G. L AS VIRTUDES MORALES
4. La amistad
One case in San Benito County, Save Panoche Valley vs. San Benito County, has garnered particular attention. Panoche Valley Solar Farm is in the San Joaquin Valley, two miles from the Fresno County line. Energy developer Solargen318 applied to retire thousands of acres of Williamson Act contracts covering high quality grazing land. The project faced heavy opposition from all quarters. According to one interviewee, “Not many projects are sited in areas that everyone is happy with, but this is a particularly awful one.”319 There was consensus around environmental groups and agricultural groups that it just wasn’t the right place.320 The agricultural land on which the project was proposed contained habitat for several endangered species, including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard and the giant kangaroo rat.321 The CEQA review process resulted in the company reducing the size of its facility, changing some of its characteristics (e.g., solar panel height), and implementing various mitigation measures to address habitat and farmland loss.322
Initially the solar developers argued that the placement of solar panels on the land was a compatible use, but the County Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee denied that request.323 The developers then sought cancellation of Williamson Act contracts over 6,953 acres of land.324 The County Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee recommended denial of the cancellation request, stating “while the State’s or applicant’s interest in renewable energy or the county’s interest in short term jobs are vital and legitimate, the project’s costs are not worth the limited gains to the County.”325 The state Department of Fish and
318. The project is now owned by Con Edison. Paul Rogers, Giant California Solar Project
Cut Back After Environmentalists Oppose It, MERCURY NEWS (San Jose, CA) (July 21, 2017), https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/21/giant-solar-project-reduced-due-to-
environmentalists-opposition/ [https://perma.cc/CE6H-EL5Q]. 319. Interview #1.
320. Id.
321. Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito Cty., 217 Cal. App. 4th 503, 510 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
322. Id. at 512–13. See also Rogers, supra note 318. 323. Save Panoche Valley, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 510.
324. Id. at 511. The cancellation acreage is greater than the project acreage (4,563) because the developers sought full cancellation (over entire parcels) instead of only those exact acres that would be in use.
Game also voiced concerns about the site and cited a potential violation of endangered species laws.326 Despite these concerns, the County approved the CEQA review process and issued the appropriate permits.
Environmental groups challenged both the decision to cancel the Williamson Act contracts and the adequacy of planned mitigation measures. The court found in favor of the County (and thus the solar developers), finding sufficient evidence in the record to support the County’s statement that it was in the public interest to cancel the contracts and that similar quality uncontracted land was unavailable.327 As a result of the findings in the project’s EIR, the developer of the Panoche Valley Solar Farm project was required to mitigate for loss of habitat at a five to one ratio. The developer’s proposed mitigation, however, took the form of protecting habitat that was threatened by development without any requirements of enhancing habitat. This is a net loss of habitat for a species already operating at just 1 percent of its original habitat.328 Additionally, in contrast to the discussion of adequate farmland mitigation above, in this case it was the environmental interest groups that argued one could not mitigate for farmland loss by establishing conservation easements.
While the court’s decision is logical, many are still surprised that this project went through. Appeals and additional lawsuits continued until there was an out-of-court settlement in 2017.329 Originally, solar project developers pressured San Benito County along with state and federal environmental agencies for approval because they needed to start construction by fall 2015 to get their tax rebate (50 percent of project cost). One NGO employee suggested that the county was only in favor of the project because of local jobs in the renewable energy sector, stating that for farmland loss, “nobody cares about the loss of farm jobs.”330 Several interviewees expressed dismay at the project’s success. One person stated, “This has been a crazy project in that every hurdle where you think it is going to end, they just keep going.”331
326. Id. at 512. 327. Id. at 515. 328. Interview #1.
329. Rogers, supra note 318. 330. Interview #1.
In July 2017, eight years after the initial application for a conditional use permit, environmental groups and current project owner Con Edison reached a compromise that dramatically reduced the size to about one-third of the original plan (reducing the environmental impact of the site as well).332 The County, which had approved the site in hopes of obtaining tax payments and creating jobs, was upset about the compromise, with which they had not been involved. Indeed, County Supervisor Anthony Botelho was livid: “I can barely speak because I’m so angry. This would have generated much-needed revenue. This was going to be a big thing, but the rug was pulled out from under us. And it was all done in secret.”333
IV.EFFORTS AT IMPROVED PLANNING PROCESSES
Solar development continues to expand. Neither the Williamson Act nor CEQA seem to hamper the creation of solar power plants on agricultural land. It is not clear how much they even shape the placement of solar facilities. While some people we spoke with felt that cancellation was happening everywhere, others talked about solar projects working hard to avoid land under contract to avoid the hassle. Some solar companies, however, pay little attention to the ecological or agricultural status of the land, viewing such obstacles as minor issues when compared with the other steps in developing a new solar facility.334 The real lesson seems to be that transmission trumps all.335 The cost and ease of transmission is what really seems to drive location. According to the Solar Energy Industry Association, “lack of transmission capacity serving areas of
332. Rogers, supra note 318.
333. Id. Upset about the way the solar company dealt with sales taxes (buying their solar panels elsewhere) and property taxes (by reducing the footprint of the facility), one Supervisor had even harsher language, asserting that Con Edison had “basically raped and pillaged” the county. Id. In 2018, however, the county began to receive millions of dollars in tax payments, but the county asserts that it was only around 30 percent of what it should have received and the project is generating only 200 jobs, not the 1,000 jobs that were originally claimed. John Chadwell, Panoche Valley Solar Project Money Begins to Reach County, BENITOLINK
(April 15, 2018), https://benitolink.com/news/panoche-valley-solar-project-money-begins- reach-county [https://perma.cc/FP5V-XAZX].
334. Interview #2; Interview #7; Interview #18; Interview #20. 335. Interview #2; Interview #7; Interview #13; Interview #18.
quality solar resource” is one of the biggest barriers to solar energy development.336