From: Peter Wackernagel <pwackernagel@umass.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 11:32 AM
To: RPS, DOER (ENE)
Subject: Comment against biomass as a renewable energy source
Dear John Wassam,
I am a graduate student in landscape architecture at UMASS-Amherst and have been working in Springfield for the past year. I am writing in opposition to the idea that biomass energy is renewable, and that renewable subsidies should be conferred on biomass energy generation. While under one definition forests are renewable in that they regrow in a relatively short period of time, I think that this definition misses the spirit of what renewable energy should be. In the colonial era, most of Massachusetts' forests were felled, mainly for burning for heat or in the production of metal and other products. Must we begin this process again? Further, the idea that a biomass plant would be sited in Springfield is absurd--it contradicts the most basic ideas of environmental justice, and suggests that the people of Springfield, their bodies and their health, are worthless, expendable, or sacrificial. The conversion of the Mt. Tom Station from coal to solar was a major positive step for the Valley's air quality. Let us not undo this progress by making policy that would allow an equally health-damaging facility to exist in Springfield. I hope that for these reasons, biomass will not be made eligible for renewable energy credits.
Thank you,
Peter Wackernagel
MLA Candidate '20