California Supreme Court Tosses Solar Project Lawsuits

Ucilia Wang, Contributing Editor
April 15, 2011 | 8 Comments

The California State Supreme Court has tossed out two lawsuits challenging the state's approval of the Calico Solar project, which drew the ire of Sierra Club over its proposal to use public land that is home to wildlife such as big horn sheep and golden eagles.

The court denied Sierra Club’s lawsuit without comment Wednesday and did the same for another lawsuit from California Unions for Reliable Energy. The court rulings are crucial win for California Energy Commission, which started to face legal challenges after approving Calico and eight other solar power projects totaling about 4.1 gigawatts last year. The commission approved the projects within four months partly to ensure the project developers would be able to meet the filing deadline for a federal program that covers 30 percent of a project’s cost. California also requires its utilities to get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020.

The commission worked with the federal Bureau of Land Management to fast track some of these projects because they are proposed to be built on BLM land. As a result, several environmental and community groups filed lawsuit not only against the commission but also the federal government.

"We are pleased that the State Supreme Court upheld the Energy Commission's power plant review process for the Calico Solar Project. Our commitment to renewable energy sources maintains California's leadership in this vital, growing sector of the world's economy," said Robert Weisenmiller, chair of the commission, in a statement.

The rulings aren’t so surprising for Sierra Club, a spokesman said Thursday. Calico has a new owner that wants to change the scope of the project, a move that could alter the Sierra Club’s stance on Calico, said David Graham-Caso, Sierra Club's deputy press secretary. Two days before Sierra Club filed the lawsuit last Dec. 30, Tessera Solar announced it had sold Calico to K Road Sun for an undisclosed price.

“I can say that we judge projects individually. So if a project is going to change, then we will need to take a look at the environmental assessment of the new project,” Graham-Caso said. "We opposed the Calico project as an example of what not to do with a project."

The project comes with an electric grid interconnection agreement for 850 megawatts. Tessera initially wanted to build all 850 megawatts, but the commission cut that to 663.5 megawatts to minimize its impact on wildlife.

When K Road Sun first announced its purchase of Calico, it said it would like to use solar panels for 750 megawatts of the $3 billion project, which is set for BLM land near Barstow, Calif. The remaining 100 megawatts would use stirling engines that use mirrors to concentrate and direct sunlight to heat up hydrogen gas inside what’s called a “power conversion unit” in order to run a 4-cylinder engine that in turn drives the generator to produce electricity. Tessera was going to use the 25-kilowatt SunCatcher system from its sister company, Stirling Energy Systems, for the Calico project.

K Road Sun said using solar panels will not only make it easier for it to line up projecting financing but it also will reduce the project’s environmental impact. But exactly how the impact will be minimized is unclear.

The company submitted an application on March 22 to modify the project, and the commission plans to hold a hearing on the application on April 20. In the public hearing notice, the commission said K Road isn’t asking the commission to change the project’s size, boundary or generating capacity. The only request is to change the technology mix so that 563 megawatts of the project will use solar panels mounted on single-axis trackers while the remaining 100.5 megawatts will use SunCatcher.

K Road will have to go through a similar permit amendment process with the BLM. Southern California Edison had originally planned to buy power from Calico, but the utility canceled the power purchase agreement late last year around the time when news surfaced that Tessera’s parent company was having trouble securing money to build the project and the project would legal challenges.

California’s renewable energy mandate is making it home to some of the largest solar farms being proposed in the country. BrightSource Energy is building a 392-megawatt solar farm in the Mojave Desert. Earlier this week the U.S. Department Energy announced the award of a $1.6 billion loan guarantee to BrightSource for the project. NRG Energy also snagged a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the federal government for a 250-megawatt solar farm that will use SunPower’s solar panels. NRG also has committed to invest $300 million in BrightSource’s project.

8 Comments

Penny Melko
May 3, 2011

Apparently, many of you are completely disconnected from nature and their link to our existence. Unfortunately, many of the commenters are city dwellers and are badly misinformed by renewable energy propaganda. Those desert tortoises are going way and will be extinct in the foreseeable future. Google Fort Irwin and mojave desert tortoises. They've unsuccessfully moved the tortoises 2 or 3 times. Once they were gathered and moved while they were hibernating. When they woke up in a new place they tried to head back but before long were all eaten by coyotes and ravens. The Mojave Desert is full of life. It is also the only desert in the entire U.S. And now the profiteers are going through in the name of clean energy and killing everything else in their path. It's not OK to do this anymore. Do tell how energy or anything else can be considered to be clean when it wipes out a big chunk of the ecosystems, habitats, breeding and nesting sanctuaries, etc. This is what the groups are fighting against. Grow a few. Go spend a weekend and go watch what you are supporting: the cutting and filling of roads for the heavy equipment to get through to cut down massive numbers of trees and all the grading and permanent destruction. And for what? So the 79% of the foreign companies can cash in on our natural resources? Personally, I'm not willing to clobber my ecosystems for them. Worse. We will be married to a very expensive central grid for the next 40 years. It is a form of enslavement. And I was expecting to be wow'ed by a personal solar powered electricity unit that I could buy at Home Depot for $600. Silly me. to think this country w

Look at your own environments. Does anyone wonder where all the flocks of birds have gone? Where are all the wildlife that used to be around you? Oh. Hit by cars! Can any of you identify the milky way or orion's belt, big dipper or see satellites flying through the sky at dusk and dawn? No? It's because your night sky is gone.

Thomas Garven
April 24, 2011

I haven't seen the term [c]'koolaid drinker' in a long time so looked it up.

'Koolaid Drinker: People who believe anything they are told. people who refuse to change there minds when confronted with facts. a koolaid drinker is the liberal democrat who is liberal because they are told they should be... often a koolaid 'drinker' simply wants to hate anything a republican does good or bad.'. Interesting term to find on a renewable energy blog.

I built my first solar thermal collector in 1978 for a science class in college and as any historian knows they have been around for thousands of years. But we live in a different environment today don't we. We have CC&Rs, Homeowners Associations and City Architectural Committees to deal with. For a great many Americans they have to deal with these entities just to become more green.

As a licensed and registered profession engineer, I am fully capable of designing, constructing and installing my own solar thermal systems which would in all likelihood be superior to the so called approved systems. I can NOT however get the local building enforcement agency and architectural committees to approve the design without first hiring an attorney and thousands in fees.

My last estimate for an approved solar thermal system with one 3' X 10' panel was $4,800.00. My estimated cost to heat the water for my 2 person household is approximately $20/month in the desert Southwest since we can shut off our water heaters in Jul, Aug, & Sept.

I can receive a $750 utility rebate and associated tax credits to reduce the cost somewhat. However, at the age 70, the tax credits are of little value and the system might never pay for itself in my lifetime.

Not too long ago I wanted to install a ground source and/or water cooled heat pump but we can't do that here either. No wells are allowed and the lots are too small for a field of piping.

I guess I will have to live with the term 'koolaid drinker'.

Gary McCallum
April 23, 2011

From the C.D.Howe Institute Commentary Going Ggreen for Less
The Study in Breif
The lowest cost government incentive programs identified are for renewable heat and power technology such as wind power, solar air and hot water heating,and biomass pellet heating, as well as energy retro fitting strategies. For these programs, mitigation could be realized at $10-to-$60 of government subsidy per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) offset.
In contrast, the most expensive government incentives were found to be liquid Biofuels, which ranged from $295-to-$430/tonne of CO2e for ethanol and $122-to-$175 of CO2e for Biodiesel. The federal government's $4.5 billion ecoEnergy program has dedicated over half of the total budget towards liquid Biofuels.
The report can be seen online or purchased for $12 from the institute.
As a proponent of both passive solar and passive houses as well as an individual employed in the construction industry, wise spending of taxpayer dollars could do a lot to help out with both unemployment and the housing crisis.
I built my first passive solar home in 1981. It still works like a charm, costs substantially less to heat and needs no air conditioning. This is in a part of the country where the temperatures range from -40C to +40C (-40F to +105F).
I could build the same house today, raise it to the passive house standard, put solar thermal and PV and have a net energy gain.
James Scott excellent post. I have a new simple solar thermal hot water system I wand to draw and publish soon that is hidden and uses the thermal mass of the roof to help heat the water. It just combines the aluminum under floor plates used for Hydronic heating and sits under an asphalt shingle roof. It would lend itself quite well for more southern climates and be a great way to heat a pool in the more northern areas as snow cover is problematic.

james scott
April 22, 2011

There is no time for cool-aid drinkers.
The vast majority of our energy is provided at a costs to you and me by very large producers of power. The providers want to maintain the status quo and protect their INTERE$T$. They are very powerful and are politically connected. You and me pay their costs and profit markup. They don't what us to capture solar heat and electricity at own homes where it is used. That will cut into their volume by 15% or more easy, because every watt we make we don't have to buy from them. Again, they don't want you or me to have solar thermal or PV panels our homes.

Not to mention how that would eliminate the need for the multi-billion dollar interstate delivery network needed to get this power from the big MW plants in the SW desert and plain states wind farms to the end users on the coasts, which we will pay for.
Also I hate to break the news to anyone who doesn't know the facts but solar hot water systems pay back themselves faster than any form of renewable system you can buy. Even faster with rebate incentives. Thinking that solar hot water is to expensive for one's blood is like thinking buying your own home is to expensive for you. For some it is If you rent for 50 years you still own nothing. Solar hot water systems pay back in a few years. After that you spend almost nothing for your hot water, a major part of your electric bill, every month.
People who think solar hot water is to expensive is missing some information and/or doesn't understand as much as they should.

PS, Micro-inverters installed on PV panels are a big game changer. Watch for them.

BUCK SHAW
April 21, 2011

Your post hit the nail on the head. My worries are always for the roof openings created when installing SV. Then the expense of a change out when you need a new roof. Assuming PV was installed when roof was new. Its good to know thinking is along the same lines. Thanks

Gary McCallum
April 21, 2011

Tom I'm thinking along the lines of an extruded aluminum backing with a coupling device to join the panels. A cross member structural component could then be added. A simple flashing system and a pressure plate on the seams would keep the water out. Consideration for expansion and contraction would also need to be an integral part of the design.
With the size of some urban sprawl subdivisions they may lend them selves to megawatts. That is partially why I'm suggesting the cooperative approach.
I don't understand your comment about water and electricity not mixing. I Canada we produce lots of hydro electric power :)
HAR HAR I KILL ME, I KILL ME

Thomas Garven
April 21, 2011

Gary: A diversified grid is a very good thing and each homeowner who install solar PV on their roof are contributing to that end goal.

These central power stations however have several advantages. One is the reduced cost resulting from installing megawatts of power vs kilowatts of power. You buy solar for your home and you can spend $4, 5, or $6/watt. Installing megawatts can result in prices less than half that.

There are of course solar PV manufacturers who have designed water passages behind the electric portion of the panel but those are more expensive. However if you do not have either solar PV OR solar hot water then certainly a system could be build to facilitate both systems together which would certainly make sense in new construction. I would be very cautious however since water and electricity don't usually mix well together, LOL I might also be concerned that the water side of the system might not last the 40 years many PV systems can last. But again copper plumbing systems can last 50-100 years in many cases - but with my water - not so long.

I priced solar hot water about a year ago and it was a little too steep for my blood. Will probably buy a kit and make it a DIY project sometime in the future. The 50-100% profit markup by some contractors is a little too rich for my blood.

Good posting.

Gary McCallum
April 20, 2011

I'm left wondering if these energy companies could just mount a modified P.V. panel on a house roof top and save a bit of dessert. There would be less transmission lines needed and the lack of centralization is in itself a type of energy security.
I have been trying to generate some interest in a P.V. panel that is a structural component, provides a water proof surface and removes the heat from the back to supply domestic hot water. The subsequent cooling would increase the P.V. panels overall efficiency.
Builders, developers and utility companies would be able to cooperate with each receiving benefits. The home owner would be able to participate financially and recoup their costs quickly. Reduced energy bills can be used to help in qualifying for a mortgage.
A cost benefit analysis should be east to conduct.
Am I just a dreamer? Are there lots of simple solutions where we are not looking?

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang is a California-based freelance journalist who writes about renewable energy. She previously was the associate editor at Greentech Media and a staff writer covering the semiconductor industry at Red Herring. In addition to Renewable...