State, biomass plant developer disagree over scope of review

Both the Agency of Natural Resources and the Department of Public Service are opposing an assertion by the developers of the North Springfield wood energy plant that it shouldn’t have to prove the need for its electricity nor its thermal efficiency when the project is reviewed by the Public Service Board.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20120420/NEWS02/704209943/

Published April 20, 2012 in the Rutland Herald
State, biomass plant developer disagree over scope of review

By SUSAN SMALLHEER
Staff Writer

MONTPELIER — Both the Agency of Natural Resources and the Department of Public Service are opposing an assertion by the developers of the North Springfield wood energy plant that it shouldn’t have to prove the need for its electricity nor its thermal efficiency when the project is reviewed by the Public Service Board.

In recent filings with the Public Service Board, both state agencies said that the developers of the North Springfield biomass plant needed to demonstrate the need for the project.

In addition, the Public Service Board can review the project — as can parties to the project — based on its thermal efficiency, both agencies said.

“Petitioner misconstrues the board rules upon which it relies,” wrote John Beling, director of public advocacy for the Department of Public Service.

Beling said Thursday that the developer had “misconstrued” sections of state law dealing with renewable energy projects.

He said that the rules for the state’s renewable energy projects had been amended “very broadly” and that while the issue of need has been waived for small power projects under 2.2 megawatts of electricity, it had not been similarly waived for larger projects, such as the North Springfield biomass project.

Likewise, Donald Einhorn, an attorney with the Agency of Natural Resources, said the issue came up when the developers said the issue of thermal efficiency was “not relevant” and thus couldn’t be raised by project opponents during upcoming hearings before the Public Service Board.

Einhorn said that while “efficiency” was not a specific criteria in Section 248 — the state law that governs power plant projects — the Public Service Board had allowed similar review.

If a power plant is inefficient of natural resources, such as wood, that should be reviewed, said Einhorn.

Chan Morgan, an official with the North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project, said Thursday thermal efficiency was “impossible to do scientifically. There is no basis of putting a thermal efficiency on any of the (biomass) plants, there’s no justification for it.”

Morgan said a three-year study of biomass commissioned by the Vermont Legislature came to that conclusion.

Morgan said likewise the Public Service Board would determine the need for the project in its overall assessment of the project. Often, Morgan said, power contracts are difficult if not impossible to reach until the project gets a certificate of public good from the state, saying it was a “chicken and egg” situation.

Beiling said the Department of Public Service agreed with the Agency of Natural Resources that thermal efficiency could be measured and assessed.

“The department concurs with the ANR ... that thermal efficiency can be evaluated and presented by ANR for the board’s consideration,” Beling wrote.

“People with standing should be permitted to inquire about the thermal efficiency” of the project, he concluded.