The Patrick Administration recently released new rules on biomass energy that will do more to protect critical forest resources. Photo credit: Lizard10979 @ flickr.

Last week, the Patrick Administration released new proposed final rules and guidance on the state’s incentives for biomass energy. It is a big win for our forests, for the role of science in policy making, for efficiency, and for environmental advocates across Massachusetts. I’m proud of the Patrick administration for their tireless work on this issue.

So, what exactly IS biomass? Generally speaking, in the energy context, “biomass” refers to a class of fuels derived from trees and plants. Other types of biomass fuel are organic wastes such as livestock manure, spoiled food, and even sewage. These fuels are, in turn, converted into various forms of useful energy (electricity, heat, transportation fuels) by a very broad spectrum of established and emerging technologies.

When we hear about biomass energy, most often the focus is on large electric power plants. There are many such biomass power plant proposals pending throughout New England, including several in Massachusetts. We hear about them in the news, but rarely is there much talk about why so many biomass power plants are in the permitting pipeline right now. Although not often noted, the reality is that these projects are responding to state and federal economic incentives.

One might assume that state and federal biomass incentives are specifically designed to promote projects consistent with our clean energy and climate objectives, right? Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

Understanding of the substantial potential climate and environmental impacts of biomass power plants has lagged behind the incentive programs. When the incentive programs were created, no one was focused on the potential climate impacts of building power plants that burn whole trees to produce electricity, for example. The thinking was that if a tree were used as fuel, it simply needed to be replaced with a newly planted tree and – voila! – some of our energy needs would be met with a “renewable” fuel.

To the contrary, as we now understand, burning whole trees as fuel results in a climate “double whammy”:

1. Instantaneously releasing all the carbon stored in each tree into the atmosphere; while also
2. Taking whole trees out of commission as carbon “sinks,” no longer capturing and storing new carbon emissions.

Thankfully, the last few years have provided a huge wake-up call. We’ve seen an increasing body of peer-reviewed science about the potential climate impacts of irresponsible use of biomass energy. The forward-looking Patrick Administration itself commissioned a groundbreaking study, culminating in the 2010 “Manomet Report,” to bring that science home to Massachusetts in the context of a hard look at better-designed state incentives for biomass. And now, just last week, the Patrick Administration released new proposed final rules and guidance that infuse this science into the state’s biomass incentives. You can read a copy of CLF’s official statement here.

From a preliminary review, we are delighted to see that the newly proposed Massachusetts rules embrace the three key pillars of responsible policy governing biomass incentives:

1. Adopting science-based standards to seriously account for the climate impacts of eligible biomass facilities and the fuels they use, and ensuring that incentives no longer will be directed toward projects that can seriously undermine our climate objectives;
2. Curbing wasteful use of limited biomass resources by requiring most eligible facilities to meet a minimum efficiency standard of 50-60% (as compared to many existing facilities that are in the range of only 25% efficient);
3. Protecting forests against over harvesting of biomass fuels, for example by prohibiting the harvest of fuels from old growth forests or steep slopes that are vulnerable to erosion, requiring minimum amounts of tree tops and limbs to be retained on the forest floor to replenish nutrients and provide habitat, etc.

Hats off to the Patrick Administration and the team of policymakers who worked tirelessly to infuse the science into such an important policy! They appear to have done a remarkable job balancing many competing interests and considerations, setting a standard that we hope other states and the nation will follow.

CLF's Peter Shelley accepts EPA's Environmental Merit Award on behalf of CLF and CRWA. (Photo credit: Emily Long)

Yesterday, CLF and the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA)  received an Environmental Merit Award from the New England office of the U.S. EPA in recognition of their exceptional work on reducing discharge of heated water from the GenOn Kendall Cogeneration Plant (formerly known as Mirant Kendall) in Cambridge, MA. The award was presented at a ceremony at Faneuil Hall in Boston.

Led by CLF Senior Counsel Peter Shelley, the two groups and other key stakeholders, undertook five years of negotiations to reduce the massive amounts of heated water that the plant was discharging into the Charles River, killing fish and destroying the river ecosystem. As a result, in February 2011, EPA issued a new water quality permit that requires the plant to reduce its heat discharge and water withdrawal by approximately 95 percent, and to ensure that any heated discharge does not warm the river enough to cause harm. In addition, the plant will capture most of the heat generated by the plant and distribute it as steam through a new pipeline to be built across the Longfellow Bridge over the next few years, at which point the excess steam will be used to heat buildings in Boston. More >

Somerset residents gather in front of the plant. (Photo credit: Shanna Cleveland, CLF)

Massachusetts moved one step closer to a coal-free future this week as NRG, owner the Somerset Station power plant located in Somerset, MA, announced that it will shut the plant down permanently, effective immediately. The 85-year-old plant shut down initially in January 2010, after CLF and Somerset residents brought an appeal with regard to NRG’s plans to repower the plant using an experimental technology known as plasma gasification. Earlier this month, NRG asked the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) to withdraw approvals for those plans, saying the company had decided not to pursue its plasma gasification project that would have used fuels including coal, construction and demolition debris and woody biomass. MA DEP granted the request on February 18. More >

Learn more about CLF’s Coal-free New England Campaign >

Members of Mt. Holyoke's crew team pass Mt. Tom in the early morning.

CLF today announced that it intends to file a federal citizen suit against Mt. Tom Generating Company, FirstLight Power Resources and GDF Suez North America, the owners of Mt. Tom Station, for ongoing violations of the Clean Air Act. Mt. Tom, a 50-year-old coal-fired power plant in Holyoke, MA, is one of the top five sources of toxic emissions in the state, and one of the plants targeted by CLF’s Coal-Free New England campaign.

“The soot Mt. Tom releases contains dangerous pollutants that threaten the health of everyone who breathes them–particularly children and the elderly,” said CLF staff attorney Shanna Cleveland. “Despite recent investments in new technology, this plant is unable to operate in compliance with the law, and therefore within the limits of what is considered safe for human health.” More >

Today marks a new milestone for CLF in our efforts to clean up the lower Charles River. Concluding a five-year negotiation, involving CLF and the other key stakeholders, the EPA issued a new water quality permit for the Kendall (formerly Mirant Kendall) Power Plant, a natural gas cogeneration facility owned by GenOn Energy. The plant is located on the Cambridge side of the Longfellow Bridge.

The new permit requires the plant to reduce its heat discharge and water withdrawal by approximately 95 percent, and to ensure that any heated discharge does not warm the river enough to cause harm.

The outcome is remarkable, not just for the dramatic improvements it will achieve in the lower Charles, but for the way in which the parties “got to yes.”

The plant will meet the new requirements by upgrading its existing “once-through” cooling system, to a new, closed-loop system. Kendall will capture most of the heat generated by the plant and distribute it as steam through a new pipeline to be built across the Longfellow Bridge over the next few years. The combination of the new co-generation turbine and expanded pipeline will allow Kendall to drastically reduce the amount of water it extracts from the Charles River, take more heat out of the plant, and double the amount of steam it can sells to heat buildings in the city of Boston.

It’s what’s known in the business as a “win-win situation.”

Today’s events would not have happened without the incredible efforts of two former CLFers: Carol Lee Rawn, who was a senior attorney in our Boston office, and Jud Crawford, who was senior scientist. They put together the case and the legal challenge to the Mirant Kendall permits based on a demonstration that EPA’s proposed heat discharges would threaten the fish and biological system in the lower Charles. They also showed that the proposed water intake damaged fish eggs, larvae, juvenile and adult fish and that better technologies were available in the market. CLF represented the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), who was the perfect conservation partner for our effort.

The outcome of this case has taught CLF a number of lessons. First, that being there is half the game. If we hadn’t appealed the EPA permit, none of this would have happened, no question. EPA and Mirant Kendall ultimately showed strong leadership qualities but needed a strong push. Second, that having a range of integrated advocacy initiatives can produce multiple, serendipitous results across the spectrum of CLF’s work in clean energy, clean water, ocean conservation and healthy communities. This single decision will create an opportunity for co-generation in an urban community, improve the health of our rivers and marine life, increase the quality of life for Esplanade users and river fishermen, and reduce green house gas emissions. Third, that a mix of good science and strong legal expertise is essential to our ability to make a credible challenge. And finally, that courtesy of all of the above and the generous and faithful support of our members over the past five years,  the Charles may one day be truly swimmable and fishable again.

For more information, you can read CLF’s press release, and check out the coverage in today’s Boston Globe.

Articles in this morning’s Boston Globe and Salem News describe an important shift in the status of Salem Harbor Station and highlight the need for ISO New England (ISO-NE) to go beyond the analyses it has done in the past so that it can finally identify an alternative that will actually solve the reliability issue that has dogged efforts to retire the plant since 2003.  That is the subject of the recent protest filed by CLF asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to require ISO-NE to perform an expedited analysis of the alternatives and establish a timeline for implementation.

ISO-NE’s failure to identify solutions that will relieve the need for Salem Harbor Station has resulted in decisions that will cost ratepayers up to $18.5 million in above market payments in 2012-2013 and up to $16.9 million in 2013-2014. ISO-NE could avoid imposing these costs on ratepayers by implementing an alternative that would allow the plant to retire by 2012.

However, if ISO-NE rejects Dominion’s recent “permanent delist bid” – its latest and most telling signal that it wants to retire the plant – on the basis of reliability, ratepayers face the risk of even higher costs. The reality is that ratepayers pay more per kilowatt for electricity from Salem Harbor Station than they pay for other sources of electricity in the capacity market ranging from natural gas to nuclear and renewable.  This dispels the perception that coal is a cheap source of electricity.   Importantly, these additional costs aren’t spread among ratepayers throughout New England; instead, they are passed on solely to the ratepayers in northeastern Massachusetts, the same people who already bear the costs of additional medical expenses from the heart and lung diseases and other illnesses caused by pollution from the plant.  A study released by Clean Air Task Force concluded that pollution from the Salem Harbor Station causes 20 deaths, 36 heart attacks and 316 asthma attacks every year.

These costs diminish any economic benefits that the City of Salem receives from tax payments and jobs at the plant, and the likelihood that Dominion will retire in 2014 if its de-list bid is accepted makes it more important than ever that an alternative use for the site be developed to replace the facility.

Dominion’s claims that it is not planning to retire the plant contradict its own filings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  Continuing a tradition of telling the story that best suits its interests depending on the audience, Dominion told the Commission in a 2009 filing that it estimated only three more years of economic viability for the plant.  Dominion spokesman Dan Genest told the Salem News, “We know what it costs us to produce a megawatt of electricity at Salem Harbor Station, and the lower price at auction is not enough to cover our costs to generate electricity.” Despite its claims that it can continue to make profits in other markets, Dominion has said in its own filings that it was likely to lose money in those markets.

The bottom line is that ISO-NE has a responsibility to find an alternative to replace Salem Harbor Station that will cost less.  Now that the threat of even higher costs looms, protecting ratepayers demands a solution by no later than 2014, and the public health and environmental harms caused by the operation of this 60 year old coal and oil-fired relic weighs heavily in favor of shutting down the plant as soon as possible.