WESTMINSTER — We see a lot of division in Vermont these days about the proliferation of wind turbines on our ridgelines. However, we don't hear so much public discussion about the impacts of two proposed industrial biomass plants, one in Fair Haven and the other, the North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project (NSSEP), in North Springfield.
Why? Because many Vermonters burn wood for heat and assume that burning wood chips for electricity (and sometimes heat) is not much worse than their woodstove.
Unfortunately, this is simply not true.
When I first learned last September about the proposed 36-megawatt industrial biomass plant in North Springfield, I did a lot of research. This facility is being proposed by Adam Winstanley, a Massachusetts developer, in conjunction with Weston Solutions. The senior technical director for Weston Solutions is Dan Ingold, a Vernon resident.
While Winstanley has successfully redeveloped brownfields sites, this appears to be his first foray into building a large-scale electricity generating plant. I am somewhat surprised that he would gamble his money and his family's business reputation on such an obvious environmental and economic calamity.
* * *
What I learned was distressing, yet also obvious. There is a big difference between burning a few cords of dry firewood in your woodstove and burning hundreds of cords of green wood per day, every day, as is proposed for the North Springfield plant.
According to public documents filed by NSSEP, the facility would burn 550 cords of green wood a day with only 26-percent efficiency. It would generate 1,176 tons of greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.
In a year, the facility would release 429,000 tons of greenhouse gases into Vermont's air. (This is half of what Efficiency Vermont saves each year through energy-efficiency programs.)
This number does not include the emissions from the 50 to 120 diesel trucks that will deliver wood five days a week, nor the trucks that would remove ash. The Air Pollution Control Division of the state's Department of Environmental Conservation considers this facility to be “a major source of air pollution and a major source of acid rain.”
Emissions from woody biomass facilities can create ground-level ozone (smog). In addition, these facilities would release a significant amount of particulate matter.
Particulate matter is known to exacerbate asthma and to cause respiratory illnesses. People most at risk from particulate pollution have heart and respiratory illnesses, or they are among the young, the elderly, and those who are pregnant.
Vermont - and the rest of New England - already has high rates of asthma. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2008 Vermont's rate of asthma in adults and in children exceeded the national rate. The CDC estimated that more than 60,000 Vermonters were diagnosed with asthma four years ago, and the federal agency expects that the number is much higher at present.
The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and American Cancer Society all oppose biomass because of the negative impacts on human health caused by biomass combustion.
According to the American Lung Association, “Black carbon, or diesel soot, and ozone not only significantly impact global warming but also endanger public health. Black carbon from diesel, a mixture of 40 different toxic substances, increases the risk of developing lung cancer. Ozone, the most commonly encountered pollutant in America's cities, damages lung capacity and aggravates asthma. Both pollutants send people with asthma and other chronic lung diseases to the hospital and emergency room. Both cut short the lives of thousands of people every year.”
To add to the injury of siting this plant in a residential neighborhood, the developers lowered the exhaust stack from the facility's engineered height by half, from 290 feet to 140 feet, because of the Springfield airport's limit on the stack height.
Because the proposed location at the industrial park sits in a bowl, the lowered stack height is almost level with homes at the top of the bowl. In effect, all of the air pollution and particulate matter will blow directly at these homes every day for decades.
* * *
Vermont is a national leader on managing the health and well-being of its residents. However, biomass pollution is diametrically opposed to enhancing the health and wellness of state residents.
There is evidence that emergency-room visits increase in proportion to proximity and exposure to carbon emissions from vehicles, fossil fuels, and biomass-burning power plants.
In fact, the resulting health effects will increase health-care costs for the state and for its health insurers.
When whole trees are used for biomass, carbon that has been “sequestered” in the trees is released into the atmosphere. This process increases carbon dioxide generation and fosters climate change. Biomass facilities have a significant carbon debt for close to 30 years before trees previously cut for fuel regrow to their original size.
When forestry waste is used for biomass, we see a negative effect on soil health, and more carbon is actually released. Removing forestry waste also negatively impacts insects, birds, reptiles, and mammals which consider this “waste” as habitat.
Basically, any use of wood waste and trees on this scale will ruin forest and soil health and contribute to more dramatic climate change, the sort we have been experiencing with hurricanes and super storms.
There is also the issue of wood supply.
To feed the North Springfield plant, over 20,000 acres of trees would need to be cut each year. Supply and demand economics lead one to believe that cordwood prices for residential use will increase sharply as biomass plants will be able to pay more than homeowners can.
The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan recognizes this fact: “Increasing the demand for forest products risks raising the prices for lower-grade firewood - a burden that would fall disproportionately on lower-income Vermonters who rely on firewood to heat their homes.”
Also of concern is that wood for NSSEP could be sourced from a multi-state region of New England.
Other New England states have invasive pests that infect and kill native trees. These include the Asian Long-horned Beetle and the Emerald Ash Borer.
With 450,000 tons of wood required per year for the North Springfield plant, it becomes obvious that trees from out-of-state will be needed. With greater interstate transport of wood, the risk for introducing invasive species is greatly increased.
Vermont could see its pristine forests - which attract thousands of tourists - decimated by invasive pests.
* * *
Winstanley and Ingold have claimed in the media that those of us opposed to their facility are misinformed or spreading false information. The truth is that the most damning information against their plant comes from their own permit submittals as well as testimony to the Public Service Board.
In two newspaper commentaries, Winstanley claims that NSSEP's biomass plant is carbon neutral, does not add to greenhouse gas emissions, will use sustainable harvesting, will provide 6 percent of Vermont's electricity needs, and will contribute to the state's renewable energy goals.
These claims are all refuted by state employees and by the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan.
In rebuttal testimony to the Public Service Board filed on Feb. 7 and 19, Sandra Wilmot of the Division of Forestry, Parks and Recreation, made the following comments in response to Ingold's testimony:
“The department does not consider woody biomass energy to be carbon neutral. Simply replacing fossil fuel-based energy with biomass facilities will not reduce atmospheric carbon/GHG [greenhouse gas]. If forests are not healthy, or regeneration is not rapid and successful following harvesting, forest uptake and storage of carbon will be compromised, and opportunities for GHG mitigation will be reduced.
“The risks to forest health without adequate harvesting guidelines, especially given the risks and threats of climate change, will be substantial. It is in the context of those risks and threats relative to current forest conditions that the additional harvesting attributed to this facility is seen as posing undue adverse impacts to forest health and sustainability.
“Here, we are not concerned about 'past use' but rather the effects of 30, 40, or more years of future harvesting that will occur in a forest environment subjected to the risks and threats I have described (presented by climate change and [invasive species], for instance).
“NSSEP has failed to demonstrate that its proposed harvesting plan will be protective of forest health and avoid causing an undue adverse effect to the natural environment as required by [state law]. Mr. Ingold's claims that the Project would use 12 percent of the current total volume of wood harvested are incorrect.
“The total available wood, wood not currently harvested, is estimated by the 2007 BERC Report is 894,000 green tons, and the requirement for (the) Project from the Vermont supply is 300,000, which would be roughly 30 percent of the available wood.”
* * *
On Feb. 19, Dr. Asa Hopkins of the Department of Public Service filed the following rebuttal testimony with the PSB in response to testimony by Dan Ingold, claiming NSSEP would meet Vermont's renewable energy goals:
“Without a power purchase agreement (PPA) between the proposed facility and a Vermont utility, the proposed facility does not contribute to either the state's renewable energy goals or its need for electric service.
“None of the state's [Sustainably Priced Energy Development] goals, the goals of the Vermont 25 x 25 Initiative, or the needs of the state's utilities for energy or capacity is met by the proposed facility in the absence of a PPA with a Vermont retail utility.”
The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan projects that a 40-megawatt biomass facility would generate only 1.02 percent of the state's load in 2025, not the 6 percent that Winstanley claims.
It hardly seems plausible that NSSEP would want to cut down millions of acres of trees for 1 percent of Vermont's electricity needs and there is no guarantee the electricity will actually be used in Vermont by Vermont utilities.
* * *
In March 2011, Gov. Peter Shumlin said, “I am committed to aggressively fighting interstate air pollution and climate change. Coal-fired power plants in the Midwest are significant emitters of carbon dioxide, which is the primary greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. Climate impacts in Vermont include the loss of our hardwood trees, including Sugar Maples, the spread of insect pests impacting our forests, waters, and public health, and increased soil erosion.”
He easily could have been talking about industrial biomass plants, like NSSEP in North Springfield, not coal-fired power plants in the Midwest.
Ideally for me, Winstanley would use his honed business skills and savvy and cut his losses by withdrawing the NSSEP application for a Certificate of Public Good.
Barring that, it is imperative for Vermonters to voice their opposition to industrial biomass plants that are geared to destroy our native forests, our air, and our health to generate less than 1 percent of Vermont's electrical load in a process that is only 26 percent efficient.