Plan to protect Bighorn sheep puts cougars in the cross hairs

Desert Bighorn sheep. (Courtesy: Arizona Game and Fish)

Cougars with a taste for bighorn sheep could find themselves back in the cross hairs of state wildlife management agents as early as this summer.

A plan by the Arizona Game and Fish Department would allow the “lethal removal” of radio-collared cougars (also known as mountain lions) to resume in the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge once an environmental study is done at the end of July.

Only “offending lions” would be killed by state agents, classified as a mountain lion that kills at least two bighorn sheep within a 6-month period.

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

Desert bighorn sheep are not endangered, but their population has dwindled badly over the past century due to habitat encroachment and hunting. An estimated 6,000 animals remain in Arizona, of about 45,000 total for the American west. At their peak, before widespread human settlement, the bighorn population may have been as high as 2 million or more.

The decision to hunt mountain lions that prey on bighorns has drawn criticism from some environmental groups. Both the Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility have fired back at the state’s actions, which include a three-month moratorium on removing “offending lions” that would end in July.

The Center for Biological Diversity called the three-month moratorium a “very short stay of execution”:

“Mountain lions and desert bighorn sheep evolved in the Sonoran Desert together, and the desert ecosystem needs both to be complete,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, in the statement. “Wiping out natural carnivores from a national wildlife refuge reflects archaic and scientifically repudiated management.”

Southwest PEER Director Daniel Patterson, an ecologist who helped broker last year’s moratorium, also denounced the plan:

“While the short extension is welcome, Arizona Game and Fish still has a short-sighted, shoot first, plan later posture, and appears to be demanding a national wildlife refuge be run as a state game farm,” said Patterson. “By our reading of the law, state gunners cannot come onto a national refuge and kill wildlife without the permission of the refuge manager – who cannot make that call until the required environmental assessments are completed.”

Feds rethink permit for New Mexico coal-fired plant

Citing heightened concerns about climate change, mercury emissions and potential impacts on endangered species, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency moved this week to rescind a key air quality permit for New Mexico’s proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant.

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

The permit is necessary for the estimated $3 billion plant to proceed, and was issued last year after a years-long delay. The 1,500 megawatt plant would have delivered power to Arizona and other states.

Tribal members protest against the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant. Via www.desertrockblog.com

The New Mexico Independent surveyed the fallout from EPA’s decision, which drew a harsh react from supporters of the project, such as Jeff Holmstead, former head of the air program at EPA and now head of the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell & Giuliani, the law firm representing the plant’s developer, Sithe Global:

“I don’t think anyone ever imagined that the new team at EPA would seem to have such little regard for due process or basic notions of fairness,” Holmstead said. “Everyone understands that a new Administration has discretion to change rules and policies prospectively. But I’ve never seen any Administration try to change policies and rules retroactively.”

Joe Shirley, president of the Navajo Nation, lashed out at the Obama administration for the move. Shirley told the Gallup Independent that the power plant would have generated more than $50 million in annual revenues for the Navajo Nation.

“This is about sovereignty. This is about saving self. This is about the Navajo Nation regaining its independence by developing the financial wherewithal to take care of its own problems,” told an EPA administrator, according to the Independent.

The EPA decision is not the last word on the matter, however. The permit may be sent back to the EPA’s Pacific Southwest office for further review. But the decision suggests that the momentum has definitely shifted against supporters of the plant.

The Desert Rock facility would have been yet another coal-fired plant in the Four Corners region, where Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico meet. The area, also home to large Navajo and Hopi reservations, is responsible for the lion’s share of coal-fired power generation for the desert Southwest.

The Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups had sued the EPA over the air quality permit.

Is there hope for Jan Brewer?

Now, I’ll be the first to admit it – I was highly skeptical of Jan Brewer when she took over as governor for Janet Napolitano earlier this year.

But to be perfectly honest, she’s doing somewhat better than I expected.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

Most recently, I was encouraged by her remarks on the Western Climate Initiative, given before a gathering of the centrist Valley Forward Association, a Phoenix-based environmental group, on Earth Day.

Rather than slam the WCI, as many Republicans would love her to do, Brewer took the middle road, saying that she plans to continue to be a part of the climate pact.

The Capitol Times has the story:

“Arizona will likely have very different perspectives and interests from other states throughout the west, and we can educate and advocate for Arizona’s best by being part, rather than apart, from the WCI discussion,” Brewer said.

Brewer said it is important that Arizona collaborate with and understand what other states, Congress and the Obama administration want to do on environmental issues.

“As someone once said ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re likely to be on the menu,” Brewer said. “We cannot let the rest of the country decide what is best for Arizona.”

Now, a middle-of-the-road stance like this isn’t going to win her any garlands from the Sierra Club, but it’s certainly a far cry from the increasingly shrill statements coming from Gilbert Republican Andy Biggs, a leading voice among Arizona lawmakers opposed to taking action on climate change.

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

According to the Arizona Capital Times, Biggs said he views the WCI as an “organization that seeks to emasculate the economy” of Arizona by pushing forward an anti-global warming agenda based on “pseudo-science.”

Biggs has sponsored a bill to hobble the Arizona DEQ’s ability to participate in the climate pact, an effort that has the support of the Republican majority, according to a report by the conservative Heartland Institute:

“If his bill can make it out of the House, I anticipate we will have the support to get it through the Senate,” said Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman (R-Anthem). “Our Senate Republican caucus has tried to keep these issues out of the hands of WCI in the past, but our efforts were thwarted by our past governor, who vetoed the bill. I think we will have no problem passing such a bill again. Whether our new governor, Jan Brewer, will sign it or veto it is unknown at this point.”

To me, the two questions of paramount interest are:

1) Is Jan Brewer a Republican moderate?

and 2) If so, does she have the spine to stand up to Arizona’s shrill right-wing?

On both counts, I think it’s far too early to say. But we’ll be watching.

As for the climate issue, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Arizona’s Republican legislators are totally out of touch. The planet, my friends, is warming.

From the London Independent:

New York-sized ice shelf collapses off Antarctica:

An area of an Antarctic ice shelf almost the size of New York City has broken into icebergs this month after the collapse of an ice bridge widely blamed on global warming, a scientist said today.

…

Humbert told Reuters about 700 sq km of ice – bigger than Singapore or Bahrain and almost the size of New York – has broken off the Wilkins this month and shattered into a mass of icebergs.

She said 370 sq kms of ice had cracked up in recent days from the Shelf, the latest of about 10 shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula to retreat in a trend linked by the UN Climate Panel to global warming.

The new icebergs added to 330 sq kms of ice that broke up earlier this month with the shattering of an ice bridge apparently pinning the Wilkins in place between Charcot island and the Antarctic Peninsula.

Nine other shelves – ice floating on the sea and linked to the coast – have receded or collapsed around the Antarctic peninsula in the past 50 years, often abruptly like the Larsen A in 1995 or the Larsen B in 2002.

Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by up to 3 Celsius this century, Vaughan said, a trend climate scientists blame on global warming from burning fossil fuels in cars, factories and power plants.

Update: In an article in today’s Arizona Daily Star, Brewer refreshes my memory as to why I think she’s terrible: Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services has her on record supporting Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s desire to interrogate schoolchildren about their immigration status.

“When I grew up, when I went to school, when I moved from Nevada to California, I had to bring my birth certificate to prove I was a citizen,” she said.

Oh boy, do I miss Janet Napolitano.

State GOP moves to hobble climate pact

A bill that would ban the director of the Arizona DEQ – the state’s top environmental protection agency – from participating in a regional climate-change initiative continues to move through the state Legislature.

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

Back in March, the bill passed the House Environment Committee by a vote of 3-2. More recently, it passed the House Rules Committee 5-2. It now awaits action by the committee of the whole, which would allow the entire legislature to discuss the bill and move it significantly toward becoming law.

The ubiquitous Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services weighed in on the issue back in March. His story suggests that the bill is largely symbolic, as its language does not prevent the Governor from continuing her predecessor’s involvement in the Western Climate Initiative.

In 2007, our former governor and now Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano signed the state up for the initiative, which brings together a number of western states and two Canadian provinces with the idea of creating a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions without federal imprimatur.

That move has been a continual thorn in the side of the state’s Republican majority in the legislature, and now that Napolitano’s gone, the smart money says that any efforts by Arizona to do anything about carbon emissions are going to be dead on arrival.

The bill’s sponsor is Andy Biggs, chairman of the House Transportation Committee and vice-chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Rep. Andy Biggs, (R-Gilbert) introduced a bill to pull Arizona out of the Western Climate Initiative.

This is what he told Fischer about global warming:

And Biggs said there is no consensus that the earth is warming, certainly not from human-caused pollution.

“It is an open debate,” he said. “It has nothing to do with the Western Climate Initiative other than to cede and surrender to specious pseudo-scientific claims.”

You know, I don’t have a problem with those who have reservations about the ultimate impact of man-made carbon emissions on the climate. I think there’s certainly some room for debate. But even many of the most vehement skeptics of man-made climate change admit that the earth is in a warming trend.

I also have a problem with lawmakers like Biggs, who resort to demagoguery and insults when discussing climate change science.

Does all the science contained in the voluminous reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simply amount to “specious pseudo-scientific claims“? Biggs makes climate science sound like some kind of traveling circus, with hucksters selling hair tonic out of the back of a covered wagon.

That’s idiotic. There’s hard science involved here, and conclusive evidence that the world is warming. Look no further than the Arctic and Antarctic, where warming has accelerated dramatically.

But should we expect any less from Rep. Biggs? After all, he was one of the geniuses behind the “animal and ecological terrorism” legislation of a few years back, that would label as a terrorist any animal rights or environmental activist who, and I quote:

“enter[ed] an animal facility or research facility with the intent to take pictures by photograph, video camera or other means, for the purpose of… defaming the facility or the facility’s owner.”

(Napolitano vetoed the bill when it hit her desk, by the way. Just goes to show – you never know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone…)

Enviros, loggers meet in the middle on Ariz. forestry plan

This has to be a first: an Arizona logging company has announced plans to “harvest” (love that term, by the way) trees from 1 million acres of national forest – and two of the state’s most reputable environmental organizations are giving the plan a thumbs-up.

Forests of the Mogollon Rim. (Courtesy: U.S. Forest Service)

The company, Arizona Forest Restoration Products, is competing for a U.S. Forest Service contract to thin trees from the ponderosa pine forests of the Mogollon Rim, with the intention of using the logs to create strand boards – a kind of pressed-wood chip board that you see used in home construction and the like.

The Grand Canyon Trust and the Center for Biological Diversity are on board because they feel the thinning – if done right – could go a long way in restoring the health of the forests.

This is from a press release from the Center for Biological Diversity:

“The scientific basis for moving forward with landscape-scale ecological restoration in northern Arizona’s pine forests is well established,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director at the Center.

“Today’s agreement is a commitment to the responsible and ambitious action that Arizona’s forests need. It’s the culmination of more than 15 years of hard work by the Center, Grand Canyon Trust, and other stakeholders to move beyond controversy and get on with the hard work of restoring these once-majestic forests.”

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

Sounds like a win-win to me.

There’s a lot more detail in the press release on the Arizona Forest Restoration Products website. Here are some excerpts:

Representatives of the Grand Canyon Trust, Arizona Forest Restoration Products, and Center for Biological Diversity today signed a landmark agreement committing mutual support to a plan to safely restore beneficial fires and conserve biological diversity in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests, the largest contiguous ponderosa pine forest in the world.

Following a century of ecological decline and decades of litigation, the agreement, in the form of a memorandum of understanding between the parties, marks a sea change in southwestern forest politics, focusing industry and conservation groups on a common goal of conserving species and ecosystems in a rapidly warming climate.

…

The memo describes an ecological basis and strategic framework for safely restoring beneficial fires and conserving biological diversity in northern Arizona’s degraded forests. It establishes clear parameters for proceeding with nearly 1 million acres of landscape-scale ecosystem restoration over 20 years.

…

Developed over years of forging consensus in the Arizona Governor’s Forest Health Council and its predecessors, and through subsequent modeling exercises that translated that agreement into increasingly detailed restoration strategies, the memo calls for a combination of community-protection activities and strategically placed restoration projects to facilitate restoration and re-establishment of natural fire regimes across entire landscapes.

…

“Today’s agreement offers leadership, capacity and momentum in the context of agreements already forged in Arizona. It sets forth an aggressive yet ecologically cautious path to healing our forests,” said Ethan Aumack, director of restoration programs at the Grand Canyon Trust. “It recognizes that forests need fire to be healthy and adapt to climate change, and it recognizes that the need to reduce small-tree densities can, and should, result in economic benefits for rural communities. Breaking gridlock now will have profound and positive impacts for forests, communities, and rural economies across the Mogollon Rim for decades to come.”

…

The new agreement supports the construction of an oriented-strand-board, or “OSB,” plant in Winslow, Arizona, by Arizona Forest Restoration Product. The plant, which has a lifespan of about 20 years, would use small-diameter trees resulting from about 30,000 acres of ecological restoration treatments per year across a 2.4 million-acre analysis area. Modeling analyses show that a limited amount of strategically placed treatments will be sufficient to safely restore fire across much broader areas. The facility will provide more than 600 jobs and inject up to $200 million annually into the regional economy.

…

The Grand Canyon Trust, Arizona Forest Restoration Products, and Center for Biological Diversity are actively involved in the Four Forests Restoration Initiative collaborative process of northern Arizona and are working with the U.S. Forest Service and other constituencies toward the accelerated implementation of landscape-scale forest restoration across the Mogollon Rim. The group is acting on mandates, and with guidance, offered through strong letters and resolutions of support by the state of Arizona, Congressional Rep. Kirkpatrick, seven northern Arizona counties, the Eastern Arizona Counties Organization, the County Supervisors’ Association of Arizona, and the Northern Arizona Council of Governments.

Food safety legislation fuels paranoia online

A major new food safety bill proposed by Democrats in Congress is whipping up concern across the country, with chain emails rocketing around the Web warning that the legislation – known as HR875 – will (in nefarious conspiracy with Monsanto, of course) outlaw organic farming and criminalize backyard vegetable gardens.

Contrary to rumors, black helicopters are not coming to confiscate your organic tomatoes. Photo by CmdrGravy

Having done some research on the topic, I think it’s safe to say that the most extreme claims fall squarely in the category of paranoid Internet myths. But as we all know, people love paranoid Internet myths! So, in the interest of increasing our collective sanity, here’s my attempt to correct some of the misinformation flying around.

For instance, I found this message duplicated, in various permutations, on forums around the Web:

Next week the U.S. house and senate are voting on a bill that will OUTLAW ORGANIC FARMING!!

The bill is called: The Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2009 (Bill HR 875).

In February a House Resolution #875 was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, a democrat, who is the wife of Stanley Greenburg an executive at Monsanto, the world’s leading producer of herbicides and genetically engineered seeds.

The passing of this bill would allow the government to search and seize properties with small organic production and insist on the use of toxic chemicals on that can cause serious medical problems including cancer.

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

Sounds scary, right? Well, it would be if it were true. Fortunately it’s not, according to Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch in D.C., and a former senior organizer for Public Citizen and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Hauter weighed in on the issue with this recent op-ed in USA Today:

The ongoing pistachio recall is the latest food safety fiasco to illustrate the need to reform America’s broken food safety system. There is a flurry of food safety bills to mend the system, especially the glaring failures of the Food and Drug Administration.

Strangely, the strongest bill for consumers has received a lot of unfounded negative attention lately.

The Food Safety Modernization Act, sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., would go a long way in modernizing and overhauling the FDA. It would create a new Food Safety Administration under the Department of Health and Human Services so that food safety within that department would finally receive the attention that it so desperately deserves. The bill would also set a minimal frequency of inspection for all domestic food processing plants, so companies such as those involved in recent recalls of peanut products and pistachios would be inspected at least once per year by the FDA.

Contrary to rumors circulating on the Internet, the bill would not outlaw home gardens, require farmers to use chemicals or pesticides, or criminalize organic agriculture and farmers’ markets. What it would do is start to fix our broken food safety system and ensure consumers get long overdue protection from unsafe food.

Jill Richardson, a food blogger on La Vida Locavore, also weighs in on the side of sanity:

H.R.875 internet rumors are out of control….

We’ve got a group of nuts out there spreading lies (and some well-meaning, unsuspecting people have believed those lies), and it will end up only discrediting us. Now when I write a letter to a legislator about the food safety reforms that are upcoming, I have to wonder if my letter will get tossed in with the crazy pile.

…

Furthermore, check out this article by Philip Brasher. He makes it sound as if we are asking the nation to choose between food safety and organics. That’s not the case at all.

We are FOR food safety. We are FOR food safety laws that will prevent the next Peanut Corporation of America from killing people, sickening people, and causing enormous economic fallout. But we also recognize that for the 2-3% of food bought directly from farmers, the traceability mechanism is already in place and does not need to be augmented by the government. And when a farmer eats the food he or she grows, that’s a mechanism of food safety enforcement stronger than any law the government can pass. Of course we ask that the government keep that in mind, but we’re not standing as a roadblock to fixing our nation’s food safety as a whole. We support that.

Now, are there legitimate reasons to be concerned about the bill? Absolutely. In my opinion, simply the creation of a new federal agency is reason enough to be worried. After all, don’t we already have the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture overseeing food safety?

What seems clear is that the biggest problem in the recent flurry of food-safety disasters – most notably, the salmonella-peanut fiasco that killed ten and sickened hundreds – was not a lack of government agencies, but the failure of those agencies to do their jobs.

According to this article by MSNBC, at the time of the most recent salmonella outbreak, while the FDA is responsible for overseeing the safety of 75 percent of the food supply, the USDA receives 80 percent of federal funding:

Marion Nestle, the author of “Safe Food” and a professor of food studies and public health at New York University, writes in the San Francisco Chronicle “this weird division of responsibility began in 1906, and it’s breathtaking in its irrationality. The FDA oversees the safety of cheese pizza; the USDA oversees pepperoni pizza.”

Meanwhile, the FDA is so understaffed, it’s only able to inspect roughly 1 percent of foods that are imported into the country. And the rate of inspections at U.S. plants isn’t much better. The FDA had not inspected Peanut Corporation of America’s Georgia plant since 2001. Investigators say PCA’s own internal tests repeatedly found salmonella traces, but it continued to sell peanut butter products.

What’s at the root of all this paranoia? Well, I think its probably a very legitimate concern by some small farmers that they will have to bear the cost of increased regulations and inspections, when factory farmers and agribusiness were the ones responsible for causing this mess in the first place.

I feel their pain. When it comes to food safety, the government should focus on the big producers, and leave organic, small-scale farmers alone.

Update: Check out this must-read by Martha Goodsell, of South Central Farmers — she agrees that the biggest problem with this legislation is its one-size-fits-all approach. Goodsell also gives a quick look at the many other food safety bills kicking around this Congress… well worth checking out.

Is Arizona too dependent on natural gas?

Source: Arizona Corporation Commission

By John Collins Rudolf

Here’s an interesting factoid: in 2006, Arizona consumed 358 billion cubic feet of natural gas, while producing a whopping 600 million cubic feet.

Here’s another: natural gas fuels more than 50 percent of the state’s electricity generation.

Arizona imports so much natural gas that the state’s newest pipeline, which began carrying 500 million cubic feet of natural gas from New Mexico to central Arizona earlier this year, will account for less than .14 percent of the state’s gas supply.

Over the past two decades, Arizona has only increased its reliance on natural gas, adding thousands of additional megawatts in generating capacity. The vast majority of gas originates from the San Juan Basin in New Mexico and the Permian Basin in Texas.

In short, Arizona has made a massive bet on natural gas remaining cheap and plentiful for a long time to come. But will it?

A lot of that will depend on how reserves hold up in the regions that supply us with all that gas.

On that count, there’s certainly cause for concern.

Take the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico, for instance. It’s the single most productive source of natural gas in the country, delivering over a trillion cubic feet of natural gas every year.

But how long can they keep pumping at this rate?

Well, as usual, the experts are all over the map.

But one good estimate I found came from a 2002 report by the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources.

According to the report, between 68 to 89 trillion cubic feet of natural gas remains to be produced in the state.

Annual production for the state is about 1.6 trillion cubic feet per year. At the low end, factoring in a slow but steady demand growth, that gives the state about 32 years of production before the tank hits empty.

Now, the United States Geological Survey did its own estimate.

They think that there’s even less gas left — somewhere around 50 trillion cubic feet. That brings New Mexico down to about 25 years of production, by my reckoning.

So, should we be worried?

Probably. Natural gas is a fossil fuel that, just like oil, is finite and difficult to replace. We’ve been drilling, pumping and burning it like gangbusters, and the fact is, the stuff is going to run out one day.

And for those who consider these types of warnings “eco-propoganda,” I give you this rather unequivocal statement by the arch-oil baron himself, Lee Raymond, chief executive of Exxon Mobil, from a 2005 Reuters article.

“Gas production has peaked in North America,” Chief Executive Lee Raymond told reporters at the Reuters Energy Summit.

Hear that? Gas production has peaked. It doesn’t mean that we’ll run out anytime soon, but that we’re not discovering as much new gas as we’re using. That means a slow but steady decline, until one day, there’s just not enough supply to meet the demand.

Just something to think about as we contemplate our energy future.

Republican ladies go solar!

Lucy Mason (R-Prescott)

It’s not all that often that I get excited by Republican women. But in this case, I can’t help myself – a trio of Republican women in the Arizona state senate and legislature are banding together to pass a renewable energy tax incentive. Hence my exclamatory headline!

The lovely ladies behind SB1403 are Lucy Mason (R-Prescott); Michele Reagan (R-Scottsdale); Barbara Leff (R-Paradise Valley).

Admittedly, there are two male co-sponsors of the bill – Rich Crandall (R-Mesa) and Adam Driggs (R-Phoenix) – but my sense is they’re just arm-candy.

The bill, while covering renewable energy manufacturing as a whole, is aimed largely at spurring the development of Arizona’s solar industry, which is woefully small.

Ryan Randazzo of The Arizona Republic took a long look at Arizona’s problems attracting solar manufacturers in yesterday’s paper.

Here’s the money quote from Rep. Reagan.

“Just because it’s sunny doesn’t mean we are going to get solar companies here,” said Rep. Michele Reagan, a

Michele Reagan (R-Scottsdale)

Scottsdale Republican. “We have not capitalized on any industry in the solar arena or renewable energy at all.”

You go Michele!

The bill would allow renewable energy companies to take a tax credit equal to 10 percent of their capital investment (i.e. factories, etc…) over a period of five years, plus a generous property tax abatement of as much as 80 percent if they spend more than $25 million.

I’ll be keeping a close eye on the bill to see how it succeeds in these economically challenged times. One prominent fear is that worthy measures like this one may be bulldozed under by the massive political grind involved in pulling the state out of its deepest budget hole of all time.

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

Other legitimate concerns are whether this type of tax credit would be too little, too late. After all, Oregon offers a similar tax incentive – only instead of 10 percent, theirs is more like 50 percent.

But probably the key obstacle in this process is creating a mindset within Arizona that the state government should play an activist role in attracting renewable energy manufacturing in the first place. There’s a vocal minority (at least I hope they’re the minority) that wants nothing more than for government to back off and do as little as possible – cut taxes and leave them alone.

Barbara Leff (R-Paradise Valley)

Leaders in other states, however, are fixated on creating manufacturing and jobs – what a concept!

Look at rainy Oregon. State government has been aggressive in pursuing solar manufacturing, and have basically laid out the red carpet for the renewable energy industry. And it seems to be paying off.

Don’t believe me? Check out this article in the Portland Business Journal. I love this quote:

“The state of Oregon is going to be the center for solar manufacturing in the U.S.,” said Chris Robertson, vice president of public affairs for Peak Sun Silicon, a start-up that plans to invest $700 million over the next five years in a Millersburg plant making electronic-grade silicon for the solar industry.

Republican ladies, I applaud you. But you’ve got your work cut out for you.

Glimmers of hope for Arizona solar industry

Over the last week I’ve been taking Arizona to task for falling behind the curve on solar power. Given our vast amounts of open spaces and abundant sunshine, I see no reason why we should not be at the forefront of solar generation and manufacturing. Unfortunately, while progress has been made, that’s still not the case.

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

Most recently, I looked at the SunZia transmission line, which will facilitate the transfer of solar and wind energy from New Mexico to Arizona. Now, SunZia is not a perfect project – in particular, it will cut across environmentally sensitive land – but I think it’s purpose is a fairly progressive one, namely bringing alternative energy from remote areas where power generation on a large scale is possible, to the cities where the power is needed.

The SunZia transmission line will pass through areas of high solar power potential in New Mexico

As you can see by this map, the transmission line will pass through some of New Mexico’s most productive solar power generating regions. This led me to speculate that part of the purpose of the project would ultimately be to export solar power to Arizona.

This idea – of the sunniest state in the union importing solar energy – is a bit ironic, n’est pas?

What I dd not intend to do, by the way, was to slam the SunZia project. I’m all for it, if it can be done in a responsible way.

Instead, I was trying to spark a conversation about Arizona’s commitment to solar power. After all, as I’m now fond of pointing out, Arizona lags behind New Jersey in solar power generation (and let’s not even mention Germany). As of 2007, the state was generating less than one percent of its energy mix from renewable energy sources.

Nevertheless, are there some glimmers of hope for the solar industry in Arizona? You bet.

There’s the 280-megawatt Solana solar thermal station, under development in Gila Bend, about 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. And just this week, the Arizona Department of Commerce announced a $1.4 billion, 200-megawatt solar farm to be built near Kingman in northwestern Arizona

It does need to be said, however, that both of these large-scale solar plants are being built by Spanish corporations.

Oh, and here’s an interesting tidbit on the Kingman project from Renewable Energy News, by the way.

According to the Department of Commerce, The Kingman plant will generated 2,000 construction jobs and 100 permanent jobs and will be situated on 1,400 acres of land. The area was selected as it was one of the few places with adequate power line transmission support.

“One of the few places with adequate power line transmission support,” eh? Sounds like a challenge to me.

John Collins Rudolf

Isn’t it ironic? Arizona may import solar power from N.M.

The SunZia transmission line would carry solar and wind power from New Mexico to Arizona.

It sounds like an item from The Onion, but it’s true: A 460-mile transmission line is being developed to deliver solar power from New Mexico to central Arizona.

That’s right – if this project goes through, Arizona will be importing solar energy. From New Mexico!

“We have to connect the sun of the deserts and the winds of the plains to places where people live,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told the Washington Post, in an irony-free article on the transmission project.

I’m sorry, but isn’t this a bit like exporting heroin to Afghanistan, or lead-tainted toys to China? Can’t we make our own sun power here in Arizona?

The Footprint, Arizona environmental news blog

Anyway, maybe I’m being a little harsh – after all, the planned transmission line (named “SunZia” – perhaps to appease the Aztec gods) will also deliver electricity from wind and geothermal generators. But projects like this still make me scratch my head. With the right investment, Arizona could become the Saudi Arabia of solar. Instead, not only is the state ranked No. 7 in the nation for solar production – behind New Jersey and New York – but solar manufacturing, a real potential job-maker, is barely a blip on the state’s industrial radar screen (for more on Arizona’s weak solar manufacturing industry, check out this report).

Now we’re getting ready to import solar energy? Real impressive, Arizona. Make your momma proud.

By the way, can anyone in the state’s Republican leadership read the writing on the wall? Whether you think global warming is a crock or not, the United States is hopping on the climate change train, and sooner rather than later, the price of carbon-based electricity is going to shoot through the roof.

A smart, forward-thinking state legislator would get out in front of this issue and figure out a way to make Arizona the number one solar state by 2020. That’s probably impossible, but it could get things rolling.

Now, are there problems with solar? You bet. Chief among them is the vast amounts of raw land and water that’s needed for solar thermal generation – the most cost-effective way to produce solar energy. But that’s a topic I’ll tackle in depth another day. For now, let’s just bask in the irony of Arizona importing solar power from out-of-state.

Update: I tweaked the headline to reflect the uncertainty of whether or not the SunZia project will go through. JCR

Next Page »