WMA Biomass opponents challenge study's impartiality

Last Friday, Springfield area residents got some good news.  According to a press release from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs,  

Secretary Bowles announced that he has directed MassDEP to suspend review of permit applications for facilities proposing to use construction and demolition materials (C&D) as fuel for energy generation, including the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy facility, until a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of using such materials is completed.. This assessment will include a review of potential for emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants related to C&D, an analysis of level of contaminants commonly found in C&D feedstocks, and a review of the most effective means for minimizing, sampling and monitoring of toxics and other contaminants of concern in these feedstocks. Further, the Secretary has directed MassDEP, in coordination with the state Department of Public Health (DPH), to conduct a review of the potential public health impacts associated with the combustion C&D. 

 What this all means and how we can make sure the study hits all the right bases is the subject for another post.  But biomass opponents in Russell and Greenfield got no such breather.  The following is a press release sent out yesterday:     

 MASSACHUSETTS WOOD BURNING BIOMASS PLANTS ARE STILL BEING PERMITTED

Concerned Citizens of Russell, Concerned Citizens of Franklin County, the Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign and Massachusetts Forest Watch and the will hold a press conference on Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 5:30 pm in the Rear Parking Lot of the Holiday Inn at 245 Whiting Farms Road, Holyoke, MA (Off of I-91, just north of Mass Pike and near the Ingleside Mall) .

 This press conference is in response to the “Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy” study commissioned by the Department of Energy Resources.  Consultants for the state-sponsored study will hold a meeting inside the hotel from 6:30 – 8:30 P.M.

Conference sponsors are alerting the public to misleading media reports that give the impression that wood burning biomass power plants are ‘on hold’ in Massachusetts.   While the Springfield Biomass power plant’s permits to burn construction and demolition debris are on hold pending a health study, the Russell Biomass and Greenfield Biomass plants are proceeding full steam ahead, with Russell Biomass intending to begin construction in 2010.  Both Russell and Greenfield would burn millions of trees annually and could eventually be converted to burning trash and/or construction and demolition debris as has happened elsewhere.

The Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has placed a one year moratorium on statements of qualification for Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) while the Manomet study is completed.

“This suspension is meaningless,” said Jana Chicoine, spokesperson of the Concerned Citizens of Russell, “The developers don't need those credits until after construction is completed, and that would be years from now. Russell Biomass is full steam ahead with many things in play. They are still getting key support from the state,” she said, citing a recent decision of the Department of Public Utilities favoring Russell Biomass.

According to critics, the study has been framed as “how much” to burn rather than examining the wisdom of increased cutting and burning forests.  They say there is no need to waste taxpayer money studying the “sustainability” of biomass power production when it is already known to be worse than coal for carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming and just as dirty as coal for air pollutants that cause cancer and asthma.

 

Chris Matera from Massachusetts Forest Watch commented,   “We already know that increasing logging and burning will negatively affect the forest, air quality, and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, so we do not need to spend $100,000 taxpayer dollars for a study designed to convince citizens that water runs up hill.  Instead of studying how many millions of dollars we should spend burning how many millions of trees in dirty wood burning biomass plants, we should use the money to create truly clean energy jobs such as installing solar panels and insulating homes.”  

  

Meg Sheehan Chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign agrees. “Over 103,000 voters signed our petition to stop biomass burning and they want to get rid of these plants now.   They don’t want more studies.  Using voter’s money to study incinerators that burn trees is just a political move to lull the public into thinking the state is doing something.  The incriminating facts already show that this is dirty energy.  The Patrick administration is still pushing full steam ahead by continuing to permit the Russell and Greenfield plants even though voters have sent a strong message they don’t want the plants.”

Critics also say the wood “sustainability” study will not be unbiased because the three main consultants to the Manomet study, The Pinchot Institute ( www.pinchot.org/bioenergy) , the Forest Guild ( www.forestguild.org/biomass.html) and the Biomass Energy Resource Center  ( www.biomasscenter.org/services/technical-services/biomass-resource-supply-services.html ) are all proponents of wood burning biomass energy plants.

Additionally, the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences has ties to the timber industry as the advisory board of the Center’s Forest Conservation Program is chaired by Roger Milliken Jr., CEO of a large commercial timber company and former chairman of the Maine Forest Products Council, lobbyist for the Maine timber industry.

“This is a common sense issue,” said Matera of Massachusetts Forest Watch.  “At a time of polluted skies, a carbon overloaded atmosphere and stressed forests, it is pure folly to force taxpayers to subsidize more cutting and burning of forests.”

Photo from Yuyiyuyi's photostream at Flickr.

Anti-biomass work has taken over my life

I was looking at the stats for how many posts I've written recently and it's not what I would like. Seems like I'm spending so much of my time recently talking on the phone, at meetings and writing/answering emails about biomass that by the evening, I'm just out of words for my blog. I can change that, though.

Last night a friend and I went to the No Biomass Harvest Dinner & Dance at the VFW in Russell. Driving down Route. 20, I was struck by how the small town prettiness and warmth of Russell rests in wildness. The Westfield River runs beside much of the road, and it's that river, among other things, that Concerned Citizens of Russell wants to protect. Some 800,000 gallons a day would be drawn from the river if the Russell biomass plant is constructed, with 100,000 gallons of heated water re-added. As the Concerned Citizens website points out, in the summer there are many places where you can walk across the Westfield River. A thriving fishing and sporting industry will suffer if the river suffers.

Biomass opponents are sometimes accused of acting from NIMBY-- not in my backyard-- motives. But this is not a question of esthetics. Just why should any community be willing to accept pollution and environmental degradation in return for a few jobs and some tax revenue?

I had a good time at Concerned Citizens' dinner and dance last night, and I know they raised some money. But best of all was getting to hang out with folks that I know have their priorities straight.

For information about the biomass incinerator planned for Springfield, go to Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield.

Photos: Jana Chicoine, organizer extraordinaire, with Chris Matera from Massachusetts Forest Watch and his wife; a celebratory cake; the Slickpickers; and the woman I'm told did 90% of the organizing for the event and whose name I don't know. (Anybody?)

Many good reasons to oppose biomass proposal for Springfield

On Tuesday, June 16, I and my sister Liz, Arise's Economic Justice organizer, went to a public forum by the Springfield Area Sustainable Energy Association (SASEA) on the problems with a biomass plant proposed for Springfield by Palmer Paving. Only 30 people or so attended the forum at Western New England College, and only a few were actually from Springfield, MA-- but still, just possibly enough to form a core organizing group in opposition to the plant.

Actually, five biomass plants are in various planning stages in Western Mass.-- Fitchburg (really more Central MA), Pittsfield, Greenfield, Russell and Springfield. I knew that considerable organizing has been going on in Russell organized by Concerned Citizens of Russell, and the night before, 500 people had shown up for a public hearing about Greenfield's plant.

My poor city, however, is full of poor people, not farmers and environmentalists. Most people's attention is focused on how to meet basic needs like paying rent and utilities. Trying to figure out how can we build opposition here is why I went to the forum.

What I learned is that the biomass proposal is far worse than I could have imagined.

What follows is my first attempt to pull together some of the key facts about the Western MA proposals, in particular, the Springfield plant. Being unfamiliar with the funding mechanisms for biomass, and the extent of the political maneuvering, some facts in the first bullet are sketchy. I'm hoping to strengthen all sections as I get feedback and more information. If you have facts to add, strengthen or correct, please let me know.

MONEY & POLITICS

1. We don’t need these biomass plants. All five plants will provide only 1.2% of Massachusett’s power.
2. Dollars spent on conservation and winterization would reduce our need for electricity, save consumers money and provide a lot more jobs
3. Homes near biomass plants ultimately lose about 20% of their property value.
4. Biomass plants and proposals are sucking up more than 79% of the Renewable Energy credits dedicated for green industry (and it’s NOT green—see below). (Also not clear if this is on a state or federal level.)
5. The Springfield plant wouldn’t even be economically feasible to open and run if it were not for the $60 million in stimulus funds the owners will receive as soon as it’s open.
6. Western Mass advocates went to Washington, D.C. this Spring armed with information to oppose the promotion of biomass as green energy only to find out that the biomass industry had spent more than $80 million in the first quarter of the year to promote biomass. (Need to hear more of this story, which was told by Williamstown attorney and biomass opponent Margaret Sheehan.)

ENVIRONMENT

1. Biomass is NOT carbon-neutral: it takes 5 minutes to cut a tree and 70 years to grow a full-grown one!
2. Biomass plants will be allowed to clear-cut Massachusetts forests and will triple the logging rate.
3. Biomass is nearly as dirty as coal but somehow is considered “Green” energy!
4. Carbon dioxide emissions from biomass plants are exempt from regulations.
5. Just the three plants in Springfield, Russell and Greenfield will increase greenhouse gasses by nearly 8% more than 2007.
6. Biomass plants use a huge amount of water - , 0ver 800,000 gallons a day on peak days.
7. There has been no environmental impact study done on the Springfield plant! (not sure about Russell and Greenfield.)
8. The Springfield plant will be allowed to burn up to 75% “construction and demolition”” product (see below).

HEALTH

1. The Springfield plant is expected to add 4.3 tons of lead to the atmosphere, an increase of 71% over what is released today. (Still looking for info on the presence of lead in people’s bodies right now.)
2. Construction and Demolition product includes asbestos, wood with lead paint, wood treated with many other heavy metal compounds, and produces dioxin, the 2^nd most dangerous chemical in the world, linked to cancer, birth defects and many other health problems.
3. The state asthma rate for children continues to climb and is now at 10% but the Springfield rate is more than 16%! People with other breathing difficulties such as CODP are bound to suffer more.
4. Even though Massachusetts banned incineration plants 19 years ago, biomass releases as much Fine Particulate Matter as coal. FPM has no known safe level and is detrimental to breathing!
5. The plants also release chemicals which produce ground-level ozone, also hazardous to breathing
6. Woodpiles at the plants can also create stubborn fires which can smoulder for long periods. An Athens, ME biomass fire forced schoolchildren indoors at recess for more than six weeks.

So that's the story as I know it so far. The public forum helped me to identify some key allies but there are so many more organizations and people that need to be involved, including health centers, neighborhood councils and our elected officials, who so far, seem only interested in the amount of tax revenue that Palmer Paving will add to the city's coffers.

The Springfield plant is very far along in the permit process with, I believe, only one hearing left to happen. We've got our work cut out for us.

Photo: clearcutting at the Savoy State forest. See the Massachusetts Chainsaw Massacre for more chilling photos and information.