for individuals, businesses, planning agencies, and communities. I’ve heard
very few people opposing any of the plan’s actual recommendations. Many say the plan hasn’t gone far enough, but I have not heard people opposing the recommendations in the plan with the hundreds of people weighing in over the last year. In a public planning process, you figure out what everyone can agree to and then build on it in the years to come. I believe this is a good first step for us.
The plan says we need to build clean energy electricity generation resources and then says the most likely candidates in our regoin are wind, biomass, and solar. The plan doesn’t say what we should build; it just says this is what could be built. I haven’t heard anyone say we don’t need new clean energy electricity generation resources, and that’s all the plan says. Saying this plan supports the Russell Biomass Plant is dishonest.
Voting "yes, with reservations" and then stating your concerns does send a
clear message without undermining all the work people have done over the
last three years. Maybe we need a better understanding of the role of this
Clean Energy Planning process. I don’t believe we can or should have a regional vote on whether a developer can build a plant or wind turbine or manufacturing facility in any of our towns. The Clean Energy Plan does not say the Russell Biomass Plant should be built or should not be built. It says it has been proposed and it’s controversial. It also provides siting guidelines for people who are deciding whether to allow a plant to be sited in their community. I believe that’s all this plan can do. Are there people who believe a regional plan should do more?
Many people have put in a lot of time to build a plan that will create a
blueprint for going forward. I believe we really need one. The two most
affordable, most available renewable energy resources here in the valley are wind and biomass. I’m hoping we can have conversations that talk about what kind of wind and biomass we want to have in our valley. I haven’t heard anyone say they never want anyone to use wood in their wood stoves – that’s biomass. There are serious questions of size, scale, location, sustainable feedstock supply, emissions, efficiency, and ownership structures. I think the siting criteria in the plan go a long way to help communities understand the choices and weigh their options.
I’m hoping we can figure out a way to make this planning process work for
us. Voting down the plan for something it doesn’t say is unwise and trashes
the goodwill and hundreds of hours of volunteer time that went into building it.
To turn this planning process into a regional referendum for the Russell
Biomass Plant warps the system. To use this public planning process as a
tactic to force others to do something they have no ability to do feels
unfair.
To paint all of the people who have been a part of this planning process as
members of one polarized camp or another is untrue. Have we as a community
become so cynical that we believe no real, honest discourse is possible
anymore?
If you believe we can, please participate!
If you haven’t taken the poll about whether you endorse the plan or not,
please do! Click here for the poll:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=237433753357
Please send the following paragraph out to your friends and colleagues:
"Please support a sustainable energy future for our region. Take this poll
to give your opinions about the Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan drafted
through a very participatory process for the 69 towns in Hampshire, Hampden
and Franklin Counties: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=237433753357
Please join the forum "Clean Energy Discussion" and help us figure out where to go from here. We could use some good ideas if you have some!
Thanks,
Lynn Benander
Manager, Co-op Power
413-772-8898
Lynn Benander
Shelburne Falls
More info: Info about Lynn Benander: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/lynnbenander
_______________________________________
I am shocked by Lynn’s misrepresentation of the facts as well as her choice of words.
I have been working on an extended piece explaining our position on the Draft Plan which I hope to share with everyone shortly. In the meantime, I would like to point out that there is actually a national movement to see that our clean energy monies are not used to promote, incentivize, and subsidize dangerous incineration schemes. I would also like to point out that it is not cynical, dishonest, or unwise to answer "No" to the question of whether one endorses the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan explicitly calls the burning of chemically contaminated fuels in neighborhoods "clean" energy, I do not endorse that, I vote "No."
More to follow.
Jana Chicoine
Russell
More info: Info about Jana Chicoine: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/janachicoine
Lynn
______________________________________
The Draft Plan repeatedly refers to these two large-scale waste-burning biomass power plant projects in the pipeline in our Valley as “clean energy.” The Draft Plan states that these projects could supply 80MW of the 100MW “clean” energy goal set forth in the Plan. For example, on page 3, the Draft Plan states, “We identify specific projects on the valley that could generate the 100MW of clean power capacity.” Page 10 states, “There are renewable electricity projects in the permitting phase today, that when operating will exceed our goal of 214GWh/year by 2009 and will move us toward our goal of 1,000 GWh/year of clean, renewable energy.” Page 11 also has a chart estimating yields from proposed projects in the "clean" energy pipeline listing these two projects.
Jana Chicoine
Russell
The citations you’ve listed here do do not say the plan recommends these plants.
The planning agencies writing this plan are not the decision-makers for those plants. Your assertion is that they are the decision makers and they are recommending the plants. The Select Board in Russell is supporting the Russell Biomass Plant. They are the decision makers legally. The Select Board, the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, and various state permitting agencies will all make the decisions about the Russell Biomass Plant.
The Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan is just that. It’s not a referendum on any plant. It does not recommend or not recommend any plant. The Plan lists the projects underway. These plants ARE in the permitting phase. It’s fact, not an endorsement. I agree with you that there are serious issues with biomass; but I don’t agree that overstating and misleading will get us to a place where we can make good decisions together.
The decision-making process for these plants is not at the regional level; it’s at the local level. There is significant concern about biomass plant emissions and feedstock across the region. I think local decision-makers need to have more information to understand the issues. What do you think of the criteria for siting a clean energy facility? We were hoping that would provide guidance to local leaders who have to make these decisions.
How would you like to see the plan improved? Given the role of the plan is not to supplant local decision making, do you want the plan to say we should meet all our needs without biomass of any scale (no wood stoves)? Do you want the plan to say we should meet all our needs with wind and solar? And if so, where will the money come from to install those? And, given the anti-wind lobby, where will we be able to secure permits for wind? And, if we only have solar as an option, the price tag is prohibitive. Where will we get the money to even provide a small percentage of what we need?
There are real choices to be made here. If you think there’s anything to global warming, growing global political instability over wars for oil, the end of our cheap oil era, we don’t have time to sort through misinformation and overstatement. We need to sit down on the same side of the table and figure things out together.
Lynn
