DOER Hearings on Revisions to the RPS, Including Biomass Eligibility
The MA Dept of Energy Resources (DOER) is rolling back the science-based protections on biomass energy that have kept low-efficiency, GHG-belching wood-burning power plants OUT of Western MA. Come to the hearings in Springfield on June 5 to tell DOER to DROP the PLAN! We need your voice!
10 min description starting at minute 21:55 on the Bill Newman Show - listen!
DOER has posted the proposed changes to the RPS here.
Please come to one of the Public Hearings to say your piece – public testimony is powerful. Don’t forget: bring a written copy of your spoken testimony to leave with DOER!
SPRINGFIELD HEARING
DATE: Wednesday, June 5, 2019
RALLY: To be announced
HEARING: 6:30 – 8:30 PM
John J. Duggan Academy Auditorium
1015 Wilbraham Road
Springfield, MA 01109
Verbal and written testimony will be accepted at the hearings; however, the state asks parties to provide written copies of their testimony.
It’s never a bad idea to write out your spoken testimony in advance. They usually let people speak for three minutes. Three minutes is about 500 – 600 words if you talk fast (~2/3 of a page). We recommend practicing your testimony and timing it before giving it in public.
Click here to sign the petition to get polluting technologies out of our renewable energy supply!
Email us if you want to be added to the list-serve where we post updates and detailed talking points, discuss issues, and answer questions.
Click here for more details
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED RPS CHANGES REGARDING BIOMASS
(for copy of full draft commentary please email mbooth@pfpi.net)
For a pdf of this post, click here.
Key Takeaway: The betrayal of the 2012 compromise on bioenergy, forests, and climate
Proposed changes would roll back every meaningful protection in the MA biomass rules
Will allow the Palmer Renewable Energy plant (35 MW electricity-only) to be built in Springfield
Financial support for a polluting industry, when we should be focusing on non-emitting power
DOER’s “wood availability” study cedes the forest carbon sink to biomass developers
The biomass regulations should be strengthened to reflect climate urgency, not weakened
Current state of MA bioenergy, forests, and climate science
Climate scientists say we need to cut emissions in half in the next ten years
Biomass power plants emit more CO2 pollution than coal or gas plants; the impact lasts decades
Massachusetts biomass rules lead the nation and the world; DOER wants to roll them back
MA and New England are already falling short of our emission reduction goals
Renewable energy in MA and New England is dominated by wood and garbage-burning
DOER’s proposal will increase CO2 emissions from wood-burning power plants
Eliminates definition and reporting of lifecycle GHG emissions
Changes timeframe for bioenergy GHG “benefit” from 20 years to 30 years (should be 10 or less!)
Reduces plant efficiency requirement for plants burning forest residues and thinnings
Eliminates efficiency requirement for “salvage” wood and non-forest residues
Counts fuel-drying as “useful” energy, thereby increasing net CO2 emissions
Allows “offsetting” of emissions violations from year to year
Proposal will increase air pollution from bioenergy
Eliminates requirement that plants demonstrate they can meet emissions criteria
Proposal increases wood treated falsely as having “low” or “zero” emissions
Over-represents benefits of forestry residues, then broadly classifies fuels as residues
Defines trees damaged during logging operations, trees harvested for restoration as “residues”
Defines more trees as “thinnings”
Massively increases amount of wood classified as “salvage”
Expands definition of mill residues
Post-consumer wood & agricultural wood waste: Classified as non-forestry residues with minimal carbon impact
Retains classification of trees cut for agriculture as non-forest residues
Abolishes definition of energy crops
Proposal would increase emissions from liquid/gaseous biofuels
Adopts carbon accounting that treats all biomass as having zero carbon emissions
Reduces accountability, transparency, & citizen oversight of GHG accounting
Reduces and eliminates protections for forests adopted in the 2012 rules
Replaces real metrics with bogus “Sustainable Forestry” provisions
