Siting Decisions Will Require Still More Information

NRDC's new Google Earth layer does an unprecedented job of identifying places where renewable energy development is inappropriate.  But it's important to recognize the limitations of what we've done.  We have not - I repeat not - greenlighted any lands for development.  While we've taken some lands off the table, we are not saying that those that remain are places where development should occur.  Why?  There are three main reasons.

First, determining whether development of a particular area is appropriate requires more resource information than we presently have. This is particularly true of wildlife information.  Our Google layer has very little such information because it is currently unavailable - at least in GIS form. Neither generation projects nor transmission lines can be sited without knowledge of where endangered, threatened and rare species can be found, and where their habitat areas are, including key areas essential to their survival, like migration corridors. We hope to add more such data to our map in the future but, even after we do, that won't be enough.    

Second, decisions about whether a particular area is appropriate for development need to be made in a public and transparent process, in which wildlife experts, local residents and a host of others can participate fully.

Lastly, such decisions cannot be made in the absence of thorough environmental review.  Renewable energy projects and green transmission lines, just like other energy projects and lines, have undeniable environmental impacts. While we hope to add more information of all kinds, in addition to wildlife data, our map will never substitute for detailed consideration of the resources of a particular area and the potential impacts of development on them.

Ideally, decisions about siting green projects and green lines should be made on a regional basis through a process that not only involves multiple stakeholders and careful environmental review, but also provides a way to compare potential development areas at the landscape level in order to determine which of those areas are best and why.  Hopefully our map will help concerned citizens advocate for the initiation of such a process and arm them with information to be effective advocates in it.