via Dead zone in gulf linked to ethanol production.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 7, 2010
Contact: Meg Sheehan, Chair, Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign
tel. 508-259-9154
meg@ecolaw.biz
www.stopspewingcarbon.org
Massachusetts Anti-Biomass Ballot Question The Stop Spewing Carbon Ballot Campaign announced today a major victory in the fight against biomass incinerators promoted as “clean energy” and as a result will not put its question on the statewide ballot for November 2010.

“Today Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles issued a letter saying his agency will change our state laws to bring them in line with current science and public policy requiring biomass incinerators to meet strict standards for forest protection, greenhouse gas emissions, and efficiency,” said Meg Sheehan, Chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon Ballot Campaign. “This is a groundbreaking development that means an end to commercial biomass electric power plants in Massachusetts.

Science confirms that the greenhouse gas emissions of burning forests are worse than coal and there’s no reason to subsidize this form of energy,” Sheehan said. Secretary Bowles’ letter says that to meet greenhouse targets the state should change “the incentives we provide biomass energy under the Renewable Portfolio Standard.” The Stop Spewing Campaign collected over 120,000 signatures from Massachusetts’ voters to end biomass subsidies. Sheehan said, “this sent a clear message to Governor Patrick. Ending renewable energy credits for dirty incinerators was the central goal of our ballot question and we have won.”

The state also announced that construction and demolition debris incinerators will not get renewable energy credits, another victory for the Campaign. “Our coalition of social justice, public health, environmental, forestry advocates and fiscal watchdogs have won a victory for the citizens of Massachusetts, the nation, and indeed the planet,” Sheehan said. “Citizens have let government officials know they don’t want their taxpayer and ratepayer money spent on these toxic incinerators disguised as “clean energy.”

“We will continue to work to prevent air pollution impacts from potential smaller biomass projects and for a state wide ban on construction and demolition debris burning. We also intend to pressure the administration to tighten the biomass regulations even further than what was put forth today to prevent all destructive bio-energy schemes and false solutions to climate change. We will want to make sure that so called “clean energy” projects don’t pollute the air, the water, and destroy our forests,” said Sheehan.

*****************************************************
Four Environmental Groups Seek To Defend Greenhouse Gas Rule in Court

Groups Support EPA Position To Count CO2 Emissions From Biomass In Large-Source Permitting

*****************************************************

Contact:
Cat McCue, Southern Environmental Law Center, 434-977-4090, cmccue@selcva.org
Stuart C. Ross, Clean Air Task Force, 914-649-5037, sross@catf.us

WASHINGTON – Four environmental groups, representing citizens concerned about climate change and forest resources in New England and the Southeast, filed a joint motion in federal court late yesterday to help defend the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to count emissions from burning biomass when it begins regulating global warming pollution from large power plants and other large industrial facilities.  The agency’s decision also includes a commitment to continue a scientific evaluation of the true carbon impact of the many forms of biomass energy.

Burning woody materials, grasses and other biomass can be a significant component of the effort to achieve climate benefits by shifting America away from fossil fuels-but only if the biomass is sourced and accounted for properly-so that the carbon emitted when biomass is burned equals or is less than the carbon taken up by new plant growth.  Recent studies show that combusting some kinds of biomass as fuel can actually increase the amount of climate change pollutants.  For example, burning whole trees in mature forests is much less likely to be carbon-neutral than combusting undergrowth and trimmings from plantation stands.

Last month, EPA issued what is commonly called the “tailoring” rule, which establishes the agency’s framework for evaluating and limiting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Clean Air Act permits for large stationary sources. The agency declined to give all biomass combustion greenhouse gas emissions a blanket exemption from complying with the Act, as was sought by the forest products industry and others.  The environmental groups’ filing supports EPA’s decision to reject the idea that all biomass is inherently “carbon-neutral.”  This careful approach avoids making the climate problem worse in the short term and allows for additional study.

The rule is being challenged by industry interests and several members of Congress in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. v. US EPA).  Late yesterday, Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and Clean Air Task Force (CATF) attorneys filed a motion to intervene in defense of this aspect of EPA’s rule on behalf of Georgia ForestWatch and Wild Virginia, represented by SELC, and  the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resources Council of Maine, represented by CATF.

>> Click here for the groups’ motion to intervene (pdf)

“The South is already considered the ‘fiber basket’ of the country, with much of our land producing paper and other forest products. While generating some of our energy from biomass will help the South’s rural economies and help shift to cleaner energy, we should look before we leap.  In particular, we must ensure a regulatory system that sustains the clean water, the wildlife habitat, the carbon-capturing capacity and the other benefits we get from healthy forests,” said Frank Rambo, Senior Attorney with the SELC, who represents Georgia ForestWatch and Wild Virginia.

Peyton Coyner, a Nelson County resident and member of Wild Virginia who submitted an affidavit on the motion to intervene, said: “I’ve hiked and camped in the national forests of Virginia for over a half century, and I’ve seen the changes – fewer brook trout, hazier views, more invasive plants and insects – which I think are at least partly due to a warming climate. But if we move too hastily on using biomass as a major source of energy, we might end up destroying our forests altogether, so it’s important that when it’s done, it’s done right.” (The media may contact Mr. Coyner for interviews at 434-361-1442.)

“The Environmental Protection Agency is doing the right thing monitoring and regulating the carbon dioxide emissions from biomass incinerators,” said Nathan Van Hoosier, President of Wild Virginia.  “The public needs to know upfront how these incinerators will affect Virginia’s air quality, streams, climate and forests.”

“It is obviously of utmost importance that in trying to fix the climate problem, EPA should not take steps that actually make it worse,” said Ann Weeks, Senior Counsel for CATF, and the attorney for Conservation Law Foundation and Natural Resources Council of Maine.  “EPA did not bend to pressure from industry to create incentives to burn more biomass for energy generation, which can potentially be more harmful for climate than the fossil fuel it replaces.”    We have a strong interest making that decision stick, by defending this aspect of the rule, at least until the science on biomass emissions allows a more comprehensive understanding of the various direct and indirect impacts that bioenergy has on climate.”

# # #

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC’s team of 40 legal experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. www.SouthernEnvironment.org

Clean Air Task Force is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 dedicated to reducing atmospheric pollution through research, advocacy and private sector collaboration. For more information, please visit us at www.catf.us.

Press Contacts:

Tom DePonty

Tel: (301) 841-2468

tom.deponty@areva.com

Jarret Adams

jarret.adams@areva.com

Tel: (301) 841-1695

ADAGE Will Suspend Work on Biopower Project in Gadsden County

March 15, 2010; Gretna, FL – ADAGE LLC, a biopower joint venture owned by affiliates of Duke Energy and AREVA, said in a statement today that it will suspend work on the proposed biopower project in Gadsden County.  ADAGE had proposed to construct a 55 megawatt advanced biopower facility in Gretna, Florida, utilizing sustainable clean woody biomass.

“The vibrant forest resources in Northern Florida attracted ADAGE to the area and the State of Florida confirmed our decision in the recent Woody Biomass Economic Study released on March 1, 2010.  We believe that Gadsden County represents a good market for development of sustainable woody biomass projects, however in light of the decision today by the City of Gretna to delay consideration of the project, ADAGE will suspend work on the Gadsden County project and focus on continuing to develop a fleet of clean, safe, reliable biopower projects throughout the U.S.”

“ADAGE respects the decision of the City of Gretna to continue to study the project and we recognize that work still needs to be done in the local community to fully implement the master plan for economic development.  However, ADAGE firmly believes that further study will reinforce that the project would represent a safe, sustainable renewable energy solution that meets all local, State and National standards while delivering new jobs and economic opportunity.”

“ADAGE will ask the Florida Department of Environmental Quality to suspend activity on the Air Resource Permit Application for the Gadsden County project.  ADAGE continues to actively develop its project in Hamilton County, Florida which has already received full approval at the State and local level.”

The Suwannee/St Johns Sierra Group, which represents 14 counties in North Central Florida including Alachua county, has voted to oppose the GRU/GREC Biomass plant * A new power plant is not needed; GRU currently has 62% overcapacity * Competition for increasingly scarce biomass fuel will be too expensive and a burden on the ratepayers * We reject more massive air pollution and major water withdrawals * The City of Gainesville needs to expand their energy efficiency programs and aggressively help customers reduce energy consumption. This will create many new jobs that will benefity the community and region. For these reasons the Suwannee/St.John’s group opposes a new power plant.

Brack Barker Suwannee/St Johns Sierra Group Conservation Chair

The truth: Adage will increase total source pollution by an average of 65% and truck traffic with mobile pollution (largely diesel exhaust) by 20-50% (NOT 2%). See below!

Adage claim: Gadsden County has 54,000 tpy of air pollution. The new plant would add only 904 tpy pollution, or a 2% increase. Adage is comparing its SOURCE pollution to Gadsden County TOTAL (ambient + mobile + source) pollution. Adage is failing to mention its added mobile pollution (300 diesel truck trips) to its estimate.

Here are the real comparisons:

POLLUTION COMPARISONS

TOTAL EXISTING SOURCE POLLUTION PLUS ADAGE…total effect
(Left source: EPA; right: Adage email)

Carbon Monoxide – 527 tpy total          Adage 248 (48% increase)
COASTAL LUMBER CO 430
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY 91
MACTAVISH FURNITURE INDUSTRIES 6

Nox – 573 tpy total Adage 241 (44% increase)
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY 416
FLORIDA DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 50
COASTAL LUMBER CO 40
ENGELHARD CORPORATION 17

PM 2.5 – 107 tpy total Adage 98 (92% increase)
COASTAL LUMBER CO 97
ENGELHARD CORPORATION 5
MACTAVISH FURNITURE INDUSTRIES 3
FLORIDA DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 2

PM 10 – 171 tpy total Adage 106 (62% increase)
COASTAL LUMBER CO 153
ENGELHARD CORPORATION 8
FLORIDA DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 6
MACTAVISH FURNITURE INDUSTRIES 4

Sulfur Dioxide – 149 total Adage 150 (100% increase)
FLORIDA DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 132
C. W. ROBERTS CONTRACTING INC. 13
COASTAL LUMBER CO 3
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY 1

VOC – 158 total Adage 58 (37% increase)
MACTAVISH FURNITURE INDUSTRIES 51
COASTAL LUMBER CO 50
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY 29
THE PRINTING HOUSE 28

MOBILE POLLUTION

Adage claim: it adds only 150 trucks/day to 90, which has 10,000 vehicles/day. The comparison should be current TRUCK traffic to Adage’s increased TRUCK traffic:

DAILY TRUCK TRAFFIC (source: FL DOT 2008 RECORDS)

I-10 to Rte 90 on Rte. 12: 577
90 West of Quincy: 619
90 Downtown Quincy:1550
Attapulgus Hwy Quincy to S. GA: 226

The traffic stations count passing vehicles, or 150 trucks in and 150 trucks out = 300 trips.

Adage will increase truck traffic 20-50%, diesel Is the most hazardous air pollution.

Of total Gadsden County air pollution per year, 80% is from mobile sources, so how many tpy will Adage trucks add? Estimate 35% X 54,000 = 18,900 TPY added!

THE TRUE TOTAL POLLUTION INCREASE DUE TO THE ADAGE BIOMESS PLANT (SOURCE) AND ITS TRUCKS (MOBILE) WOULD BE Source: 65% and Mobile: 20-50% (NOT 2%!)

Citizens Challenge Air Permit for Port St. Joe Biomass Burning Plant

CONTACT: Meg Sheehan, The Biomass Accountability Project, Inc., 800-729-1363

A group of citizens and one conservation group announced that it has asked Florida DEP for a full administrative hearing on the air pollution permit issued January 27, 2010 allowing Biomass Gas & Electric Company to proceed with construction of an incinerator that will burn trees and other materials to generate electricity. In a petition filed with the DEP, the group asserts that the permit allows emissions of toxic chemicals such as dioxin, carbon monoxide, particulates and ozone forming chemicals that cause asthma, heart disease and cancer. The petition states that the company has not “provided reasonable assurance” that air pollution will protect human health and the environment and therefore violates Florida’s air pollution laws. The plant has received pre-approval from the U.S. Department of Energy for a loan guarantee for “clean energy” projects.”

“This plant is not clean – it is a dirty incinerator disguised as a “green” project,” said Bob Fulford, spokesperson for the group. Not only will it spew out some of the most toxic chemicals known to science, but it is a mile from a neighborhood that is sitting on top of a toxic waste dump created by the St. Joe paper mill in the 1950s. This is environmental injustice in the extreme: the people living in this community have enough exposure to toxic chemicals already, we don’t need more.”

The group is calling on Senator Bill Nelson and Governor Crist to intervene and ensure a complete and thorough review of the project’s toxic air emissions. “At a time when our nation is struggling to figure out how to pay health care costs, using our tax dollars to build an incinerator that will cause more deaths, respiratory disease, premature deaths and other preventable diseases is unacceptable public policy,” said Dr. Ron Saff on behalf of a group of medical professionals who are bringing national attention to this issue. “The American Lung Association and medical societies around the nation are raising the alarm about biomass incinerators disguised as clean energy – we believe we can do better than building incinerators when it comes to jobs and energy” said Dr. Saff.

Below is a parliamentary question, with a response from a Minister for Energy and Climate Change.  He cites government estimates of how many people will die from air pollution in the UK as a result of the government’s biomass expansion program (they obviously don’t see this as a reason for a policy-rethink).

Note that PM 2.5 is still not regulated in the UK, the State of Florida or the U.S.

Over 75,000 physicians in the Florida Medical Association, Hampden District Medical Society, American Lung Association, Capital Medical Society agree that particulate matter – PM, PM10 and especially PM2.5 cause significant health problems, diseases and death in our society. Medical professionals across the country are begging our elected officials to listen to their concerns and limit or halt Biomass Incineration projects.

“Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what recent assessment he has made of the effects of the use of biomass boilers installed to meet Renewable Energy Strategy targets on (a) air quality, (b) levels of particulate emissions and (c) levels of (i) morbidity and (ii) mortality.

Jim Fitzpatrick:
(a) The Government have, in support of the development of the Renewable Energy Strategy (RES), carried out modelling of the effect of an increase in the use of biomass for heat and power on the emissions, ambient air concentrations and public health impacts of fine particles (PM2.5), coarser particles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide. The key air quality results of this analysis are given in the Renewable Energy Strategy on page 121.

(b) As part of the analysis the increases in the emissions of particulates were estimated over a number of different scenarios. For PM2.5 these were between 0.75 and 9.1 ktonnes from a baseline in 2007 of 82 ktonnes. For PM10, emissions were estimated as being between 1.3 and 9.5 ktonnes from a 2007 baseline of 135 ktonnes.

(c) (i) The impacts on morbidity resulting from the uptake of biomass as a renewable energy source were not assessed.

(ii) The mortality health impacts of these scenarios were estimated to be between 340,000 and 1,750,000 measured as the number of life years lost in 2020 from the impact on air quality of increased biomass combustion.”

2–401.1. 1

Download Massachusetts Senate Bill 228.

The department may not issue a permit to construct an incinerator unless the incinerator:

(1) is or would be located in an area that is zoned for heavy industrial  activity; and

(ii) at least 3 miles from the property boundary line of any residential dwelling, church, school, park, or hospital; and meets the zoning requirements of the local jurisdiction in which the incinerator is or would be located.

A local jurisdiction may not issue a building permit for an incinerator unless the incinerator meets the requirements set forth in subsection (a) of this section.

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall be construed to apply only prospectively and may not be applied or interpreted to have any effect on or application to any incinerator in existence for which all necessary permits for construction, modification, operation, or use have been issued before the effective date of this Act. If the construction, modification, operation, or use of an incinerator is allowed to continue in accordance with this section:
(1) the use may not be expanded; and
(2) if abandoned, the use may not be resumed.
SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That a presently existing obligation or contract right may not be impaired AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect 25 October 1, 2010.