MA moves to require good biomass, protect forests
Posted May 4, 2011 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, Solving Global Warming
Yesterday, Governor Patrick of Massachusetts took a groundbreaking step to promote renewable power by requiring that only low carbon wood and other plant material be used in power plants using biomass as a fuel. This first of its kind policy recognizes that biomass can be good for the environment or very bad depending on the source. The rules still need to be approved by the state legislature, but if they are they will help protect New England forests while also reducing carbon pollution.
The new rules would establish requirements for any biomass used to produce electricity under Massachusetts' Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). To get the basics on biomass, check out our factsheet.
Here is the quick summary of what Governor Patrick has proposed. The Governor's rules have three main features, which together make for a very robust policy:
- First, he would place restrictions on timber harvests that limit “Eligible Biomass Woody Fuels” to residues (tops, crooks, branches), thinning in special cases, and defined forest salvage. These restrictions are combined with a limit on the weight of Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel removed from a site as a percent of the total harvest weight (ranging from 0% to 40%, depending on soil type);
- Next, he would require that facilities using biomass provide analysis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts of that biomass and demonstrate emissions reductions of at least 50 percent over 20 years;
- Finally, he would put in place efficiency thresholds to qualify for Renewable Electricity Credits (RECs). Under this new rule, the overall efficiency of a biomass generation facility would have to be 40 percent to qualify for one-half REC per MWh, increasing linearly to a full credit at an overall efficiency of 60% or above. (RECs are used for trading and showing compliance under the RPS.)
Taken as a whole, these regulations will greatly limit the ability of the power industry to carry out whole-tree timber harvests for the purposes of fueling biomass facilities, and will limit those facilities largely to efficient combined heat and power (CHP) units or units with comparable performance. See this letter from last fall that NRDC and a number of local groups submitted in support of these regulations for more background.
This stands in stark contrast to the approach the EPA has proposed to take on biomass. As my colleague Sasha and I have written about (here, here, and here), EPA is proposing to ignore for three years all carbon pollution from burning any kind of biomass, regardless of whether it clearly increases carbon pollution, is carbon neutral, or somewhere in between. NRDC will be submitting comments on EPA's proposed delay and you can take action too to tell the Agency to pay attention to the science, protect our forests, and treat pollution as pollution.
Massachusetts’ bold step yesterday proves that the science is there to tell the difference between burning whole trees and other forms of biomass that result in more carbon pollution than coal and using perennial grasses and other forms of biomass that can actually reduce carbon emissions. Massachusetts also shows that we can write practical rules that guide the market to better biomass, protect our forests and reduce carbon pollution.
The rules were shepherded by Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Secretary Richard K. Sullivan Jr., his predecessor Ian Bowles, and DOER Commissioner Mark Sylvia. The Governor and his team deserve our thanks. In addition, the regional environmental groups such as the Conservation Law Foundation, Environment Northeast and the Partnership for Policy Integrity, as well as local advocates like Meg Sheehan also deserve tremendous credit for pushing the state to first acknowledge the problem and then address it. I know some of them would like stricter rules, but they have done our forests—and really all of us—a great service. Now we need the 35 other states with RPS policies and the EPA to follow Massachusetts' lead.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Josh Schlossberg — May 4 2011 12:43 PM
It took long enough for the Big Greens to finally get on board this issue. I am glad they are getting involved now, but is it really a surprise that EPA is uncertain about how to move forward on biomass, when many of these same Big Greens have been advocating for biomass in all its forms for years?
Big Greens wouldn't even return our calls a couple years ago on this issue, now they're using our talking points. Perhaps this can be a lesson for future advocacy?
Chris Matera — May 5 2011 10:40 AM
Come on, NRDC and Big Green Inc are still missing the boat on this and grovelling for crumbs from the corporations and their government enablers who will gladly torch our forests for fuel, and still will with the new regulations.
Here is a press release from Massachusetts Forest Watch that gives a reality check on the new biomass regulationss:
NEW BIOMASS REGULATIONS: STATE WEAKENS FOREST PROTECTIONS
New Biomass Regulations Weaken Forest Protections and Require Citizens to Subsidize Cutting and Burning Forests for Fuel
According to Massachusetts Forest Watch, the State of Massachusetts has bowed to industry pressure and weakened the qualification standards for Renewable Energy Credits by dramatically increasing the amount of wood allowable from timber sales to be used as biomass fuel from 15% to up to 40%.
Founder Chris Matera stated, “The new regulations allow and encourage cutting living trees for biomass fuel, and even these weak regulations are ripe for non-compliance due to broadly interpretable and unenforceable forestry standards. The net effect is that citizens will be forced to subsidize increased cutting and burning forests, which will raise carbon dioxide emissions, worsen air pollution, degrade forests and rob public subsidies from genuinely clean sources of energy.”
The new regulations acknowledge that tree burning biomass has higher carbon emissions than fossil fuels (which may give investors pause in supporting such counterproductive projects) and should signal the end of the biomass “carbon neutrality” myth, but the construction of large biomass proposals is still being permitted, and many large biomass proposals, including in Massachusetts where the Patrick administration has not required environmental impact reports, are still moving forward due to outdated federal biomass subsidies and scientifically indefensible, but politically motivated, federal carbon accounting preferential treatment.
Despite public comments overwhelmingly calling for stricter efficiency standards, the state also bowed to industry desires by reducing the original 60% efficiency requirement down to 40% for partial renewable energy credits, which is likely to open up a floodgate of creative accounting and gimmicks by developers claiming to meet the lowered threshold.
Additionally, subsidizing and promoting a multitude of smaller tree burning biomass proposals raises questions of “death by a thousand cuts” for air quality, atmospheric carbon levels and forests.
According to Matera, “As is all too common today, political pressure from industry has driven the governmental agencies charged with protecting the public interest and the environment to make decisions that satisfy powerful vested interests rather than making the tough decisions needed to protect the long term interests of society as a whole.”
“Increased cutting and burning of forests is not "green" energy and will worsen our problems, so citizens should not be forced to subsidize this jump from the frying pan into the fire."
“Clean energy does not come out of a smokestack.”
Helmut — May 16 2011 08:11 PM
Unfortunately the folks who would practice sound multi-use bio-MA farming are outnumbered by those that would like to develop real-estate. If the restrictions can keep developers from selling the timber to the power people, however, that's great. They'll get their hands on the forest land under an affordable housing/job creation ploy. I visited my home state the day Patrick was re-elected. You might be surprised how many acres of land cleared for farming 200 years ago, sits until developers get their hands on it, or boards horses. Those Yankee farmer folks aren't extinct but they need a little more incentive to grow biomass. They would be the ones to do it, for livelihood over windfall profit.