Adam Sherwin

October 27, 2008

A proposed bill by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, offers a practical plan towards helping America with its dependence on foreign oil.

Since 2005, solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") to build solar energy projects on federal land. Currently, the BLM controls over 119 million surface acres in the West, which these companies consider an ideal location for solar energy plants. In June 2008, the BLM placed a moratorium on new solar energy projects in order to allow for environmental impact studies that would determine the effects of these plants on federal land. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, an environmental impact study must be performed for major federal actions which have the potential for significant impact on the quality of human environment.

To move these projects forward, Congressman Rohrabacher has introduced H.R. 6527, the "Emergency Solar Power Permit Act." The bill would allow the building of solar projects on federal land without environmental impact studies. In explaining his support of alternative energy sources, Congressman Rohrabacher argues, "We need solutions on many levels, and freeing up solar power bottlenecks is one of them."

Supporters of the bill argue that solar power businesses will suffer from the moratorium. By not being allowed to use federal land, many solar energy businesses are concerned that they will need to rely on private land for development, which would be considerably more expensive. These supporters note the progress that solar energy has made as an alternative energy, with photovoltaic solar projects growing by 48% from 2006 to 2007. Additionally, given that solar energy is still a developing industry, there is concern that the moratorium will significantly impede the growth of this industry.

Critics of the bill, including Congressman Rohrabacher's opponent in the fall election, are concerned that the legislation comes with significant environmental consequences. They argue that if these projects are not properly scrutinized, they have the potential of destroying wildlife habitat, harming water resources, and being aesthetically unpleasing. While many agree that the process of approving solar power plants needs to be improved, these critics are that this bill is not worth the costs.

Congress should immediately pass H.R. 6527. While solar power will not be able to completely replace fossil fuels as a source of energy, this alternative energy is a step in the right direction. Considering that a single plant on two square miles of land produces enough power for 180,000 typical California homes, Congress would be wise to give solar energy a helping hand in the development of these important projects.

While opponents do raise important concerns over the environment, this is not enough to justify the further delay of these projects. Simply put, America's energy crisis demands practical solutions. Such environmental concerns should be addressed by Congress, but only in a way that does not prevent a prompt application process of alternative energy projects.

Sources:

John Fund, Editorial, The Sun King, Wall St. J., Sept. 14, 2008

Dan Frosch, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects, N.Y. Times, June 27, 2008

Alan Blank & Michael Alexander, Congressman, challenger spar on solar-plant bill, Daily Pilot, July 18, 2008

42 U.S.C. § 4321