Ruling from the administration strikes blow to biomass project

April 21, 2021 | G. Michael Dobbs
news@thereminder.com

SPRINGFIELD – A change in policy from the Baker Administration could make the Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) facility a non-starter.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection recently had revoked the necessary permit for the project to move forward, but PRE had reportedly planned to appeal.

The newest development, according to a statement from Springfield City Councilor Jesse Lederman, is the Baker Administration would not allow the project to receive “millions of dollars in rate-payer funded renewable energy credits towards large scale biomass incinerators.”

PRE is the only such project proposed in the commonwealth. “The new standard is also reported to prohibit biomass projects from being constructed within five miles of an Environmental Justice community, of which Springfield is one,” Lederman’s statement continued.

“The reports that the Baker Administration will reverse course on their plans to grant renewable energy credits for large-scale biomass incinerators are the direct result of grassroots action by residents, activists, and local elected officials both here in Springfield and across the state, and acknowledges what the science told us: biomass incineration is not renewable energy. The days of polluters being rubber stamped – and financed by our own tax dollars – in communities like ours are over. Ten years ago these sorts of protections did not exist for our communities – they will now because of people coming together and making change at the state and local level. That is the lesson of our history, and it must also be the promise of our future,” Lederman said.

Colin Young of the State House News Service reported, “Proposed changes to state regulations would make a controversial wood-burning power plant planned for Springfield ineligible for renewable energy credits and would require all new biomass projects to be more efficient. The Baker administration put forward a new set of changes to the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) regulations [on April 16] that are specific to biomass plants like the Palmer Renewable Energy project that opponents say would be one of the most significant polluters in Western Massachusetts and would contribute to pollution in an environmental justice community that already ranks as the worst place in the U.S. to live with asthma.

“The updates to the RPS regulations today make a key change. Biomass projects are now prohibited from qualifying for the RPS program if they are located within an environmental justice community or within five miles of an environmental justice community. They will not be eligible for the program,’ Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides said. ‘At the same time, we will also be requiring all new biomass units going into operation after December 31 of 2020 to meet the overall 60 percent efficiency requirement regardless of the type of biomass they’re using.’

“The RPS governs the increasing amount of clean energy that utilities – and now municipal light plants – must purchase each year. Rules that have been in place since 2012 make only efficient combined-heat-and-power biomass plants eligible to sell renewable energy credits into the RPS market. But the Department of Energy Resources issued a revised set of regulations last year that would have allowed biomass facilities to be eligible for the RPS if they used non-forest derived biomass, things like sawdust and utility clearings. That could have made the Springfield project eligible, DOER Commissioner Patrick Woodcock said.

“Under the revised version of those regulations released April 16, Woodcock said, no new facility that would be less than 60 percent efficient could be eligible. He said the Springfield project, as proposed, would be roughly 30 percent efficient. Earlier this month, the state Department of Environmental Protection revoked the Springfield facility's air plan approval ‘due to a lack of continuous construction as required in state regulation, the nine years that have lapsed since the air plan's approval, and public health and Environmental Justice concerns.’”

Share this: