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