July 21, 2011  No Biomass Burn and six other environmental groups are appealing the air permit decision by the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA), charging that the agency colluded with Nippon Paper to grossly understate toxic pollution from a 20-megawatt biomass power proposal under construction in Port Angeles, Washington.

Carcinogenic formaldehyde from Nippon's project would be emitted at rates nearly ninety times greater than ORCAA's permit shows, according to analysis conducted by a nationally renowned air quality engineer hired by the appellants.

Benzene, also a carcinogen, would be emitted at levels six times greater than reported levels, while VOC's (volatile organic compounds) would be emitted in "substantially higher amounts" than the permit shows, according to Badgley.

If allowed to stand, the lower pollution estimates would let Nippon avoid more rigorous government regulations and more expensive and effective pollution controls.

Lake Tahoe, California Biomass Power Proposal Relocated

August 4, 2011  The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) rejected siting a 3-megawatt biomass power proposal on Lake Tahoe's north shore in favor of a site a half mile off the western shore, following opposition by local citizen groups.

"The grassroots effort was just one piece of the puzzle," said Dawn Baffone of The Lake Tahoe Anti-Biomass Plant Coalition, "but was a big factor in keeping the plant out of this residential area in Kings Beach."

An environmental analysis revealed a "noise impact that cannot be mitigated," at the original Kings Beach site, according to an August 9, 2011 letter from TRPA board chair, Norma Santiago.

The new Cabin Creek site, which houses existing industrial operations, including a recycling facility, is within the Mountain Counties Air Basin, which is in non-attainment for federal clean air standards.

Friends of Lake Tahoe argues in a document posted on its website that the air quality issue could be resolved by reclassifying Cabin Creek as within the Eastern County Nevada Air Basin, which is currently in attainment. 

Biomass Power Developers Push Back in Springfield, Massachusetts

The developers of a proposed 35-megawatt biomass power incinerator for Springfield, Mass. have filed a lawsuit claiming the Springfield City Council acted with "either bad faith or at least gross negligence" when it voted 10-2 to revoke a special permit for building the facility in May.

Palmer Renewable Energy is asking the Land Court in Boston to annul the City Council permit revocation, to award "costs," and to "grant such further relief as this court deems just and proper."

The City Council "carefully considered the issues and made sure they had the legal basis for revoking the permit," said Springfield resident Steve Dzubak. "I have confidence in them, and I have every confidence that they will prevail in court as having exercised their rights and responsibilities."

Shortly after the City Council decision, on July 1, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued an Air Quality Permit for the proposed Springfield facility.

Below are excerpts from a letter written by Norma Kreilein, MD, Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in Jasper, Indiana in response to "Toxic Power: How Power Plants Contaminate Our Air and States," a recent report by Physicians for Social Responsibility and NRDC.

I am writing as a concerned pediatrician in Southern Indiana. We live in the heart of the power plant belt of the Midwest. For many years I have suspected that our local pollution is greatly responsible for our high rate of inflammatory processes, malignancies, and increasing rates of autism.

For the past several months I have been trying to fight the addition of a biomass plant to our city. The city has long been an industrial base with many wood factories, so there has apparently been a high VOC [volatile organic compounds] load.

Strong opposition was voiced from the time it was publicly mentioned, but the city has pushed the plant through anyway. Much manipulation of emission data has occurred (averaging emissions out over the whole county to make them appear insignificant) but, ironically, one of the more interesting arguments is that the plant, though polluting and within 1/2 mile of a residential neighborhood, should nonetheless be built because the plant will decrease our dependence on coal fired plants.

Biomass combustion is being sold to communities around the country by high pressure, ambiguous, unscrupulous carpetbaggers who promise "jobs" and "green energy" but are vacuuming precious federal funds to produce expensive energy that will never solve our dependence on foreign oil nor make our air any cleaner.

The ultimate problem is that the same monitors and regulators that fail to close down coal plants will do no better with biomass. We will just spend more and think we feel better about it.

Whole trees, including trees from old-growth forests, are "renewable" energy, according to a ruling from the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The ruling denied an appeal by the Environmental Defense Fund and Southern Environmental Law Center of a North Carolina Utilities Commission decision to allow Duke Energy to receive "renewable energy credits" for burning whole trees for electricity.

"Any resource that can be considered a biomass [sic] because it is organic and renewable is a biomass resource within the plain meaning of the statute," ruled Judge Steelman. "All wood fuel meets these criteria and thus is a 'biomass resource' and a 'renewable energy resource.'"

Clearcut outside of Green Swamp, N. Carolina

(Photo: Abigail Singer)

A recent industry report says that imports of wood pellets into Europe rose 40% between 2009 and 2010. August saw the formation of a partnership between Enviva and Biomass Energy to supply more than 350,000 tons of pellets and chips over the next three years from a new facility in Virginia--their second in the state.

Enviva also has facilities in Mississippi and North Carolina. To facilitate exports, the company has purchased a deepwater port and is constructing a storage silo in Virginia. Enviva also leases port space in Alabama.

Others are jumping on the pellet bandwagon. RWE Innogy has constructed a massive pellet facility, capable of producing 750k tons per year in Georgia, to provide pellets for their Tilbury power station in UK, which plans to convert from burning coal to forest pellets. Growing resistance to import-dependent facilities and policies is evident, but much more is needed to stem the flow of pelletized forests to European burners.

Please send Letters to the Editor (150 words) to thebiomassmonitor [at] gmail.com.

Dear Editor,

I loved the piece on night solar electric generation in Spain ["Solar at Night?', August 2011]. What they do in Spain, we can do in much of the Southern US.  Our household has been converted from compact fluorescents to LEDs and we have realized an energy and money savings with every electric bill. Reasonably-priced LEDs can be purchased on eBay, at Lowe's and Sam's Clubs.

Innovation, conservation and efficiency are possible now! We need not burn another thing to produce electricity, especially our forests!

-Tom Kruzen
Mountain View, Missouri