http://www.vermonttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/RH/20130323/OPINION02/703239979
Published March 23, 2013 in the Rutland Herald
Robert Kischko
Open letter to Vermont electric ratepayers:
The state’s electric utilities all have a corporate responsibility to protect the environment and learn the facts on what renewable energy is and what real damage a wood-to-electricity generating plant has on the environment, how it affects climate change and, more importantly, the damage to local communities and let’s not forget the ratepayers.
The proposed biomass facility in North Springfield will produce approximately 448,700 tons of greenhouse gas each year. It would be the state’s third-largest power plant.
In December, we received a note from GMP in our monthly bill indicating a change in rates in the Energy Efficiency Charge (EEC) to help fund Efficiency Vermont. In Efficiency Vermont’s 2011 annual report it is noted that through their good efforts they avoided approximately 695,000 tons of CO2 or greenhouse gas at a cost of $40.2 million. Money that supports Efficiency Vermont come from the EEC or more directly from the ratepayers of Vermont.
So on one hand we are working hard in offsetting greenhouse gas by spending millions of ratepayer dollars on “energy-efficient projects and programs.” Yet it appears that our electric utilities and the state may look the other way when it comes to climate change and the real efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
When this plant emits CO2 at a rate of 448,700 tons yearly, only to have ratepayers offset greenhouse gas through Efficiency Vermont programs at a cost of approximately $26 million per year or $1.3 billion over the lifetime of the plant (using Efficiency Vermont’s own numbers), maybe those offset costs should be made part of the certificate of public good and those costs should be directly paid by the developer and not the ratepayers, or better yet not be given approval.
The state has made gains over these past 10 years to curb greenhouse gas emissions through the good work of Efficiency Vermont. That good work will be down the drain if this facility is built.
On March 17, 2011, in Montpelier, Gov. Peter Shumlin spoke to the importance of climate change and Vermont’s role in ensuring future generations do not inherit the negative side effects of our country’s greenhouse gas emissions.
“I am committed to aggressively fighting interstate air pollution and climate change,” the governor said. “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.”
One can only hope that the Public Service Board will consider the ratepayers and when the time comes to truly represent the “public good” and not grant a certificate of public good. Ask yourselves, is this project in the best interest of the public and the ratepayer?
ROBERT F. KISCHKO
(Chairman, North Springfield Action Group)
North Springfield
Well, well, Bobby K and the NOSAGs are now resorting to climate change and greenhouse gasses in their desperation to stop the biomass plant. Hey Bobby, when you and your neighbors stop driving your greenhouse gas emitting autos and burning wood or other carbon based products to heat your homes, maybe then we'll take you seriously as good stewards of the planet Earth. Until then, quit reaching for lofty arguments from pop culture as cover for your NIMBY pursuits.
ReplyDeleteThe greenhouse gases are a fallacy when you burn wood. It will produce the same greenhouse gas if left to rot in the forest. A little education before you spout off would help your cause, instead of the mistruths.
ReplyDeleteI guess we are missing the point - those of us who pay electric utility bills are paying to offset GHG emissions by the very fact we support Eff. Vermont.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, the Department who is responsible for Vermont’s forest health states that “ The carbon sequestration information, presented as background material (by the Petitioner) …. does not reflect our (State of Vermont’s) current, science based, status on forest health, biomass availability and carbon neutrality. Therefore, it is not appropriate to rely upon it for the purpose of evaluating the forest health impacts of this project.”
“…burning wood emits carbon dioxide that was stored over the lifetime of a tree. EPA is presently considering a carbon accounting system that uses the gross emissions at the stationary source, and then incorporates a biogenic accounting factor that reflects changes in forest carbon stocks. The results will rarely be carbon neutral, but would be less than the gross emissions. Any claim by the Petitioner that their project is “carbon neutral” is, at this point, unsupportable. This is especially true in light of the fact that their proposed harvesting policy fails to incorporate the elements necessary to promote the regeneration of healthy forests needed to sequester carbon.”
“The time span between emissions and recycling back to forest carbon sequestration takes decades or, in the case of regeneration failures, not at all. Considering the targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions established by the Governor and under the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change, Vermont has established aggressive goals of reducing emissions from 1990 baseline levels as follows: 25 percent by 2012; 50 percent by 2028; and, if practicable using reasonable efforts, 75 percent by 2050 (10 V.S.A. § 578, 21 Greenhouse gas reduction goals). The latest GHG inventory shows that more measures are needed to meet these targets (Agency of Natural Resources, 2010). Therefore we have competing demands placed on forests: to hold current carbon stored in trees and remove additional carbon dioxide, or use this resource to create energy, and as a result emit carbon dioxide through combustion. The carbon released by the proposed North Springfield project would undercut these goals because carbon released each year of operation will not be sequestered until future years.”
Short of saying this plant should not be built, our own Foresters have it right, this plant is not carbon neutral and these facilities add significant amounts of GHG that impact climate change.
When under Section 248 the PSB is mandated that a proposed facility shall “incorporate commercially available and feasible designs to achieve reasonable design system efficiency for the type and design of the proposed facility.” Would anyone consider anything at 26.1% efficient a reasonable efficiency? Most people would say not efficient or reasonable.
The PSB is also mandated with the following charges “with respect to purchases, an investment, or construction by a company, is consistent with the principles for resource selection expressed in that company's approved least cost integrated plan.”
Think about it, on one hand we spend millions to offset GHG impacts…on the other we could allow a 448,700 ton per year plant that receives Federal Tax Credits only to offset those GHG emissions with more ratepayer monies. I guess I don’t fully understand this “Green Energy” maybe the folks who commented could help us understand this complex issue.
Thank you, Bobby K. That was very informative!
ReplyDelete