From: NICHOLAS WARREN <warren4023@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 4:30 PM
To: RPS, DOER (ENE)
Subject: Re: To Mr John Wassam, re proposed RPS and APS regulation
changes
Dear Mr. Wassam. It has come to our attention that DOER
personnel might be a bit nervous about opening attachments. Therefore, I
have pasted the text of our comments into the body of this letter, below my
original email. This is the same information as the attachment sent on
June 11. Thank you.
Nicholas Warren, for CAG
From: NICHOLAS WARREN
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 12:13 PM
To: DOER.RPS@mass.gov
Subject: To Mr John Wassam, re proposed RPS and APS regulation changes
Dear Mr. Wassam.
Attached is a document opposing the proposed regulation changes,
from the Climate Action Group CAG) of the Unitarian Society of Northampton and Florence.
If there is any need for clarification or further documentation, please feel
free to contact me at this email address or my phone, 413-588-7966.
Thank you for your consideration.
Nicholas Warren
Mr. John Wassam June
11, 2010
Department of Energy Resources
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020
Boston, MA
Re: proposed RPS and APS
regulation changes
Dear
Mr. Wassam
Thanks to the DOER for conducting the series of public hearings
regarding proposed changes to the RPS and APS regulations. Several members of the Climate Action Group
(CAG) of the Unitarian Society of Northampton and Florence attended the
Springfield hearings on 6/5 and found the wide range of opinions interesting
and helpful.
Speakers who favor the regulation changes are seeking ways to
manage ‘waste’ wood, wood that is currently being cut down or stored due to
weather, disease, roadway projects, forestry management, and other projects.
Also, there is an understandable concern about employment for skilled and
less-skilled workers.
Speakers opposing the proposed regulation, many of them residents
of Springfield, have strong concerns about biomass incineration increasing
rates of asthma and other negative health outcomes (already high in the area),
as well as a CO2 production greater than that of burning coal, thus
contributing to climate change. Unfortunately, the forum structure did not
permit or encourage dialogue about these differences in perspective.
Reflecting on these differences, the Climate Action Group argues
strongly against the proposed regulatory changes for reasons of both climate change
mitigation and public health. We wish to
add the following points for DOER consideration:
There are thus two major
reasons to reject the proposed changes in these regulations. The public health argument sees only further
degradation to the air quality in our valley and, indeed, New England, if
biomass energy production is allowed, much less incentivized. And the climate emergency faced by our region
and the world will only be exacerbated by the excess CO2 (given the
unacceptably long time lag to achieve carbon neutrality) produced by biomass
energy production. Thus, there is no
rational argument for the regulatory changes that expand and incentivize
biomass energy production.
Nick Warren
Bill Diamond
Brit Albritton
Sarah Metcalf
Ed Olmstead
For the Climate Action
Group (CAG) of the Unitarian Society of Northampton and Florence