Sierra Club Steadfast Against Destructive Calico Solar

The Sierra Club asked the California Energy Commission (CEC) to halt its review of K Road Sun's revised proposal to build the Calico Solar power project, but the CEC dismissed the Club's challenge.  The project will destroy nearly 7 square miles of pristine desert on public land, and displace or kill many rare plant and wildlife species.  As I mentioned in a previous post, the CEC permitted the Calico Solar power project under a different owner last year, even though that company did not even have the financial or technical ability to build the project.  The new company, K Road Sun, is also of dubious pedigree, and is rushing the CEC for approval so that it can receive loans and grants from the taxpayer. 
The Sierra Club told the The Sun newspaper:

"The Sierra Club is very much in favor of renewable energy but this is a bad location ...," adding that the area is "important habitat for the desert tortoise and the big horn sheep."
The Sierra Club is not alone in opposing the destructive solar project.  Defenders of Wildlife filed a brief in support of the Sierra Club's opposition.   Also, BNSF Railroad opposes the project and filed a complaint with the CEC on Wednesday, according to the Daily Press.  The company operates a rail line through the site and is concerned that glint and glare from the solar panels could blind its train engineers. 

Prickly poppy and desert dandelions bloom on the site of the proposed Calico Solar power project in the central Mojave Desert.
Why should California electricity customers and American taxpayers pay for K Road Sun's plans to destroy pristine desert habitat on public land?  We need to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and increase renewable energy generation, but companies like K Road should not be given a free pass to destroy our natural resources when there are better places to put solar panels, such as rooftops and parking lots.  In fact, a CEC working group studying options to increase distributed generation reported in May that California's infrastructure is capable of more rooftop installations with relatively minimal hassle, which would spare our wildlands for future generations.

Comments

  1. 29caddyJuly 18, 2011 at 7:23 AM

    You may want to reconsider BNSF Railway's motivations for supporting your objections to the planned solar power generation facility. I doubt that safety concerns related to the engineers' visibility being adversely affected by glare is really the issue. BNSF is the major coal-hauling railroad in the U.S. For example, in the first nine months of 2009 coal was responsible for nearly half the tonnage moved by BNSF (214 billion revenue ton miles out of a total of 444 billion) and a quarter of the company's revenues ($2.7 billion out of a total of $10.4 billion). Since coal is used to generate electricity, any alternative, renewable electrical power generation method, such as a solar farm, is likely to affect BNSF's profits and perhaps that is the real issue here.

    BNSF certainly has no track record (pun intended) of supporting environmental issues: consider their groundwater contamination in Washington and Idaho from a leaking fuel depot facility in Idaho and their recent destruction of prime wildlife habitat in Abo Canyon in New Mexico by their double-tracking it. The environment was certainly no concern in either of those.

    Choose your alliances carefully. You may be only a pawn in a greater power play.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shaun G.July 19, 2011 at 4:48 AM

    Thanks 29 Caddy. I do not have an alliance with BNSF, and I do not know much about their motivations beyond comments on the public record. Ideally the Sierra Club will see to it that the poorly sited Calico project is put to rest, but I will not complain if BNSF achieves the same goal. Ultimately, utility-scale solar on pristine desert is not a sustainable path for renewable energy generation, but local clean energy is.

    I welcome your skepticism, though. The same could be applied to the motivations behind most "clean" energy companies...they have found a way to profit and win alliances with environmental groups, even though their business model involves the same landscape-scale ecological destruction that the other sources of energy cause.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Plants Species in the Desert?

Would you expect that California's desert hosts gives the redwood forest a run for its money when it comes to plant biodiversity?  It's easy to take the desert for granted when all you want to do is zoom through it on the highway and get to your destination. But you are passing by an amazing and biologically diverse ecosystem.  There are at least 2,450 native plant species found in California's desert, according to a great article by Chris Clarke on desert life , posted at KCET. If you want to learn more about our amazing deserts, join Desert Biodiversity, a new organization dedicated to exploring, respecting and defending the deserts.
Read more

Mowing Vegetation as Mitigation: Trump Administration Practice Goes Unchallenged

Image
The Trump administration is again touting the practice of mowing thousands of acres of desert vegetation as environmentally-responsible, despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.  The draft environmental review of the Yellow Pine Solar project in southern Nevada claims that vegetation mowing - as opposed to bulldozing - will yield positive outcomes that are highly doubtful.   This positive framing of the construction practice misleads the public and decisionmakers and ignores decades of scientific research regarding the impacts of mechanized disturbance on desert wildlands.  According to the draft environmental review: "Mowing is becoming the standard on large site-type ROWs to prevent permanent impairment of public lands (as mandated by FLPMA) and in lieu of off-site mitigation... Mowing methods are designed to help preserve soils, biological soil crusts, soil seed banks, native perennial vegetation diversity and structure, and cacti and yucca species, and t...
Read more

Unlikely Allies: Trump Administration Joins Enviros to Plan Solar Project on Prime Tortoise Habitat

Image
The Trump Administration this month released an assessment that concludes that a solar developer can crush and mow vegetation across several square miles of prime desert tortoise habitat, and still consider those lands as viable habitat for the species.  The silence of some national-level environmental groups regarding the unconventional and unscientific conclusion appears to signal their comfort taking risks with a species already facing significant peril, as well as these groups' inability to champion more sustainable locations to generate clean energy in Nevada. The biological opinion released by the Trump Administration constitutes the official position of the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the impacts of the proposed Gemini Solar project; its curious willingness to declare heavily disturbed lands as viable tortoise habitat was necessary for the project's approval because the project would be built on lands that have been identified as a vital habitat linkage sustai...
Read more