cycle technologies is $59 - $86, depending on the cost of gas. 5 Recently built and proposedbiomass power plants provide examples of the costliness of biopower – for instance, the SouthernCompany’s 116 MW (gross) Nacogdoches plant in Sacul, Texas, the sister facility to theequally large Gainesville Renewable Energy Center in Florida, raised rates for AustinPower customers, and only operated for a few months before being paid to idle, as the utility wasable to purchase cheaper power from wind and natural gas sources. The Gainesville plant raisedrates for its regional customers, as well. In Kentucky, testimony from state hearings on therenewable power purchase agreement between Kentucky Power and the proposed 58 MW (net)ecoPower biomass plant in Hazard indicates that electricity from the plant would raise theaverage residential electricity bill almost $125 per year in one of the poorest regions of the country,eastern Kentucky. 6Additional costs for renewable poweraren’t necessarily unusual, but in the caseof biomass power, developers andproponents justify extra expense byclaiming that biomass power providesWhile a single biomass plants can emit overa million tons of carbon dioxide a year,facilities aren’t ever required to demonstratethese emissions are offset.“clean” and “low carbon” baseload power, as if bioenergy were comparable to wind and solar. Thatsuch claims are misleading is increasingly apparent. Of late, the myth of bioenergy as “climatefriendly”is increasingly crumbling as new science and modeling demonstrate that wood-firedpower plants increase CO 2 emissions over years to decades, even relative to fossil-fueled powerplants. 7 The sheer amount of wood required by these facilities is an indication of their emissions, asforest wood is converted to CO 2 at about a 1:1 rate. 8 For instance, combined demand at the threeconverted Dominion coal plants will be about 2.4 million tons per year, with commensurateCO 2 emissions, and a single facility like the 116 MW Gainesville Renewable Energy plant inFlorida can emit over a million tons of CO 2 per year. The air permit for the 70 MW (gross)Burgess BioPower plant in Berlin, New Hampshire states it will burn close to a milliontons of trees a year, consuming “whole logs” at a rate of 113 tons per hour, 9 the equivalent of clearcuttingmore than one acre of New Hampshire’s forests every hour. While resequestration of theCO 2 emitted by this and other biomass plants being built around the country will require multipledecades, carbon offsets are never actually required to be obtained or demonstrated by these plants.When policy-makers are given a chance to review the forest and greenhouse gas impacts frombiomass energy, they may conclude that it is not worth the costs. For instance, the Vermont PublicService Board recently denied a certificate of “public good” to the proposed 35 MW North540 CFR Parts 60, 70, 71, et al. Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources:Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule. Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 5 Wednesday, January 8, <strong>2014</strong>6Commonwealth of Kentucky, before the Public Service Commission: Application of Kentucky Power concerning the renewableenergy purchase agreement with ecoPower Generation-Hazard, LLC. Case No. 2013-00144. Volume I of court transcript.7For a review, see <strong>PFPI</strong> report to the Securities and Exchange Commission on bioenergy “greenwashing,” athttp://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/<strong>PFPI</strong>-report-to-SEC-on-bioenergy-Nov-20-2013.pdf8 Burning one ton of wood at 45% moisture content, considered an industry standard, emits 1.008 tons of CO 2 .9New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Final Temporary/NSR/PSD Air permit for Laidlaw Berlin BioPower,July 26, 2010.14
Springfield Sustainable Energy wood burning plant in Vermont, stating that the projectwould interfere with the State’s ability to meet statutory goals for reducing greenhouse gases andthat “the evidentiary record supports a finding that the Project would release as much as 448,714 tons of CO2eper year, and that sequestration of those greenhouse gases would not occur until future years, possibly not fordecades, and would not occur at all in the case of forest-regeneration failures.” 10 In Massachusetts, newrules eliminate state renewable energy subsidies for low-efficiency utility-scale biomass plants,because their excessive and long-lasting net CO 2 emissions interfere with the state’s goals ofreducing CO 2 emissions from the power sector. 11With the recent intense focus on greenhousegas emissions from the bioenergy industry,however, less attention has been paid toemissions of conventional air pollutants andMajor loopholes in the Clean Air Act and itsenforcement let biomass power plants emitmore pollution than coal.impacts on air quality. As for claims of carbon neutrality, which often rely on simply not countingCO 2 emissions from biomass power plants, claims that bioenergy is “clean” are usually notsupportable. In fact, even bioenergy facilities employing modern controls like those used at coalplants are disproportionately polluting, primarily because burning wood is inherently polluting andbiomass plants are very inefficient, extracting relatively little “useful” energy for the pollution theyemit. However, also important to bioenergy pollution impacts is the fact that the preeminent lawfor protecting air quality in the United States, the Clean Air Act, contains major loopholes allowingbiomass power plants to pollute more than fossil-fueled facilities. Compounding this, a pattern oflax enforcement and rollbacks on regulation by EPA and the states has widened these loopholes.We wanted to develop a picture of the modern biomass power industry, how it is shaped byregulation, and how it is shaping regulation. To explore these questions, we collected recentlyissued air permits from biomass power plants, tabulating data on pollution controls, fuel use,permitted emissions, and other factors. We focused on recent permits because we assumed theywould restrict pollution emissions to lower levels than typical for the bioenergy industry as awhole, which has traditionally been very polluting. Our analysis ultimately included 88 permits,which, when analyzed as a group, revealed systematic patterns that would not be apparent ifpermits were analyzed individually. What emerges from our analysis is a picture of an industry thatdespite loudly and continually proclaiming itself clean and green, is in many respects still one of thedirtiest corners of the energy industry, an industry where avoidance of pollution restrictions istolerated, and even encouraged, by state and federal regulators. This report explains our findings.10State of Vermont Public Service Board. Docket No. 7833 Petition of North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project LLC, foritself and as agent for Winstanley Enterprises, LLC, for a certificate of public good, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. Section 248,authorizing the installation and operation of a 25-35 MW wood-fired biomass electric generating facility to be located in theNorth Springfield Industrial Park in Springfield, Vermont, to be known as the "North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project"Order entered: 2/11/<strong>2014</strong>. Available at http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/<strong>2014</strong>/02/7833-VT-PSB-on-NSSEP.pdf11 State of Massachusetts 225 CMR 14.00 – Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, Class I. A summary of the regulations isavailable at http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/renewable-energy/biomass/renewable-portfolio-standardbiomass-policy.html.15
- Page 1 and 2: Trees, Trash, and Toxics:How Biomas
- Page 8 and 9: The fix: EPA should regulate bioene
- Page 10 and 11: To test whether the industry emissi
- Page 12 and 13: Verso Bucksport, Bucksport, MEBurge
- Page 16 and 17: The physical reasons why bioenergy
- Page 18 and 19: All three facilities went through a
- Page 20 and 21: supposed to use the technology that
- Page 22 and 23: Bioenergy emissions of criteria pol
- Page 24 and 25: CO 2 and conventional air pollutant
- Page 26 and 27: are federally and practically enfor
- Page 28 and 29: Table 4: Biomass power plants with
- Page 30 and 31: shutdown, when emissions can increa
- Page 32 and 33: Table 5: Biomass power plants with
- Page 34 and 35: Nitrogen oxides (tons per year)Figu
- Page 36 and 37: PM 2.5 , including condensable PM,
- Page 38 and 39: Synthetic minor facilities tend to
- Page 40 and 41: material classified as a commercial
- Page 42 and 43: is regulated under the boiler rule,
- Page 44 and 45: As an incinerator, the facility wou
- Page 46 and 47: Table 8: Industry data helps biomas
- Page 48 and 49: permitting authorities, especially
- Page 50 and 51: La Pine, Oregon, used the NCASI fac
- Page 52 and 53: Connecticut, the permit only requir
- Page 54 and 55: then the load is considered to 100%
- Page 56 and 57: elatively high filterable PM standa
- Page 58 and 59: EPA rules compare contaminant conce
- Page 60 and 61: commodity” - therefore, the facil
- Page 62 and 63: emove obviously contaminated materi
- Page 64 and 65:
developmental and reproductive effe
- Page 66 and 67:
The Evergreen plant is located in t
- Page 68 and 69:
Loophole 4: Most biomass plants hav
- Page 70 and 71:
Summary case studies: the emerging
- Page 72 and 73:
emission limits for HAPs, but does
- Page 74 and 75:
company was permitted to use non-EP
- Page 76 and 77:
Verso Bucksport, Bucksport, MEWhat:
- Page 78 and 79:
Biogreen Sustainable Energy, La Pin
- Page 80 and 81:
iomass from land clearing operation