Key Takeaway: The betrayal of the
2012 compromise on bioenergy, forests, and climate
Proposed changes would roll back every
meaningful protection in the MA biomass rules
Will allow the Palmer Renewable Energy
plant (35 MW electricity-only) to be built in Springfield
Financial support for a polluting
industry, when we should be focusing on non-emitting power
DOER’s “wood availability” study cedes the forest carbon sink to biomass
developers
The biomass regulations should be strengthened to reflect
climate urgency, not weakened
Current state of MA bioenergy, forests,
and climate science
Climate scientists say we need to cut
emissions in half in the next ten years
Biomass power plants emit more CO2 pollution
than coal or gas plants; the impact lasts decades
Massachusetts biomass rules lead the
nation and the world; DOER wants to roll them back
MA and New England are already falling
short of our emission reduction goals
Renewable energy in MA and New England
is dominated by wood and garbage-burning
DOER’s proposal will increase CO2 emissions
from wood-burning power plants
Eliminates definition and reporting of
lifecycle GHG emissions
Changes timeframe for bioenergy GHG
“benefit” from 20 years to 30 years (should be 10 or less!)
Reduces plant efficiency requirement for
plants burning forest residues and thinnings
Eliminates efficiency requirement for
“salvage” wood and non-forest residues
Counts fuel-drying as “useful” energy,
thereby increasing net CO2 emissions
Allows “offsetting” of emissions
violations from year to year
Proposal will increase air pollution
from bioenergy
Eliminates requirement that plants
demonstrate they can meet emissions criteria
Proposal increases wood treated falsely
as having “low” or “zero” emissions
Over-represents benefits of forestry
residues, then broadly classifies fuels as residues
Defines trees damaged during logging
operations, trees harvested for restoration as “residues”
Defines more trees as “thinnings”
Massively increases amount of wood
classified as “salvage”
Expands definition of mill residues
Post-consumer wood & agricultural
wood waste: Classified as non-forestry residues with minimal carbon impact
Retains classification of trees cut for
agriculture as non-forest residues
Abolishes definition of energy crops
Proposal would increase emissions from
liquid/gaseous biofuels
Adopts carbon accounting that treats all
biomass as having zero carbon emissions
Reduces accountability, transparency,
& citizen oversight of GHG accounting
Reduces and eliminates protections for
forests adopted in the 2012 rules
Replaces real metrics with bogus
“Sustainable Forestry” provisions