Hundreds turn out to question biomass as renewable energy

TRAVERSE CITY — Local residents and politicians seem to be at odds over whether to develop a wood burning power plant in Traverse City.

Traverse City’s municipally owned power company has 11,400 customers and currently gets more than 90 percent of its power from downstate coal fired power plants, but has set a goal of achieving 30 percent renewable energy by 2020 — far more that the state goal of 10 by 2015.

The utility has signed a contract for 10 megawatts of wind power from Heritage Sustainable Energy’s Stoney Corners wind farm in southern Missaukee County. They’ve also arranged to buy methane gas from landfills in Lansing.

But these plans still leave the utility far short of its 30 by 20 goal, and with coal contracts set to expire, the utility is trying to move quickly to develop a new source of constant or baseload power.

Biomass, including trees, is considered a carbon neutral renewable energy source under state and federal law, and generating power through combustion represents the simplest route to generate power that meets the definition of “renewable energy.”

TCLP was poised to purchase land for a biomass plant just a few months ago, but strong criticism of the plan from residents moved the utility to organize forums to gather citizen input and concerns about how to best achieve the city’s 30 by 20 goal.

More than 300 people participated in the two presentations put on by TCLP last week.

Though a series of facilitated smaller group discussions participants listed their top concerns about energy and ideas about how TCLP should meets its goal on renewables, and voted to prioritize them.

After tabulation the top issue was concern about the impact of wood power on the region’s forests.

Many also question whether wood fuel should be considered renewable and sustainable, the air quality issues associated with burning and how ash from a biomass plant would be handled.

Participants indicated that they wanted the utility to increase its focus on conservation and development of wind power. Some said that the TCLP should slow down efforts to build a new plant and instead explore the possibility of increasing the use of a little used natural gas plant that it built east of town in the 90s.

TCLP has promised to submit the findings of the public forums to rigorous analysis so that ratepayers can understand the economic, environmental and other consequences of various options. The utility has promised to present this analysis at another public forum on April 3.

In an interview after the public forums, TCLP Executive Director Ed Rice told Michigan Messenger that the utility is prepared to drop plans for wood-based generation if the public will not support it.

Though the utility has expressed a willingness to bend to popular sentiment about whether to burn wood in town, a recent Traverse City Record Eagle survey of city commissioners found that group — which must approve any major capital investments by the utility — mostly in favor of developing biomass power.

Mayor Chris Bzdok, by day an environmental attorney with Olson, Bzdok & Howard P.C., told the Record Eagle that he believes biomass is a “vital component” of an environmentally sensitive energy portfolio, much more carbon friendly than coal, and can be sustainable if properly managed.

On his blog Bzdok wrote that “discussion should focus on the plan for sustainable fuel sources, and on the possible alternatives for minimizing air emissions.”

Despite the biomass boosting talk from officials, public opinion against wood-based power seems to be solidifying.

On the Sunday following the final public meeting (Feb. 28) the regional daily paper, the Traverse City Record Eagle editorialized that the utility hadn’t presented enough info on the environmental and health effects of the proposed operation and had not made a strong enough case that it is urgent to develop one.

Continuing to depend on coal-fired plants like the one in Lansing is bad for the environment and a dead-end solution to energy needs. But we must not return to 1800s technology simply because it’s the easy and trendy solution.

Imagine what that will mean in 25 years, after we’ve burned 2.5 million tons of wood and sent all that soot into the air and ash into landfills.

Margaret Sheehan is an attorney with the Massachusetts based group EcoLaw, and is working with communities groups across the country to fight new biomass projects. Over 200 facilities have been proposed, she said.

Sheenan said that she is not aware of another publicly owned utility that is trying to develop a biomass facility. She said biomass advocates typically look to site new facilities in poor and rural communities where the associated health risks might be overlooked.

Health concerns have been a central concern in many of the communities that have organized against biomass plants she said, and in Massachusetts and Florida doctors have played a prominent role in efforts to block the plants.

The Massachusetts chapter of the American Lung Association has warned:

Biomass emissions contain fine particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs.

Like cigarettes, biomass emissions also contain chemicals that are known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin. For vulnerable populations, such as people with asthma, chronic respiratory disease, and those with cardiovascular disease, biomass and diesel emissions are particularly harmful. Even short exposures can prove deadly.

Sheenan said that in recent weeks biomass challengers have advanced a national legislative strategy to complement the many grassroots campaigns against biomass incinerators.

On Feb. 25 a coalition of 71 environmental and community groups sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee asking the tax incentives for new and existing biomass power plants be removed from pending legislation. Contrary to their current green designation, they wrote, biomass-based electricity will increase public health costs, damage natural resources and contribute to climate change.

“It is a tragic irony,” the coalition wrote, “that in providing tax credits for biomass burning, the Senate may vote through the tax code to subsidize activity that will increase citizens’ health costs, at the same time that both parties are claiming in their public declarations that they want to lower such costs through health care legislation.”

Whether these concerns are enough to prevent the expansion of biomass-based power generation, in Michigan and around the nation, remains to be seen.