By Jason Deign

It is a safe bet nobody has ever shelled out so much on a tortoise.

Last month Solar Partners, owners of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS), paid USD$6.2 million for land purchased to mitigate the impact of the ISEGS solar project, which covers nearly 7,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat and 175 acres of state waters.

The group also paid an additional $5.2 million as an endowment to provide for the long-term maintenance and management of the lands, as part of an agreement under California’s Advanced Mitigation Program (AMP).

The AMP’s aim is to allow “solar developers to coordinate directly with the state agencies to more efficiently purchase high-value conservation lands as mitigation for large-scale renewable energy projects,” says the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

On paper, it sounds like a great idea. Renewable energy companies, including CSP developers, often need large tracts of land to build upon. Inevitably, some of this could end up butting into sensitive natural habitats.

With a land mitigation programme like the AMP, however, the permitting authorities are more likely to green-light a project because they have the reassurance that the project owner will safeguard an equivalent habitat elsewhere.

“Getting meaningful wildlife conservation on the ground while meeting our state and national renewable energy goals is mission-critical for our department and for the people of California,” said CDFW chief deputy director Kevin Hunting in a press statement.

“The Advanced Mitigation Program is an innovative approach to achieving these vital goals and is a shining example of what can be accomplished when government, industry and conservation partners work together.”

Renewable energy

Ivanpah is the first renewable energy project to participate in the AMP since it was established by Senate Bill 34 in 2010, but more CSP plants are scheduled to take advantage of it.

According to the US Solar Energy Industries Association, for example, NextEra Energy Resources is due to buy about 2,000 acres of Mojave lizard and desert tortoise habitat to offset the land requirements for its 250MW parabolic trough Genesis Solar project in Blythe, California.

Land mitigation is just one of several habitat conservation measures being employed in California to counter habitat destruction arising from the construction of solar power plants.

Others include timing construction work to minimise wildlife disturbance and altering plant layouts to account for populations of vulnerable or endangered species.

With California striving to achieve 33% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, it is unlikely the Ivanpah and Genesis projects will be the last to employ the AMP. And other solar markets looking to deploy large-scale CSP might well feel moved to follow suit.

Some environmental experts are unconvinced of the value of this approach, however.

In Spain, for example, SEO/Birdlife conservation area technician Dr Octavio Infante worries that the notion of safeguarding one habitat in exchange for permission to build on another conveys the wrong impression about the value of wildlife reserves.

“If the piece of land you are buying has [scientific] value then it should be protected anyway. You shouldn’t be able to buy it,” he says.

Furthermore, while the land mitigation approach might work for sedentary animals such as tortoises, it is of little value to birds and many other migratory or wide-ranging animals. “You cannot just pick up a bird and move it to somewhere else,” Infante points out.

Land mitigation

Opposition to land mitigation among Spanish environmental groups is perhaps understandable given the concept’s track record in the country.

In Spain, says Infante, the closest thing to a land mitigation scheme was when the creation of the country’s first international private airport, Ciudad Real Central Airport, infringed upon a special bird protection zone.

The authorities responded by creating a separate zone in Torrijos, in a completely different province. Local opposition to the zone has since led to its size being reduced, while the airport has gone out of business.

However, Greenpeace International renewable energies director Sven Teske also believes the first priority for CSP plant developers should be to seek sites with minimal environmental impact.

“I think there must be ways of putting up power plants without going into pristine desert habitats,” he says.

One way to do this, he suggests, might be by looking to adapt traditional plant configurations so as to afford greater habitat protection, for example running parabolic troughs alongside existing road or rail routes instead of using undisturbed land.

Ultimately, however, he advocates a pragmatic approach to any argument about the environmental impact of power plants. “This is why we are in favour of offshore wind,” he says.

“In the North Sea we think it is much better for the environment to have offshore wind, even though the best would be to not touch the sea at all. At the end of the day, every technology has an impact.”

To respond to this article, please write to Jason Deign

Or contact the editor, Jennifer Muirhead