Follow this blog:
RSS

Are the fed’s fees for solar on public land fair?

By | June 17, 2010, 4:14 PM PDT

Yesterday the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released its rental rates for companies wishing to use federal lands to to generate solar energy.

BLM Director Bob Abbey in a statement:

Today, we are providing the solar energy industry the level of certainty it needs about the costs associated with projects on the public lands and ensuring a fair return to American taxpayers for the use of their public lands.

The rates differ according to location, county property values, the number of megawatts produced at the facility, the use of storage systems to provide energy during low sunlight times, and the type of technology being used—photovoltaic panels, concentrated solar, solar-thermal hybrids, etc.

In some cases, the rates are much higher than market rates on private land. The technology’s overall efficiency energy-wise also doesn’t factor into the rental costs. For instance, a solar-thermal plant might generate the same electric output on less land than other solar types, but they need larger amounts of water to operate. In deserts and other water-strapped areas, this adds to the plant’s impact on the land’s resources.

Todd Woody reports for the New York Times:

That methodology is a work in progress as the agency tries to adapt decades-old formulas designed for oil and gas leasing and mineral extraction to renewable energy production.

Some 23 million acres of federal property are suitable for large-scale solar development, according to the bureau, and the agency has received more than 200 lease applications from developers who covet hot and sunny desert real estate in the Southwest.

The rental breakdown goes a bit like this:

Megawatt Capacity Fee

  • Photovoltaic panels: $5,256 / MW
  • Concentrated solar tech: $6,570 / MW
    • with 3 or more hours of energy storage: $7,884 / MW

Rent

  • Hidalgo County, NM: $15.70 / acre
  • Mojave County, AZ: $31.38 / acre
  • Alamosa County, CO: $62.78 / acre
  • Beaver County, UT: $125.56 / acre
  • Clark County, NV: $188.34 / acre
  • Riverside County, CA: $313.88 / acre

More rates can be found here.

According to the BLM, federal and state governments received $5.5 billion in 2008 for federal onshore energy leasing and production.


Image
: LanceCheung_Flickr
Via: Green

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Melissa Mahony

About Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2010 to 2011.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Contributing Editor

Melissa Mahony has written for Scientific American Mind, Audubon Magazine, Plenty Magazine and LiveScience. Formerly, she was an editor at Wildlife Conservation magazine. She holds degrees from Boston College and New York University's Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. She is based in New York.

Follow her on Twitter.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Melissa does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers. She currently works for the Wildlife Conservation Society as an editor. Should Melissa cover a topic in which the WCS is involved, she will disclose this fact in her writing.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
9
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
It's they way they think.
Progressives are all the same. Promote something as good for the planet and then make a buck off it.

In 2009 Massachusetts started taxing people who replace old windows with modern energy efficient windows.

$45.00 a window. They just added over $700 to the cost of replacing windows in countless homes accoss Massachusetts.

The average ROI on a home window replacement project is now 10 years instead of 8. The first 2 years of energy savings covers the tax.

But no one in the Patrick administration has ever worked in the dreaded private sector so they know nothing about Return On Investment.

If this sounds like Obama it is because they are so close politically that Obama actually stole Patrick?s "Hope and Change" governors race campaign slogan for his presidential run in 2008.

Their bible is the checkbook. They live to tax and spend.
Posted by Hates Idiots
18th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are the fed's fees for solar on public land fair?
@ Hates Idiots

And, a damned fine job of spend, and spend, and spend, and spend, and spend, and spend, and tax, and spend, and spend, and tax, and spend, and... they do.
Posted by Dr. John
21st Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are the fed's fees for solar on public land fair?
@ Hates Idiots and Dr John

What does any of that have to do with this story and what is being asked? The point is that the federal government owns this land and it is charging different amounts of money depending on geographic location.

The question is if you think that's fair? I mean, if the Federal government is really concerned about "doing the right thing" in terms of environmental impact, then why don't they charge the same amount of money across the board? Why should it cost so much more to "do the right thing" in California, then it does in New Mexico?
Posted by blowbot@...
22nd Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are the fed's fees for solar on public land fair?
That's a great question. One the hand I think that it depends on what federal lands. As someone who believes that undeveloped land is an extremely important resource, fees should be kept high to discourage the use of these lands, as there are environmental concerns that should not be dismissed.

However, our government can encourage that use for lands that are not federally owned, by offering tax breaks and other incentives. I no more want to see a wind farm than an oil drill or coal mine on these lands. These developers are looking for cheap real estate at the taxpayer's and the environment's expense. I would tend to agree with the Bureau on this one. In the same vein. There's a budget crisis in this country. Many large energy corporations are not paying any income taxes. We've 'given' away the rights to many natural resources without getting a share of the revenues from those resources. IF we're going to allow this incursion into public land trusts, it should be very expensive indeed, as that type of use already carries a high price tag by despoiling these lands. It's foolish to think that deserts are not also ecologically important. Perhaps they could lower the price if given an equal amount of land in trade.
Posted by lynnemb
23rd Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are the fed's fees for solar on public land fair?
@ lynnemb

Soooooo, you don't want coal, oil or natural gas, but you don't want wind or solar either? So what do you want? Cars powered on rainbows and unicorn farts? How do you plan to meet our energy needs? Or are we all just supposed to go back to our subsistence farms and eat dinner by candlelight? BTW, do you really think China, India or many other countries will stop their industrial revolutions? Do you think they give two hoots about the environment in their quest to give their people a better standard of living? But I'm sure if we set an example by back-tracking to the stone age, everyone else will follow our happy example.
Posted by branchman67
25th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I see your point lynnemb, but...
They are not charging the fees to protect the land. As the fees for strip mining permits are supposed to go toward monitoring and assuring the restoration of the land.

In this case the government is actively promoting the placement of solar on federal land as good for the environment, but openly saying they want their cut of the profits.

In this case the land use fees do not go back to the land. They go into the federal general funds to be spent as Congress decides.

That is a big difference and makes the comparison to drilling and mining fees not appropriate.

If they could prove the money would be spent on useful National forest related things like fighting the beetles killing millions of trees out west or the long horn beetle killing trees in New England. How about helping the private project working to restore America?s elm forests that were devastated by Dutch elm disease?

Instead the fees will likely go toward renovating an unused airport in Pennsylvania, building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska or renovating congressional offices for the 15th time in 20 years.

I would rather see the solar be placed on federal land for free than see the fees go uncontrolled into the hands of greedy politicians.
Posted by Hates Idiots
25th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are the fed's fees for solar on public land fair?
How much of this scheme gets funneled to Al Gore, one way or another. The big payoff for Gore and his phony scheme is coming quickly as the Obama administration reaches out its many Progressive palms.

A certainty about the costs. What a laugh. Here's one certainty: if you want less of something, tax it. Obama's Progressives have no interest in 'green energy'; the only green they are interested is the green of money. What a scame.

High crimes & misdemeanors? There have been so many we've lost count. Any investigator worth a damn could enough evidence to get Obama into impeachment in 30 days.
Posted by tramky
29th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are the fed's fees for solar on public land fair?
You have to feed the beast. The government gets paid for all commercial use of their (or is it our?) land. If alternative fuels actually do reduce the use of coal and oil then the government (state as well as local) will need to make up the revenue shortfall.
Posted by gbryantiv
6th Jul 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Are the fed's fees for solar on public land fair?
In the end the consumer pays the rent via prices charged for
energy, and I'm making no value statement concerning this fact.
But, if we indeed want to transition away from carbon based
energy, perhaps alternative fuels should be given a comparative
advantage in their production. If rent is charged, I think it should be
used on specific national lands projects; if not, then it will fund other
projects that our reps have shown there is no end to.
Posted by bdubya
8th Oct 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!