California’s clean energy goals are real and urgent. But they are not a license to abandon critical environmental safeguards.
Senate Bill 1097, Sen. Scott Wiener’s bill now headed to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, does exactly that. It guts the state’s bedrock environmental law for a sweeping range of energy projects, fast-tracking permits for massive energy facilities at the cost of our communities and wildlife.
SB 1097 doesn’t apply to small, green projects like rooftop solar. Instead, it would weaken environmental review for many polluting energy operations, such as landfill gas facilities, biomass power plants, biogas digesters, waste-to-energy incinerators and large-scale battery storage projects. Biomass facilities are among the largest emitters of air pollution, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and carcinogens, and are often sited near communities already overburdened by toxic industrial contamination.
For more than fifty years, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has stood on a powerful principle: when there is reason to believe a project may cause significant environmental harm, it cannot go forward until its impacts are thoroughly investigated. That investigation — the environmental impact report (EIR) — is what courts have called “the heart of CEQA.” An EIR must explore better alternatives, identify mitigation measures and respond to community input.
Under the longstanding “fair argument” standard, an EIR is triggered whenever substantial evidence suggests a project may cause significant harm. Courts recognize this as a deliberately low bar, one that resolves uncertainty in favor of environmental review.
SB 1097 would eliminate this standard for a wide array of energy projects. In its place, communities would have to show that environmental harm is “more likely than not” before an EIR is required — a phrase found nowhere else in CEQA or state administrative law. Under this new test, even where the public presents credible scientific evidence showing serious threats to air quality, water, wildlife or public health, the lead agency could bypass thorough review by pointing to evidence prepared by the developer or its hired consultants. The bill requires local residents to prove harm, rather than requiring their government to investigate it.
The bill also strips away critical habitat protections included in virtually every other CEQA streamlining measure. Exemptions normally apply when projects are sited on habitat for endangered, threatened and rare species. But SB 1097 contains no such provisions, even though its covered projects, such as utility-scale solar and wind facilities, can cover thousands of acres of sensitive wildlife habitat.
JVR Energy Park, a 90-megawatt solar and battery storage facility in San Diego County, shows why CEQA review is so important even for renewable energy projects. Due to CEQA’s mitigation requirements, the project originally included a large open space easement, fire protection measures, and noise and dust controls. Public and agency comments on the draft EIR resulted in increased setbacks, an improved wildlife corridor, and expanded protections for golden eagles, the Quino checkerspot butterfly and other sensitive wildlife. Tribal comments led to strengthened cultural resource protections.
But the real gain was the result of the CEQA-mandated alternatives study. In response to public input, the community buffer alternative in the final EIR included a 300-foot residential setback — ten times the applicant’s proposed 30 feet — and a 604-acre footprint, a reduction of almost 40 acres. The Board of Supervisors ultimately adopted this alternative. Notably, the applicant used improved solar panel technology to maintain full generating capacity despite the reduced footprint. Now under construction, JVR illustrates that CEQA does not obstruct renewable energy; instead the law produces better-designed projects.
Our local senator, Catherine Blakespear, who also chairs the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, has championed environmental stewardship throughout her career, from banning plastic bags to protecting wildlife and supporting California’s cap-and-invest climate program.SB 1097 asks her to abandon that record in order to fast-track permits for biomass incinerators and waste-to-energy facilities at the expense of California communities. We urge her to vote no.
California can build clean energy and protect its environment. The Legislature must reject SB1097’s false choice.
Nancy Graves is a coastal activist, advisor to the Environmental Center of San Diego, and former board member of Coastwalk.
Want to submit a letter to the editor, guest column or opinion piece? Find our guidelines and submission form here.
Hence then, the article about opinion california s clean energy goals don t override environmental protection was published today ( ) and is available on Times of San Diego ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Opinion: California’s clean energy goals don’t override environmental protection )
Also on site :
- Physicists just witnessed pinpricks of darkness moving faster than the speed of light — without breaking the laws of relativity
- China has so far weathered the historic oil crisis. But as Xi prepares to meet Trump, costs are starting to grow
- 1967 Classic Rock Anthem Ranked Among the ‘Greatest Songs of All Time’—‘One of the Most Beautiful Songs Ever Written’