This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-189 
entitled 'Renewable Energy: Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at 
Improving the Permitting Process for Development on Federal Lands' 
which was released on March 13, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
Representatives: 

January 2013: 

Renewable Energy: 

Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at Improving the Permitting Process 
for Development on Federal Lands: 

GAO-13-189: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-189, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Natural Resources, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Concerns over reliance on imported oil and greenhouse gas emissions 
from fossil fuel use have led to increased interest in producing 
electricity from renewable sources, including wind, solar, and 
geothermal energy. Because federal lands, including those managed by 
the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, encompass areas with 
high renewable energy potential, interest has increased in permitting 
such activity on those lands. EPAct 2005 includes several provisions 
intended to increase renewable energy development on federal lands, 
including goals for approving renewable energy projects. GAO was asked 
to look at (1) the status of renewable energy permitting on federal 
land, including time frames for processing permits applied for since 
EPAct 2005; (2) actions federal land management agencies have taken to 
facilitate renewable energy development on federal land, particularly 
since the passage of EPAct 2005; and (3) factors affecting renewable 
energy development on federal land. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed 
laws, regulations, and policies; interviewed agency and industry 
officials; and surveyed BLM staff responsible for processing 
applications for renewable energy permits on federal lands. 

GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. In commenting on 
a draft of this report, the Department of Agriculture concurred with 
its findings, while the Departments of Energy and the Interior had no 
comments. 

What GAO Found: 

Since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), federal 
land management agencies—-primarily the Department of the Interior’s 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—-have received hundreds of 
applications for utility-scale renewable energy projects and 
authorized 25 projects: 7 wind, 10 solar, and 8 geothermal projects. 
Applications for the majority of projects were withdrawn by the 
applicants or denied by BLM because of insufficient information. 
Applications for about one-fourth of the projects are still pending 
with the agencies. Time frames for permitting wind and solar projects 
ranged from 1.5 to 4 years from receipt of the initial application to 
approval of the project, with time frames decreasing for applications 
submitted in later years. For geothermal projects, permitting time 
frames ranged from 1 to 4 years from receipt of the initial 
application to approval for construction. In all, for projects applied 
for since EPAct 2005, BLM has authorized projects with the capacity to 
generate a total of about 5,450 megawatts of electricity, contributing 
to the act’s goal of approving projects capable of generating 10,000 
megawatts of electricity on public lands by 2015. 

Federal land management agencies have taken several steps to foster 
renewable energy development on federal lands since EPAct 2005. 
Specifically, these agencies have developed or revised policies aimed 
at, among other things, improving the renewable energy permitting 
process, formalized coordination within and across agencies and with 
state and local governments, and devoted increased resources to 
processing applications for renewable energy permits. One of BLM’s 
most comprehensive actions was the completion of programmatic 
environmental impact statements for renewable energy development, 
intended to streamline the permitting process. The agencies also took 
steps to improve coordination through regularly established meetings 
and development of memorandums of understanding between federal and 
state agencies. They also added staff and increased funding for this 
development. For example, BLM tripled its staff devoted to processing 
wind and solar energy applications. To help ensure that its actions 
are achieving their intended purposes, BLM issued an instruction 
memorandum in December 2012 aimed at increasing the efficiency and 
effectiveness of its renewable energy permitting process. 

According to BLM respondents to a GAO questionnaire, industry 
representatives, and others GAO interviewed, many factors affect the 
pace of renewable energy development on federal lands. Some of these 
factors are specifically tied to the agencies’ permitting processes, 
primarily BLM’s. For example, respondents cited effective coordination 
among the involved parties and the amount of resources the agency can 
devote to permitting as factors that facilitated the permitting 
process. On the other hand, they often cited problems with the quality 
of applications received as a factor that may hinder or slow the 
permitting process. Respondents also cited a number of factors outside 
of permitting agencies’ control that can affect the pace of renewable 
energy development, such as access to transmission lines (which are 
often scarce in areas where renewable energy is abundant) and 
competition from electricity generated using conventional energy 
sources, such as natural gas. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-189]. For more 
information, contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or 
fennella@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

BLM Has Received Hundreds of Permit Applications since EPAct 2005 and 
Authorized 25 Projects: 

Agencies Have Taken Several Steps to Foster Renewable Energy 
Development on Federal Lands since EPAct 2005: 

Factors Related to Permitting, as Well as Market and Other Forces, 
Affect the Pace of Renewable Energy Development on Federal Lands: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Authorized Renewable Energy Projects for Which 
Applications Were Submitted after the Energy Policy Act of 2005: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Status of Applications for Utility-Scale Wind and Solar 
Project Permits on BLM-Managed Lands since EPAct 2005: 

Table 2: Information about Authorized Renewable Energy Projects for 
Which Applications Were Submitted after EPAct 2005 through May 2012: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Examples of Utility-Scale Wind, Solar, and Geothermal 
Technologies: 

Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Stages in Processing Authorized 
Solar and Wind Project Applications Submitted after EPAct 2005 Using 
Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements: 

Figure 3: Average Time Frames for Stages in the Processing of 
Applications for Authorized Wind and Solar Projects, by Year Submitted: 

Figure 4: Summary of BLM's Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statements for Wind, Geothermal, and Solar Energy Development: 

Abbreviations: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management: 

EPAct 2005: Energy Policy Act of 2005: 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act: 

[End of section] 

January 18, 2013: 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Natural Resources: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Markey: 

American families and businesses depend on electricity to power their 
lives, businesses, and the economy. Concerns over reliance on imported 
oil and greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels to generate 
power have increased interest in producing electricity from renewable 
sources, including wind, solar, and geothermal energy. In the coming 
decades, the Energy Information Administration in the Department of 
Energy projects the strongest growth in the domestic energy sector 
will come from renewable energy. The federal government is uniquely 
positioned to affect the development of renewable energy sources, in 
part through its land management activities. For example, the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 
approximately 248 million surface acres, or about one-eighth of all 
lands in the United States, and estimates that 20.6 million acres have 
commercial wind energy generation potential and more than 20 million 
acres have commercial solar energy generation potential. 

About 95 percent of federal land is managed by four land management 
agencies--BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park 
Service in the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service in 
the Department of Agriculture. The agencies manage this land for 
various purposes. BLM and the Forest Service manage land for multiple 
uses, such as recreation, timber, and fish and wildlife, and have much 
of the responsibility for permitting renewable energy development on 
federal lands. In contrast, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Park Service manage land primarily to conserve fish and 
wildlife and their habitats and park resources, respectively. 

Because areas of federal land have a high potential for producing 
renewable energy, interest has increased in permitting such production 
on those lands over the past decade. For example, through the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Congress directed the Secretary of 
the Interior to "seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy 
projects located on public lands with a generation capacity of at 
least 10,000 megawatts of electricity" by 2015.[Footnote 1] In 2009 
the Secretary issued an order establishing renewable energy as a 
priority for the department and also establishing a task force to, 
among other tasks, develop a strategy to increase the development and 
transmission of renewable energy from appropriate areas on public 
lands.[Footnote 2] 

Although renewable energy is generally cleaner to produce than energy 
from conventional sources, such as coal-or gas-fired power plants, 
renewable energy projects can have significant environmental impacts. 
Developing renewable energy projects on a scale large enough to 
generate substantial electric power (i.e., on a utility scale) can 
affect the environment across hundreds, even thousands, of acres of 
federal land and, depending on the energy source, may preclude uses of 
those acres for other purposes. In addition, these projects, like 
other development projects, can affect the surrounding environment: 
for example, water used in some solar technologies may diminish scarce 
groundwater in the arid Southwest, or the turning rotors of a wind 
turbine may kill birds and bats. Accordingly, part of the federal 
permitting process for renewable energy development on BLM-and Forest 
Service-managed lands involves not only those agencies but also the 
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service in assessing 
potential environmental effects. 

In light of interest in renewable energy development on federal land, 
you asked us to review federal agencies' processes and time frames for 
permitting renewable energy projects. Our objectives were to examine 
(1) the status of renewable energy permitting on federal land, 
including time frames for processing permits applied for since EPAct 
2005; (2) actions the agencies have taken to facilitate renewable 
energy development on federal land, particularly since the passage of 
EPAct 2005; and (3) factors affecting renewable energy development on 
federal land. 

To determine the status of renewable energy permitting, we 
administered a questionnaire to BLM officials nationwide, covering all 
permit applications for onshore wind, solar, and geothermal energy 
projects submitted to BLM--the agency responsible for permitting 
almost all applications submitted for renewable energy development on 
federal lands--from enactment of EPAct 2005 (August 8, 2005) through 
May 2012. We analyzed information obtained through the questionnaire 
regarding the status and time frames associated with each application 
and the factors affecting its processing. We received a 100 percent 
response rate to this questionnaire. In addition, we conducted 
semistructured interviews with officials in the nine Forest Service 
regional offices to determine the status and time frames of renewable 
energy permitting on Forest Service-managed lands. To determine 
actions taken to facilitate renewable energy development, we reviewed 
relevant laws, regulations, and agency policies and guidance. We 
interviewed headquarters officials from the Department of the Interior 
and its four land management agencies--BLM, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service--
as well as from the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. We 
also interviewed BLM officials from four state offices;[Footnote 3] 
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service officials from 
selected regions and field units;[Footnote 4] officials from all nine 
Forest Service regions; and officials in the wind, solar, and 
geothermal research programs at the Department of Energy's National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. We obtained BLM 
funding and staffing data from the agency's database, and we assessed 
the reliability of these data by reviewing the agencies' internal 
controls of their data systems and interviewing agency officials; we 
found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 
report. To determine factors affecting renewable energy development, 
we used the results of our questionnaire and also interviewed 
representatives from industry and environmental groups to obtain their 
perspectives on the time frames and factors associated with the 
permitting process, and renewable energy development in general. 
Appendix I provides a more detailed description of our scope and 
methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to January 2013 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Renewable energy technologies generate electricity, fuels, or heat 
through the use of resources that are continually replenished, such as 
wind, sunlight, and naturally occurring underground steam and heat. 
[Footnote 5] Development of utility-scale renewable energy projects on 
federal land occurs primarily on lands managed by BLM and, to a lesser 
extent, on those managed by the Forest Service. Nearly all of the 
approximately 248 million surface acres of federal land managed by BLM 
are located in 11 western states and Alaska. BLM is also responsible 
for managing resources (e.g., geothermal, oil, and gas resources) 
lying on or beneath federal lands and beneath private lands for which 
the federal government retains mineral rights--amounting to 
approximately 700 million subsurface acres altogether. The Forest 
Service is responsible for managing 193 million acres of forests and 
grasslands, primarily in the western states but also throughout the 
country. The Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service 
manage about 90 million and 80 million acres, respectively, but under 
legislation that generally precludes the development of large-scale 
renewable energy projects.[Footnote 6] Another Interior agency, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, works with Indian tribes to develop 
renewable energy on tribal lands.[Footnote 7] 

Renewable energy projects on federal lands date back decades; for 
example, utility-scale geothermal projects have operated on both BLM-
and Forest Service-managed lands since the 1970s, and several utility-
scale wind projects have been operating on BLM-managed lands, 
primarily in California, since the early 1980s.[Footnote 8] In May 
2012, the first utility-scale solar power plant began operating on 
federal lands, specifically on BLM-managed land. No utility-scale wind 
or solar development is operating at present on Forest Service-managed 
lands. In general, over half the nation's electricity generated from 
geothermal resources comes from resources on federal lands, and about 
1 percent of the nation's electricity generated from wind and solar 
energy comes from resources on federal lands. 

Types of Renewable Energy and Technologies Used for Development: 

Electricity generation using wind, solar, and geothermal energy can 
range from small-scale production--for example, rooftop solar panels 
on a home or geothermal resources heating a greenhouse--to utility-
scale production of hundreds of megawatts of electricity. Figure 1 
shows examples of utility-scale facilities representing each of these 
three energy types. 

Figure 1: Examples of Utility-Scale Wind, Solar, and Geothermal 
Technologies: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy. 

[End of figure] 

The most common technologies for utility-scale wind, solar, and 
geothermal development include the following: 

* Wind energy. Wind farms comprise a number of turbines built close 
together to produce utility-scale wind power. Horizontal-axis 
turbines, the most common, constitute nearly all utility-scale 
turbines in the United States.[Footnote 9] To generate electricity, 
horizontal-axis turbines capture the wind's energy with two or three 
propellerlike blades mounted on a rotor sitting atop a tower. A 
smaller utility-scale wind farm may have 6 turbines on 100 acres and 
generate about 3 megawatts, and a larger wind farm may have over 100 
turbines on about 10,000 acres and generate over 300 megawatts. Siting 
wind farms in appropriate locations is important because they can 
fragment wildlife habitat and plant communities, and the turbines and 
blades themselves may kill birds and bats, make noise, and mar views. 

* Solar energy. Multiple technologies exist for utility-scale solar 
power. Solar photovoltaic technologies convert energy from sunlight 
directly into electricity, using arrays of solar panels. Concentrating 
solar power technologies use mirrors to focus the sun's energy to heat 
water or other fluids; these fluids in turn create steam that powers a 
conventional turbine generator to produce electricity. An average 
solar plant, whether photovoltaic or concentrating, requires about 3 
to 8 acres for every megawatt of generating capacity. For example, a 
small utility-scale solar plant occupying about 400 acres may generate 
45 megawatts, and a large facility occupying over 7,000 acres may 
generate 1,000 megawatts. Selecting appropriate areas for the 
development of solar projects is essential given that such development 
generally precludes other uses of the same land because the surface 
area is graded before installation, and components are installed 
relatively close to one another. In the southwestern United States, 
where the potential for solar energy development is greatest, solar 
installations can affect habitat needed by various species, including 
those listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act, such as the desert tortoise. In addition, some solar technologies 
use large amounts of water, which can be problematic in desert 
environments. 

* Geothermal energy. Geothermal power plants extract geothermal 
fluids--hot water, brines, and steam--from the earth by drilling wells 
to depths of up to 10,000 feet.[Footnote 10] These fluids are then 
used to create a vapor that can power a turbine generator to produce 
electricity, with only the highest-temperature geothermal resources--
generally above 200 degrees Fahrenheit--suitable for electricity 
generation. Geothermal power plants typically generate from 30 to 120 
megawatts, and an individual power plant often uses resources brought 
to the surface through multiple wells. Mitigating for harmful effects 
is important in geothermal planning because geothermal operations can 
emit dangerous gases, and geothermal drilling operations may 
contaminate groundwater. 

However it is generated, electricity from utility-scale renewable 
energy development is sold to utilities and--like electricity 
generated by more conventional sources such as coal-or gas-fired power 
plants--is conveyed to consumers through transmission lines. Some of 
the best locations for wind and solar development, however, are in 
remote areas far from consumers, and transmission lines to carry the 
power are not always readily available in these remote areas. In 
addition, electricity generated from wind and solar development 
differs from geothermal and conventional sources because it is 
available intermittently, rather than continuously. 

Agency Permitting Processes for Renewable Energy Development: 

In managing their lands, BLM and the Forest Service are required by 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the National 
Forest Management Act, respectively, to develop or revise land use 
plans for the areas they manage, providing for multiple uses, such as 
recreation, timber, and fish and wildlife, and natural scenic, 
scientific, and historical values. All land management actions, 
including renewable energy development, must conform to the approved 
land use plan governing the land management unit--such as a national 
forest--where the action is to take place. Consequently, renewable 
energy development can occur only where it is consistent with the 
applicable land use plan, which in some cases may require changing the 
plan. Plan revisions undergo extensive environmental analysis before 
being finalized. 

Wind and solar energy projects on federal land require permits from 
the relevant land management agency through the issuance of rights-of-
way.[Footnote 11] A right-of-way is an authorization to a qualified 
individual, business, or government entity to use a specific area of 
federal land for a specific amount of time for a certain purpose and 
with certain restrictions. Geothermal activities are administered by 
BLM for all federal lands (regardless of whether the surface land is 
managed by BLM or another agency) through the issuance first of leases 
and then of subsequent permits for drilling operations and other 
activities--similar to the process used for oil and natural gas. 
[Footnote 12] 

Permitting for Wind and Solar Energy Development: 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 authorizes BLM and 
the Forest Service to issue rights-of-way over federal lands for a 
variety of purposes, including systems for generating, transmitting, 
and distributing electric energy.[Footnote 13] For new projects that 
may have a significant impact on the environment, the act requires 
applicants to submit a plan of construction, operation, and 
rehabilitation for the right-of-way that complies with applicable laws 
and regulations. An agency may issue a right-of-way only after the 
applicant has demonstrated that it has the technical and financial 
capability to construct the project for which the right-of-way is 
requested. Each right-of-way must include terms and conditions that, 
among others, protect the environment, federal property and economic 
interests, and the public interest. The holder of a right-of-way must 
generally pay its fair market value annually in advance and must 
provide a bond ensuring that the holder can perform the obligations--
such as reclamation--required by the terms of the right-of-way. 

BLM's permitting process for wind or solar energy projects comprises 
several steps prior to right-of-way issuance, as follows: 

* A potential project developer contacts the BLM office responsible 
for land where a right-of-way is sought and obtains a standard 
application form. 

* Preapplication meetings take place between the potential applicant 
and appropriate BLM field office staff to discuss the application form 
and its requirements, the general project proposal, land use planning 
in the area, and potential land use constraints. 

* Once an application has been submitted, BLM reviews it to determine 
whether it is complete. A complete application must include a 
statement of technical and financial capability to construct, operate, 
maintain, and terminate the system for which the right-of-way is being 
requested, along with a project description--called a plan of 
development--sufficiently detailed for BLM to evaluate the proposed 
project's appropriateness and feasibility.[Footnote 14] 

* BLM checks to ensure that the proposed use conforms with BLM land 
use plans and that no apparent conflicts exist, such as other valid 
rights for the same lands requested in the application. 

* BLM establishes a cost-recovery fee based on the amount of time BLM 
estimates it will take to process the application and issue a decision 
and collects this fee from the applicant.[Footnote 15] 

* BLM begins processing and evaluating the application, including 
associated environmental reviews under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA),[Footnote 16] Endangered Species Act, and others. 

An approved application generally results in an authorized right-of-
way, although BLM generally issues a notice to proceed before the 
holder of the right-of-way can begin construction. On the other hand, 
BLM is authorized to deny applications for various reasons--for 
example, if the project is not consistent with the relevant land use 
plan or if applicants do not provide BLM with sufficient information. 
[Footnote 17] At any point in the process, an applicant may choose to 
withdraw the application. 

The Forest Service issues permits for wind and solar energy 
development under its "special use" permit process.[Footnote 18] A 
potential project developer files a project proposal, which must 
contain information such as a project description and evidence of the 
applicant's technical and financial capability to carry out the 
project. Proposals are initially screened to ensure in part that the 
proposed project is consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and 
relevant land use plans. A second screening then examines whether the 
applicant has demonstrated sufficient technological and financial 
capability. If these conditions are met, the potential project 
developer may submit the proposal as a formal application, which is 
then analyzed under NEPA. If the project is approved, a special use 
permit is awarded to the applicant. Special use permits must include 
terms and conditions that protect the environment and require 
compliance with federal and state air and water quality laws, as well 
as with any state environmental and facility siting standards that are 
more stringent than federal standards. Like BLM, the Forest Service 
can deny applications for various reasons, including if the proposed 
project is inconsistent with the relevant land use plan or if the 
applicant fails to demonstrate sufficient technical or financial 
capability. 

Permitting for Geothermal Energy Development: 

Geothermal activities are authorized through the issuance of leases 
and several subsequent permits and approvals to drill fluid minerals 
under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended. To explore and 
develop geothermal resources on federal lands, developers generally 
must first obtain a federal lease from BLM.[Footnote 19] Once a lease 
is obtained, a potential developer undergoes three primary phases 
seeking approval of plans and permits to explore and then develop 
geothermal resources and, ultimately, to construct a geothermal power 
plant. These plans and permits include the following: (1) an 
exploration plan, which describes the overall process for drilling and 
testing for geothermal resources; (2) one or more geothermal drilling 
permits, which allow an applicant to drill wells to confirm and 
produce geothermal resources at a given location; and (3) a 
utilization plan, which describes the proposed power plant and 
infrastructure needed to generate electricity from geothermal 
resources and provides much of the information needed to permit the 
power plant itself. A construction permit and site license must also 
be obtained before geothermal plant construction may begin. These 
three phases of geothermal permitting can be set in motion 
concurrently, but generally the environmental approval for the 
exploration phase is completed before applicants apply for geothermal 
drilling permits and subsequent construction permits. Applications for 
geothermal drilling permits can also be submitted after construction 
of a plant is completed if the developer determines that a geothermal 
field may benefit from additional wells. 

Key Environmental Laws Affecting the Permitting Process: 

As with many other land management activities, the agencies must 
comply with key environmental laws--including, among others, NEPA, the 
Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act--
when amending land use plans and approving permits for renewable 
energy development. Compliance with these laws can involve 
considerable time spent by agencies and project developers on 
environmental analysis and consultation with multiple agencies. 

* National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.[Footnote 20] Enacted in 
1970, NEPA has as its purpose, among others, to promote efforts to 
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment. NEPA requires an 
agency to prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of 
any "major federal action" significantly affecting the environment. 
Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality 
[Footnote 21] implementing NEPA generally require an agency to prepare 
either an environmental assessment[Footnote 22] or an environmental 
impact statement.[Footnote 23] Agencies may prepare an environmental 
assessment to determine whether there is a significant potential 
impact on the environment, which would necessitate the preparation of 
an environmental impact statement. If the agency determines in its 
environmental assessment that no significant environmental impacts 
will occur from the proposed action, then it prepares a finding of no 
significant impact. If the agency issues an environmental impact 
statement, it must also issue a record of decision describing the 
agency's decision; identifying all alternatives the agency considered; 
and stating whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize 
environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted 
and, if not, why not. Environmental impact statements can be developed 
at either a programmatic level--where larger-scale, combined and 
cumulative effects can be evaluated and where overall management 
objectives, such as road access and use, are defined--or a project 
level, where the effects are evaluated of a particular project in a 
specific place at a particular time. Programmatic environmental impact 
statements can reduce the environmental analysis needed for individual 
projects proposed in the area covered by a programmatic statement. 
[Footnote 24] In addition, land use plan revisions typically involve 
the preparation of an environmental impact statement, and programmatic 
statements have also enabled agencies to amend multiple land use plans 
at the same time (e.g., land use plans for areas served by multiple 
BLM field offices), thereby reducing the NEPA review typically 
required when unit-specific land use plans are amended. 

* Endangered Species Act of 1973.[Footnote 25] The purpose of the 
Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and endangered 
species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under section 7 of 
the act, federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species protected under the act. To fulfill this responsibility, 
the agencies must, under some circumstances, formally consult with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service when their actions may affect listed species 
or habitat identified as critical to the species' survival. The 
consultation usually ends with the issuance of a biological opinion by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service; this opinion may specify protective 
measures intended to minimize the project's impact on the species. For 
example, on the basis of a biological opinion, BLM may require a wind 
project to incorporate techniques reducing the turbines' potential to 
harm species protected under the act. 

* National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.[Footnote 26] The 
National Historic Preservation Act provides for the protection of 
historic properties. For all projects receiving federal funds or a 
federal permit, section 106 of the act requires federal agencies to 
take into account a project's effect on any historic property, 
including, for example, areas of traditional religious and cultural 
importance to an Indian tribe.[Footnote 27] In accordance with 
regulations implementing the act, agencies must consult with relevant 
federal, state, and tribal officials to determine whether a project or 
activity has the potential to affect historic properties. 

Other key federal laws affecting the permitting of renewable energy 
projects in particular include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act[Footnote 
28] and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.[Footnote 29] Each 
act generally makes it unlawful to "take" (defined to include, among 
other actions, hunting, trapping, or killing) a bird, its nest, or 
eggs covered by the act unless a permit has been issued under specific 
circumstances. 

In addition to federal land management agency requirements, project 
applications are also subject to relevant state and local 
requirements, which vary from state to state. For example, in 
California, utility-scale solar projects are also subject to the 
California Environmental Quality Act. The California act requires a 
state agency to prepare an environmental impact report on any project 
it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect 
on the environment. The act generally prohibits the agency from 
approving a project unless it is modified to mitigate or avoid 
significant effects on the environment. 

BLM Has Received Hundreds of Permit Applications since EPAct 2005 and 
Authorized 25 Projects: 

Since 2005, BLM has received hundreds of permit applications for 
utility-scale renewable energy projects. For wind and solar projects, 
17 projects have been authorized, with permit-processing time frames 
decreasing over time--from about 4 years to about 1.5 years. For 
geothermal projects, 29 applications were submitted, and construction 
was approved for 8 projects, with the permit-processing time frames 
ranging from 1 to 4 years. In all, since EPAct 2005, BLM has 
authorized projects sited on federal lands with the capacity to 
generate a total of about 5,450 megawatts of electricity, a 
substantial increase over the number of megawatts the agencies had 
authorized before passage of the act, contributing to the act's goal 
of approving 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on federal lands by 
2015. 

Since 2005, BLM Received 416 Wind and Solar Permit Applications and 
Authorized 17 Projects, and Permitting Time Frames Have Decreased: 

According to agency officials and responses to our questionnaire, from 
passage of EPAct 2005 through May 2012, BLM received 416 permit 
applications for utility-scale wind and solar projects. Over 350 of 
the applications were for solar energy projects, almost all of which 
were submitted for development on BLM-managed lands in Arizona, 
California, and Nevada. Sixty-five applications were submitted to BLM 
for wind energy projects. One application was submitted for a wind 
energy project on Forest Service-managed land.[Footnote 30] Of the 416 
applications submitted to BLM, rights-of-way were issued for 20 
applications covering 17 projects (7 wind and 10 solar).[Footnote 31] 
About 60 percent of the applications were ultimately withdrawn by the 
applicant or denied by BLM. Table 1 depicts the status of all 416 wind 
and solar applications. (See also appendix I for more information 
about our methodology for determining how many applications each 
agency received.) 

Table 1: Status of Applications for Utility-Scale Wind and Solar 
Project Permits on BLM-Managed Lands since EPAct 2005: 

Status of applications: Authorized; 
Wind applications: 
Number: 7; 
Percentage: 11%; 
Solar applications: 
Number: 13[A]; 
Percentage: 4%; 
Total wind and solar applications: 
Number: 20; 
Percentage: 5%. 

Status of applications: Pending; 
Wind applications: 
Number: 27; 
Percentage: 42%; 
Solar applications: 
Number: 82; 
Percentage: 23%; 
Total wind and solar applications: 
Number: 109; 
Percentage: 26%. 

Status of applications: Withdrawn; 
Wind applications: 
Number: 17; 
Percentage: 26%; 
Solar applications: 
Number: 126; 
Percentage: 36%; 
Total wind and solar applications: 
Number: 143; 
Percentage: 34%. 

Status of applications: Denied; 
Wind applications: 
Number: 13; 
Percentage: 20%; 
Solar applications: 
Number: 97; 
Percentage: 28%; 
Total wind and solar applications: 
Number: 110; 
Percentage: 26%. 

Status of applications: On hold[B]; 
Wind applications: 
Number: [C]; 
Percentage: [C]; 
Solar applications: 
Number: 11; 
Percentage: 3%; 
Total wind and solar applications: 
Number: 11; 
Percentage: 3%. 

Status of applications: Other[D]; 
Wind applications: 
Number: 1; 
Percentage: 2%; 
Solar applications: 
Number: 22; 
Percentage: 6%; 
Total wind and solar applications: 
Number: 23; 
Percentage: 6%. 

Status of applications: Total; 
Wind applications: 
Number: 65; 
Percentage: 100%; 
Solar applications: 
Number: 351; 
Percentage: 100%; 
Total wind and solar applications: 
Number: 416; 
Percentage: 100%. 

Source: GAO analysis of BLM questionnaire results. Because of rounding 
rules, percentages for some results shown in the table may not add to 
100. 

[A] A right-of-way was authorized for 13 solar applications; however, 
these 13 applications covered 10 projects because 1 project had 
multiple applications. 

[B] "On hold" refers to certain solar energy applications for which 
BLM postponed processing while the solar programmatic environmental 
impact statement was being completed. 

[C] Data not applicable for wind applications. 

[D] Applications identified as "other" --for example, those that were 
closed for administrative reasons other than withdrawal or denial--did 
not fit in any of the listed categories. 

[End of table] 

Of the 17 wind and solar projects that had been granted a right-of-
way, 7 were in operation and 3 were under construction as of the time 
of this report. The remainder were delayed for various reasons--such 
as bankruptcy or changes in the type of technology applicants plan to 
install--or had been terminated. (See appendix II for the status and 
details of authorized projects for all types of renewable energy.) 

Of the 109 wind and solar energy applications that were identified as 
pending, 2 had been approved through a signed decision at completion 
of environmental analysis but were not considered authorized because a 
right-of-way had not been issued, and 20 applications had entered the 
environmental analysis process as of the time of our review. The 
remaining applications were in earlier stages of the review process. 
According to BLM officials, some of these applications are not likely 
to be considered or approved because of where they stand in the queue 
of applications for that parcel of land. For example, for some 
especially desirable parcels, two or more applications may be in the 
queue for a right-of-way. Applications are processed in the order 
received, and applications that are further down the queue for the 
same parcel of land will be considered only if the first application 
for that parcel is withdrawn or denied. In other cases, BLM officials 
told us, applicants were no longer actively pursuing their 
applications but had not yet formally withdrawn them. 

Applications were withdrawn or denied for various reasons. According 
to BLM officials, some applicants withdrew because of concerns 
regarding the financial market and concerns over the presence of 
cultural and natural resources located in the project area. Regarding 
applications that were denied by the agency, BLM officials told us 
that a majority were denied because applicants did not provide 
sufficient information--such as technical details associated with 
their projects--for BLM to process the applications. The next most 
frequently identified reason for denial was that developers could not 
demonstrate the technical or financial capability to carry out their 
projects. 

Permitting for the 17 authorized wind and solar projects with 
applications submitted after EPAct 2005 took from less than half a 
year to almost 5 years from initial application submission to right-of-
way authorization, according to our questionnaire results. Average 
permitting time frames differed depending on the type of project 
application; it took about 3.5 years to complete the permitting 
process for solar projects and about 2.5 years for wind projects. 
[Footnote 32] Some of this difference stems from the fact that most 
wind applications were processed using environmental assessments 
rather than environmental impact statements, whereas all authorized 
solar applications were processed using environmental impact 
statements--and processing applications using environmental 
assessments took roughly two-thirds as long, on average, as processing 
applications using environmental impact statements. 

In addition, for those wind and solar applications processed using 
environmental impact statements, the time necessary to complete the 
application represented about one-third of total processing time. For 
wind applications processed using environmental assessments, the time 
to complete the application represented a smaller portion of the total 
processing time--about 9 percent. Most of the remainder was spent 
preparing for or conducting the environmental analysis (see figure 2). 

Figure 2: Average Time Frames for Stages in Processing Authorized 
Solar and Wind Project Applications Submitted after EPAct 2005 Using 
Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated horizontal bar graph] 

Solar environmental impact statements: 
Average years (percentage of total): 
Complete application: 1.03 years (29%); 
Prepare for environmental analysis: 0.94 years (26%); 
Environmental analysis: 1.52 years (43%); 
Secure right-of-way: 0.05 years (1%); 
Total: 3.5 years. 

Wind environmental impact statements: 
Average years (percentage of total): 
Complete application: 1.19 years (35%); 
Prepare for environmental analysis: 0.40 years (12%); 
Environmental analysis: 1.69 years (49%); 
Secure right-of-way: 0.15 years (5%); 
Total: 3.4 years. 

Wind environmental assessments: 
Average years (percentage of total): 
Complete application: 0.19 years (9%); 
Prepare for environmental analysis: 0.49 years (23%); 
Environmental analysis: 1.20 years (56%); 
Secure right-of-way: 0.26 years (12%); 
Total: 2.1 years. 

Source: GAO analysis of BLM questionnaire results. 

Note: This figure represents 17 wind and solar projects authorized by 
BLM. As noted in table 1, for one solar project, four applications 
were submitted, but because these four applications were processed 
simultaneously, we treated them as a single application in this 
analysis. 

[End of figure] 

BLM officials also reported substantially shorter processing times for 
wind and solar applications received in more recent years. 
Specifically, authorized wind and solar project applications submitted 
in 2006 took an average of about 4 years to process, whereas those 
applications submitted in 2009 averaged about 1.5 years (see figure 
3). According to BLM officials, these time frames may have decreased 
because BLM field office staff have gained experience in processing 
renewable energy applications. 

Figure 3: Average Time Frames for Stages in the Processing of 
Applications for Authorized Wind and Solar Projects, by Year Submitted: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated horizontal bar graph] 

Year: 2006; 
Average years (percentage of total): 
Complete application: 1.03 (27%); 
Prepare for environmental analysis: 0.98 (25%); 
Environmental analysis: 1.84 (48%); 
Secure right-of-way: 0.01 (less than 1%); 
Total: 3.9 years. 

Year: 2007; 
Average years (percentage of total): 
Complete application: 0.81 (24%); 
Prepare for environmental analysis: 0.80 (24%); 
Environmental analysis: 1.49 (45%); 
Secure right-of-way: 0.22 (7%); 
Total: 3.3 years. 

Year: 2008; 
Average years (percentage of total): 
Complete application: 0.73 (31%); 
Prepare for environmental analysis: 0.54 (23%); 
Environmental analysis: 1.07 (46%); 
Secure right-of-way: 0.00 (less than 1%); 
Total: 2.3 years. 

Year: 2009; 
Average years (percentage of total): 
Complete application: 0.37 (25%); 
Prepare for environmental analysis: 0.22 (15%); 
Environmental analysis: 0.87 (59%); 
Secure right-of-way: 0.02 (1%); 
Total: 1.5 years. 

Source: GAO analysis of BLM questionnaire results. 

Notes: This figure represents 17 wind and solar projects authorized by 
BLM. As noted in table 1, for one solar project, four applications 
were submitted, but because these four applications were processed 
simultaneously, we treated them as a single application in this 
analysis. In addition, the data for 2006 represent four applications 
(one wind environmental assessment and three solar environmental 
impact statements); for 2007, nine applications (three wind 
environmental assessments, one wind environmental impact statement, 
and five solar environmental impact statements); for 2008, two 
applications (two solar environmental impact statements); and for 
2009, two applications (one wind environmental assessment and one wind 
environmental impact statement). 

[End of figure] 

BLM Received Applications for 29 Geothermal Projects since 2005 and 
Approved 8 for Construction, with Permitting Time Frames from 1 to 4 
Years: 

From EPAct 2005 through May 2012, BLM received applications for 29 new 
utility-scale geothermal projects, most of which were submitted from 
2007 through 2009 for development in Nevada. Each component of the 
application process for developing utility-scale geothermal projects--
exploration plans, geothermal drilling permits for individual wells, 
and utilization plans for constructing and maintaining the geothermal 
power plant--requires environmental analysis and agency approval. As 
of the time of this report, of these 29 proposed projects: 

* BLM approved 25 exploration plans, with the remaining 4 projects 
suspended by the applicants. 

* Associated with the 25 projects approved for exploration, BLM 
approved 168 geothermal drilling permits to drill individual wells for 
developing these projects. 

* BLM subsequently approved 8 of the 25 projects for construction and 
maintenance; 3 of these projects were operational, and another was 
under construction. 

Some of the 25 applications for which geothermal exploration plans had 
been approved did not progress to approval of construction because, 
during the exploration phase, applicants did not find sufficient 
geothermal resources to justify constructing a plant. In other cases, 
according to agency officials, financial difficulties constrained 
applicants' ability to drill wells and construct power plants. A few 
other projects were early in the exploration process and had not yet 
moved to the construction phase, according to BLM officials. 

Time frames for obtaining the multiple approvals and permits necessary 
for utility-scale geothermal power plants ranged from 1 to 4 years, in 
part because of the time needed to explore and find adequate 
geothermal resources and also because of the time needed to process 
applications at each approval stage. On average, it took about 1.3 
years for approval of exploration plans, about 124 days for approval 
of drilling permits, and about 1.3 years for approval of construction 
plans. 

Wind, Solar, and Geothermal Projects Applied for and Authorized since 
EPAct 2005 Total 5,450 Megawatts of Generating Capacity: 

BLM-authorized renewable energy projects sited on federal lands and 
applied for since EPAct 2005 have a total electricity-generating 
capacity of about 5,450 megawatts--a substantial increase over the 
capacity for renewable energy generation approved before EPAct 2005, 
which was about 1,360 megawatts. Of this 5,450-megawatt capacity, 
authorized wind projects contributed about 800 megawatts, solar 
projects about 4,200 megawatts, and geothermal projects about 450 
megawatts.[Footnote 33] 

As previously noted, EPAct 2005 established a goal that the Secretary 
of the Interior "seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy 
projects located on public lands with a generation capacity of at 
least 10,000 megawatts of electricity" by 2015. The 5,450 megawatts 
for authorized projects discussed above contribute to this goal, as do 
megawatts for projects that have been approved but for which an 
authorization has not been issued.[Footnote 34] Other megawatts that 
contribute to this goal include those from renewable energy projects 
on non-Interior lands that rely on BLM rights-of-way for "connected 
actions" essential to the project, such as transmission corridors. BLM 
officials also told us that the megawatts associated with projects 
approved before EPAct 2005 contribute toward meeting the goal. In 
October 2012, with the approval of a large wind energy project, 
Interior officials announced that the department had surpassed the 
10,000-megawatt goal. 

Agencies Have Taken Several Steps to Foster Renewable Energy 
Development on Federal Lands since EPAct 2005: 

Since EPAct 2005, the federal land management agencies--primarily BLM 
but also other Interior agencies and the Forest Service--have 
developed and revised policies to address renewable energy development 
on federal lands, formalized collaboration within and across their 
respective agencies and with state and local governments, and devoted 
increased resources to process renewable energy permit applications. 
In addition, BLM--partly in response to our review--has drafted a 
policy to help guide and assess these efforts to help ensure they are 
achieving their intended purposes. 

Agencies Have Created Policies Aimed at Improving Renewable Energy 
Development: 

Since 2005, BLM has developed and revised policies aimed at improving 
renewable energy permitting and development on its lands through 
various means. Other agencies--including the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and the Forest Service--have also developed renewable energy policies. 
Although some of these steps began before EPAct 2005, BLM officials 
said they saw the need for continual improvements and changes, given 
the sharp increase in applications for renewable energy permits since 
EPAct 2005.[Footnote 35] 

BLM: 

BLM has developed and revised policies intended for improving 
renewable energy development on its lands by means of programmatic 
environmental impact statements, designation of priority projects, 
instruction memorandums, and rulemaking. 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements: 

One of BLM's most comprehensive actions taken with respect to 
renewable energy was the completion of programmatic environmental 
impact statements for wind, geothermal, and solar energy development, 
made final in 2005, 2008, and 2012, respectively (see figure 4). These 
statements enabled BLM to amend multiple land use plans simultaneously 
to provide for renewable energy development on BLM-managed lands; in 
some cases, the statements also established new policies and 
identified best management practices for energy development. According 
to BLM officials, the statements were intended to streamline the 
permitting process for renewable energy development by shortening the 
amount of time needed for project-by-project environmental impact 
analyses. The solar statement differed from those for wind and 
geothermal energy in that it identified specific areas of federal 
lands most suitable for development--known as solar energy zones--and 
created incentives, including economic incentives and more streamlined 
permitting, for development to occur in those locations.[Footnote 36] 

Figure 4: Summary of BLM's Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statements for Wind, Geothermal, and Solar Energy Development: 

[Refer to PDF for image: time line] 

Wind: 
* Amended 52 land use plans; 
* Affects BLM-managed lands in 11 western states[A]; 
* Identifies lands as either open or closed to wind energy development 
but does not designate preferred development areas[D]; 
Year approved: 2005. 

Geothermal: 
* Amended 114 land use plans; 
* Affects BLM- and Forest Service-managed lands in 12 western states 
[B]; 
* Identifies lands as open to consideration for geothermal leasing or 
closed to leasing but does not designate preferred development 
areas[D]; 
Year approved: 2008. 

Solar: 
* Amended 89 land use plans; 
* Affects BLM-managed lands in 6 western states[C]; 
* Identifies lands as designated preferred "solar energy zones," 
within which BLM is to give priority to and facilitate utility-scale 
solar development and associated transmission infrastructure; 
establishes "variance areas," where solar development may be allowed 
but is not encouraged; and excludes from utility-scale solar 
development certain land categories[D]; 
Year approved: 2012. 

Source: GAO based on BLM documents. 

Note: "Year approved" refers to the year when the record of decision 
was signed for the associated programmatic environmental impact 
statement. Information in the table generally reflects BLM's actions 
as described in the relevant record of decision. 

[A] Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

[B] Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

[C] Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. 

[D] A variety of areas are closed to development, including, among 
others, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and national 
monuments. 

[End of figure] 

Programmatic environmental impact statements can be particularly 
useful with regard to renewable energy development because many of 
BLM's land use plans did not address such development at the utility 
scale and amending them through a programmatic review was more 
efficient than doing so one by one. For example, relying on the 
analysis in the wind statement, BLM amended 52 land use plans, in some 
cases incorporating wind energy development into land use plans where 
that energy type had not previously been addressed but where 
proponents had shown an interest and in other cases restricting wind 
energy development from wildlife habitat where the agency believed 
adverse effects could not be mitigated.[Footnote 37] Without the 
programmatic statement on wind energy, these land use plans would have 
had to be amended individually, each with its own associated 
environmental review. 

Moreover, in using such programmatic statements, BLM helped address 
concerns that NEPA's requirements for environmental analysis can be 
overly time-consuming. According to BLM officials, the geothermal 
programmatic environmental impact statement approach has shortened the 
time it has taken BLM staff to ensure the accuracy of NEPA 
documentation for site-specific activities such as drilling, in part 
because it supplied a template for environmental assessments. 
Additionally, BLM officials anticipate that environmental analysis for 
applications in the new solar energy zones will be streamlined because 
BLM can tier these analyses to the relevant programmatic analysis. 

Priority Projects: 

In 2009, according to Interior officials, BLM began selecting projects 
to be given higher priority in application processing so as to focus 
agency efforts and limited resources on those projects it believed had 
a greater likelihood of being approved. Recognizing the need for 
explicit criteria, BLM in 2011 established criteria for prioritizing 
wind and solar energy projects.[Footnote 38] These criteria took into 
consideration natural and cultural resource values--seeking to direct 
development away from sensitive areas. According to officials, BLM 
expected that projects on less sensitive lands would take less time to 
process because these projects would require less consultation, 
environmental analysis, and mitigation. In addition, BLM also 
considered those projects for which the application process had 
progressed far enough to start formal environmental review. Initially, 
BLM selected priority projects on its own but--recognizing that other 
agencies are integral to the permitting process or may be affected by 
project development on BLM-managed lands--it has since coordinated on 
project selection with other agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 
Department of Defense. 

Some BLM officials told us that additional agency attention paid to 
priority projects has facilitated processing and streamlined the 
approval process. For example, the record of decision for all priority 
projects is now signed by the Secretary of the Interior, which means 
that the decisions, if challenged, cannot be appealed to the Interior 
Board of Land Appeals. This board's review can lengthen approval time 
frames, according to BLM officials.[Footnote 39] 

Instruction Memorandums: 

Since 2005, BLM has issued multiple instruction memorandums to its 
field offices containing new policies aimed primarily at development 
of wind and solar energy. A significant increase in wind and solar 
permit applications beginning in 2007--many of which BLM officials 
said were speculative in nature or not detailed enough for 
consideration--coupled with BLM's relative inexperience in processing 
such applications made managing the applications a challenge. Several 
of the memorandums stemmed from a lessons-learned workshop on 
renewable energy held in January 2011, where officials from several 
Interior agencies, as well as industry groups, identified challenges 
and developed suggestions for improvement. The following month, on 
February 7, 2011, BLM issued three instruction memorandums 
specifically targeted at clarifying NEPA documentation, facilitating 
the application review and approval process, and improving the quality 
of project applications. The instruction memorandums are as follows: 

* A memorandum aimed at clarifying BLM's policy under NEPA as it 
relates to analyzing applications for utility-scale renewable energy 
projects.[Footnote 40] This memorandum provided guidance to BLM staff 
on developing and presenting certain information required for 
environmental impact statements related to renewable energy projects. 
For example, as part of the NEPA process, BLM is to analyze reasonable 
alternatives for development. Given the various technologies available 
for renewable energy development, some alternatives may be proposed 
that are not technically or economically feasible. This memorandum 
states that reasonable alternatives include "those that are practical 
or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using 
common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the 
applicant." It also notes that information about the applicant's 
interest and objectives, including any constraints or flexibility in a 
proposal, is needed to help BLM determine which alternatives to 
analyze in detail under NEPA and, conversely, which alternatives to 
eliminate from detailed analysis. 

* A memorandum providing updated guidance to facilitate the 
application review and approval process by directing early 
coordination between BLM and other stakeholders.[Footnote 41] This 
memorandum requires that all prospective applicants participate in at 
least two preapplication meetings with BLM before the agency can 
accept an application for solar or wind projects.[Footnote 42] The 
first such meeting, between an applicant and BLM, helps ensure that 
the applicant is familiar with BLM's right-of-way process and allows 
discussion of issues such as the applicant's proposal for the project, 
any land use and siting constraints, potential environmental issues, 
and potential alternative site locations. The second meeting is to 
initiate coordination with other federal agencies, such as the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, as well as with tribal, state, and local 
government agencies; to provide an additional opportunity to discuss 
potential environmental and siting constraints; and to modify the 
proposed project, if necessary, before an application is submitted. 

* A memorandum aimed at improving the quality of project applications, 
thereby enabling BLM officials to better identify applicants with a 
serious interest in project development. [Footnote 43] This memorandum 
sought to enable BLM to distinguish between applicants that are 
serious about developing a renewable energy project and those 
considered to be land speculators. To enable these distinctions, BLM 
clarified the expectation that wind and solar project applications are 
to include detailed project descriptions before BLM can begin further 
processing and that the agency will not accept plans that are still in 
the conceptual phase. Because right-of-way permit applications are 
processed in the order in which they are received, identifying serious 
applicants early in the process can help ensure that BLM's time is 
spent reviewing and processing projects likely to come to fruition. 

Rulemaking: 

BLM in 2011 undertook two rulemaking actions to facilitate the 
development of utility-scale wind and solar power on federal lands. 
First, in April 2011, BLM issued a temporary rule to immediately 
prevent the filing of mining claims in areas contemplated for wind or 
solar energy development, plus a related rule that would make 
permanent the temporary ban on mining claims. According to agency 
statements in the temporary rule, over the previous 2 years, hundreds 
of new mining claims were filed for areas where wind and solar right-
of-way energy applications had been submitted. Also, according to 
these agency statements, many of these claims were likely to be 
speculative. Specifically, the temporary rule stated that these claims 
were filed not for true mining purposes but rather for the mining 
claimant to try to compel some kind of payment from the renewable 
energy applicant before relinquishing the mining claim.[Footnote 44] 
BLM officials told us that the agency expected to publish the final 
rule in January 2013. Second, in December 2011, BLM solicited public 
comments to be used in preparing a proposed rule to establish a 
competitive process for leasing federal lands for solar and wind 
energy development.[Footnote 45] According to agency statements in the 
proposed rule, a competitive process--rather than the first-come, 
first-served process currently in use--would enhance the agency's 
ability to capture fair market value and ensure fair access to leasing 
opportunities.[Footnote 46] The rulemaking would establish competitive 
bidding procedures for lands within designated solar and wind leasing 
areas,[Footnote 47] define qualifications for potential bidders, and 
structure the financial arrangements necessary for the process. The 
agency expects to issue a proposed rule in January 2013. 

In 2007, BLM issued a rule revising the agency's geothermal resources 
leasing regulations to implement EPAct 2005. This rule established, 
among other things, a new process for competitive leasing, under which 
BLM is generally to issue a lease to the highest bidder. 

Other Agencies: 

In addition to new policies created by BLM, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service in March 2012 issued wind energy guidelines aimed at improving 
utility-scale wind energy development to reduce potential impacts to 
species of concern--including migratory birds, bats, bald and golden 
eagles, and sage grouse--regardless of whether projects are proposed 
for federal or private lands.[Footnote 48] Among other aims, these 
guidelines are intended to promote compliance with wildlife laws and 
regulations, encourage scientifically rigorous assessments 
proportionate to risks facing species of concern, and mitigate 
potential adverse effects on species of concern and their habitats. 
The guidelines assist developers in identifying species of concern 
that their proposed projects may affect and also discuss risks to 
those species. Adherence to these guidelines is voluntary. Regarding 
Forest Service-managed lands, in August 2011, the Forest Service 
amended its special use directives to add provisions specific to wind 
energy projects.[Footnote 49] Previously, agencywide policy was to 
deny wind energy development proposals if the proposed development 
could reasonably be accommodated on lands not managed by the Forest 
Service. Now, however, this policy is to be considered in conjunction 
with the agency's encouragement of wind energy facilities on Forest 
Service- managed lands to help meet the nation's energy needs. No such 
directives exist for solar projects, although agency officials told us 
they are drafting such provisions and expect to complete them in 2013. 
In general, officials with the Forest Service told us that interest in 
utility-scale wind and solar development on their lands is 
considerably less than for BLM-managed lands and that, as a result, 
the Forest Service has relied primarily on BLM guidance when 
considering proposals for development. 

Agencies Have Taken Steps Intended to Improve Coordination Within and 
Across Agencies: 

Since EPAct 2005, the federal land management agencies have taken 
steps intended to improve coordination as a way to streamline the 
permitting process and promote renewable energy development on federal 
lands in general. Specifically, coordination has been formalized 
through regularly established meetings and memorandums of 
understanding across Interior agencies, as well as with other federal 
agencies and state and local governments. 

To facilitate coordination on renewable energy activities among its 
component agencies, Interior instituted weekly meetings among its 
component agency officials at the national level to discuss issues 
concerning individual renewable energy applications and projects, 
particularly those identified as priority projects. These "strike 
team" meetings were intended to formalize coordination to ensure that 
officials across component agencies are aware of concerns that could 
affect the development of projects--including critical habitat, 
cultural or tribal issues, conflicts with national park boundaries or 
interests, and other environmental issues--and have a recurring forum 
where such concerns may be aired and resolved. BLM's national and 
state renewable energy coordination offices also hold weekly meetings 
to discuss the status of projects and other issues as they come up. 

In several cases, coordination between Interior agencies within 
certain regions has been formalized through a memorandum of 
understanding. In January 2008, for example, in recognition of the 
increase in renewable energy permit applications for projects in 
Southern California, BLM's California Desert District and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service's Ventura and Carlsbad offices signed a memorandum of 
understanding to help ensure efficient completion of required 
consultation under the Endangered Species Act. This memorandum defines 
the process, products, actions, time frames, and expectations needed 
to complete the process. In addition, in June 2011, a memorandum of 
understanding was signed between BLM's California state office and the 
National Park Service's Pacific West Region. The memorandum generally 
documents coordination procedures the two agencies are to follow in 
instances where proposed renewable energy projects in the region may 
affect lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. 
According to Park Service officials, a similar memorandum is being 
explored between the National Park Service's Pacific West Region and 
BLM's Nevada state office. Interior officials told us that, given the 
success of the California effort, the agency is discussing potential 
amendments to agency manuals to ensure that closer coordination occurs 
between each BLM state office and relevant National Park Service 
regional offices. Before putting such amendments in place, however, 
the agency wants to evaluate different tools to encourage and reward 
staff for engaging in coordination. 

BLM has also formalized its coordination on renewable energy with 
other federal agencies, as well as with state and local entities. For 
example, in 2006 BLM and the Forest Service signed a memorandum of 
understanding to implement certain geothermal leasing and permitting 
provisions of EPAct 2005, in part to reduce the backlog of geothermal 
leasing applications. In addition, over the past decade, BLM and the 
Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory have 
maintained a relationship whereby the laboratory has provided 
expertise to BLM in support of BLM's management of renewable energy 
development. According to laboratory officials, the relationship has 
evolved so that the laboratory provides BLM with assistance on a 
systematic rather than task-by-task basis. For example, in 2011 BLM 
and the laboratory signed an interagency agreement for the laboratory 
to provide technical assistance and training for fiscal years 2011 
through 2013. Given the laboratory's expertise, laboratory officials 
have in some cases assisted BLM offices with individual renewable 
energy applications by evaluating the technical feasibility of certain 
proposals. In addition, BLM state offices are working in partnership 
with state and local agencies. In California, multiple federal land 
management agencies are working with the California Energy Commission 
and the California Department of Fish and Game in a collaborative 
effort to develop the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for 
22.5 million acres of public and private land in Southern California. 
This effort, initiated under a 2008 memorandum of understanding, is 
intended to develop a conservation strategy to provide for protection 
and conservation of the natural resources within the Mojave and 
Colorado Desert Regions while allowing solar and other renewable 
energy development in a manner that avoids or minimizes environmental 
impacts. According to Interior officials, other BLM efforts to 
coordinate with states have occurred in Wyoming and, to a lesser 
degree, in Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Officials told us that 
success in developing renewable energy projects depends on 
collaboration with states, making such partnerships important. 

Agencies Have Devoted Additional Resources to Renewable Energy 
Development: 

From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2012, BLM reported more than 
doubling the program funding devoted to wind and solar energy 
activities, from about $8 million to about $16.5 million.[Footnote 50] 
During that time, BLM added 64 full-time-equivalent staff--tripling 
its staff from 32 in fiscal year 2010 to 96 in fiscal year 2012. In 
addition to these funds, BLM uses cost-recovery fees, which it is 
authorized to recover from applicants to pay for processing 
applications for wind and solar energy development.[Footnote 51] From 
fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2012, BLM reported collecting about 
$16 million through these fees;[Footnote 52] BLM officials estimated 
that cost-recovery fees represent about half of the total funds 
received by BLM field offices. 

In contrast, funding and staffing for geothermal energy leasing and 
permitting declined in recent years after the expiration of temporary 
funding authority created by EPAct 2005. Specifically, the act 
established the Geothermal Steam Act Implementation Fund to be used to 
expedite the development of geothermal energy.[Footnote 53] The act 
required that certain rents and royalties paid as part of geothermal 
leases go into the fund until the end of fiscal year 2010. BLM used 
these funds for coordinating and processing geothermal, permits, among 
other uses. Authorization for this fund has expired, and after 
expiration, BLM's geothermal-related obligations declined from about 
$7.9 million to about $2.7 million from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal 
year 2012, and the number of full-time-equivalent staff was reduced 
from 45 to 35 during that time. 

The funding and staffing increases for wind and solar energy 
development were in large part used by BLM to establish renewable 
energy coordination offices at the national and state levels to, among 
other duties, help process wind and solar right-of-way permit 
applications in the four western states with significant renewable 
energy activity: Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming. BLM also 
established similar but less well-developed entities, known as 
renewable energy teams, in several of the other western states with 
less-significant renewable energy activity. 

Interior agencies besides BLM have also recently devoted additional 
resources toward renewable energy efforts. To accommodate the workload 
associated with increased interest in renewable energy development, 
the National Park Service in 2010 hired a permanent, full-time 
national external renewable energy coordinator and six full-time-
equivalent staff focused on coordination for renewable energy 
permitting. According to agency officials, these positions are 
supported by using funds from the agency's existing programs. Other 
National Park Service staff also contribute time to renewable energy 
efforts on BLM-managed lands as a collateral duty. For example, agency 
officials told us that several agency staff representing national 
parks in Southern California have spent time working with BLM and 
project applicants on renewable energy proposals near national parks 
in the region; these officials told us they work with BLM and 
applicants to minimize potential negative effects on park resources, 
such as impaired views, increased noise and light pollution, and 
disruption to area wildlife. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service also reported receiving more 
appropriated funds for engagement in renewable energy permitting. 
Specifically, in fiscal year 2010, the agency's Conservation Planning 
Assistance Program received a $1.5 million increase for technical 
assistance on renewable energy projects. In fiscal year 2011, this 
program received an additional $2 million for these activities, for a 
total increase of $3.5 million. This $3.5 million increase continued 
for fiscal year 2012. The program's funding covered not only time 
spent contributing assistance to projects proposed on federal lands 
but also to those proposed on private lands. Some of this funding 
helped address region-specific increases in workloads. For example, 
according to agency officials, in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service's Pacific Southwest Regional Office was able to 
add two to three full-time-equivalent staff positions at the state 
level and to conduct consultation and project planning at five offices 
working on renewable energy in the region. Nonetheless, several Fish 
and Wildlife Service officials told us that they completed their 
increased federal lands renewable energy-related work as a collateral 
duty done in conjunction with other work responsibilities. 

Interior has taken steps to address its component agencies' concerns 
over the amount of time and funding they commit to the renewable 
energy permitting process, according to agency officials. For example, 
Interior has prepared a draft secretarial order delegating authority 
for cost recovery to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, National Park Service, and others to allow these agencies to 
collect cost-recovery fees to help pay for their activities as part of 
the permitting process. A final order is expected to be issued in 2013. 

According to Forest Service officials, interest and activity in 
developing wind and solar energy projects on Forest Service-managed 
lands have been at a relatively low level, and no specific Forest 
Service increases in funding or staff comparable to BLM's have been 
dedicated to renewable energy development. Forest Service officials 
told us that funding is received through recovery of costs from 
applicants when needed for specific renewable energy activities. The 
agency maintains two expert advisors on technical and legal issues 
related to geothermal leasing, as well as other personnel who work on 
renewable energy projects and policy as collateral duties. 
Nevertheless, the Forest Service does not dedicate specific funding to 
wind, solar, or geothermal energy development; rather, funding for 
such development is included in agency budget line items covering 
broader activities. According to Forest Service officials, they do not 
track the amount the agency spends on renewable energy permitting 
activities. 

BLM Plans to Review Its Renewable Energy Activities: 

To help ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of its renewable 
energy activities, BLM issued a new instruction memorandum in December 
2012 aimed at providing BLM offices involved in renewable energy 
activities with a better understanding of renewable energy policies 
and regulations and to provide clarity and consistency in the goals of 
the agency's renewable energy activities. The memorandum--developed 
partly in response to our review--directs the national renewable 
energy coordination office to establish an Oversight and 
Implementation Plan. This plan is to establish an internal review to 
be performed annually by the national renewable energy coordination 
office, beginning in fiscal year 2013. The review is intended to 
ensure BLM compliance with renewable energy regulations and policies 
and to ensure that guidance is applied appropriately and consistently 
throughout BLM. In addition, the plan is to call for collaboration 
among the various offices in the development of future renewable 
energy policies. 

During our review, some agency officials and stakeholders acknowledged 
the importance of greater resources and coordination in facilitating 
the permitting process but also informed us of areas for improvement--
thereby indicating the importance of assessing the permitting process. 
For example, one agency official and some stakeholders told us that 
BLM field offices were not always consistent in their approach to 
renewable energy permitting or in their willingness to coordinate on 
renewable energy projects; they said that BLM could do more to help 
ensure consistency in coordination. An ongoing oversight and 
improvement plan can assist BLM in identifying needed improvements to 
its renewable energy permitting process. 

Factors Related to Permitting, as Well as Market and Other Forces, 
Affect the Pace of Renewable Energy Development on Federal Lands: 

According to BLM officials' responses to our questionnaire and 
interviews we conducted with others, including industry 
representatives, many factors can affect the pace of renewable energy 
development on federal lands. Some of these factors relate to the land 
management agencies' approval and permitting processes, primarily 
BLM's, with BLM respondents and others identifying some factors that 
facilitate and others that hinder the permitting process. Other 
factors identified as important include some related to broader market 
forces, which operate outside of the permitting process and therefore 
beyond the agencies' direct control. 

Agency Officials and Others Identified a Number of Factors Related to 
Permitting That Can Facilitate or Hinder the Process: 

Agency officials, industry representatives, and other stakeholders we 
spoke with identified several key factors affecting the processing of 
renewable energy applications. Factors facilitating the permitting 
process include coordination among the involved parties and resources 
the agency can devote to permitting; factors that may hinder or slow 
permitting include the quality of submitted applications and managing 
for the presence of natural and cultural resources on proposed 
development locations.[Footnote 54] 

Facilitating Factors: 

Factors identified as facilitating the permitting process are 
generally related to coordination among the parties involved in 
permitting and the availability of BLM resources. 

Coordination among Parties Involved in the Permitting Process: 

BLM respondents identified the quality of coordination between parties 
involved in permitting individual projects as among the top factors 
that facilitated the permitting process for each of the three energy 
types we reviewed. Such coordination occurs throughout the application 
process, including the initial request for an application; when key 
portions of the application, such as the plan of development, are made 
final; when environmental analyses are conducted and NEPA 
documentation is prepared; and the issuance of the right-of-way. It 
also happens among several parties--between the applicant and BLM 
staff, among staff within BLM, and between BLM staff and staff from 
other federal and nonfederal agencies. 

BLM respondents identified one forum for coordination as particularly 
helpful in facilitating the permitting process: participation in 
preapplication meetings, where coordination occurs among multiple 
parties. These meetings, which take place before an applicant submits 
an initial application to BLM, are meant to provide opportunities for 
applicants, BLM officials, and other stakeholders to discuss the 
permitting process, early concerns about project proposals, and other 
issues. According to some respondents to our questionnaire, applicants 
who spent time coordinating with stakeholders early could generally 
move through the permitting process more easily than those who had 
not. Several respondents acknowledged that preapplication meetings 
could be time-consuming, but these respondents also said that such 
meetings could help ensure that applicants understand BLM's permitting 
process and required documentation, select appropriate locations to 
site projects (e.g., to avoid areas with environmental or other 
constraints), and submit an adequate application. Concerning one 
application, a respondent explained that frequent and early 
coordination between BLM and the applicant clarified expectations for 
both parties as to what information the applicant needed to provide to 
BLM, thus preventing delays associated with unanticipated surveys or 
studies that might otherwise have been required. 

Such coordination often involved other federal agencies, which BLM 
respondents and others identified as important. Some Fish and Wildlife 
Service officials told us that meeting with applicants at the 
preapplication stage can help ensure that potential harm to species 
and ways to mitigate that harm are identified and addressed in the 
application. For example, particularly with wind energy projects, 
officials said they work with applicants to mitigate not only harm to 
threatened and endangered species and their habitats under the 
Endangered Species Act but also harm to other species protected under 
laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle 
Protection Act.[Footnote 55] Fish and Wildlife Service officials also 
said that they work with applicants at the preapplication stage to 
prepare species conservation plans and issue species-specific Fish and 
Wildlife Service permits. These officials said that these early 
meetings and documentation from applicants provide both the applicant 
and the agencies greater certainty that the applicant can comply with 
relevant species protection laws. Similarly, a respondent told us that 
for one approved project, early coordination between the applicant and 
officials from a nearby Air Force base helped the applicant select a 
site that was less likely to interfere with the base's training needs, 
thereby limiting the potential for conflict as the application 
progressed through the permitting process. BLM respondents also 
identified coordination with state, local, and tribal governments as 
facilitative, although to a lesser degree than coordination with 
federal agencies. 

Most representatives of industry and environmental groups we spoke 
with commended BLM's efforts to enhance coordination, but they 
suggested that improvements could still be made. For example, one 
industry representative suggested that preapplication meetings could 
be more beneficial if BLM designated one staff member as coordination 
leader for a particular project. This individual could then be 
responsible for setting deadlines and holding the various other 
participants accountable for completing their respective tasks in a 
timely manner. 

Availability of BLM Resources to Support Permitting: 

BLM respondents frequently cited the availability of resources as an 
important factor in the permitting process. They identified the 
importance of (1) cost-recovery funds provided by applicants to cover 
agency permitting costs for wind and solar energy projects and (2) 
internal BLM resources used to support activities such as 
administration and policy development. 

The cost-recovery funds that BLM requires applicants to submit before 
it processes wind or solar applications pay for agency permitting 
expenses, such as reviewing applicant-provided information and 
studies, preparing environmental analyses, and recording information 
in agencywide databases. According to BLM officials, BLM's expenses 
are generally substantial given the scale of most renewable energy 
projects and required reviews, ranging from $50,000 to almost 
$400,000. Without receiving at least a portion of its expenses in the 
form of cost-recovery funds, BLM does not begin processing an 
application; any delay in receipt of these funds can cause additional 
delays throughout the permitting process. Several respondents noted 
that in certain cases the applicants never provided cost-recovery 
funds, even after multiple BLM requests. 

In addition to cost-recovery funds, BLM provides internal resources to 
support administrative activities not specific to individual 
applications, as well as to maintain adequate staffing with sufficient 
expertise to process renewable energy applications. BLM officials and 
industry representatives told us that when BLM first began receiving 
applications for utility-scale solar development, it did not have 
expertise in either solar energy development or in processing permits 
for this type of right-of-way. Over the last few years, however, BLM 
has increased the number of its staff and the amount of funding 
dedicated to renewable energy development and has provided training 
opportunities to its staff who process applications; agency officials 
and industry representatives also told us that staff have become more 
knowledgeable through experience. 

Representatives from industry and environmental groups and officials 
from agencies other than BLM concurred that BLM staff have in more 
recent years become more knowledgeable about renewable energy in 
general and the permitting process specifically. Several commented 
that the pace at which an application was processed depended on the 
abilities of the assigned project manager and the emphasis placed on 
renewable energy by the field office processing the application. 

Other Factors: 

BLM respondents to our questionnaire commonly identified two other 
factors as facilitating the permitting process, although these factors 
were cited less frequently than those related to coordination or 
resources. One of these other factors was agency policy and guidance 
related to energy development. Specific policies identified by 
respondents as particularly helpful for wind and solar applications 
included programmatic environmental impact statements; instruction 
memorandums from BLM, including the memorandum addressing NEPA 
compliance for utility-scale renewable energy development; and a 2003 
memorandum containing interim guidance from the Fish and Wildlife 
Service on avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts from wind 
turbines.[Footnote 56] In addition, one industry representative told 
us that BLM's solar programmatic environmental impact statement is 
effective in screening lands for the presence of cultural and 
biological resources. Another industry representative called the Fish 
and Wildlife Service's 2012 wind energy guidelines an effective tool 
that clearly describes agency expectations. 

Another facilitating factor identified was the selection of 
applications as priority projects. Several respondents and industry 
representatives told us that a priority designation helped because the 
various stakeholders involved in the permitting process dedicated 
their attention to reviewing priority projects. Others, however, were 
less certain of benefits. A few industry representatives told us they 
did not observe a reduction in application processing times. Also, one 
BLM respondent told us that, although the designation of a solar 
application as a priority project facilitated the permitting process 
for this project, it also encouraged officials to process the 
application faster than was appropriate, given that the necessary 
biological and cultural surveys had not been completed. 

Hindering Factors: 

BLM respondents to our questionnaire and other agency and industry 
representatives we spoke with identified several key factors that 
could delay the processing of renewable energy applications, such as 
application quality and other applicant-related factors, as well as 
factors related to managing for natural and cultural resources. 

Respondents identified the quality of a renewable energy application, 
including key components such as the plan of development for wind or 
solar projects, as among the top factors hindering the permitting 
process. The plan of development for wind and solar projects is to 
include information on structures and facilities associated with the 
proposed project, engineering specifications, maps, and other items. 
Similarly, applications for geothermal power plants are to include a 
detailed utilization plan, completed and signed facility construction 
permit, and completed and signed site license. According to BLM 
officials, this information allows them to determine the scale and 
scope of the proposed development and begin analyses to determine 
project feasibility. The agency does not begin processing applications 
until the information is complete. Since many applications require 
more information than is initially submitted, this step may delay 
processing, depending on how much additional information is requested 
by BLM and the applicant's ability to respond. For example, one 
respondent to our questionnaire said that in addition to poorly 
defining the project, an applicant continually altered key application 
components--including project scope, design, and technology--which 
made it difficult for BLM officials to analyze impacts on natural and 
cultural resources and process the application in a timely fashion. 
BLM officials also told us that some applicants did not include 
detailed information necessary to begin review, such as technical 
plans for engineering and hydrological design or stormwater 
management, which delayed processing of the applications. When 
critical components like these are missing from an application, delays 
result. BLM questionnaire respondents reported that in some instances 
applicants did not respond to the agency's requests for additional 
information or responded with incomplete information, leading to 
denial of their applications. As noted, our analysis showed that the 
most prevalent reason for denial was that an applicant did not provide 
information BLM requested that was needed to process the application. 

On the other hand, several industry representatives told us that the 
amount of documentation necessary to develop a project on federal land 
is, in their view, at times excessive. Some representatives told us 
that additional information and studies requested by the agency can be 
time-consuming and expensive to provide, thereby delaying projects, 
and, in their opinion, are not always necessary. For example, one 
applicant for a wind energy project wanted to incorporate into the 
application studies on golden eagles, a protected species, that had 
recently been completed for areas close to the proposed project site. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service, however, requested site-specific 
studies, which could take 3 to 5 years. 

Similarly, several questionnaire respondents identified applicants' 
requests for BLM to delay the processing of their applications as 
hindering the permitting process. The respondents noted several 
reasons that applicants might make such requests, including the need 
for more time to respond to BLM's requests for additional information 
and changes to agency policies or fees. For example, applicants might 
have requested a delay because they wanted to wait until the effects 
of BLM's recently issued programmatic environmental impact statement 
for solar energy development could be determined. In other cases, 
costs associated with development--such as BLM rental fees paid by the 
applicant for siting a project on federal land or the costs required 
for mitigation efforts necessary at the project site--can cause an 
applicant to request a processing delay. One questionnaire respondent 
reported that an applicant for a solar energy project requested a BLM 
delay when BLM quoted rental rates higher than the applicant expected. 

BLM questionnaire respondents identified several other factors that, 
to a lesser degree, hindered the processing of applications, including 
managing for the presence of threatened or endangered species, or 
other species of concern, and managing for the presence of tribal, 
cultural, or historic resources. For example, for one pending solar 
application in Nevada, BLM officials noted that the applicant is 
performing additional wildlife and environmental analyses and 
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid impacts to 
the desert tortoise. For other projects, managing for the presence of 
tribal, cultural, or historical resources can contribute to the time 
it takes to process an application. In some areas, a burial site or a 
place of sacred significance may require extensive tribal 
consultation. For one project, an industry representative told us that 
extensive tribal consultations led to the applicant's changing the 
project's design about 15 times. Ultimately, according to this 
representative, the applicant spent thousands of hours on 
archaeological reviews and moved the project to prevent any 
degradation of culturally sensitive areas. This representative told us 
that the lack of specificity in the regulation guiding tribal 
consultation makes it difficult to ascertain whether an applicant's 
proposed mitigations for sensitive resources are likely to be 
adequate. As a result, according to this representative, lawsuits may 
still ensue, further delaying development even after a project has 
been approved. 

BLM questionnaire respondents also identified requirements for state 
or local laws as factors that can hinder the permitting process. 
Specifically, several respondents told us that compliance with the 
California Environmental Quality Act can add procedural layers to 
processing applications in California. 

Market and Other Forces Outside the Permitting Process Also Play a 
Role: 

BLM questionnaire respondents, other BLM and federal agency officials, 
and industry representatives we spoke with also identified as 
important some factors outside of the permitting process and beyond 
agency control. Specifically, market forces and other factors 
influence whether renewable energy projects on federal lands are 
proposed, funded, and completed. Some of these factors relate to 
demand for renewable energy, including competition from electricity 
generated through other sources, and others relate to supply, 
including the availability of electrical transmission lines. Such 
forces can play a key role for any utility-scale renewable energy 
project by setting the financial backdrop for the project, according 
to industry representatives. For an applicant to secure financing for 
renewable energy projects on federal lands, investors generally 
require some assurance that the costs to construct the project and 
produce the energy will not exceed revenues from selling that energy. 
For example, BLM officials we spoke with told us that one reason that 
some renewable energy projects were withdrawn was that financing was 
not available because of concerns about whether the project could 
repay its investment costs. These officials said that financing for 
permitting, construction, and other aspects of development is more 
likely to be available to applicants who demonstrate that demand is 
sufficient and that the cost of supplying power allows for 
profitability. 

According to agency officials and industry representatives, demand for 
electricity from renewable sources can be influenced by such factors 
as competition from other sources of energy and the presence of 
renewable portfolio standards. As natural gas prices have decreased in 
recent years,[Footnote 57] renewable energy sources may have become 
less attractive to electricity purchasers and investors. Because wind 
and solar energy development provides an intermittent supply of 
electricity, purchasers and investors may find other, more steady 
supplies of electricity more attractive. In addition, demand for 
renewable energy may be affected by the presence of renewable energy 
portfolio standards;[Footnote 58] at least 29 states have such 
standards in place, under which utilities are required to derive a 
minimum percentage of total electricity they sell from renewable 
energy sources. Such standards may increase demand for renewable 
energy overall, but because an increasing number of these state 
standards have been or are nearly met, the utilities required to 
comply with these standards may no longer be interested in purchasing 
additional renewable energy within the next several years, according 
to industry representatives. BLM respondents noted that applicants 
sometimes struggled to find buyers for their electricity and, 
consequently, had difficulty pursuing their projects. Industry 
representatives told us that establishing power purchase agreements--
contracts between energy producers and energy purchasers--was a key 
part of the success of their renewable projects, and several 
questionnaire respondents noted that some wind and solar projects 
could not move forward because the applicants were unable to secure 
such agreements. In one case, a BLM official noted that the inability 
of a solar project to secure a power purchase agreement contributed to 
the cancellation of a 700-megawatt project after BLM had authorized 
the project's right-of-way permit. 

Officials we spoke with also identified factors influencing the cost 
of supplying renewable energy--most notably the accessibility of 
transmission lines and the availability of government incentives--as 
having a role in the pace of energy development on federal land. 
According to agency officials and industry representatives, the 
availability of nearby power transmission and distribution lines and 
access to these lines are critical to the economic viability of a 
renewable energy project, regardless of whether the project is located 
on federal or nonfederal lands. Often, however, renewable energy 
sources are abundant in areas where transmission lines are scarce--
increasing the overall difficulty and cost of supplying renewable 
energy. Moreover, the construction of new transmission lines can be 
costly and can face its own regulatory and environmental challenges, 
including separate environmental analyses. For example, several BLM 
officials in Wyoming told us that not having a sufficient transmission 
infrastructure has been a deciding factor in some companies' decision 
to suspend or halt their renewable energy projects. In addition, we 
were told that the availability of government incentives can affect 
the cost of producing electricity from renewable resources. For 
example, the federal tax code includes special tax incentives for 
solar energy development, which can help increase the potential 
profitability of planned solar projects. Such tax credits can be 
useful, although less so if available financing is limited, because 
without financing for an initial investment, projects that might 
benefit from tax credits would not be built in the first place. As 
part of a federal response to the 2008 recession, the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 expanded a number of existing 
tax incentives, including ones for renewable energy development. 
Several industry and government officials we spoke with cited the 
Energy Production Credit (also known as the Production Tax Credit) for 
wind facilities in particular as an important incentive for 
encouraging the development of several new wind projects. However, 
this tax credit was scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 
2012,[Footnote 59] which, according to some industry representatives, 
likely contributed to a reduction in the number of proposed wind 
projects.According to a respondent to our questionnaire, this 
uncertainty hampered one applicant's ability to attract investors, and 
the applicant ultimately found the project no longer economically 
viable. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the 
Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior. In written 
comments (reproduced in appendix III), the Department of Agriculture 
concurred with our findings, while the Departments of Energy and the 
Interior had no comments. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior; appropriate 
congressional committees; and other interested parties. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to the 
report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Anne-Marie Fennell: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report examines (1) the status of renewable energy permitting on 
federal land, including time frames for processing permits applied for 
since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005); (2) actions the 
agencies have taken to facilitate renewable energy development on 
federal lands, particularly since the passage of EPAct 2005; and (3) 
factors affecting renewable energy development on federal land. 

To address our first objective, we identified applications for utility-
scale onshore wind and solar projects submitted to the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) after enactment of EPAct on August 8, 2005, through 
May 31, 2012, by asking the BLM renewable energy coordination office 
to query the BLM database designed to track such applications. We also 
identified geothermal drilling permit applications and associated 
utility-scale geothermal project applications submitted to BLM during 
the same time period by asking BLM to query the agency database 
designed to track geothermal permits. We contacted BLM because it is 
the agency responsible for permitting almost all applications 
submitted for renewable energy development on federal lands. We used 
the results of this query to group the permits according to the 
utility-scale projects of which they were a part. After reviewing the 
lists of applications and correcting for any obvious duplication and 
other errors, we sent each BLM state office a list of applications for 
projects located in that state and asked officials to verify our 
lists' accuracy. In some instances, we deleted some applications 
because BLM officials informed us that certain applications were 
submitted to BLM before enactment of EPAct or were submitted for 
resource exploration or testing without being part of utility-scale 
development. BLM officials also identified applications that met our 
criteria but did not appear in their database; we added those 
applications to our analysis. We identified a total of 65 permit 
applications for wind projects, 351 for solar projects, and 29 for 
geothermal power plants, as well as 405 applications submitted for 
geothermal drilling permits from August 8, 2005 through May 31, 2012. 

We distributed an electronic questionnaire to BLM officials for all 
projects meeting our criteria. We developed questionnaires for each 
energy type. For each application, we asked respondents to identify 
the dates of certain milestones (e.g., the date the application was 
received or the date it was considered complete) and the factors that 
facilitated or hindered processing of that particular application. 
Although the databases contained some of the milestone information we 
collected through our questionnaires, they did not include information 
for each of the dates needed for purposes of our analysis. To 
encourage questionnaire recipients to respond, we held meetings with 
national and state BLM officials to explain the questionnaire's 
purpose, followed up by telephone and e-mail, and obtained a 100 
percent response rate for projects meeting our criteria. 

We sent the completed questionnaires to a third-party contractor to 
compile the results, checked the compiled results to ensure their 
accuracy and reliability, and followed up as needed to clarify 
incomplete or ambiguous responses. In some cases, we eliminated 
certain responses from our analysis because we could not obtain 
sufficiently complete information from the respondent. Because our 
questionnaire did not sample from a population, no sampling errors 
occurred. Nevertheless, the results of any questionnaire may be 
subject to errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 
example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, in 
the sources of information available to different respondents, or in 
how data are entered into a database or analyzed can introduce 
unwanted variability into questionnaire results. We took steps in 
questionnaire development, data collection, and data analysis to 
minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, before developing the 
questionnaires, we met with BLM officials at headquarters, state, and 
field offices to discuss the permitting process. We also reviewed 
current policies and legislation relevant to our questions and the 
analysis of the responses. The questionnaire was designed by GAO 
questionnaire specialists in conjunction with staff having subject-
matter expertise. We pretested a draft of the questionnaire with 
officials from five BLM state offices--Arizona, California, Nevada, 
Utah, and Wyoming, the states that received the greatest number of 
applications--to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly 
stated, and easy to understand. 

We also conducted semistructured interviews with the special-use 
coordinators in each of the nine regional offices of the Forest 
Service. During these interviews, we requested information on the 
number of applications received and time frames for processing 
applications, as well as on factors facilitating and hindering the 
permitting process. 

To address our second objective, we reviewed relevant laws, 
regulations, and agency policies and guidance. We also interviewed 
officials from the Department of the Interior and its four land 
management agencies--BLM, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service--as well as from the 
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. In addition to officials 
in these agencies' headquarters, we interviewed BLM officials from 
California, Colorado, Nevada, and Wyoming. We selected California, 
Nevada, and Wyoming primarily because they represent areas where 
substantial renewable energy development on federal lands is taking 
place, and substantial agency resources are devoted to processing 
renewable energy applications. We selected Colorado primarily to 
obtain the perspective about the program from a state with less 
activity and fewer resources. We interviewed Fish and Wildlife Service 
officials from the agency's Mountain-Prairie and Pacific Southwest 
Regions, both selected because of substantial renewable energy 
development occurring in the regions, and from one state office within 
each of these regions. We interviewed a National Park Service official 
from a national park in California because of his experience with 
renewable energy development near the park. In addition, we 
interviewed Forest Service officials from all nine Forest Service 
regions and officials in the wind, solar, and geothermal research 
programs at the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. We reviewed strategic plans, agency 
reports, and reviews of renewable energy development on federal lands; 
memorandums of understanding between agencies; and programmatic 
environmental impact statements for wind, solar, and geothermal 
energy. We also obtained funding and staffing data for BLM from the 
Department of the Interior's Financial and Business Management System. 
We assessed the reliability of the data we used in our report by 
reviewing the methods of data collection and data entry into this 
system, as well as various agency planning documents, and determined 
that the data were sufficiently reliable to use in this report. 

To address our third objective, we reviewed the results of our 
questionnaire and semistructured interviews regarding both factors 
that facilitate and hinder renewable energy development. We also 
interviewed BLM and other agency officials, as well as representatives 
from seven industry and two environmental groups, to obtain their 
perspectives on the permitting process, the time frames and factors 
associated with processing permit applications, and renewable energy 
development in general. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to January 2013 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Authorized Renewable Energy Projects for Which 
Applications Were Submitted after the Energy Policy Act of 2005: 

Of the 445 applications BLM received for utility-scale wind, solar, 
and geothermal projects since enactment of EPAct 2005 through May 
2012, BLM authorized 25 projects--7 wind, 10 solar, and 8 geothermal 
(see table 2). These projects were authorized with the potential to 
generate about 5,450 megawatts: 800 megawatts from wind, about 4,200 
megawatts from solar, and about 450 megawatts from geothermal energy. 

Table 2: Information about Authorized Renewable Energy Projects for 
Which Applications Were Submitted after EPAct 2005 through May 2012: 

Energy type: Wind; 

State: Arizona; 
Project name: Dry Lake Wind Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 63; 
Acres: 13,438; 
Year authorized: 2009; 
Status: In operation. 

State: California; 
Project name: Tule Wind Energy Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 124; 
Acres: 12, 239; 
Year authorized: 2012; 
Status: Other[A]. 

State: California; 
Project name: Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 315; 
Acres: 10,151; 
Year authorized: 2012; 
Status: In operation. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Spring Valley Wind Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 150; 
Acres: 8,600; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: In operation. 

State: Oregon; 
Project name: Lime Wind Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 3; 
Acres: 107; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: In operation. 

State: Utah; 
Project name: Milford Wind Project, Phase 1; 
Potential output (megawatts): 80; 
Acres: 110; 
Year authorized: 2008; 
Status: In operation. 

State: Utah; 
Project name: Milford Wind Project, Phase 2; 
Potential output (megawatts): 49; 
Acres: 34; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: In operation. 

Energy type: Solar; 

State: California; 
Project name: Blythe Solar Power Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 1,000; 
Acres: 7,025; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: Other[B]. 

State: California; 
Project name: Calico Solar Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 664; 
Acres: 4,604; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: Other[C]. 

State: California; 
Project name: Lucerne Valley Solar Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 45; 
Acres: 421; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: Terminated. 

State: California; 
Project name: Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 550; 
Acres: 4,144; 
Year authorized: 2011; 
Status: Under construction. 

State: California; 
Project name: Genesis Solar Energy Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 250; 
Acres: 1,950; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: Other[D]. 

State: California; 
Project name: Imperial Valley Solar Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 709; 
Acres: 6,459; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: Terminated. 

State: California; 
Project name: Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System; 
Potential output (megawatts): 370; 
Acres: 3,471; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: Under construction. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Amargosa Farm Road Solar Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 464; 
Acres: 6,320; 
Year authorized: 2011; 
Status: Terminated. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Crescent Dunes Solar Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 110; 
Acres: 2,094; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: Under construction. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Silver State Solar Energy Project (North); 
Potential output (megawatts): 50; 
Acres: 618; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: In operation. 

Energy type: Geothermal; 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Coyote Canyon Geothermal Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 62; 
Acres: 3,960; 
Year authorized: 2011; 
Status: Other[E]. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Salt Wells Ormat Geothermal Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 40; 
Acres: 6,948; 
Year authorized: 2011; 
Status: Other[E]. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Salt Wells Gradient Geothermal Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 120; 
Acres: 15,622; 
Year authorized: 2011; 
Status: Other[E]. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: McGinness Hills Geothermal Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 90; 
Acres: 7,680; 
Year authorized: 2011; 
Status: In operation. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Wild Rose Geothermal Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 35; 
Acres: 13,800; 
Year authorized: 2012; 
Status: Other[F]. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Blue Mountain Geothermal Power Plant; 
Potential output (megawatts): 49; 
Acres: 5,252; 
Year authorized: 2008; 
Status: In operation. 

State: Nevada; 
Project name: Jersey Valley Geothermal Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 30; 
Acres: 7,460; 
Year authorized: 2010; 
Status: In operation. 

State: Utah; 
Project name: Cove Fort Geothermal Project; 
Potential output (megawatts): 30; 
Acres: 50; 
Year authorized: 2012; 
Status: Under construction. 

Sources: GAO analysis of questionnaire results and BLM data. 

[A] Right-of-way authorized. 

[B] Right-of-way holder filed for bankruptcy, and new owner is seeking 
to change from concentrated solar power technology to photovoltaic 
solar technology. 

[C] Right-of-way was authorized, but applicant is seeking to change 
technology from sterling dish suncatcher technology to photovoltaic 
solar technology. 

[D] Project was under construction, but work was halted because of 
cultural resource concerns. 

[E] This project has not yet begun construction because the proponent 
is exploring for additional geothermal resources. 

[F] Construction has not begun given the recent authorization at the 
time of our review. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Agriculture: 

USDA: 
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW: 
Washington, DC 20250: 

File Code: 1420: 

Date: December 28, 2012: 

Ms. Anne-Marie Fennel: 
Director, U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G. Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Fennell: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the 
draft U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO> Report on "Renewable 
Energy: Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at Improving the Permitting 
Process for Development on Federal Lands (GAO-13-189)." The-Forest 
Service has reviewed the draft report and generally agrees with its 
findings. 

The Forest Service is committed to the development of renewable energy 
resources consistent with its multiple-use framework. We are committed 
to providing for and producing renewable energy resources for the 
needs of the American public. We concur with your findings. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this draft report. If 
you have any questions, please contact Thelma Strong, Chief Financial 
Officer, at 202-205-1321 or tstrong@fs.fed.us. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Mary Wagner, for: 

Thomas Tidwell: 
Chief: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Gaty (Assistant 
Director), Ulana Bihun, Catherine Bombico, Lee Carroll, Ellen W. Chu, 
Richard P. Johnson, and Kelly Rubin made key contributions to this 
report. Important contributions were also made by Catherine M. Hurley, 
Armetha Liles, Dan Royer, and Kiki Theodoropoulos. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L No. 109-58, § 211, 119 Stat. 660 (2005). The act 
specifically omitted hydropower as a part of the 10,000-megawatt goal. 
A megawatt is 1 million watts, or enough electricity to power about 
750 homes. 

[2] For this report, we are defining renewable energy to include 
onshore wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Likewise, we are limiting 
our discussion of federal lands to those lands managed for multiple 
uses by the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Agriculture. Other lands, such as those managed by the Department of 
Defense, are excluded from our analysis because they are generally not 
open to outside development of renewable energy resources. 

[3] We interviewed BLM officials from California, Colorado, Nevada, 
and Wyoming. We selected California, Nevada, and Wyoming primarily 
because they represent areas with substantial renewable energy 
development and substantial agency resources devoted to processing 
renewable energy applications. We selected Colorado primarily to 
obtain perspectives about the program from a state with less activity 
and fewer resources. 

[4] We interviewed Fish and Wildlife Service officials from the 
agency's Mountain-Prairie and Pacific Southwest Regions, both selected 
because they had a significant amount of renewable energy development, 
and from one state office within each of these regions. We interviewed 
a National Park Service official from a national park in California 
because of his experience with renewable energy development near the 
park. 

[5] Other renewable energy sources include bioenergy, such as liquid 
biofuels and solid biomass fuel; hydropower; ocean energy, including 
wave, tidal, current, and ocean thermal energy; and waste conversion, 
including anaerobic digestion, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste. 

[6] The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 
directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to administer a national network 
of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where 
appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 
and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations. 
The act requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the 
compatibility of activities with the purposes of a particular refuge 
and the mission of the refuge system and not allow those activities 
deemed incompatible. The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 
created the National Park Service to promote and regulate the use of 
the National Park System with the purpose of preserving unimpaired the 
natural and cultural resources of park units for the enjoyment of this 
and future generations. 

[7] The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for the administration 
and management of 55 million surface acres held in trust by the United 
States for Indian tribes, individuals, and Alaska Natives. Permitting 
renewable energy projects on tribal trust lands is project dependent 
and handled by a combination of the tribal surface owner, the bureau, 
BLM, and other agencies. 

[8] Electricity generated from federal lands helps power millions of 
homes across the United States. For example, the geothermal resources 
found at the Geysers Geothermal Field--approximately 40 percent of 
which are considered to come from federal lands--has a net generating 
capacity sufficient to power 750,000 homes, or a city the size of San 
Francisco. 

[9] The other type of wind turbine is a vertical-axis turbine, which 
resembles an eggbeater. 

[10] In addition, a technology referred to as "enhanced geothermal 
systems," being developed by the Department of Energy and others, has 
the potential to allow for the use of geothermal resources not 
previously obtainable. This technology works by injecting high-
pressure fluids into geologic formations where there is hot rock but 
little natural permeability for hot water to circulate; these fluids 
fracture the rock and thereby create more permeable formations, 
enhancing the availability of geothermal resources. 

[11] Stakeholders have characterized authorizations for wind and solar 
energy development as "permits," "rights of way," "right-of-way 
leases," and "leases." In this report, we use the statutory term 
"right-of-way" to refer to these authorizations. The Forest Service 
implements this authority by issuing special use permits. 

[12] The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral 
Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, provide the 
legislative authority for federal oil and gas leasing. BLM's oil and 
gas leasing regulations are located at 43 C.F.R. pt. 3120, and 
regulations governing oil and gas operations are located at 43 C.F.R. 
pt. 3160. BLM cannot issue leases for National Forest System lands 
over the objection of the Forest Service. 

[13] BLM may issue a right-of-way on a given land area unless 
otherwise directed by law, agency order, or a land use plan. 43 C.F.R. 
§ 2802.10. 

[14] BLM's website offers proponents a template to be used in 
developing wind and solar plans of development. 

[15] The Federal Land Policy and Management Act authorizes BLM to 
recover the costs of processing right-of-way permit applications. Such 
cost-recovery fees are estimated by BLM and can be paid in 
installments, depending on the actual amount necessary to process an 
application. 

[16] Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (1970), codified as amended at 
42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 (2011). Under NEPA, federal agencies must 
assess the effects of major federal actions--those they propose to 
carry out or to permit--that significantly affect the environment. 

[17] A BLM decision to deny an application must be made in writing, 
stating the reason(s) for denial. Reasons for denial are described at 
43 C.F.R. §2804.26. 

[18] Special use authorization regulations appear in 36 C.F.R. pt. 
251, subpart B. All uses of Forest Service lands other than those 
involving roads, grazing and livestock use, the sale and disposal of 
timber and certain other forest products, and minerals are designated 
as special uses. 

[19] Agency officials told us that limited exploration activities may 
take place before a lease is issued, although developers generally 
prefer to obtain a lease before making any substantial investments in 
exploration activities. The lease is a contract between the federal 
government and the lessee that specifies certain terms for development 
and payment of rents and royalties. 

[20] Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347. 

[21] The President's Council on Environmental Quality coordinates 
federal environmental efforts and works with other White House offices 
and federal agencies in the development of environmental policies and 
initiatives. 

[22] An environmental assessment is a concise public document that 
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to 
prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no 
significant impact and is to include brief discussions of the need for 
the proposal, alternatives, the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons 
consulted. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9 (2011). 

[23] An environmental impact statement is a more detailed statement 
than an environmental assessment, and NEPA implementing regulations 
specify requirements and procedures--such as providing the public with 
an opportunity to comment on the draft document--applicable to the 
environmental impact statement process that are not mandated for 
environmental assessments. An environmental impact statement must, 
among other things, (1) describe the environment that will be 
affected, (2) identify alternatives to the proposed action and 
identify the agency's preferred alternative, (3) present the 
environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and (4) 
identify any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided 
should the proposed action be implemented. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c) (2011), 
40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4, 1508.11 (2011). 

[24] A programmatic environmental impact statement does not typically 
replace the need for site-specific environmental review of each 
project, but the ability to use broader programmatic analyses can help 
streamline environmental review by focusing the analysis on the most 
critical site-specific issues of concern. Known as tiering, a 
programmatic approach allows an agency to avoid duplication of 
paperwork by incorporating by reference the general discussions and 
relevant specific discussions from an environmental impact statement 
of broader scope into one of lesser scope or vice versa. 

[25] Pub. L. No. 93-205 (1973), codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 
1531-1544. 

[26] Pub. L. No. 89-665 (1966), codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 
470 to 470x-6. 

[27] The act defines as a historic property any prehistoric or 
historic district, site, building, structure, object, or any 
properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an 
Indian tribe, included or eligible for inclusion in the National 
Register of Historic Places. 

[28] 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712. 

[29] 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 668-668d. 

[30] The one wind development application to the Forest Service since 
EPAct 2005 was accepted in August 2008 for development in the Huron-
Manistee National Forests in Michigan. In 2010, however, before the 
Forest Service determined whether to approve or deny the permit, the 
applicant withdrew the application. Since EPAct 2005, additional 
applications may have been submitted to the Forest Service, but the 
Forest Service maintains data only for those applications that 
complete the agency's screening process and are determined 
sufficiently complete to analyze. This practice differs from that of 
BLM, which tracks all applications, whether or not they are complete 
enough to analyze. Separately, the Forest Service has approved one 
other application for a wind project to be developed on the lands it 
manages. This project, located in Green Mountain National Forest in 
Vermont, was approved in January 2012, although construction for the 
project had not yet begun as of the time of this report. Because the 
application was submitted before EPAct 2005, this project is not 
included in our analysis. 

[31] In some cases, multiple applications may be submitted and 
approved for one project. For example, at one solar project in 
California, the applicant submitted four applications to address the 
component land areas of a single project. For geothermal energy 
development, multiple applications are submitted for each project, 
covering the three phases of geothermal development--exploration, 
drilling, and construction. 

[32] Before applying for a permit for a utility-scale wind project, 
applicants generally obtain permits for testing and siting. For 
projects issued a right-of-way, the additional time to obtain these 
permits ranged from less than one year to about 3.4 years. 

[33] BLM has signed a record of decision for two additional projects 
(one wind energy and one solar energy) that have the potential to 
generate an additional 1,800 megawatts from projects sited on federal 
lands. Nevertheless, because these projects had not been issued a 
right-of-way as of the time of this report, they are not included in 
our total of authorized projects. 

[34] As noted, for purposes of this report we considered wind and 
solar projects as approved when a NEPA decision (such as a record of 
decision) is signed, and we considered a project as authorized when a 
right-of-way is subsequently granted. 

[35] Several efforts to promote renewable energy development began 
before EPAct 2005. For example, in May 2001, the President issued an 
executive order that agencies should take appropriate actions to 
expedite projects to increase the production, transmission, or 
conservation of energy. That same month, the President's National 
Energy Policy Development Group recommended that the Departments of 
the Interior, Energy, Agriculture, and Defense work collaboratively to 
increase renewable energy production. Subsequently, in July 2001, the 
departments created an interagency task force to address how to 
increase renewable energy production on federal lands. 

[36] BLM identified 17 areas, covering approximately 285,000 acres, as 
solar energy zones. 

[37] Land use plans were included for amendment in all states covered 
by the wind programmatic environmental impact statement except Arizona 
and California because separate pending land use plan amendments were 
being conducted to address wind energy development in those states. 

[38] BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-061. 

[39] The Interior Board of Land Appeals is an appellate review body 
that exercises the delegated authority of the Secretary to issue final 
decisions for the Department of the Interior. Its administrative 
judges decide appeals from bureau decisions including those related to 
the use and disposition of federal lands and their resources. 

[40] BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-059. 

[41] BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-061. 

[42] Existing BLM regulations encourage applicants wishing to submit a 
permit application to hold preapplication meetings with BLM but do not 
require them to do so. 

[43] BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-060. 

[44] In December 2012, BLM made approximately 303,900 acres of public 
land unavailable for mining claims under the temporary rule to protect 
the solar energy zones identified in the solar programmatic 
environmental impact statement. 77 Fed. Reg. 74690 (December 17, 2012). 

[45] Although BLM refers to this proposed competitive process as 
leasing, the process will continue to use rights-of-way as the basic 
permitting approach for wind and solar energy development. 

[46] In June 2012, the Department of the Interior's Office of 
Inspector General issued a review of BLM's renewable energy program, 
reporting that BLM could generate millions of dollars in additional 
revenues if it used a competitive bidding process. The report 
primarily addressed areas of renewable energy related to rental 
revenue collection, bonding, and monitoring and compliance. See 
Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Land 
Management's Renewable Energy Program: A Critical Point in Renewable 
Energy Development, CR-EV-BLM-0004-2010 (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 
2012). 

[47] Currently, the only such areas are the solar energy zones 
designated as a result of the solar programmatic environmental impact 
statement. 

[48] Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-
Based Wind Energy Guidelines (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2012). 

[49] 76 Fed. Reg. 47354. The agency added two new chapters to the 
Forest Service Handbook, addressing wind energy uses and wildlife 
monitoring and wind energy sites: Forest Service Handbook 2709.11 and 
2609.13, chapters 70 and 80, respectively, effective August 4, 2011. 

[50] These figures represent BLM obligations. 

[51] The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior to recover costs, and the Secretary has 
delegated this authority to BLM. One purpose of this authority is to 
prevent the federal government from subsidizing private enterprises by 
paying all their land use application costs. Nevada Power v. Watt, 711 
F.2d 913, 925 (10th Cir. 1983). 

[52] BLM provided us with the total amount in cost-recovery fees 
collected in these years but did not specify the amount collected in 
each individual year. 

[53] 42 U.S.C. § 15873. In 2006, we reported that geothermal 
applicants faced delays when applying to develop power plants on 
federal lands, concluding that BLM lacked resources to process leases, 
amend its land use plans, and process applications, which led to 
delays in many cases. GAO, Renewable Energy: Increased Geothermal 
Development Will Depend on Overcoming Many Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-629] (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 
2006). 

[54] We provided questionnaire respondents with a list of potential 
factors related to permitting and asked them to identify those that 
facilitated and hindered the process for each individual project. See 
appendix I for a full description of our methodology. 

[55] The Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that developers 
document in writing their actions to avoid, minimize, and compensate 
for potential adverse impacts. The Fish and Wildlife Service refers to 
this documentation as Bird and Bat Conservation Strategies. 

[56] This guidance was replaced by the Fish and Wildlife Service's 
March 2012 wind energy guidelines. 

[57] For more information about the increased availability and recent 
price declines of natural gas in the United States, see GAO, Oil And 
Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental 
and Public Health Risks, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-732] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 5, 2012). 

[58] A renewable portfolio standard provides states with a mechanism 
to increase renewable energy generation using a cost-effective, market-
based approach that is administratively efficient. Such a standard 
requires electric utilities and other retail electric providers to 
supply a specified minimum amount of customer load with electricity 
from eligible renewable energy sources. The goal of such a standard is 
to stimulate market and technology development so that, ultimately, 
renewable energy will be economically competitive with conventional 
forms of electric power. Existing portfolio standards vary from state 
to state. California, for example, has a renewable energy portfolio 
standard of 33 percent by 2020, and Arizona has established a goal of 
15 percent by 2025. 

[59] Enacted on January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 
2012 extended the Energy Production Tax Credit and modified its 
requirements, allowing projects to be eligible for the credit as long 
as project construction begins by a deadline of December 31, 2013. 
This is a difference from past years, where projects were required to 
be completed and producing electricity by the deadline to be eligible 
for the credit. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]