DENVER – Two competing plans for the development of oil shale in the West are making their way through Washington, D.C. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is seeking public input on a plan to open about 500,000 acres of land for oil shale research and development, to test the viability and environmental impact of extraction processes.

It is a scaled down proposal from an initial BLM plan, with about 90 percent less land available for research. Bill Midcap, director of regional action for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, says he's worried about the effects of this type of drilling on the arid West.

"This could use three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced. If we're talking about producing 100,000 to a million barrels of oil every day, that's going to be a huge impact on water."

Meanwhile, a competing plan proposed by Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-5th Dist.) made its way out of a House committee last week. The PIONEERS Act opens up nearly two-million acres of public land for oil shale development.

Critics say the Lamborn bill is too expansive and moves too quickly; it mandates commercial leasing on 125,000 acres of public lands by 2016 even though the technology isn't in place. Fellow Colorado Rep. Scott Tipton (R-3rd Dist.) added an amendment to the PIONEERS Act which he says will balance the environmental and economic impacts of oil shale on communities with America's energy needs.

"We've see a boom/bust cycle before, which we simply can't afford, where the communities have to pick up a lot of the infrastructure costs and then, if it doesn't work out, the communities are still left holding the bag."

Tipton says his amendment will help protect Colorado's water as well - although Midcap says the House committee, including Tipton, voted against requiring a study on oil shale's impact on agriculture and drinking water before the PIONEERS Act takes effect. He worries that farmers will end up paying the price for oil shale development.

"Excess water supplies in the state are being traded on the backbone of agriculture."

Public input on the BLM plan is due by May 4; the BLM's information about the proposal is online. There is no date yet on the PIONEERS Act vote.



get more stories like this via email

Although most Virginians support and prefer solar energy, misinformation is keeping more of it from being built.

Several counties and cities have banned solar energy farms because of misinformation, saying solar requires too much land or energy, which stunts the state's progress on its climate goals.

Jim Purekal, director of the advocacy group Advanced Energy United, said other misconceptions prevent solar from being as widely considered as it should be.

"We're also seeing stories that solar wrecks the land for future development, and that's not true either," Purekal asserted. "Some of us can also go into how to develop or actually develop that land. It should also be possible to be able to reuse that land once the solar project is done."

Virginia lawmakers introduced legislation to remove solar-energy installation bans aggravated by county-level moratoriums. Had the law gone forward, localities would not have been able to ban solar projects until they hit 4% of their landmass. Lifting bans can increase dual-use solar projects and solar grazing, which uses livestock to keep a solar panel field's vegetation contained. Farmers can also keep bees on the land to pollinate flowers.

Solar siting bans could mean communities see more fossil-fuel plant and natural gas pipeline development. Although it aligns with Gov. Glenn Youngkin's All of the Above energy plan, it works against the goals outlined in the 2020 Clean Economy Act.

Purekal pointed out communities can utilize other forms of renewable energy besides solar.

"People should also look at wind, both onshore and offshore; that's another reliable revenue stream that counties should look at," Purekal urged. "We're talking about -- and people will have a question too about -- what happens if the wind's not blowing, which leads to battery storage."

He added battery storage needs to be a part of the growing conversation surrounding renewable energy. It serves as an answer to the age-old question of how renewables work when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. Battery storage saves up energy so it can be used at different times.

As Fayette County considers approving industrial-scale solar operations on farmland, more communities in the Commonwealth are considering special zoning ordinances for solar field sites aiming to protect landowners, while supporting the shift to renewable energy.

Ashley Wilmes, executive director of the Kentucky Resources Council, said her organization has developed a model planning and zoning ordinance local officials can use as a resource.

"Our model ordinance offers a menu of options in certain areas," Wilmes explained. "To allow local officials, hopefully with the input from county residents, to select the options that best meet the needs and future land use plans of those communities."

Solar projects in the state are increasing. In Eastern Kentucky, there are plans to turn 7,000 acres of former surface-mine land into a large-scale solar operation crossing several counties. Critics of industrial-scale solar operations on agricultural land said they disrupt local wildlife habitat, contribute to soil erosion and topsoil loss, and could pose a risk to future food production.

Wilmes pointed out land sold for subdivisions or commercial development is permanently lost, while solar energy systems may be a good interim use of land, which can be restored at the end of the solar farm's life, typically about 25 years, and provide alternative sources of income to farmers. She added large-scale solar farms are not the only path forward.

"We need solar energy systems of all sizes and types, from roof-mounted to integrated to ground-mounted systems," Wilmes urged. "To make this shift to clean, reliable and renewable energy."

Daniel Bell, a sheep farmer in Garrard County, said a partnership with the Nashville-based solar developer Silicon Ranch has allowed him to graze his flock of around 300 sheep on the company's solar fields and boost income by growing his herd. He explained sheep are natural grass cutters and help protect solar arrays from debris and damage from mowing.

"We provide them the benefits they need and we benefit as well," Bell noted. "It's just a really great mutual situation, but also a fantastic opportunity for farmers."

Kentucky ranks 45th nationwide for total installed solar capacity, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

In a new poll, 81% of registered voters from several Midwestern states said they oppose corporations resorting to eminent domain for private projects.

The results come amid high-profile carbon capture efforts in North Dakota and elsewhere. Companies such as Summit Carbon Solutions have drawn attention in trying to scale up carbon-capture technology. Summit is seeking approval to build a multistate pipeline which would transport ethanol plant emissions for underground storage in North Dakota.

Emma Schmit, pipeline organizer for the coalition Bold Alliance, which commissioned the survey, said opposition to how land is secured for proposed routes falls across many demographics.

"While we do see that the rural voters that carbon-capture projects most adversely affect - they do have these strongest levels of opposition - I was interestingly surprised to see that urban and suburban voters really did not lag far behind in their overwhelming opposition," Schmit observed.

In North Dakota specifically, 90% of survey respondents called it a "serious" concern if "corporations are allowed to seize people's private property to build carbon capture and storage projects." Summit insists its goal is to secure "100% voluntary easement agreements," but it could not rule out pursuing practices such as eminent domain as landowner negotiations continue.

Summit has seen mixed results at the regulatory level for necessary permits, including an initial rejection in North Dakota. However, the company said it has secured 83% of the land easements along the state's pipeline route while filing a revised application.

Zach Cassidy, pipeline organizer for the Dakota Resource Council, said more broadly, the survey revealed an interesting dynamic.

"The fact of the matter is here in North Dakota, most policymakers have supported this pipeline, but most voters have not," Cassidy asserted.

In addition to landowner rights, the Summit project has sparked a backlash over environmental and public safety concerns. The survey, conducted in late July, included nearly 2,500 interviews with registered voters across six states.