Private developers have their eyes on four Western Massachusetts communities—Russell, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Greenfield—for large-scale wood-burning electrical plants. If brought on line, the plants would add another 175 megawatts of energy production to the state's renewable energy portfolio. An additional 15 megawatts of capacity is planned for Fitchburg, a central Massachusetts town which currently hosts a 17 megawatt facility.
The Russell, Greenfield, and Springfield plants are well along in the permitting process, having cleared a significant hurdle—MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act) approval by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA.) The Russell project has, additionally, gained all necessary permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Springfield incinerator is the only one of the five that has applied for permits to burn construction and demolition wood.
The approval process has hardly been onerous for biomass developers. In fact, environmentalists charge that the administration of Gov. Deval Patrick has been fast-tracking the plants through the approval process. Though many in Western Massachusetts and elsewhere are concerned about the effects of the plants on air quality, water supplies and traffic patterns, Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles has ruled that the Greenfield, Pittsfield, Fitchburg, and Springfield projects did not require Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). This ruling has drawn fire from watchdog groups. The burning of construction and demolition (C and D) waste, which is often tainted with arsenic and other toxins, is of particular concern.
"The C and D wood that would be used [in the Springfield plant] is material that until recently was disposed of as solid waste in Massachusetts landfills," wrote Susan Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation. "It is also material that is the subject of combustion bans or restrictions in several states, and raises significant issues with respect to air emissions…"
Reid points out that the Springfield facility would burn more than two-thirds of the Commonwealth's annual production of C and D wood, and concludes that MEPA "surely demands more thoughtful environmental review."
The combined impact of the plants on forests, water resources and air quality in Western Massachusetts has yet to be fully addressed by state officials. In April, Bowles, in certifying the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) filed by Pioneer Renewable Energy for the Greenfield project, wrote that the cumulative impact of the five plants on the region does not fall under the purview of any individual MEPA review.
"While MEPA requires that a proponent assess the cumulative and indirect impacts of a proposed project, there is a clear distinction between that obligation and a requirement that the review of a single project serve as the vehicle for long-range sustainability planning," Bowles ruled.
On June 16, the Springfield Area Sustainable Energy Association (SASEA) sponsored a panel discussion at Western New England College on "The Dangers of Wood-Burning Electrical Plants (Biomass Incinerators) in Greater Springfield and Western Massachusetts." Speakers included Dr. Ellen Moyer, Ph.D, P.E., principal of Greenvironment LLC; Chris Matera, P.E., founder of Massachusetts Forest Watch; Jana Chicoine, spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Russell; and environmental lawyer Margaret E. Sheehan of Williamstown.
Biomass plant development, Sheehan explained to the audience, is encouraged in Massachusetts through provisions of the Green Communities Act and Global Warming Solutions Act. Federal and state grants, subsidies and tax incentives, she pointed out, are available for the construction and operation of biomass plants. Ratepayer support for "green energy" programs further sweetens the deal.
"The four western Mass. plants… have collectively been granted one million dollars from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative to develop their plans and permits," Sheehan said. "The plant in Greenfield will be eligible to collect $60 million in federal stimulus money from within three weeks of coming on line. It will receive production tax credits and investment tax credits, and will generate RECs, or renewable energy credits, that coal-burning plants must buy.
"The typical wood-burning plant," Sheehan added, "emits more greenhouse gases, such as CO2 (carbon dioxide), than the worst coal-burning plant… Biomass, unlike coal, does not have to comply with greenhouse gas cap-and-trade programs… The U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] in April issued an endangerment finding, saying that CO2 emitted today will not be absorbed for hundreds to thousands of years… yet the state DEP, in issuing its air permits for these plants, does not consider greenhouse gases in its determination."
Matera focused his presentation on forestry impacts, asserting that the plants' fuel requirements will lead to overcutting of forests in the region. According to his calculations, 190 megawatts of electricity will require 2.5 million tons of wood per year, and a tripling of current logging practices in the state. "These incinerators can't be fed on waste wood alone; there is nowhere near an adequate supply," he said.
Matera argued that a Division of Energy Resources (DOER) biomass availability report, which concluded that public and private forest resources in the five western counties could be sustainably harvested to feed the proposed plants, is in error. "The numbers just don't add up," he said. "You can be assured, clear-cutting and heavy logging methods will occur."
Moyer, an environmental scientist, analyzed a 2006 air quality study, often cited by industry proponents, that examined the burning of construction and demolition wood. "The Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management Report, or NESCAUM study, relied upon very little data," she contended. "The NESCAUM report is seriously flawed… This report should not be relied upon for any public policy regarding the burning of C and D wood. Much better science is needed."
Russell resident Jana Chicoine, known to the audience for her work with Concerned Citizens of Russell, a group opposing the Russell Biomass project, received a strong ovation. "Ultimately, we must address what's driving all of this—the renewable energy subsidies, which are being taken away from technologies like wind and solar, and being given to biomass incinerators and other combustibles," she said. "Right now, 79 percent of the so-called clean energy in Massachusetts is coming from a smokestack. … We're being told one thing and being given something quite different."
*
Proponents paint a different picture. Matt Wolfe of Madera Energy, developer of the Pioneer Renewable Energy plant proposed for Greenfield, has argued, both in public and on Madera Energy's website, that biomass plants can actually help to combat global warming and air pollution.
"Electricity produced from biomass is considered, according to state and federal policy, to be carbon neutral… Not everyone agrees, but even the Conservation Law Foundation uses the term 'low carbon.' Plants absorb carbon dioxide in their growth cycle, and the CO2 that a facility produces would have been emitted as the trees decompose in the forest," Wolfe commented at a recent public session in Turners Falls. "Emissions from a biomass facility are substantially lower than those from fossil fuel-based energy sources.
"Is biomass perfect? No, of course not. But you have to consider what the alternatives are. Low-emission, advanced biomass technology is a much cleaner source of power than coal or oil. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Wolfe maintains that by providing a market for low-quality wood, biomass plants can keep forestry viable, relieving the economic pressures that might lead to the loss of forest land to development. There will be plenty of wood in Western Massachusetts to fuel the Greenfield plant, according to Wolfe, who cites the very study Matera has called into question—a biomass availability analysis prepared for the Massachusetts DOER and DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation). The study, part of the Massachusetts Sustainable Forest Bioenergy Initiative, was funded by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and the U.S. Department of Energy.
But the contested forestry study may soon become a moot issue. Last Monday, Secretary Bowles announced that he has directed the DOER to develop a sustainability requirement for electricity generated from biomass under the state's Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). The agency will be commissioning a "significant, objective" white paper to provide "research and peer-reviewed science-based information" on issues of sustainable forest management, carbon sequestration, and carbon neutrality associated with biomass energy, and is accepting public comment on the study's scope of work until July 3.
Will this sustainability requirement, and the associated study, have any effect on the permitting timetable of the Western Massachusetts plants?
"No air quality permit application has been submitted for the Greenfield plant as of this date," DEP spokesperson Catherine Skiba told the Advocate. "But the DOER directive will not impact the DEP's ability to review an air quality permit from a Massachusetts biomass plant."
But a spokesperson for the federal Energy Information Administration told the Advocate that a state-imposed sustainability requirement might lessen a plant's profitability by reducing the value of the renewable energy credits that form an important part of the capitalization structure of biomass plants.
The larger issue, according to Sheehan and other environmental advocates, is the inclusion of biomass in the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS), regardless of any amendment of the standard to include a forest sustainability provision. The problem of greenhouse gas emissions from the plants should preclude their inclusion in programs designed to promote green energy, they say.
"We need to start solving our global warming problem now. This directive to commission another study on forest sustainability misses the point," Sheehan told the Advocate. "We simply shouldn't be giving clean energy subsidies to biomass incinerators that emit more CO2 per megawatt than coal."
