Longview, Washington Biomass Power Pollution Permit Appealed

July 5, 2011  No Biomass Burn, World Temperate Rainforest Network, and the Olympic Environmental Council filed a legal appeal against a 54-megawatt biomass power incinerator proposed for the City of Longview by Longview Fibre. The Washington Department of Ecology issued an air permit to Fibre on June 2, 2011.

"Fibre is trying to poison the people of the Longview region and the state for bigger profits," said Duff Badgley, president of No Biomass Burn.

"We estimate Fibre would generate about $500 million in revenue over 20 years from sale of this electricity," Badgley said. "Fibre's Canadian owners get the big money. The people of the Longview region and the state get the big pollution. And this pollution can kill."

Biomass power opposition in Washington State

(Photo: Shawna Whelan)

June 21, 2011  Save Our Air Resources (SOAR) and Biomass Accountability Project challenged an announcement by the developer of a proposed 50-megawatt biomass power incinerator for Rothschild, Wisconsin, who called the project "green power."

Saying the incinerator will be a "major polluter," and claiming Domtar Corporation misrepresents the project as being environmentally friendly, SOAR and two residents filed a lawsuit challenging the state air pollution permit.

Domtar's "claim is contradicted by facts in the company's own documents showing the project will spew out hundreds of tons of toxic air pollutants, discharge waste to the Wisconsin River, and burn toxic sludge and trees," said Biomass Accountability Project spokesperson Meg Sheehan.

"Toxic air pollution from the incinerator will poison the 2,600 children that live and go to school directly downwind from the biomass plant," said SOAR spokesperson Paul Schwantes. "We are not fooled by claims that this is a 'green' project."

"The project will emit dioxin, deadly particulates, and other pollution that contributes to asthma, heart disease and more," according to pediatrician Dr. William Sammons.

June 28, 2011  A report released by the Massachusetts-based Biomass Accountability Project details how taxpayers and rate-payers are subsidizing hundreds of biomass combustion power facilities through programs intended for clean, renewable energy. The report, "Biomass Electricity: Clean Energy Subsidies for a Dirty Industry," analyzes federal and state subsidies for electricity generated by burning biomass.

The report explains why funding biomass burning as so-called "renewable energy" is highly controversial and describes opposition from health, environmental, and fiscal watchdog groups, and local communities. The report lists over twenty facilities cancelled in the last eighteen months due, in part, to public opposition.

American Lung Association "Strongly Opposes" Biomass Energy

Below are excerpts from the American Lung Association's "Public Policy Position on Energy," released on June 11, 2011.

"The American Lung Association does not support biomass combustion for electricity production, a category that includes wood, wood products, agricultural residues or forest wastes, and potentially highly toxic feedstocks, such as construction and demolition waste. If biomass is combusted, state-of-the-art pollution controls must be required.

"The American Lung Association calls for effective enforcement of existing laws and regulations governing the combustion of wood and other biomass sources, as well as the expanded regulation of air pollution emissions from these sources.

"The American Lung Association strongly opposes the combustion of wood and other biomass sources at schools and institutions with vulnerable populations.

"The American Lung Association recommends continuing research on the health effects of burning wood and other biomass sources, and the technologies to reduce the emissions associated with the combustion of these fuels.

"The combustion of fossil fuels and biomass...generates a significant share of the nation's air pollution, threatening the health and lives of millions of people, including those who are most vulnerable to harm. The American Lung Association strongly supports policies that encourage a transition from coal, oil, and biomass use...to cleaner alternatives."

Biomass Industry vs. Biomass Industry in New Hampshire

Employees from the biomass industry in New Hampshire strongly opposed the construction of a recently canceled 75-megawatt biomass power proposal by Laidlaw Berlin BioPower for Berlin, New Hampshire. Below are excerpts from public comments submitted by dozens of biomass workers to the NH Public Utilities Commission.

"I am currently employed at a small biomass power plant in central NH. The Power Purchase Agreement...will have a detrimental effect on me, my coworkers, the local economy, and the local loggers in the community.

$5 Million of Taxpayer Dollars to Fund Biomass on Public Lands

An appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior in the U.S. House of Representatives would divert $5 million of taxpayer dollars to the U.S. Forest Service to make grants "for the purpose of creating incentives for increased use of biomass from national forest lands."

Western public forests, including National Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands, are being increasingly targeted for biomass extraction under the guise of "fire fuels reduction," contrary to the best available science.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), passed by President Bush in 2002, increased logging on public lands in the name of protection from wildfire. HFRA also sought to "authorize grant programs to improve the commercial value of forest biomass."

According to Jack Cohen, research scientist at the Fire Sciences Laboratory in the U.S. Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station: "Home ignitability, rather than wildland fuels, is the principal cause of home losses during wildland/urban interface fires. Key items are flammable roofing materials and the presence of burnable vegetation immediately adjacent to homes. Intense flame fronts (or crown fires) will not ignite wooden walls at distances greater than 40 meters or 130 feet."

THE BIOMASS MONITOR is looking to open the biomass discussion to our readers. Please send your 150 word response to any of our articles (longer submissions will be edited) to thebiomassmonitor [at] gmail.com. One letter will be published per issue. We look forward to hearing from you!