The California Energy Commission, the state's primary energy agency, has launched a website intended to keep Californians up to date on the state's progress toward 100% clean energy. California's Clean Energy Journey highlights topics such as innovation, transportation, efficiency, and equity and tribal partnerships. Content incudes graphs, charts, and videos about various projects and goals. 

On March 23 in a special extension to its March 10 regular meeting, the Twentynine Palms City Council rejected the E-Group Solar Project proposed for the Harmony Acres area of the City after hearing about 3 hours of public comments. Residents expressed concerns about dust, water usage, destruction of desert habitat, and health issues. MBCA formally commented in 2024 and several Board members including Twentynine Palms resident Pat Flanagan have continued to comment in writing and at meetings. (Read Pat's most recent comment letter.)

The developer's contention that they could take their project to a state-level review via AB 205 was disputed, as the project doesn't appear to meet those criteria. Instead, residents encouraged the City Council to abide by its ban on utility-scale solar, instituted into its development code in 2012. Board member Janet Johnson commented after the decision, "This shows how having decision-makers living locally, and are accountable locally, and know first-hand that no one wants to live next to solar panels, makes a difference." 

Here is the report from local radio station KCDZ 107.7, and an in-depth review of the entire meeting including quotations from speakers by The Desert Trumpet.

MBCA's comment letter for the Soda Mountain Solar Project was presented at the February 5 California Energy Commission public hearing. MBCA has followed and opposed this project since 2009. The latest letter references a number of scientific papers demonstrating the likely negative effects of wind and dust, harming both people and the land. Papers cited include Vulnerability of desert biological soil crusts to wind erosion  and Sand Transport Pathways. The Desert Under our Feet explains the harm caused by destruction of the critical underground desert biome. A comprehensive overview of these and many other concerns about this project, as well as a sample comment letter, can be found on the Basin and Range Watch website. Comments are due February 27.

In support of the California desert environment beyond San Bernardino County, MBCA signed on to a letter outlining concerns about the Bonanza Peak Solar Project in Inyo County. The Old Spanish Trail Association (OSTA) maintains that relying only on an Addendum to the 2015 Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the project is not sufficient for measuring the effects of the extensive changes to the original project. They request that a Supplemental Environment Impact Report be performed "to analyze the Project's new and more severe impacts, and to provide meaningful public review and participation."  

MBCA's appeal (with 7 co-appellants) of the Planning Commission's approval of the Sienna II Solar Project in Lucerne Valley was denied by the Supervisors on Tuesday, January 28. 

(Timestamps are from the County meeting video - scroll down the Supervisors meetings page to find the meeting date of 2026-01-27 and its video link.) Supervisor Rowe introduced the topic and the process at 26:40. The review started with the County Land Use Services staff presentation (28:16), followed by MBCA's presentation (44:37). MBCA President Steve Bardwell presented a 15-minute fact-filled and passionate defense of the position that the project approval was flawed. (Here also are the PowerPoint slides in PDF format, Part 1 and Part 2.) The developer, Avantus, then presented its 15-minute summary of the project (1:01:53).

Public comment was opened at 1:17:38 and timestamps are listed below for all comments in support of the appeal. Final 5-minute presentations were offered by Avantus (2:34:55) and MBCA (2:35:34).

Supervisor Dawn Rowe (in whose district the project lies) had extensive questions for County Land Use Services staff (2:42:27 - 2:52:05), followed by her comments (2:52:06 - 2:55:38). Supervisor Hagman commented from 2:55:39-3:00:38. Supervisor Rowe made two more comments starting at 3:00:38, first offering to show those seeking to develop in the desert how the expansive landscapes must be specially considered, and then chastising the "snarky" tone of one of the Avantus speakers (Ann Mudge, "counsel for the project," 2:31:21), while complimenting Steve's professional approach. The vote against the appeal was unanimous (3:02:00).

MBCA's appeal was in great part based on how different the Sienna II Project was from its earlier approved versions. However, a 2019 amendment to the Renewable Energy Conservation Element of the Countywide Plan (4.10, Section 3.) allowed revised but similar previously approved projects to be considered on "policies and regulations in effect at the time the application was accepted as complete." In this case the current project was deemed by the Supervisors to be "equal" to those prior approved projects, despite extensive changes and uncertainties outlined in the appeal. This formed the basis for the Supervisors' decision, as they found no legal justification to overturn the previous approvals so denied the appeal.  

Many supporters of the appeal including MBCA Board members and numerous Lucerne Valley area residents made comments that ranged from dust concerns to economic issues and anger that the formal State Scenic Highway designation was not considered by the Planning Commission. The entire session begins at 26:40 in the County video.  Below are time stamps for comments made on camera by MBCA and other appeal supporters:

1:17:38 David Fick
1:20:08 Janet Johnston
1:23:06 Laraine Turk
1:25:34 Sarah Kennington

1:28:58 Eric Menendez
1:34:55 David Smith
1:38:09 Karen Smith

1:40:35 Bob Howells
1:43:44 Steve Mills
1:46:39 Catherine Howells
1:57:05 Michelle Gibson
2:01:09 Ondine Hollander
2:04:37 Brian Hammer
2:08:30 Neville Slade
2:11:45 Arch McCulloch
2:14:59 Erin Gatlin
2:16:17 Sarah Kennington
2:19:30 Suzy Boyd

2:22:43 Bill Lembright
2:25:15 Linda Gommel
2:28:12 Lorrie Steely

After the County Planning Commission approved the third iteration of the Sienna Solar Project in Lucerne Valley, MBCA joined local Lucerne area groups in an appeal to the Supervisors, which is to be heard on Tuesday, January 27, 2026. The case for appeal will be presented with a PowerPoint by President Steve Bardwell, with maps, illustrations, and data gathered by a committee of MBCA Board members. A key point to be contested is that the latest plan differs so greatly from the earlier proposed projects that it cannot be approved based on prior submitted plans. The final appeal letter outlines these issues in more detail. Also see our January 19 Eblast for additional information on the Sienna Solar project.

In partnership with several other organizations and individuals, MBCA filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission's October 23 approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the 1,854-acre Sienna Solar and Storage Project, including gen-tie lines to the future Southern California Edison Calcite substation in Lucerne Valley. Should these projects be constructed it would fundamentally change the character of the already-disadvantaged Lucerne Valley Community, creating the potential for severe dust and air pollution and opening the door to additional utility-scale solar projects on undisturbed desert land.

An additional concern is that Land Use Services failed to inform the Planning Commission of the September 4 official CalTrans designation of Highway 247 as the High Desert State Scenic Highway, as reported on local radio station Z107.7. The project is within the designated scenic view shed.

The appeal has been accepted and a hearing date will be set.

A revised plan for the Soda Mountain Solar Project in the Mojave Desert near Zzyxx is being reviewed by the California Energy Commission. In MBCA's short comment letter (which includes links to background research and data), MBCA focuses on two critical issues. One is the question of whether additional such projects are even needed in California, as questioned in Melody Peterson's LA Times article "California has so much solar power that increasingly it goes to waste." The second major concern is the inevitable damage to desert ecosystems. If left undisturbed, this land could provide significant carbon sequestration, as described in the report The California Desert's Role in 30x30: Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity.

In another legal step in the ongoing battle between rooftop solar owners and utilities, the California Supreme Court ruled on August 7 that a challenge to the reduction in rooftop solar incentives determined by the California Public Utilities Commission should be revisited. Three groups (Center for Biological Diversity, The Protect Our Communities Foundation, and the Environmental Working Group) filed an appeal in January 2023 that was denied in January 2024. The Supreme Court’s decision requires the appeals court to revisit the appeal. More details and background can be found in this Los Angeles Times article.

In this letter to San Bernardino County Senior Planner Maryn Wells, MBCA expresses concerns about a proposed Development Code amendment that would permit expansion of the generating capacity of wind turbines Countywide. With the potential for placement of 100-foot tall wind turbines within the Rural Living Zone, MBCA is calling for the imposition of a Conditional Use Permit for the permitting of wind turbines throughout the County. Especially in desert communities, the installation of 30 to 40 foot diameter turbines presents health and safety concerns as well as threats to wildlife and the natural environment.