Even as the irrepressible T. Boone Pickens had to scrap his “Pickens Plan” on Tuesday, in part due to a paucity of transmission capacity, last week brought another hurdle for the chances of building out the transmission infrastructure that Pickens and the country will need to bring more renewable power on-line. Why am I not surprised that we are not all rowing in the same direction here?

Earthjustice and a dozen other environmental groups filed suit against the feds on Tuesday, challenging the designation of the national interest corridors called for in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Readers who are really dialed-in to the latest in transmission litigation will remember that the Fourth Circuit already gave FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) a slap on the wrist this spring and limited the powers the feds could claim to site lines in the corridors in the face of local denials. This suit challenges the whole designation process and is another attempt to chip away at more federal control over siting transmission.

The cause of action is based on the violation of the administrative process that is required by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and other (most environmental protection) statutes. Earthjustice and the co-plaintiffs claim that had the feds undertaken these notice and comment and other requirements, they would have recognized that the corridors declared would only serve to facilitate coal and other fossil-fueled power sources to proliferate in the West. As such, the lines would not have been environmentally defensible.

Earthjustice’s attorney says that they don’t necessarily see the suit as a legal action against the new Obama administration, but instead hope it is taken as an “invitation” to sit down and discuss the transmission issues. Politically, I have to question the strategy since there is plenty of opportunity for discourse on these issues right now as it is with the Senate taking up the climate change bill.

Also, I return to what I believe to be the fundamental question right now in climate change politics: how much are conservationists willing to surrender in local impact in exchange for real action on global climate change? A big picture approach is essential, which is why I think that this Earthjustice suit is both bad environmental advocacy and a bad political miscalculation.

For the legal geeks and political wonks out there, cruise on over and check my post at EnergyWorks for all the gory details on where I think this suit fits within the emerging legal context and how the Democratic politics plays out.

Related posts:

• Pickens to Obama: think big
• T. Boone Pickens – greedy capitalist or caring environmentalist?
• Green Coalition Files Lawsuit Over U.S. Arctic Drilling Approval
• China Trumps T. Boone Pickens’ Wind Power Project With 20 Gigawatt Farm
• Native Americans Sue Solar Project Over Endangered Lizard Habitat

A colleague of mine said to me recently, “No energy is clean energy.”

Which got me thinking. Of course, Clean Coal comes to mind. And people love to say that “No coal is clean,” and “Clean Coal is an oxymoron.”

OK, OK. It’s not the best marketing term I’ve ever heard. There is a U.S. Department of Energy program that uses the term, and that program has funded gasification and carbon sequestration projects. So there is such a thing, whatever you want to call it. How about “Clean(er) Coal”?

Then I thought about wind. Big, majestic, white turbines … cutting up birds that fly into them. Whoops. That’s not very clean.

But you can lessen the impact of bird kills by making sure you don’t site turbines along migratory bird paths. Even the Audubon Society has come out in support of well-positioned wind.

Which brings me to radar — some bird-friendly technology now in the works.

Alternative Energy News reports that a new wind farm in Texas, operated by a Spanish firm, is using radar technology developed by a Florida firm called DeTect Inc. How’s that for collaboration?

The radar, much like a cop scanning the highway, looks for approaching birds, analyzes weather conditions and shuts down the turbines if necessary. The blades are reactivated once the flock has passed.

The radar is in use here, according to AEN, because the wind farm was constructed on the Central Flyway, a main route for migratory birds. Environmental groups are skeptical.

What do you think? Is using radar technology to save birds OK? Even if the technology is needed due to bad planning?

This radar could help spur more wind development and remove a barrier to breeze power. DeTect also makes bird deterrent devices for wind farms, including bioacoustics and propane cannons, according to the company’s Web site.

Bird kills are a controversial subject, so let’s hear it.

Related posts:

• Demystifying Common Myths of Wind Power
• Windy Vancouver Island Comes Online
• The Wing Versus Wind Debate Takes Flight
• New Smart Phone Apps Revolutionizing the Study of Birds
• Military Concerns Threaten World’s Biggest Wind Farm Project