshore Wind Strategy. The action plan was completed in
February of this year, and BOEMRE is considering its recommendations,
which relate to improving coordination, implementing pilot projects,
revising existing statutory and regulatory authorities to streamline
permitting, and improving data acquisition and sharing.
Smart from the Start Atlantic Wind Initiative
On November 23, 2010, Secretary Salazar announced Smart from the
Start, a program to expedite commercial wind lease issuance on the
Atlantic OCS. This initiative has three main elements:
streamlined processes, including more efficient
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance review, for
renewable energy lease issuance;
identification of Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) followed
by information gathering to stimulate investment in Atlantic
OCS wind leasing and development; and
processing of OCS energy transmission line proposals
on a parallel but separate track from generation projects.
This approach will identify as WEAs those areas of the OCS that
have high wind energy resource potential and relatively low potential
use conflicts. BOEMRE will then conduct an environmental assessment
(EA) to analyze potential impacts associated with issuing leases and
conducting site characterization and assessment activities. If the EA
leads to a finding of no significant impact, we will be able to issue
leases and will not have to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS). This will allow developers to acquire leases on an expedited
basis and enable them to acquire necessary financing of their projects.
BOEMRE will conduct a full EIS when the lessee submits a construction
and operations plan for review.
Smart from the Start also calls for enhanced coordination on
offshore wind within the federal government. The Department of the
Interior has led the formation of the Atlantic Offshore Wind
Interagency Working Group--which includes executive level officials of
DOE, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality and other federal
agencies--to facilitate the sharing of relevant data.
Smart from the Start has been well received by federal and state
stakeholders and the offshore renewable energy industry.
Additional Cooperation with Other Federal Agencies
BOEMRE is also working with interested federal agencies to
establish agreements to facilitate coordination on OCS renewable energy
development. For example, we have in place an MOU with DOE to
facilitate and expedite OCS wind and hydrokinetic development.
Consistent with this MOU, DOE is making available up to $50.5 million
over 5 years to develop offshore wind technology and to reduce specific
market barriers to its deployment. We also have an established MOU with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and a MOU with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding
the leasing and licensing of marine hydrokinetic projects. Other MOUs
in development are with the Department of Defense (Secretary), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We are confident that these
inter-agency groups will ultimately streamline permitting processes and
promote efficient and effective decision-making.
BOEMRE Research and Studies
BOEMRE has two main scientific research programs. The Environmental
Studies Program (ESP) has completed numerous research projects and has
several more that are planned or ongoing to determine and evaluate the
effects of OCS activities on natural, historical, and human resources
and the appropriate monitoring and mitigation of those effects. For
example, the ESP has completed or is conducting a number of scientific
studies that explore the potential effects of offshore wind projects on
birds, marine species, and other aspects of the environment. BOEMRE and
DOE co-fund a number of studies within the Environmental Studies
Program and also partner on research efforts led by the International
Energy Agency. Pursuant to the MOU mentioned above, DOI and DOE have
also formed an interagency working group with other federal agencies
including NOAA, Department of Defense (DoD), US Army Corps of Engineers
(US ACOE), and the Department of the Navy which will facilitate an
integrated national network for characterization of offshore wind
resources and design conditions.
BOEMRE's Technology Assessment and Research (TAR) Program also
conducts research associated with operational safety, engineering
standards, and pollution prevention.
One noteworthy research project just completed under our TAR
program is on Offshore Wind Energy Turbine Structural and Operating
Safety. BOEMRE asked the National Research Council's Marine Board to
conduct a study relating to the structural safety of offshore wind
turbines. The study addresses three specific areas: (1) standards and
guidelines for design, fabrication and installation of offshore wind
turbines; (2) expected roles of third-party entities, called Certified
Verification Agents (CVA), in overseeing the design and construction of
offshore wind turbines and identifying standards for monitoring,
inspection and compliance verification; and (3) expected qualifications
to be considered a recognized CVA. BOEMRE received the final report on
April 28, 2011, and will analyze the recommendations to determine
whether to modify the relevant offshore renewable energy regulations.
The National Ocean Policy's Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
BOEMRE is implementing the OCS renewable energy program in
accordance with Executive Order 13547, which President Obama issued in
2010 to establish a comprehensive and integrated national policy for
stewardship of the oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes, including a
framework for coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP). We fully
understand and support the need to work together with all OCS users and
regulators, and we look forward to coordinating with the National Ocean
Council and leading and participating in regional planning bodies
undertaking CMSP. We believe our intergovernmental task forces are a
valuable vehicle for informing these efforts. We will use an integrated
interagency marine information system, developed in collaboration with
the National Ocean Council, to implement Executive Order 13547. Part of
this system will be the Multipurpose Marine Cadaster, which provides
legal, physical, ecological, and cultural information in a common
geographic information system framework. This tool was created in
partnership with NOAA to comply with a mandate in section 388 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Outreach to Non-government Stakeholders
BOEMRE has repeatedly engaged non-government organizations (NGOs)--
individually and in groups--to obtain feedback on its regulatory
framework and associated processes. During promulgation of our
renewable energy regulatory framework rule, we conducted several
stakeholder information gathering sessions, as well as workshops on the
draft and final regulations. Since the final framework was issued, we
have continued meeting with NGOs and stakeholders, including The Nature
Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Mariners
Advisory Committee and have had valuable information exchanges. We have
also communicated with representatives of fishing interests through the
special working groups established by Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
as well as the regional Fisheries Management Councils. BOEMRE also has
continued its dialogue with industry representatives, primarily through
the Offshore Wind Development Coalition. Based on all of our
conversations with stakeholders, we have identified regulatory
revisions that we will pursue to bring more clarity and efficiency to
our processes. Our first such revision--designed to simplify the
leasing process for offshore wind in situations where there is only one
qualified and interested developer by eliminating a redundant and
therefore unnecessary step--has been published and received comment.
BOEMRE plans to complete this final rule and to propose other revisions
in the near future.
Status of OCS Wind Development
All of the initiatives I have just discussed are helping BOEMRE to
identify areas where there are relatively few impediments to offshore
wind development and move forward quickly and efficiently to promote
the establishment of an offshore renewable energy industry.
Our efforts have already resulted in significant accomplishments in
offshore wind development:
We have issued 4 short-term leases that permit the
installation of data collection facilities to inform planned
commercial wind development activities (3 off New Jersey and 1
off Delaware). These leases were issued in 2009 under an
interim policy initiated while the OCS renewable energy
regulatory framework was being developed. We anticipate the
first data collection facilities to be constructed this summer.
Interior issued the first ever U.S. offshore
commercial wind energy lease in October 2010 for the Cape Wind
Energy Project in Nantucket Sound off Massachusetts. Shortly
thereafter, the lessee submitted a construction and operations
plan, which BOEMRE approved on April 18, 2011. The lessee hopes
to begin construction later this year. The Cape Wind Energy
Project proposal contemplates building 130 wind turbine
generators, 3.6 megawatts each, with the maximum capacity to
produce about 468 megawatts. The average expected production
from the wind facility could provide about 75 percent of the
electricity demand for Cape Cod and the islands of Martha's
Vineyard and Nantucket. At average expected production, Cape
Wind could produce enough energy to power more than 200,000
homes in Massachusetts.
BOEMRE announced the first four WEAs--off the coasts
of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia--established
under Smart from the Start on February 9, 2011, in a Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for Mid-Atlantic
Wind Energy Areas. We have determined that there is no
competitive interest in leasing the area made available off
Delaware and will complete a noncompetitive process in response
to NRG Bluewater Wind's commercial wind lease request. We hope
to make a final decision on lease issuance by the end of this
year. By contrast, we have determined that there is competitive
interest off Maryland, and we believe there will also be
competitive interest off New Jersey and Virginia. BOEMRE plans
to complete competitive processes for these three states by
early 2012. We will continue to consult with our
intergovernmental task forces on all of these leasing
processes.
BOEMRE intends to designate a second set of WEAs--off
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and North Carolina--by
the end of this year. We have already received numerous
expressions of interest off the coast of Massachusetts, and we
will be soliciting nominations and other relevant information
in the other three areas in the coming months. We will continue
to consult with the intergovernmental task forces in these
states.
BOEMRE will consult with the established Maine
intergovernmental task force concerning possible future
deepwater wind leasing and development and anticipates
establishing new task forces in Georgia and South Carolina
later this year. The University of Maine's DeepC wind program,
funded in part by DOE, is working on developing new
technologies, including floating wind turbines for use in deep
waters. BOEMRE will work with Maine in the event that any
entitities are interested in pursuing leasing opportunities
offshore Maine. We also have received an application for a
short-term lease for data collection off Georgia under the
interim policy.
BOEMRE also received a request for a right-of-way for
a 750-mile backbone transmission line running about 10 miles
offshore from New York to Virginia. The developer has ambitious
plans for this transmission line, believing that it can link
future Atlantic OCS wind energy installations in a manner that
can facilitate efficient interconnection to the onshore
electrical grid. We will consult and coordinate with federal,
state, local, and tribal governments and other stakeholders in
processing this request.
Conclusion
As I stated at the outset, we has set ambitious but achievable
goals to help the U.S. make development of domestic sources of clean,
renewable energy a reality. The combination of streamlined processes
along with the increased involvement of our state and federal partners
is helping BOEMRE make good strides in reaching those goals. We are
excited to have a prominent role in the nation's renewable energy
future, and we look forward to working with stakeholders to develop a
thriving domestic offshore wind industry that is coordinated and
supports Executive Order 13547 and the national policy for stewardship
of the oceans.
Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement. Thank you again for the
opportunity to appear here. It would be my pleasure to answer any
questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.
______
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you also, and thank you both
for your statements. We will now begin questioning. As you can
see, we have a smaller than usual number of Members here
because we are done with the votes for the week, and many
people have started their trek to the airport already.
But with that smaller number, I am hopeful that you would
be able to stay for a second round if Members are so desirous.
Is that something that you would consider?
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you so much. I will start in,
and then we will go to the Ranking Member second. Director
Abbey, in 2010, the Administration placed 34 projects on a fast
track list for expedited permit approval, primarily in order to
qualify for stimulus funding that expired in December.
As BLM made decisions on which projects would be placed on
the fast track list, can you tell me what the criteria BLM used
to determine which projects were to be placed on that list?
Mr. Abbey. Yes, I would be happy to. We did have 34 or so
applications that we were reviewing, and that we thought were
far enough along in the permitting process, but there were
several reasons why some of those applications for projects
were at least delayed.
And not all of them were related to our own review process.
Some of those projects were delayed because of the lack of
financing, or the inability of the companies themselves to
provide us with all the information that we needed to perfect
those applications and do the thorough review that was
appropriate.
So what we focused on, Mr. Chairman, was those projects
that were far enough along, and that had perfected
applications, and that were located in areas that had the
fewest risks.
Our intent was to move forward aggressively in reviewing
those projects, and to evaluate each of those projects in the
manner that they deserved, and then to the best of our ability
to approve those if we were able to mitigate the potential
impacts from those projects.
Our track record demonstrates that we were successful. Of
the nine solar projects that we ended up reviewing and putting
through that fast track project, all nine projects were
approved, and they were approved because of the early
consultation and coordination that took place, with not only
within the Department of the Interior, as with agencies like
the National Park Service, or the Fish and Wildlife Service,
but also with other stakeholders and tribal governments.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Well, on that last point, did BLM
review with outside groups or individuals which projects were
considered advanced enough to qualify for expedited permitting,
and did you accept outside comments for or against projects?
Mr. Abbey. I am sorry, but we always are receptive of
public input anywhere in our process. The value of public
comments certainly during the scoping process helps us identify
what are the likely issues that would need to be addressed
through our review, and again all of those projects, or at
least many of the projects that were identified, or all of the
projects that were identified on the fast track list did go
through that public scoping process to determine what were the
issues, and how best we could evaluate those issues, and
potentially mitigate those issues.
So again the public did have a say during that scoping
process. If at the end of the day it was our decision to go
forward with those projects that we believed had the best
chance for success.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Now, were the companies who had been
making the investments leading up to this consideration, were
they aware of this process, and the criteria that were going to
be used for the expedited approval?
Mr. Abbey. Well, they were certainly aware of the criteria
that we were using to evaluate their own applications. We
maintained a close working relationship with all proponents of
such projects, and really all projects that are being proposed
for public lands.
We want to understand what the proposal is, and what are
the likely consequences and the timelines that the proponents
are anticipating that they need in order to get the approvals
for their projects.
So even though we have delayed some of those projects, that
doesn't mean that we have denied those projects, and that we
are currently continuing to review all applications that are
before us to determine the merits of each proposal.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Now, do you think that your
willingness to process permits could impact the financing that
applicants are working toward on these various projects?
Mr. Abbey. Well, some of those applications that we
reviewed as potentially fast track projects fell out because
they were unable to get financial assurances. So again no doubt
that some of our actions do impact the abilities of some of the
companies to go forward and get the financing that they require
for their projects.
But again that is no surprises as far as the timelines that
we require in order to conduct a thorough evaluation of each of
those projects.
Chairman Lamborn. Well, now I am trying to figure out which
is first, the chicken or the egg. Did there lack of financing
mean that they were not high up on the priority list, or were
they not able to get a permit and they had lost their financing
after that?
Mr. Abbey. No, they never evidently had--and I can't speak
to all of the projects or applicants, but I can speak to some
of those that we were reviewing for the potential to place on
the priority list.
Some of those projects did not have financing in place for
them to assure us that they would be able to construct in a
timely manner those projects that we were interested in
approving.
So, again, without that financial capacity, that was one of
the criteria that we took into account in identifying the
projects that we ended up placing on the fast track list.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you. I realize that my time is
up. If the Committee has additional questions about this
process would you commit to working with us to answer questions
or concerns that we might have?
Mr. Abbey. We would welcome that and would certainly do so.
Chairman Lamborn. Thank you very much. Ranking Member,
Representative Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Director
Abbey, it takes so much longer to permit wind and solar than it
does to permit oil and gas, which I think that people would
like to know what is the reason for that?
Why does it take just so much longer, and what can we do to
shorten that time framework so that we deploy in a way that
really helps to deal with these imported oil issues, and the
climate change issue, and the job creation issue? You know,
this is a real make it in America opportunity for us.
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, I really don't know whether or not
it takes a lot longer time. However, I will say this, in our
oil and gas program, there are different layers of review and
evaluation that are conducted.
For example, we prepare a land use plan which would
identify public lands that are managed by the Bureau of Land
Management that would be available, or could be available for
leasing for oil and gas resources.
Prior to conducting any leases of those lands consistent
with the land use plan decisions, then we would also conduct an
additional NEPA evaluation of the areas that are being proposed
for leases, and after that NEPA is completed, and a decision is
made relative to going forward with such areas for leasing,
then we also after issuing those leases, we conduct an
environmental assessment of applications for permits to drill.
So there is really a kind of a three-tier program for
authorizing of the drilling on public lands. We have the land
use planning process, and then the NEPA that is required for
leasing, and then the NEPA that is required for processing
applications for permits to drill.
I will say this though. In 2009, the Bureau of Land
Management leased 1.9 million acres of public lands for oil and
gas, and in 2010, we leased 1.4 million acres of public lands
for oil and gas.
In 2009, we issued almost 4,500 applications for permits to
drill on public lands, and in 2010, we issued 4,000
applications for permits to drill. So if you look at the amount
of effort going into the oil and gas program, versus what we
are doing in the renewable energy program, there is a lot more
that we can be doing in the wind and the renewable energy
program than what we have done in the past, and we intend to
improve our performance.
Mr. Markey.--below what President Obama has asked for, what
would those cuts do to your ability to speed up the deployment
of wind and solar on public lands?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, we are still reviewing what----
Mr. Markey. Would it hurt?
Mr. Abbey. Well, no doubt. We have requested----
Mr. Markey. Would it hurt significantly your ability to get
the work done?
Mr. Abbey. It would hurt, and it would certainly slow
things down, Congressman, and we have proposed as part of the
Presidential budget a funding level that we believe that we
need in order to maintain the emphasis that we have placed on--
--
Mr. Markey. Let me go to Director Bromwich. Would these
budget cuts that the Republicans are proposing, $4 billion,
hurt your ability to deploy offshore wind in this country?
Mr. Bromwich. They would not hurt our ability, because we
are one of the few agencies as you know that did not suffer
significant budget cuts. So the request that we made for
offshore have largely been granted. But could we use additional
increments? Absolutely.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. Let me go back to you then, Director
Abbey. How many wind and solar permit applications are
currently active at your agency?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we have over 200 at last count for solar.
I don't have the number for wind at this point in time. For
2011, we are evaluating 20 such projects, 10 solar, and five
wind, and five geothermal. We will be announcing projects for
Fiscal Year----
Mr. Markey. Well, how many--well, let me ask you this. How
many of those would you say would be churning out power right
now if the Department of the Interior had granted a permit the
same day that they applied for it?
Mr. Abbey. Well, Congressman Markey, let me just give you
my assessment of some of those applications. Many are
speculative in nature. The number of applications that we have
for solar are again over 200 at last count.
In our review of some of those applications, we believe
that they are speculative in nature, and not necessarily ready
to go forward and do a thorough evaluation and assessment. But
having said that----
Mr. Markey. So what are the real hurdles then to building
wind and solar on public lands right now?
Mr. Abbey. Well, there are several impediments. First, it
is financial. Second is transmission. Third is the lack of
power purchase agreements with some of the companies, and a
source where they can market their power if they were to
develop such power.
And then no doubt the permitting process also creates some
delays in getting some of these projects in place.
Mr. Markey. And what about the timely tax credit
extensions? Is that a factor?
Mr. Abbey. Well, it would enhance their abilities to move
forward with their projects if such a program continued.
Mr. Markey. OK. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. I thank the Ranking Member. Now,
let's go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for five minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Thank you for coming and for testifying. I really very much
appreciate that. It is a very important topic. Both of you have
been talking about and reflecting on the permitting process,
and certainly that is something that sometimes takes time,
frustrating amounts of time, and a lot of unnecessary
litigation, and it often times frankly only serves to muddle
the permitting process and slow down the approvals.
I wanted to pursue a little more about how you are working
to streamline the permitting. ``Smart From the Start'' sounds
like a good approach, and looking at that, and building some
efficiencies into that process. Frankly, are there other things
that you are looking at, that the agencies are looking at, or
what can Congress do to help make this permitting process more
efficient and less wasteful?
Mr. Bromwich. You are right, Congressman, in that the
``Smart From the Start'' Program will make much more efficient
the permitting process, because we are doing at the outset
environmental assessments rather than full scale environmental
impact statements.
We are waiting until the stage where companies file a
construction and operations plan before we do a full EIS, and
that was specifically designed to shrink the period of time
through which companies had to go through the entire process.
We are continuously thinking about ways to further shrink
that process, because there is consensus in the Department, and
certainly in my agency, that the current timeline is too long.
So we are actively and continuously engaging with industry, and
with other stakeholders to try to figure out ways to cut
further time off the process.
There are certain parts of the process, including public
comment, and including environmental reviews, that simply have
to be done. Those are irreducible. But we are going to continue
to work to find ways to further cut down on the permitting
process time.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I want to congratulate you for looking
at that. I think that is a good approach. Director Abbey, my
question is from the lessons learned with this, because it
seems like you roll this out specifically with wind, are there
other opportunities? Are these concepts something that can be
applied to all forms of energy permitting on Federal lands?
Mr. Abbey. Certainly we have learned as we go, no doubt.
The Bureau of Land Management, and certainly those that we have
worked with within the Department of the Interior have shown
over the last two years that extraordinary progress can be made
in conformance with NEPA, and in coordination with State
agencies, and tribal groups, and local governments, and other
entities.
You know, our successes in permitting the solar projects in
California and in Nevada, the first nine solar projects ever
built on public lands, are truly showing us the way forward for
approving utility and renewable energy programs on public
lands.
So it is not just how they could apply to the solar
projects, but also to the wind projects as well, the large
scale wind projects that we have had under review. We have had
a successful track record for a number of years in the
geothermal program. That is a leasing program.
It is done under different authorities, but again
geothermal is another renewable resource that we have ample
supplies of in this country, and we need to take advantage of
that.
Mr. Thompson. How about applying this more efficient
process to oil, natural gas, coal, all the other resources that
we have on public lands?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, we try to be as efficient and as
effective as we can in the processes that we have in place. As
I mentioned earlier, do we continue to learn, and is there
opportunities for us to continue our performance? Yes, there
are.
We work very closely to try to make sure that the people
who we need to be consulting, and those that we need to be
coordinating with prior to expending a great deal of effort on
any of these projects, whether they are oil and gas leasing
proposals, or solar, or wind, that we have the full information
before us so that we can go forward as expeditiously as
possible and address the many issues that each of these project
proposals bring before us.
Mr. Thompson. Sure. What are some of the--and specifically
just focusing on wind, and it sounds like you will get another
opportunity to talk about solar, but what are some of the
specific objections that you find that are raised by those who
live in the areas where these projects are going in, or frankly
what are some of the environmental concerns that are being
identified through the NEPA analysis, and the other
environmental analysis? Let's just start with wind for the
short period of time that I have left here.
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, I think that as we look across
these renewable energy projects, these are large scale
footprints on public lands, and while everybody talks about
being for renewable energy development, I have to admit that
almost every project that we review, there are opponents of
each project.
But as we go forward, it is a matter of again working with
the proponent when it is through our own land use planning
process, which is a public process, and identifying the best
locations that would have the fewest risks to sensitive
resources that we also manage for, including wildlife habitat,
for threatened and endangered species, and also to take into
account what are the likely consequences of the decisions if we
make to approve projects, and how best we can mitigate for any
impact from those projects.
As we look to wind, we certainly have challenges in dealing
with some of the bald and golden eagle habitat. We are working
very, very closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
They have been an excellent partner to the Bureau of Land
Management in helping us use the best science, the best
information possible, as part of our analysis, and potentially
mitigation measures.
Mr. Thompson. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Lamborn. Thank you. Now, the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses. I would like to focus on offshore wind, particularly
in the Atlantic. So I would like to ask you, Director Bromwich,
how would you characterize the offshore wind capacity in the
Middle Atlantic States?
Do you have some numbers or the number of city sized
electric equivalent power plants?
Mr. Bromwich. I don't have those with me, Congressman. I
would be happy to supply those. I do know that it is considered
by all of the experts that have reviewed it to be an enormous
potential source of power, and I have certainly seen figures
suggesting that what is available in the Atlantic equals the
capacity that we currently have for electricity generation
country-wide. So that is an enormous potential.
Mr. Holt. I would like to ask you to repeat that for the
record, because I think that there are few people in the United
States who really understand.
Mr. Bromwich. My understanding is that the potential that
Atlantic wind holds for supplying electricity to this country
equals what current exists nationwide for all sources, in terms
of what currently provides electricity. That is my
understanding, Congressman.
Mr. Holt. Now, it is worth noting, of course, that that
electricity, if it were generated even in-part would be close
to the uses of obviously the Eastern Seaboard, which would be
about the most densely populated part of the country, and has a
lot of electricity use there.
So this would be convenient to the use, and perhaps would
have less transmission line site problems?
Mr. Bromwich. That is absolutely right.
Mr. Holt. And, again, since I think people in the Congress,
or people around the country and their representatives here in
Congress, often hear that wind is intermittent, and really
can't be a reliable energy source. So you have any information
about the consistency and strength of the wind offshore?
Mr. Bromwich. My understanding is that the more wind farms,
and the larger the network you have of wind turbines offshore,
that becomes much less of a concern, and you can equalize the
load and provide a steady stream of electricity from numerous
wind farms that would be located off the Atlantic Coast.
Mr. Holt. So you have now characterized this as an enormous
source of energy that has some attractive features certainly
and I would argue many attractive features. What does the
Bureau and the Department in general need to do to help
characterize this resource so that the developers who might be
interested have what they need to move forward?
Mr. Bromwich. I think we are on the right track. I think
the ``Smart From the Start'' Program, which is designed to
shorten the process, shorten the environmental reviews up front
as they look at potentially promising wind areas, find out what
the level of interest is among developers in the specific
locations that have been identified.
And as you know, one of the ones that has already been
identified is off New Jersey, and to just continue to move that
process forward so that we can find out who is interested, and
find out whether there are financially, legally, and
technically qualified to hold leases, make those
determinations, and get those leases awarded so that we can
move forward.
Mr. Holt. Are you leaving it to the developers themselves
to characterize the resource, or is the Department doing more
to characterize the resource? So specifically what are you
spending this year or next year to measure the wind, to
characterize its consistency, and to make those data available
to----
Mr. Bromwich. We are working more on doing the preparatory
work that goes in advance of awarding the leases. We are not
doing insofar as I know a lot to look at the kinds of issues
that you are talking about, in terms of figuring out how much
wind power is available in a particular place.
Mr. Holt. Is that because you are leaving it to the
developers to do that work? It seems to me that there is an
appropriate thing for our Federal Government to be doing, to
characterize.
Mr. Bromwich. It may well be, but my understanding,
Congressman, is that we have not been spending our resources to
do that. It is certainly possible that if we had more that we
would be in a position to do that. But insofar as I know, we
have not.
Mr. Holt. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you. The Gentleman from
Tennessee.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen. I
have enjoyed this very much, especially the discussion of these
alternate forms of energy. Thank you for being before us today.
I represent the Third District of Tennessee, and solar
energy has grown considerably, and very, very popular in my
district. We have had manufacturers of components come in, very
large manufacturers, and we welcomed them to Tennessee.
I am interested to know, Director Abbey, why there are 95
solar permit applications currently pending under the Bureau of
Land Management's supervision, and what factors are preventing
these permits from being approved, sir?
Mr. Abbey. Well, I believe there may be even more
applications than what you listed. Again, we moved forward, and
in the authorization process, we close coordinate with other
Federal agencies to determine the appropriateness of where the
applications have been filed, and which lands the applications
have been filed on, and what potential conflicts we might
encounter as we go forward in that review.
We have placed our emphasis and our limited capacity on
reviewing those applications that we believe have the best
chance of being approved. That is a track record that we are
very proud of.
Since 2009, it is an area of focus that will continue, and
we will continue by the way to also work proponents in those
other areas to perfect their applications, and maybe even offer
some alternatives for their consideration.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Director Abbey, and Director
Bromwich, this is a question for both of you. Reportedly, there
have been wind and solar energy projects canceled or delayed
under the supervision of your respective departments.
Can you please explain to the Committee the criteria for
canceling or delaying both onshore and offshore wind and solar
energy projects, and what kind of factors must be present for
these projects to be delayed, and how you go about determining
what these factors are, and then in fact if they are present?
Mr. Bromwich. I can go first because my answer will be
short. We have not had any cancellations, and the only delays
have involved litigation relating to the Cape Wind project, and
those were totally out of our control.
Mr. Abbey. And then I would add to Director Bromwich's
answer, that as it relates to public lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management, we have had applications that have
been delayed for a number of reasons.
Again, the inability of the companies to enter into a power
purchase agreement, and therefore, what is the need for that
project until they get such an agreement in place. That is a
factor in considering how we place and prioritize such a
project.
Another factor would be as we go forward in this scoping
process of an application in preparation for doing the
analysis, the environmental analysis, if we identify issues,
and if we are unable to work with the proponent to identify
measures that we could mitigate those environmental issues,
then we continue to work closely with the proponent to perfect
an application to look at it various alternatives, and even
different locations for their projects. So that in and of
itself sometimes will delay a potential project.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Director Abbey, this year the
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Park Service, have apparently given 20 wind, solar,
and geothermal projects a priority status.
We are midway through the year and only one of these 20
have been approved. Mr. Director, would you be able to explain
to the Committee why the other 19 have yet to be approved, and
perhaps give us a timetable as to when we might expect them to
be approved, sir.
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, because of the early coordination
and consultation with both the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the National Park Service, among other entities,
we anticipate that many of those 20 projects will be completed
this calendar year.
All those projects are likely to be approved if we do not
run into obstacles like issues that cannot be mitigated. You
know, we are still conducting the Environmental Impact
Statements on each of those projects, and so I don't want to
sit here and tell you that they all will be approved, and if
they are not approved, it won't be because we did not give it
the attention that each of those projects deserved.
And that we will allow our analysis to determine whether or
not all of the projects could be approved, or which ones cannot
be approved.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Director. I yield back.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you. Now the Gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I am glad
that we are having this important discussion to see what truly
can be done across the country, especially with our public
lands, to encourage and provide certainty to be able to develop
renewable generation, and make sure that this is something that
this great Nation of ours is truly embracing, and not pushing
away or discouraging.
Director Abbey, you have mentioned power purchase
agreements a few times. Can you tell us what they are and why
they are so important?
Mr. Abbey. Well, they are important because all of a sudden
it gives legitimacy to the projects for energy that can
actually be sold, and delivered to the market, and so the
proponents for renewable energy, and other sources of energy,
need to have a market in order to go forward and compensate for
the costs that they are investing in each of those projects.
So it is market driven. They consult and work out
agreements with the power provider. Those agreements then
became part of the business plan, and used to get financing in
some cases, but more importantly, provide assurances that the
energy that they could produce from their project being
approved and constructed will go on to the market, and there is
a return for their investment.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that, Director Abbey, because as we
have talked about the importance of providing the certainty
around public utility commissions across the country having the
certainty, really incentives, that would encourage utilities to
engage in these discussions, and to actually talk to these
developers, and to bring these PPAs to fruition, and provides
the certainly necessary so that when we talk about the
financing, we now have the ability to bring together those that
are going to build this generation, and bring the project to
fruition, and work with that utility company, or that small
municipality, whatever they may be, so that they can buy the
power that is going to be produced.
It is a simple idea. It is one that sadly in many parts of
the country, I don't think we have the strong incentives that
are needed, and this Congress, I think that we could do
something about that.
Secretary Salazar recently said that when he was talking
about ``Smart From the Start,'' which I want to applaud your
efforts on, as we talked about some of the barriers that exist
with where some of these projects have been held up, and
providing certainty associated with ``Smart From the Start,''
and the planning necessary to be able to designate areas where
you can have an accelerated NEPA process, and make sure that
you are working in these areas so that that does not slow
things down.
But the Secretary warned us, the lawmakers, that investors
will need dependable incentives, and regulations to continue
building. So we heard a lot from Ranking Member Markey about
the tax incentives, and tax extenders, that should be extended.
I hope that we as a Congress have the will and the courage
to move those forward, and create some certainty for not one
year, but maybe for five years. But that we also act to
establish a renewable electricity standard, which is something
that Congressman Udall, when he served, was a big proponent of
it here in the House, and it was included in some legislation
going forward.
So that way when we talk about providing the incentives
necessary to help drive this market, you provide the certainty
to the regulators, to public utility commissions, to utilities,
to those that are going to bring the financing necessary to
build these renewable energy generation projects on our public
lands.
And you also incentivize those that are going to provide
the transmission conductivity required. So while I appreciate
that this hearing is centered around what we can do to look at
our hurdles that sometimes exist on the permitting process with
our public lands, that there is a whole other round that could
provide the incentives necessary to help us drive this forward.
And I am looking forward to being able to further that
conversation as well. One hat that I wore before I came to
Congress was that I actually served on New Mexico's equivalent
of the Public Utility Commission. I was honored to chair that
body for three years.
I certainly served on it for four years, and so
understanding the complexities that are sometimes associated
with helping to change legislation in New Mexico, we
established a renewable portfolio standard, and we saw an
acceleration associated with those that were coming to the
State to develop more generation.
And in New Mexico, we actually worked with our rural
electric cooperatives to find a path forward for their
generation and transmission company to have some certainty on
the financing so that we can get renewable projects also with
our rural co-ops, and it fits into the mix.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we are going to have a
second round of questions because I know that I really wasn't
able to delve into some of the questions that I have around the
term of the contracts.
But this is an important conversation, and I think one that
we can find a lot of common ground on in order to get people to
work here in the country. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. And I thank you, and I would remind
all the Members that we can get the best focus and the best
bang for the buck out of our witnesses when we concentrate on
issues that our Committee has jurisdiction over.
There are a lot of important issues out there, but that
would be something that I think would be the most focused use
of our time. OK. The Gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I
would like to make a general statement and then ask Mr. Abbey
to relate my concerns and my statement back to the Secretary,
Secretary Salazar, as well as the Assistant Secretary Balboa,
that I am one who supports our country's efforts to accelerate
the deployment and application of wind and solar energy on
public lands.
And so I am urging you to enhance and expedite that effort
as much as possible, both of you actually. This potential is
particular important to the island territories, including my
home, Puerto Rico, where opportunities abound.
The report recently issued by the White House Task Force on
Puerto Rico validates that Federal and local interest in
developing wind and solar energy in Puerto Rico, and especially
in Vieques, the nearby Island of Vieques.
I should note that my constituents pay over twice the
national average for kilowatt hour for their electricity, and
that recent prices have soared to 26 cents a kilowatt hour. A
home to over 3.7 million American citizens, and with a
struggling economy, energy costs are a major obstacle to Puerto
Rico's economic growth.
Therefore, I hope that future Interior Department budget
requests and efforts across the Administration will address the
wind and solar potential in Puerto Rico and the other
territories.
Now, referring to Vieques specifically. I advocated for a
green plan for Vieques, and that got the attraction of the
White House and this task force. They basically adopted that
and they are proposing that in the report that was recently
issued.
Now, what happens in Vieques is that most, if not all, of
the land owned by the Federal Government there constitutes the
Vieques National Wildlife Refuge, and I know that you are here
today to speak to the Bureau's role in facilitating solar and
wind projects on your land.
However, can you generally address how the Department might
be collaborating on citing such projects on other Interior
lands, such as those within the refuge system. I want to see
your reaction there.
I know that the Fish and Wildlife Service delegates
authority to determine compatible use to each of its refuge
managers. I know that. And that energy projects are addressed
in the comprehensive planning process.
But if there is one message that you can take back to the
Department, it is that we are looking for flexibility and
support from the Department in evaluating wind and solar energy
projects on Federal land in Vieques.
And let me put it just in plain words. When you go to
Vieques--and I have been there many times--you see that it has
got a lot of potential. Consistent winds for windmills. And the
sun exposure is so amazing as well, and I am one who wants this
refuge to be preserved, and taken care of.
But it makes all the sense in the world, and it is so big,
the area, to be able to locate some of this power projects
there, and that is what I am telling you, and if you can relay
that back to your colleagues in the Department, and I will
really appreciate that. And if you have anything to comment or
say about this, I am all ears.
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, we are fortunate to have a very
good working relationship with the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and a Secretary of the Interior that is a proponent of
renewable energy development.
I will pass on your comments to the Secretary, as well as
to Dan Ashe, who is the designee, or the nominee for the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. I thank the gentleman. Now, we will
start a second round. Thank you again for agreeing to do so.
Mr. Bromwich, a general question, and then a specific question.
In general, does ``multiple use'' mean that existing uses
have a higher priority than a new use, such as wind energy,
which is fairly recent?
Mr. Bromwich. No. We look at all the potential uses and we
try to strike a balance, taking into account the importance of
the various uses, and making decisions about whether the new
use can move forward.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you very much. Now, let me ask
you specifically. In December of 2010 the Bureau announced a
request for interest from the public regarding the potential
for wind development in a 7,700 square kilometer area off the
coast of Massachusetts.
The Bureau received 11 submissions from 10 companies
expressing commercial leasing interests in the area. A clear
indication that the area is of significant interest to wind
development, and would likely be a promising wind development
zone.
However, recently, BOEMRE announced the closure of more
than half the original area as a result of comments from the
fishing industry, State politicians, and marine biologists. Can
you tell me what guidance the Bureau used from industry in
advance of that closure, and what scientific studies had been
done, or what scientific research the Bureau was relying on
when they decided to apparently permanently close this
obviously promising area?
Mr. Bromwich. Well, a cornerstone of our process is
consulting with all of the affected communities and people.
That includes elected representatives of the State, but it also
includes representatives of industries that are affected, and
in this case the fishing industry.
There was an extremely strong multi-part opposition to
opening up the part of Massachusetts, offshore Massachusetts,
that we have now decided to withdraw, and as a response to
Federal agencies, and taking into account all the comments that
we got, from the Governor of Massachusetts, down through
fishing interests, we determined that that was the appropriate
balance to strike in that case.
So it is not to say that that is the same decision that we
will make in every case, and each case is different. The
expressions of concern and the other interests affected will
necessarily be different in every case, and we simply try to
make the best decisions that we can.
We have seen in the saga of Cape Wind that has dragged on
for 10 years that litigation can tie up these projects to a
tremendous degree. So we thought among other things that we
took into account, we don't want to provoke litigation if we
can avoid it.
So in this instance, where there was strong opposition to
the part offshore Massachusetts, we decided to take it off the
table for now, and we thought that was clearly the right
decision in order to move these projects forward.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you. Now, I am going to ask you
to make a little bit of a prediction here. By the end of next
year, at the end of 2012, besides the Cape Wind project, which
as you say was 10 years in the words, and counting, apart from
that, will the American people see any single offshore wind
project under construction?
Mr. Bromwich. I don't know the answer to that. I am not a
great predictor, but I can predict this. That we will award
almost surely a non-competitive lease this year, and we will
almost surely award multiple competitive leases next year.
In terms of when the construction begins, that is largely
out of our hands, and I certainly can't read the minds of the
developers who were responsible for the construction.
But I can comment and make predictions based on our
process, which is now far more expedited than it was before,
and that we will push forward the day that we can award these
leases, both non-competitively and competitively.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. Thank you for your answer, and once
again for being here. And I yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Markey. OK. Thank you. Just to go back to this
Massachusetts decision. It is my understanding that you did
permit though, or approve an area that would be able to
generate 4,000 megawatts of wind off of the coast of
Massachusetts; is that correct?
Mr. Bromwich. There is a substantial area that still
exists, yes.
Mr. Markey. That is correct, and just so everyone has
knowledge, in New England, we need about 30,000 megawatts of
capacity on a daily basis. We only use about 23,000 of it.
Massachusetts, of the six States, consumes maybe 13,000 of
it. So if you found an area where 4,000 megawatts can come in--
--
Mr. Bromwich. It would be a big contributor, yes.
Mr. Markey.--on the Massachusetts coastline over the next
20 years, that is pretty much all we are going to need. We
don't need more than 4,000 by the year 2030. So, just so we all
know that your decision accommodates our fishing industry and
our wind industry, and our wind industry endorses the decision
that you made.
Mr. Bromwich. That is right.
Mr. Markey. Because we just don't need more than that. So,
thank you. We still have Seabrook, and we still have Pilgrim,
and we have all of the other nuclear power plants, and all the
other electrical generating capacity.
Now, yesterday, the Department of Energy decided not to
extend the loan guarantee to Cape Wind, which is a big
decision, and it has been an especially big decision because
Wall Street is already scared, and we need government support
in order to make sure that we can get this project off of the
line.
So what are the implications, Mr. Bromwich, of that
decision yesterday in terms of all of the other projects along
the coastline of the United States?
Mr. Bromwich. I think that remains to be seen. I think that
Cape Wind will continue to try to get financing, and try to get
the loans that it needs, but there is no question, Congressman
Markey, that that is a very significant blow.
And I share your view that the kind of loan availability,
including governmental loan availability, is an important
factor in getting this very important industry off the ground.
So I think that it is a significant problem, and I can't
predict what the impact will be on other interested developers,
but I would think that it can't be positive.
Mr. Markey. OK. So the combination of the Republicans and
their budget zeroing out loan guaranteed money, combined with
then this decision, really does create a chilling effect going
up and down the coastline if other developers are looking at
Cape Wind as the first of its kind in our Nation. Would you not
agree with that?
Mr. Bromwich. Yes, I would agree with that.
Mr. Markey. Yes, and so we are at a real inflection point
here, and I would call upon the Republicans to reconsider their
decision to zero out loan guarantees for wind and solar in
their budget, and to keep in $20 billion for nuclear power.
After Fukushima, it is going to be hard to find anyone that
wants to build a nuclear power plant, but we have hundreds of
applications for renewables that are out there, where the loan
guarantee program can help to ensure that we move in that
direction.
And I know for one that Massachusetts wants to be the
leader. We have been out trying to get this done, and this was
a final stage, but the more that this funding is put in
jeopardy is the more difficult that it is going to be in order
to really create a longer term vision.
So this is an incredible day where the Republicans are
defending $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies out on the
House and Senate Floor, at the same time that they are zeroing
out the loan guarantee programs for wind and solar.
One industry is reporting the greatest profits in the
history of the world, and by the way the oil industry only
invests one-half of one percent of their funding into research,
and semi-conductors, 17 percent of their revenue goes into
research, and biotech, it is 19 percent of their revenues.
And the oil industry is not investing in solar or winds for
the future. They are investing in manufacturing that god
already created, the oil under the ground. So that is their
manufacturing tax credit, and this is our way of helping these
other industries.
So on page seven, Mr. Bromwich, of your testimony, you note
that your agency has received a request for a right-of-way for
750 mile backbone transmission line that would run about 10
miles offshore from New York to Virginia.
What is your timetable for processing this request, and
making the consultations that you need to do in order to make
this happen?
Mr. Bromwich. I asked that question this morning. I don't
have a specific time for you. We know how potentially important
it is. We are supportive of the project, and we now have it as
of the last day of March, I think. We have the application and
we will move as quickly as we can to go through all the reviews
that are necessary.
Mr. Markey. OK. Well, Google is ready to go, and time is of
the essence, and I would urge you to put it on a fast track.
Mr. Bromwich. It is on a fast track, Congressman.
Mr. Markey. It is on a fast track. OK. And what is a fast
track? How fast is a fast track?
Mr. Bromwich. It is as fast as our people can review all of
the things that they need to review.
Mr. Markey. Is that in months or years?
Mr. Bromwich. It is not in years.
Mr. Markey. It is not in years, and so it could be done by
the end of this year?
Mr. Bromwich. Oh, I hope it is, yes.
Mr. Markey. OK. Then I think that should be our goal.
Mr. Bromwich. I agree.
Mr. Markey. You need to give hope to investors that there
is something, and to these companies who are sticking their
neck out, or necks out, that there is an end in sight to their
hopes to be able to contribute to a new energy vision for our
country. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamborn. Well, the Ranking Member had some
interesting news and predictions that you are bringing to our
attention, including that apparently the Republican budget will
pass the Senate. Now, the Chair would recognize the Gentleman
from New Jersey.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. First, let me ask the Chair for
permission to include in the record a report issued by the
National Wildlife Federation, entitled, Offshore Wind In the
Atlantic: Growing Momentum For Jobs, Energy Independence, Clean
Air, and Wildlife Protection.
And also to include in the record a letter, dated March 7
of this year to the President, signed by a hundred or so
organizations and individuals from a dozen different Eastern
States, having to do with offshore wind.
Chairman Lamborn. Without objection.
[The letter to the President follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Holt. Thank you. And just to follow on Mr. Markey's
very good comments, this transmission line backbone that would
go up the Atlantic Coast, if it is going to carry anything
other than coal generated electricity, we are going to have to
have more incentive, more support, for developing this enormous
attractive resource of wind offshore.
Mr. Markey talked about the loan guarantees that I think
are necessary for that, and I realize that is not your
department, but we will also need I think to have good
confidence building review process for the leasing decisions.
For the ``Smart From the Start'' initiative, I would like
you to explain a little bit more how the lessons learned from
onshore renewable energy can help make the offshore development
go smoothly, and how the offshore wind leases to be highly
conditioned in the leases, what that really means, and whether
that will accelerate the development of this enormous resource.
Mr. Bromwich. Let me begin the answer this way. We have as
I think you know, Congressman Holt, a very relatively small,
but incredibly dedicated, staff of people who do our renewables
work. Right now it is about 28 people who have a broad range of
expertise.
And I can't tell you what they have learned from onshore,
but they could tell you what they have learned from onshore,
and I am sure that they are applying it to the various work
that they are doing right now.
And I know that in devising the ``Smart From the Start''
Program as it applies to offshore, the Secretary and others in
the Department used some of the lessons that they had learned
from onshore work.
I think that what has already happened is that the ``Smart
From the Start'' Program has given a booster shot to the
program. It has accelerated the pace of things to a remarkable
degree.
As you know, we have designated specific areas offshore New
Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, and in the case of
your State, for example, we have already put out for response a
request for interest. That went out at the end of last month.
And we are anticipating a very significant amount of
interest, and then it will be our job to shift through those
and to figure out to whom the leases should be awarded. So we
are in a very different place now, not just in New Jersey, but
in all of the wind energy areas that were designated recently,
and with a whole new set that will be designated in the near
future, to put together and get up and running a robust
offshore wind capability that will justify the kind of
transmission backbone that Google and its partners are looking
to build.
As I said before, we are going to continue to look for ways
to improve the efficiency of our process, and to cut back even
further on the time that it takes to go through all of the
steps. We have already made a substantial advance by----
Mr. Holt. So let me ask you that anywhere along the East
Coast will there--well, how soon do you estimate will there be
wind turbine offshore generation? And I am talking about kind
of the 10 to 30 mile offshore region? When will we see it?
Mr. Bromwich. I don't know. So much of it depends on the
pace of construction of these facilities, and what happens the
construction is in operation, and plans have been filed, as it
has been for Cape Wind, and then what other obstacles may be in
the way.
And in the case of Cape Wind, there is very little left for
us to there. There is a review of birds, and bats, and our
monitoring program needs to be submitted. There are then
various plans that need to be submitted, but they don't need
our approval. We have to object within a certain period of time
if we object.
So that, if they get the financing, is going forward. It is
harder to predict, and it is more speculative for me to predict
how things will go off Delaware, off New Jersey, off Maryland,
and off Virginia.
I think that I share your hope that it will be soon, but
how soon, I really can't say without any degree of certainty.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamborn. Thank you. The Gentleman from California,
Mr. Costa. And I am letting him go next with the agreement of
Mr. Markey, because he didn't have a chance to speak in the
first round. Thank you.
Mr. Costa. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues
as well. This is a very important hearing, I think, of the
Subcommittee today because for those of us who do want to build
a renewable robust portfolio, and trying to find out what these
roadblocks have been for both solar and wind.
And even in States like California that have approximately
20 percent of our energy from renewable sources, and with the
goal to expand that to 30 percent over the course of the next
10 years, these challenges I think are critical.
Mr. Abbey, I would like to talk to you because we have had
this conversation before. There is an effort that the Bureau of
Land Management has done with the renewable electricity
standards that have been implemented in 29 States, and
especially in the Southwest, with a number of areas where there
is great potential for solar energy utilization; i.e.,
California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona.
And you have been dealing with these programmatic EISs to
do this. You have had--I can't speak for the other States, but
I certainly know in the desert of Southern California that a
very, I thought, good effort, collaboration between the State
and local agencies.
But yet as we all know, and I am reading it in our
analysis, some of the obligations are roadblocks to solar and
wind, to include financing demand, and project siting and
litigation.
I would submit to you and Members of the Subcommittee that
it is siding and litigation that seems to be the primary
obstacles in the case of Southern California. Where are we on
that, Director Abbey, and where are we in the opportunity to
produce the final programmatic environmental impact statement
that would allow those solar projects to go forward?
Mr. Abbey. Well, thanks for your question, Congressman
Costa. The programmatic environmental impact statement assessed
the environmental, and social, and economic impacts associated
with solar energy development on public lands, and as you
stated, in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,
and Utah.
We extended the public comment period twice so that we
could benefit from the input that we would receive from the
public, from the industry, and other regulatory agencies that
worked for the State and even local governments.
That public comment period has closed, and we are assessing
those comments at this point in time, and we anticipate moving
forward as aggressively as possible, and responding to those
comments, and producing a final environmental impact statement
based upon the information that has been provided to us
hopefully this year, or early next year.
Mr. Costa. So you are looking at doing it before the end of
this year hopefully?
Mr. Abbey. The schedule was such that we were targeting
this calendar year, and it may be in the next year based upon
the substantial comments that we have received regarding the
draft document.
Mr. Costa. Are you committed to adopting solutions that
have been recommended by the California Desert Renewable Energy
Working Group in the near future?
Mr. Abbey. We have taken that into consideration. Let me
just say one thing along those lines. We have a great working
relationship with the State of California, and because of that
working relationship, and because of the State renewable energy
portfolio standards that is in place, we understand the
important role that California plays as far as helping us
diversify our Nation's energy portfolio.
Mr. Costa. I mean, if we can't locate solar energy
development in that part of the State, god help us. I don't
know that we can site it anywhere.
Mr. Abbey. Well, I am pretty confident that we will move
forward with projects that have been proposed, and at least of
those projects. Litigation is something that we are----
Mr. Costa. Is there anything that Congress should consider
to remove barriers for agencies to try to implement these
solutions?
Mr. Abbey. Congressman, I am not that we need a
Congressional engagement or involvement at this point in time.
Certainly oversight is helpful, but nonetheless, we have all
the authorities that we need to go out and do the job that we
have been tasked to do.
Mr. Costa. But I suspect that you are as frustrated as I
am, and some of the others. The Bureau of Land Management has
spent considerable time and effort now through two
Administrations trying to take advantage of what is a
tremendous potential in those States that you enumerated, where
there is a lot of solar energy potential.
There are literally thousands of megawatts that could be
developed, and it just--I mean, are there any other impediments
that are keeping us from getting there?
Mr. Abbey. I do not believe there is. Again, the chief----
Mr. Costa. How about the connection of the transmission and
the moving of that power to where it can be used?
Mr. Abbey. The transmission continues to be a challenge,
but again I don't believe that any additional authorities are
necessary. The challenge that we have with transmission is that
it crosses numerous jurisdictional boundaries, and there are an
awful lot of people that are involved in approving the
transmission through corridors and lines.
Mr. Costa. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has
expired, but we need to continue to work on this. This seems to
be one of those areas where there is strong bipartisan
agreement, and clearly we can do better, I think, and I will
look forward to you making those timelines at the end of this
year or early next year.
Mr. Abbey. I look forward to working with you to do that.
Chairman Lamborn. And I want to thank the Gentleman from
California who was the Chairman of this Subcommittee for the
previous four years, and knows many of these issues very well.
We are going to conclude now unless someone shows up at the
last second. The Chair recognizes Representative Bishop from
Utah.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate what
the Gentleman from California was asking, because transmission
is a key element to whether we have any kind of alternative
energies. You have to get it from one place to another.
So let me follow up if I could on the track in which he was
going, because this could be a major impediment to that power.
So, Mr. Abbey, how many transmission projects have been fully
permitted on Federal land in, say, the last three years?
Mr. Abbey. Congressman Bishop, I would have to provide you
with the specific data for that request, but I will say this.
That since 2009, BLM has permitted 500 miles of transmission
lines across Nevada, Idaho, and California.
Mr. Bishop. And you did not have Utah in there. Come on.
Mr. Abbey. Well, actually, we are dedicating a transmission
line in Utah, I think, next week.
Mr. Bishop. Oh, good, because that is the last question
that I have here.
Mr. Costa. Could you name it after the Congressman?
Mr. Bishop. No. Just don't use the word memorial in there.
Do you have an idea of how many transmission projects that are
currently in the pipeline with the Interior Department?
Mr. Abbey. The answer that was just given to me is around
35.
Mr. Bishop. OK. And I was going to ask if there were
delays, but obviously like the Gateway West, the EIS for
Gateway West in Utah has been delayed for 22 months. Why was
there a delay in that?
Mr. Abbey. Again, there are challenges as far as
identifying a corridor that is acceptable to everyone that is
engaged and involved in that review process.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Well, that is a good point, because
obviously in developing these EISs requires multiple agencies
to become involved in them unfortunately. So is the policy that
you require a consensus, or a majority rule on the issuing
where there are various opinions that may be in conflict from
these multiple specialists from these multiple offices? How do
you determine whether you go forward or not?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, it goes back to our ``Smart From
the Start'' concept, where we try to engage and involve
everybody early in the process, versus going forward with the
analysis and coming up with a decision that there is little
support for. So as we look to----
Mr. Bishop. So, could one office stop the entire work?
Mr. Abbey. No, they could not. They could certainly object
to the analysis, or object to the decision, and then we would
work through the processes to try to resolve those differences.
Mr. Bishop. Has it ever been attempted to have like a team
of experts congregate just in one office so they can represent
all of it, and it can all be done in a timely manner?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we routinely get together and coordinate
our actions. Whether or not we need to all be in one office to
do that on a routine basis, I am not sure that it requires
that, but communication is a key all along that process.
Mr. Bishop. Well, that may be one of the things that we
should talk about in the future sometime in trying to
consolidate that particular process. I would ask you the
specific that is very parochial to me, and that is that segment
to Red Butte portion of the energy gateway, and I am hoping,
but is the Interior prepared to deliver that?
I understand that the EIS is supposed to be published on
May 27. Of course, if the world ends on May 21, it is a moot
issue, but are you prepared to move forward with that one?
Mr. Abbey. We are prepared to move forward. I am not sure
within the time frame that you just identified, but we have
done a lot of work to get to where we need to be as far as
releasing that document.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that, and I think that one of the
things that people have talked about here before as I was
listening before I came down here, we have made statements both
from the Administration and from Congress about our need to
invest in and integrate renewable energy sources, and sometimes
there is an incongruity with that statement; the development
with the resources, and especially the critical transmission
infrastructure that we need to move that particular energy.
I think that I have about a minute-and-a-half left there.
If, for example, you all don't change your wildlands, and you
do something wrong, and don't change your wildlands proposal,
and we do something wrong, and don't actually cut the funding.
Let's say we do something right and cut the funding to that.
Since it is not in a--and the line item for it is part of
the overall budget, but would any kind of change in that
funding provide a delay in projects like these from getting
their permits established?
Mr. Abbey. I am not sure that there would be delay. It
would certainly be a factor in us reviewing the proposals that
would be before us, and take that information into account from
the inventories that would have been performed to identify
lands with renewable energy characteristics.
At the end of the day, it is one factor of many that we
would consider, and then as we go forward, make a decision to
best serve the public.
Mr. Bishop. And that one factor is a key in keeping this
Committee going. I don't have any other questions, but I really
feel somewhat naked up here if I am not asking you to release
some documents to me. I don't have any that I really want, but
can you give me something just for the fun of it?
Mr. Abbey. I will give you my written notes here if you
would like them.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Abbey.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Lamborn. OK. And thank you, and I want to thank
the two witnesses, both Directors, for their testimony. Members
of the Committee may have additional questions for the record,
and I would ask that you would respond to these in writing
should they be submitted.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Response to questions submitted for the record by Robert Abbey,
Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Congressman Rob Bishop (UT)
1. You mentioned during the May 13 hearing that the Gateway West
environmental impact statement is being delayed due to
``challenges to identifying acceptable corridors to those
engaged in the review process.''
a. Can you be more specific as to the nature of those challenges?
Answer: With a proposed route of over 1,100 miles, the Gateway West
Transmission Line Project is the longest, and perhaps the most complex,
interstate high voltage transmission line project currently under
consideration in the United States. Over 2,000 miles of alternative
routes are analyzed in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). The project has a wide range of cooperating agencies,
including Federal, state and local governments. Some of the siting
challenges addressed in the DEIS include: location of the line on both
Federal and private land, and use of designated corridors, such as the
West Wide Energy Corridor; avoiding impacts to Sage Grouse and other
sensitive species habitat; avoiding designated areas and existing
infrastructure; and conformance with existing land use plans.
b. Have those challenges been resolved? If not, why not?
Answer: The BLM, working with cooperating agencies, developed a
broad range of alternatives designed to address siting issues. BLM has
addressed some of these challenges for instance, by locating some
segments of the proposed line in areas where most, if not all, resource
conflicts are avoided; for these segments, no alternative routes were
analyzed in the DEIS. There remain project segments where a consensus
opinion on an acceptable route does not currently exist. However, BLM
continues to engage with cooperative agencies to try to resolve these
remaining issues.
c. Are those challenges within the U.S. Department of the Interior or
other federal agencies?
Answer: Federal Cooperating Agencies on the Gateway West Project
include the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, and the Army Corps of
Engineers. Although not all regulatory issues are resolved at this
time, the BLM has a very good working relationship with these agencies
and we expect resolution before the Record of Decision is issued.
d. What is being done to resolve these issues and move this project
through the process?
Answer: After the close of the Public Scoping Period in July 2008,
the BLM allowed additional time in response to public input and for
state and local governments to develop alternative route proposals. The
BLM worked with these stakeholders to avoid ``fatal routing flaws''
from a public land perspective. These alternatives are fully considered
in the DEIS. The project management team continues to work with
cooperating agencies to address issues and provide as complete an
impact analysis as current information and science allow.
To address sage grouse and cultural resource issues, the BLM has
formed focus groups consisting of cooperating agencies, interested
parties, and the applicants. For sage grouse, the BLM developed an
``Analysis Framework for Interstate Transmission Lines.'' The focus
group is working through the four components of analysis in this first-
time application of the Framework. The approach is endorsed by the BLM,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Idaho and Wyoming State Game
Agencies. For cultural resources, a focus group is preparing a
Programmatic Agreement (PA) required by Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. The focus group was endorsed by the
interested parties affected by the project and should lead to a broader
acceptance of the PA among the interested parties.
2. What is your expectation of how long a project of this scale should
take to complete the NEPA process?
Answer: Depending on the length and complexity of a transmission
project, four to five years for the NEPA process should be expected.
3. Are there similar challenges for the Sigurd-to-Red Butte segment of
the Energy Gateway transmission project? If so, what is being
done to address those in a timely manner?
Answer: The BLM is working closely with 13 Cooperating Agencies
(Federal agencies and local governments) to identify the optimum
routing alternatives for the Sigurd to Red Butte Project. Although this
project does not have significant sage grouse concerns, and plan
amendments are not needed to address visual constraints on public land,
there are other and different challenges associated with this project
For example, there are cultural and cultural-visual concerns and
inventoried roadless area constraints as the southern portion of the
route crosses the Dixie National Forest.
4. What is your expectation of when the draft environmental impact
statement will be issued for the Sigurd-to-Red Butte segment?
Answer: The Draft EIS was mailed to the public on May 27, 2011, and
is available online at: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/cedar_city/
planning/deis_documents.
html. The public comment period began on June 3 and ended on July 18,
2011. We anticipate a decision on the project in the fall of 2012.
Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ)
la. Before permitting a project, I think we can all agree that
everyone involved would like to have certainty that a project
is not going to experience any delays from litigation.
Certainty is good for industry, energy investors, endangered
species, irreplaceable historic and cultural resources, Native
American tribes and land managers. However, in the Solar Energy
Development Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS) there are at least 20 out of 24 proposed SEZs have had
less than a 5% survey for cultural resources. In the PEIS, the
BLM states that in-depth analyses have already been performed
for the SEZs, or would be for future SEZs. If<5% surveys are
generally the best the BLM can do for identifying cultural
resources in ``solar energy zones,'' can you please share with
the Committee how the BLM plans to adequately assess potential
impacts to historic properties under both NEPA and Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act, thereby providing
certainty for preservationists as well as other interested
parties?
Answer: in accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (N11PA), the BLM is coordinating
with and soliciting input from the State Historic Preservation Offices
(SHPOs) in each of the six states in the study area and from the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In addition, the National
Council of SHPOs, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and
Tribal governments have been invited to consult on the Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and the preparation of a National
Programmatic Agreement (PA) regarding solar energy development. The PA
will provide for a phased consultation process related to historic,
traditional, and cultural resources for the PEIS and subsequent
activities that could tier to the PEIS Record of Decision. Details
regarding the consultation process are presented in Chapter 14 of the
Draft Solar PEIS. Additional information, including copies of
correspondence with Tribes, is included in Appendix K. of the Draft
Solar PEIS.
Ib. When the BLM creates new SEZs, will the BLM instate minimum
cultural resources survey thresholds before offering any new
SEZs like a 20% survey standard for example?
Answer: The BLM is currently reviewing comments (comment period
ended May 2, 2011) on the Draft Solar PEIS. Many commenters asked that
the BLM augment its data collection for various resources by conducting
on-the-ground surveys prior to making final decisions about solar
energy zones (SEZ). Such comments identified the need for conducting
targeted Class II cultural resource inventories, among others. We agree
that identifying baseline cultural resource data through a standard
sampling regime would be useful in assessing the potential adverse
affect on historic properties, and we are considering various options
in terms of time and cost. We also note that each solar energy
development project will require additional review and consultation
once a specific plan of development is prepared and presented to the
BLM.
Congrcsswoman Grace Napolitano (CA)
1. The BLM and DOE draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
for the Development of Solar Projects in Six Western United
States purports to reduce the permitting time for projects. My
understanding is that the BLM must still conduct an
environmental review for each project because the PEIS does not
get into site specific and project specific environmental
impacts. Please provide a schedule showing exactly how much
time the PEIS will save, and why, over the normal time for the
BLM to process an application for a solar project or a
transmission line project needed to delivery energy from a
solar project?
Answer: The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) will
help the BLM establish a framework for siting solar energy development
projects and identify and prioritize locations on public lands best
suited for solar energy development (i.e., those identified through a
comprehensive environmental analysis as containing the highest solar
energy potential and the fewest environmental and resource conflicts).
Once completed, the PEIS will provide environmental analysis to which
future projects may tier under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). It would be difficult to ascertain how much time the PEIS would
save because each project is unique. However, by tiering to the Solar
PEIS' analysis, future environmental reviews may be expedited by
focusing on a narrower range of alternatives and by avoiding redundancy
by concentrating only on issues not already analyzed.
2. The BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with various California agencies to
create a Renewable Energy Policy Group to facilitate the
permitting of renewable energy projects. Related to that
effort, BLM and other federal, state, and focal agencies, along
with industry, environmental organizations, and the public are
involved in the development of the Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan (DRECP) that is intended to facilitate
renewable energy project review and approval and provide long-
term endangered species permit assurances. One of the products
will identify and map areas for renewable energy project
development. How is (he PEIS for Solar Development taking into
account the work of the DRECP?
Answer: A number of regional and state initiatives, including the
California Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP), have been
started in the six-state study area evaluated in the Solar PEIS.
Appendix D of the Solar PEIS provides an overview of the regional
and state initiatives that specifically address renewable energy
development in the six-state study area. It also includes maps
depicting how these efforts relate to the lands proposed by the BLM as
being available for solar energy development or proposed as SEZs.
Specifically, the DRECP is intended to advance state and federal
natural resource conservation goals in the Mojave and Colorado desert
regions of southern California, while also facilitating the timely and
streamlined permitting of renewable energy projects. The DRECP will
include a strategy that identifies and maps areas for renewable energy
development and areas for long term natural resource conservation. The
DRECP was initiated after the BLM began its evaluation of the six-state
study area for the Solar PEIS, is currently collecting additional data,
and is not expected to be completed until after the Solar PEIS Record
of Decision has been issued. Because both efforts may result in
amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan,
there has been and will continue to be close coordination between the
two efforts. The outcome of the DRECP is anticipated to result in
additional refinements to the decisions expected to be made on the
basis of the Solar PEIS, including any lands prioritized for renewable
energy development and any lands excluded from renewable energy
development in the CDCA.
3. The BLM seems to be moving towards more of a business-like
relationship with renewable energy developers on public lands.
The renewable energy industry is supportive and like their
private lands projects, the BLM is a business partner in the
development process. Does the BLM acknowledge that in a
business transaction there is a significant amount of risk
assumed by both parties and all contracts and agreements should
be drafted to address these risks? Industry is concerned about
the outdated, template forms that the BLM requires developers
to sign without any opportunity to suggest changes. These
documents include cost recovery agreements, memorandums of
understanding, and right of way grants. Industry is running
into significant problems obtaining financing because of poorly
drafted or unclear language in these documents. Would the BLM
consider a process where a developer would have an opportunity
to provide comment (a redline draft) of an agreement which
would then be reviewed by an Interior Department Solicitor for
consistency with federal regulations? The types of changes that
industry is seeking are replacing references to outdated policy
and regulations, ensuring relationships with third party
consultants and cooperating agencies are clearly spelled out,
and terms and conditions of the agreements are clearly defined.
Answer: There are a variety of different BLM documents and
agreements associated with the processing of wind and solar rights-of-
way on the public lands. Some of these documents are standard template
documents that need to be retained for consistency purposes. These
types of documents include the standard terms of the right-of-way grant
and the template for cost recovery agreements.
There are other documents, including the stipulations attached to a
right-of-way grant, which are developed through the NEPA process and
should be clear and understandable. Applicants or project proponents
should have an opportunity to review these stipulations to make sure
they arc clear and understandable, and it is appropriate for individual
companies to work with the local BLM office to ensure these
stipulations are clear and understandable. However, the BLM authorized
officer retains the authority to accept or reject any suggested
revisions to these documents.
4. The Wind Industry understands that the federal government must
propose new policies to keep up with the ever-changing public
interests and impact concerns. They were pleased when the BLM's
PEIS for wind was being developed that industry representatives
were allowed to provide input and the policies were created
through a public process, taking into consideration the
concerns of a variety of stakeholders. However, more recently,
several new policies (IMs) have come out which have a great
impact on renewable energy development, and industry is not
allowed any input during the development of these policies. Why
has the BLM recently chosen to adopt policies unilaterally
without any consultation with the parties most affected by
these policies, especially in light of the strong track record
of collaboration on past policies such as the wind PEIS and
related IMs? The renewable energy industry sees the BLM as a
partner in the development process and would appreciate if the
BLM would consider soliciting opinions of industry experts
before releasing policy which is often met with contention.
Would the BLM consider appointing a panel of expert industry
representatives to review proposed policy to help the BLM draft
the most appropriate and productive policies to meet their
goals, while continuing to encourage renewable energy
development on public lands, as has been stated time and again
as a priority for the federal government?
Answer: The BLM has a strong history of collaborating with industry
and will continue to maintain that working relationship. While our
Instruction Memoranda generally deal with the orderly administration of
public lands and generally do not have a public comment period, the BLM
is always interested in hearing from our industry partners as well as
other stakeholders and the public in general about impacts to them.
5. One of the biggest problems with NEPA is the duplication of
responsibility among resource agencies (e.g., BLM Sensitive
Species List and USFWS Candidate, Threatened and Endangered
Species List). This fragmentation and duplication adds greatly
to the problem of coordination of NEPA with other laws and with
conflicting agency missions. Under most current practices, a
project often proceeds under NEPA in a 'best public fit
scenario,' only to be substantially delayed by interpretation
of policy memorandums and guidance documents, and exceptionally
broad interpretations of permitting and analysis requirements.
How does the BLM plan to use the RECO offices and staff to
effectively minimize this type of duplication?
Answer: The objective of RECO offices is to facilitate the
expeditious processing of applications for renewable energy projects on
the public lands. However, the close collaboration with other agencies
does not mean that the BLM can abdicate its responsibility to comply
with federal laws and regulations, even if those laws appear
duplicative of other agencies' laws and mandates. We will continue,
however, to minimize and streamline our procedures with other agencies
to the greatest extent possible.