From:                                         Janice Kurkoski <jdauphin3@hotmail.com>

Sent:                                           Friday, June 7, 2019 9:50 AM

To:                                               RPS, DOER (ENE)

Subject:                                     DEOR's proposed changes to the RPS - biomass

 

Dear Mr. John Wassman,

 

I am writing with my concerns about DOER's recent proposals to weaken the RPS requirements for biomass-burning operations in MA.

 

In December 2009, DOER issued a letter about this.

Here is an excerpt:

"The Department of Energy Resource is committed to the continued growth of renewable energy for the Commonwealth. Our policies and programs for renewable energy are intricately tied to our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect our natural environment. While we remain interested in the role that biomass energy can play in serving these interrelated goals, we are also keenly aware that the unregulated development of biomass does not guarantee that these goals will be met. Futher, we recognize that understanding the complex interrelations of biomass energy, forest management, and greenhouse gas accounting requires a scientific approach that takes full advantage of the available scientific literature and objective research."

So the Manomet study was commissioned to study this, using a "scientific approach".

The results indicate that bio-mass burning should NOT be on par with solar and wind, and is even, in most cases, worse than burning fossil fuels when measuring CO2.

 

If you really want to do something useful with forest products and residues, then please bring on the manufacturing of wood fiber insulation, as is being done in Madison Maine (https://golab.us/), and "glulam" laminated timbers, like the ones used in the UMass Amherst Design Building - now primarily being made in Canada.

Even the use of lowly cellulose insulation should be promoted and used in the building and renovation trades much more than the fossil-fuel based alternatives such as foam.

 

Please consider what is called the "full life cycle" of harvesting our forests - the CO2e of cutting, transportation, etc., and then either burning the products of the forest or manufacturing those products that will "lock up" the carbon for many years, in a well insulated building, for example, that will in itself save much energy for years to come - no matter how that building is heated and cooled.

 

Thanks for your time,

 

Janice Kurkoski,

Chair, Warwick Buildings & Energy Committee