"What Gets Measured Gets Done": A Solar Energy Project Analysis for Reforming the Public Land Project Approval Process

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates federal agencies to consider any “significant” impact on the environment a major energy or infrastructure project will have on public lands before proceeding with development. Yet core challenges have stalled the approval process including data synthesis, multi-agency and multi-level jurisdiction, and required public involvement. According to the National Association of Environmental Professionals, the average completion time for Environmental Impact Statements is five years. The opportunity costs associated with delays in development are critical for the transition to a clean energy economy. The Trump Administration has exhibited an earnestness to streamline NEPA approvals of infrastructure and energy development projects. In August 2017, the Administration released Executive Order 13807 emphasizing a lead agency policy and setting a non-binding average two-year goal for processing reviews of individual projects. When considering how thoroughly vetted major project approvals are, restrictive scoping and time limits are serious matters for discussion. In 2012, the Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) was established to promote development in the Southwestern region by catalyzing solar energy applications on resourceful lands. Since three projects have gained approval in 9 months’ time. This capstone investigated the quantitative and qualitative merits of investing in solar programmatic planning. Twenty-five NEPA authorized solar energy projects were found to have a positive correlation between their approved power and the time per megawatt (MW) required for approval. The higher the recommended power, the less time each MW required for analyzing. The three environmental assessments tiered from the PEIS were evaluated based on public commentary periods, competitive bidding, and overall process. This capstone found that broad scale scoping rather than time limits will yield best results in streamlining the NEPA process

“Promoting Coal at a Climate Summit is like Promoting Tobacco at a Cancer Summit”

Emily Lavallee was a Political Science and Environmental Studies major and member of Pi Sigma Alpha since her sophomore year. Her second major and interest in climate change, clean air and water inform much of her political research. Emily began working as an Experiential Education Coordinator at a non-profit in Newark, New Jersey this past February

California Rushes In—Keeping Water Instream for Fisheries Without Federal Law

This Article examines the ways that federal law and federal agencies currently provide a legal basis to keep water instream for California fisheries, and the ways that California water law may be in a position to fill the regulatory gap that may be left if federal water law and federal agencies recede. Following the introduction, Part I of the Article identifies the different ways that instream flow affects California fisheries. Part II then surveys federal laws and federal agencies that have traditionally supported efforts to keep water instream for California fisheries. In Part III, the Article presents examples of how the scope of federal laws affecting instream flow may be reduced by the administration of Donald Trump and the new Congress, and discusses the California laws and California agencies that may be increasingly relied upon to secure instream flows for California fisheries in the event this reduced scope of federal law occurs. Using H.R. 23 (otherwise known as the Gaining Responsibility on Water Act of 2017) as a focal point, Part IV then assesses proposed Congressional legislation to limit the application of California water law, the response of the California Attorney General to this proposed legislation, and a July 2017 California Supreme Court decision that may shed light on whether this proposed legislation, if enacted, is likely to survive a legal challenge. The last Part then notes how the federalism issues raised by H.R. 23 and the potential roles for California law to maintain instream flow for fisheries relate to the existing legal scholarship distinguishing federal ceilings and federal floors in the natural resource field and to proposals for a new progressive federalism in response to the November 2016 election results. Although the main focus of this Article is on California fisheries, California water law and California water agencies, much of the analysis set forth may also be pertinent to other states considering their options for keeping water instream under the new President and new Congress. By studying California’s response, other states may be able to develop their own strategies for effectively deploying state law and state agencies to maintain instream flow for fisheries regardless of what happens at the federal level in the coming years