If a tree falls in the forest in order to fuel in an inefficient electric power plant, does it make noise?  You bet it does.  This morning, dozens of advocates rallied at the Massachusetts State House to make a little noise while calling for the strengthening of the Commonwealth’s rules for forest wood-fueled – i.e., “biomass” – energy incentives.

Last year, we cheered as the Patrick Administration commissioned a ground-breaking study, known as the “Manomet Report,” to help understand the climate impacts of biomass energy.  That Report reaffirmed a growing scientific understanding that burning whole trees for energy can be worse than burning coal because of what I refer to as the “double whammy” effect:  (1) the immediate release into the atmosphere of the carbon stored in the tree; and (2) the tree that has been cut no longer is available to absorb new carbon from the atmosphere – or help promote clean water, wildlife habitat, shade or other benefits.

Based on the Manomet Report, the Administration released an encouraging framework for revised biomass regulations that included the key policy pillars of science-based carbon accounting, strong sustainable harvesting requirements, and minimum efficiency standards for capturing the energy stored in biomass fuels.  Unfortunately, the latest version of the regulations and related guidance have been substantially weakened, treating all forms of biomass as “carbon neutral” over a short period of time, promoting the removal of all harvest residues from the forest floor, and encouraging the cutting of whole trees for biomass fuel.  This retreat is disturbing both in terms of likely impacts in Massachusetts and the precedent it would set for other states, the nation, and beyond.

As we spelled out at today’s State House rally, Massachusetts still has an historic opportunity to “get it right”.  To make this happen, CLF and many others are asking for three simple things:

1.       The final biomass regulations must be based on the SCIENCE, consistent with the core lessons of the Manomet Report;

2.       Incentives must be reserved for practices that DO NO HARM to our forests, for example by leaving sufficient tree tops and limbs in forests to replenish soil nutrients and provide habitat;

3.       Benefits should be limited to those practices and facilities that AVOID WASTE by efficiently using biomass fuel, ensuring that the majority of its energy potential is captured and used.

The specific changes to the draft rules that we are seeking are spelled out in greater detail here.

Massachusetts’ forests currently absorb a whopping 10% of all the greenhouse gas emissions we produce each year from electric power generation, transportation, heating, cooling and all other activities combined. This doesn’t mean that we need to leave all forests untouched – there is a role for sustainably harvested forest products of many kinds, just as there is a role for untouched forest reserves.  But we do need to watch out for the “double whammy” and make certain that limited ratepayer-funded clean energy dollars are not steered toward wasteful forest harvesting and combustion practices that would move us away from the clean energy future we seek.

Much like a joy-riding ATVer testing the power of his off-road machine, the leadership of Vermont’s Natural Resources agency seems hell-bent on riding roughshod over any obstacle in the way of its proposal to open state-owned forests, parks, and wildlife areas to recreational ATV trails.

As I wrote earlier on this blog, the agency leadership revved its engines and ran right over opposition from concerned members of the public who commented on the rule–by the agency’s own estimate, commenters opposed the proposal by a ratio of 4-to-1.  The professional objections of its own scientists, game wardens, and on-the-ground land managers didn’t slow agency leaders down either.  In public documents obtained by CLF and reported in the press, career Agency employees expressed concerns about the damage to public and private property caused by illegal ATV use that ANR already struggles to control with existing resources.  They also worried about the strain that managing the numerous public safety and environmental impacts surrounding ATV trails would place on an understaffed agency reeling from more job cuts.  

Vermont’s legislative process and the rule of law is the last obstacle in the way of ANR’s ATV proposal.  With your help, this could be the obstacle that stops this irresponsible proposal in its tracks.

Prior to a hearing of the legislative committee that serves as an important check against arbitrary and illegal power-grabs by the political appointees who run state agencies, news reports indicated that a bi-partisan majority of the committee’s legislators are prepared to formally object to the Agency’s proposal.  At the hearing, legislators listened politely as the agency’s top lawyer and its Secretary essentially claimed that the Secretary has inherent authority to allow state lands to be used however he sees fit and further that a single ambiguous sentence in a 1983 motor vehicle law specifically grants the Secretary unfettered discretion to write rules opening state lands to ATVs.  But the legislators had done their homework and had an answer for the agency’s questionable legal analysis. 

Representative Richard Marek (D-Newfane) proposed that the committee adopt a written objection to the rule that debunks the Agency’s claims demonstrating how it is contrary to the legislature’s intent and beyond the authority the legislature has granted to the agency.  You can read the committee’s proposed objection on CLF’s web site.  In keeping with the narrow focus of the committee, the proposed objection articulates reasons why the rule is an affront to good government process and the rule of law.  It doesn’t mention the many policy reasons why the ATV proposal is deeply flawed because those questions are best left to the full legislature.  It’s pretty clear that is where this issue may be headed come January.  A defiant agency leadership seems poised to adopt the rule even if the committee formally votes to object at its next meeting on December 15.

This sets the agency and the full legislature on a potential collision course and may also land the agency in court.  Though ANR can adopt the rule over the objection of the rules committee, the legislature could completely repeal the rule by passing a new law.  State law also makes it much easier for groups like CLF to challenge illegal rules when an agency moves forward in spite of a legislative objection. 

Here are three ways you can help protect Vermont forests, parks, and wildlife areas from being transformed into motorized theme parks by ANR:

1. Call your legislator and voice your opposition.  This is especially important if your legislator is on the administrative rules committee scheduled to vote on December 15.
2. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper expressing your opposition.
3. Make a donation to CLF so that we can continue our efforts to protect state lands in the legislature and, if need be, in court.