From:                              Dianne Plantamura <dlplant@comcast.net>

Sent:                               Friday, June 7, 2019 9:46 PM

To:                                   RPS, DOER (ENE)

Subject:                          RPS - why I'm opposed

 

John Wassam

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

                                                                             June 7, 2019

Dear Mr. Wassam,

 

I oppose the changes to the 2012 RPS bioenergy rules proposed by DOER.  RPS as it currently stands was enacted to reduce the carbon emissions in Massachusetts. The Governor says he wants to reduce carbon emissions, the people of the Commonwealth have voiced loud and clear that they want to reduce carbon emissions.  They need your leadership! Our world is on the brink of a climate disaster. We must work together to do everything in our power to reduce carbon and other emissions.  Since burning wood is worse, from both a climate crisis and air pollution point of view, than burning any fossil fuel including coal, it makes no sense to roll back the requirements for burning biomass.

 

The increased particulate matter emission will exacerbate asthma and other lung conditions that only stand to worsen as the climate crisis continues. Reducing the required efficiency of plants will encourage more inefficient plants to be built, worsening the climate emergency.

 

Allowing whole trees to be included in the biomass mix, will encourage more clearing of forests – this has happened in the southeastern US, it would be inevitable as hungry industry seeks profits. Trees have value other than for lumber and burning. They sequester carbon, reducing the level of global heating. There is no such thing as “sustainable harvesting.” We need to protect trees, not threaten them. Wood pulp or “leftover” wood from pruning, can be left to release its carbon slowly over time, or we can find other products that can actually be made from these “scraps.” The bottom line is to reduce and redirect climate changing carbon emissions!

 

Changing the timeframe over which facilities must show a net reduction in emissions over fossil fuels from 20 to 30 years is absurd. The IPCC says we have ELEVEN years to reduce GHG emissions. Twenty years is too long. Thirty years is folly.

 

Additionally, biomass plants are not financially viable without subsidies, subsidies taken from the Massachusetts taxpayer. Since biomass is not a renewable energy source (over the period of time where we might have the ability to extract ourselves from the climate crisis) biomass should not be included in the RPS even as the rules are written now and certainly not as you propose to change them.

 

I oppose your proposed changes to the RPS regulations. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dianne Plantamura

22 Mill Street

Groveland, MA 01834