SB 819 falsely pits conservation against clean energy

In laying out SB 819, a bill in the Texas Legislature that would unfairly target renewable energy development with capricious restrictions and permitting requirements, the author Senator Lois Kolkhorst framed the bill as pitting environmentalists, those primarily concerned with reducing pollution, against conservationists who are focused on protecting land and wildlife.

Wind and solar, of course, reduce pollution, but what are the facts about how they impact our land, water and wildlife?

Renewables mitigate climate change

Renewable energy provides carbon-free electricity, essential to mitigating climate change and the worst of its catastrophic effects. In Texas, without wind and solar, energy generation would have released a cumulative 577 million tons of CO2 between 2010 and 2022. CO2 emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, raising ambient temperature, intensifying severe weather events, and significantly contributing to the decline of wildlife populations. The effects of climate change in Texas are severe: extreme drought, retreating shorelines and coastal flooding, expanding deserts, and negative impacts on farming, ranching, and wildlife.

In addition to avoiding carbon emissions, wind and solar have the potential to provide a cleaner, healthier environment for Texans while also powering their homes, businesses, and important services with reliable, affordable energy resources.

Wind and solar avoid dirty emissions

Renewables in Texas prevented the release of about 410,000 cumulative tons of SO2 and 324,000 cumulative tons of NOx between 2010 and 2022. The negative impacts of SO2 and of NOx include respiratory issues such as asthma, as well as environmental impacts like acid rain, haze, plant damage and reduced growth, and nutrient pollution in coastal waters — all to the detriment of our state’s delicate ecosystems.

During a March 27th Senate Committee on Business & Commerce hearing, Public Citizen’s Adrian Shelley explained, “we have about 17,000 people in Texas that are killed every year from fossil fuel burning and particulate matter. Globally, it’s about 1 in 5 people.”

Renewables save water

Wind and solar are also significantly less water-hungry than fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Renewables saved 252 billion gallons of water from consumption by energy plants between 2010 and 2022. For comparison, 252 billion gallons is twice the annual water consumption of Dallas.

Without renewable energy, the water withdrawal by energy plants would have been even larger: “approximately 272 billion to 1,300 billion more gallons of water per year, or 8.8 trillion gallons total from 2010 to 2022.” 1,300 billion gallons is the annual use of about 14.2 million Texans.

For clarification, water withdrawal refers to the total amount of water taken from a source, while water consumption is the amount that is not returned—consumed through evaporation, transpired, or otherwise removed from immediate availability. Water returned to a source after use in a thermoelectric power plant is considerably warmer, resulting in many negative impacts on ecosystems. Meanwhile, Texas is facing a water crisis, affecting the state’s agriculture, ability to generate electricity, and wildlife.

Despite renewables’ significant environmental benefits, opponents often employ these arguments against the energy producing resources that are the most ecologically friendly, while ignoring the severe impacts of oil and gas.

Wind Impacts on Birds

According to the Audubon Society, between 140,000 to 679,000 birds collide with turbines every year in the US. Fortunately, the industry is developing means of mitigating this. Measures to prevent bird mortality on wind farms include avoiding siting turbines in high-risk areas, painting turbine blades—which can reduce bird deaths by 70%—and using video surveillance to spot approaching birds and either stop the blade or emit acoustic deterrents.

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), “birds die from collisions with wind turbines, but wind energy’s toll on birds pales in comparison to other human-caused sources of bird mortality.” 

Buildings, domestic cats, and climate change are the leading causes of bird deaths. Two thirds of North American bird species face extinction due to climate change

When it comes to energy production, fossil fuels are considerably more lethal than wind power: wind farms kill about 0.27 birds per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced, compared with a staggering 9.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour for fossil fuel energy stations — that’s 35x as many bird fatalities. Meanwhile, the American Wind and Wildlife Institute found that current fatality rates from wind turbines are not likely “to lead to population declines in most bird species.”

According to a 2012 study by Vermont Law School, 24 million birds per year are killed in the United States by fossil fuel energy generation. The US News and World Report found that 7.9 million birds are killed by coal — not through collisions, but due to air pollution. 

Certainly, regulations aimed at protecting birds and bats from renewable energy infrastructure would be a step in the right direction. However, legislation such as SB 819, which would all but decimate the entire wind energy industry in Texas, is not the answer.

Wind Impacts on Bats

Unfortunately bats are killed in even greater numbers than birds. According to TPWD, “a 2017 study by a Bat Conservation International senior scientist found that the population of the hoary bat — the species most frequently killed by wind turbines in the U.S. — could plunge by 90 percent over the next 50 years if no action is taken to curb mortality.”

Fortunately, there are means of prevention. For example, a wind farm may limit the times when turbines are active, only running them at night if wind speeds have exceeded the threshold that would prevent bats from flying. This approach, called curtailment, in fact has minimal impact on the energy production (and earnings) of a wind farm, since wind energy is primarily generated at high wind speeds.

Wind farms may also use ultrasonic deterrents to discourage bats from approaching, which have proven effective on a wind farm in South Texas, reducing bat mortality by upwards of 78%.

Initiatives to reduce wildlife impacts

Thoughtful siting, careful wildlife monitoring, and ongoing research are all important to wildlife-friendly renewable energy. 

Initiatives such as pollinator-friendly landscaping on solar farms, can be hugely beneficial to wildlife. Nearly one quarter of native bee species are threatened with extinction due to habitat loss. Native vegetation and wildflower species on solar farms can offer essential habitat for these species, while also boosting emissions-free solar energy production due to a cooler microclimate under the panels. Other strategies, like agrivoltaics—the co-location of solar and agriculture—can also mitigate renewable energy impacts by reducing land use competition between energy production, agriculture, and conservation.

Lightsource BP, at their Elm Branch and Briar Creek solar farms, demonstrates the combination of two such initiatives. The renewable energy company has planted both sites with “a specialized seed mix, designed by a team of experts” to provide native pollinators with habitat as well as nutritious forage for sheep. This native vegetation provides a home for Texas species of insects, birds, and more.

There are a number of organizations that facilitate communication and collaboration between renewable energy companies, government agencies, and conservation groups, such as the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative and the Renewable Energy Wildlife Institute. REWI’s success stories range from helping minimize turbine-related golden eagle deaths to assessing risk to bats.

According to Russell Hooten, a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department habitat assessment biologist, “most of the wind companies in South Texas voluntarily consult with TPWD, and…most comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2012 wind energy guidelines.” These guidelines include site evaluation for environmental impacts and post-construction wildlife monitoring.

During the hearing, Laura Zebehazy with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department explained the siting process for wind facilities. “To minimize impact to birds it is about siting often, particularly for wind. [Projects] do go through a rigorous tiered process to evaluate a site prior to construction. They will meet with [TPWD] and explain those results.”

Clean energy company Orsted also testified at the hearing that they consider many factors to ensure impacts are avoided from the beginning. On one solar project, the company mitigated their environmental impacts by donating almost 1,000 acres to The Nature Conservancy. The land, Smiley Meadow, is now managed as a nature preserve, protecting a rare type of tallgrass prairie that is unique to Texas.

Voluntary efforts aren’t enough however. We need to make sure that we minimize the impacts to our land and wildlife from energy projects – fossil fuel and renewable energy alike. By protecting pristine areas like wild rivers and grasslands, creating setbacks from neighboring properties, and reducing runoff and light pollution, we can develop our natural resources responsibly.