3D rendering of the Beaver Wood Energy biomass plant proposal for Pownal
By Susan Bush
Editor’s note: Susan Bush is a freelance reporter who lives in Pownal. She will be covering the Concerned Citizens of Pownal meeting tonight.
Read: Activist says biomass ash, particulates pose health risks
POWNAL – A proposal to erect a biomass power generating facility and a wood pellet production plant at the Green Mountain Energy Park is galvanizing opposition from a newly formed citizen’s group.
The group, Concerned Citizens of Pownal, launched a petition drive a few weeks ago and held a meeting Oct. 5 at the Pownal Center fire house with Josh Schlossberg, an environmental activist.
The wood burning biomass facility is the latest proposal for the park, which was once a horse and dog racing facility known as Green Mountain Race Track. The track was abandoned in the early 1990s. Since then, the park has been a venue for special events such as a Lollapalooza concert, antique car shows and carnivals. A successful proposal for a permanent business has eluded Progress Partners Group, the owners of the 144-acre parcel.
Beaver Wood Energy, which has an office Rutland, plans to build two plants in Vermont that would generate 29 megawatts each – one in Pownal and another in Fair Haven. Both would burn waste wood from logging.
Beaver Wood officials say the plants would be “state-of-the-art” and would provide renewable baseload electricity. Each facility would employ 50 people and produce 100,000 tons of wood pellets, according to the firm’s Web site, and the plants would support 1,000 indirect jobs. The multi-national firm Bechtel Development Company is providing capital and engineering services for the project.
At public meetings sponsored earlier this month by Beaver Wood officials, citizens raised concerns about air pollution, noise pollution, truck traffic, and water use and pollution. Opposition petitions were circulated at local stores and businesses recently. At the meeting tonight, environmental activist Josh Schlossberg, of Biomass Busters,who lives in Montpelier, will give a presentation about the negative effects of biomass facilities.
3D rendering of the Beaver Wood Energy biomass plant proposed for Fairhaven
Pam Lyttle, a member of Concerned Citizens of Pownal, a group that opposes the project, said that more than 100 people have signed the petitions. Lyttle lives near the proposed facility.
“We have health concerns, we have water concerns, we have concerns about the trucks that will be rolling in and out,” she said. “We are very concerned that because this is in a deep valley, the air inversion will mean pollution just sits there.”
The proposal
In an interview, Thomas Emero, managing director of Beaver Wood, said the company’s proposal links two forms of renewable energy production. The pellets for residential and commercial use will be manufactured at mills in the Pownal and Fair Haven locations. Excess heat generated from co-located biomass plants will be used to dry the pellets. Water from the Hoosic River and an onsite well would be used to cool the biomass facility in Pownal; opponents question whether the water use will significantly decrease river and well water levels.
Construction costs are estimated at $250 million. The project funding would rely in part on foreign investors via a federal EB-5 initiative. Emero said his ventures would utilize an EB-5 Regional Center program that reduces the required investment from $1 million to $500,000 and requires that they be made in a Targeted Employment Area. In exchange, investors and their immediate families are given permanent immigration status, or “green cards” as an incentive as well as an opportunity for U.S. citizenship after five years. According to a Vermont Web site focused on the EB-5 initiatives, “investors only need show that their investment generated indirect employment of 10 people in the Regional Center economy.”
Emero said each plant would employ 50 workers, 25 at the biomass plants and 25 at the pellet plants. The jobs would be full-time, offer benefits, and pay $30,000 to $100,000 a year, Emero said. “Most of the jobs are in the $50,000 to $60,000 range,” he said. “These are good jobs.”
Electricity produced at the sites would likely be sold in Vermont at a rate of 12.5 cents per kilowatt. “We do not believe we would sell to surrounding states,” Emero said.
Emero said the wood would be purchased within a 50-mile radius of the plants.
Robert DeGeus, a forester for the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation, said creating a market for low-grade wood remnants would be beneficial. Southern Vermont has an abundance of low-grade wood, he said, that is currently sold as firewood.
“Providing a market for poor quality wood is environmentally sound.” ~ Thomas Emero
“Biomass enables foresters to take the waste, the tree tops, the limbs,” Emero said. “From that perspective, what you want is an active forest business. Providing a market for poor quality wood is environmentally sound.”
Adam Sherman, a program director for the Biomass Energy Resource Center, a national nonprofit group that promotes the use of “pelletized biomass,” says the Beaver Wood plant would be very efficient. Biomass plants typically operate at 20 percent to 25 percent efficiency rates; the Beaver Wood plants in Vermont may operate at an improved 40 to 45 percent efficiency rate because they would utilize excess heat from the biomass facility to dry wood pellets.
“Now you are making a fuel at the residential level and keeping those dollars local,” Sherman said of the proposal. “There’s always discussion about Vermont’s biggest export, is it maple syrup, is it corn, well, our greatest export is dollars spent on energy.”
John Irving oversees operations at the state’s oldest biomass facility, the Burlington-based Joseph C. Mcneil Generating Station. The plant has supplied electrical power to Burlington residents since the 1980s; Irving was a project engineer during the entity’s construction phase.
The state’s emissions limits are some of the toughest in the country, according to Irving. “And the permitted of level of particulate is extremely low,” he said in an interview. “Back when we first started, [the low levels] pushed the limits of the industry.”
Biomass is part of the nation’s solution to weaning away from fossil fuels and foreign oil, Irving said.
“If [biomass] is done correctly, if it’s sited correctly, if timber is harvested correctly, it’s a great part of the solution,” Irving said.
Questions arise
Rep. William Botzow, D-Pownal, said the Fair Haven site is an “open, elevated space that is not residential.” In contrast, the Pownal site is in a valley, close to homes located across from the Hoosic River. There are three mobile home parks situated near the property. There are three mobile home parks situated near the property.
Botzow is also concerned about financing for the project. In his view, additional revenue sources to construct the plant will almost certainly be needed.
“At the end of the day, financial backers will give a green light or a red light, depending on the financing,” Botzow said. “There have to be other pockets [of financing] to make this work. The Public Service Board process will be sure that issues are looked at and debated.”
Pownal Selectman Nelson Brownell said the park could showcase Vermont’s commitment to renewable energy. He pointed to the approval of an EOS Ventures solar facility, which would also be located in the park. The Vermont Public Service Board recently issued a certificate of public good for the project. According to the company’s proposal, the facility will generate about 2.2 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power nearly 360 homes.
“[Emero’s proposal] brings two industries in, pellet manufacturing and energy generation,” Brownell said. “The EOS plan is for solar. That would give us three sources of renewable energy, energy that is not foreign oil.”
The biomass proposal is in the early permitting stages and has not received a certificate of public good. Botzow emphasized that town residents should voice their concerns. “Issues are arising and they need to be looked at,” he said. “We need to see if we can work through the issues.”
Botzow urged against a “rush to judgment” about the Pownal proposal.
“We must be very careful about what we mean by ‘biomass’,” he said. “We need good forestry practice. The question is good sitings, sitings that are sustainable over the long term. I would want to be careful, I would want [a project] done so it can be viable long range.”
The opposition
Pam Lyttle, a member of Concerned Citizens of Pownal, said that there are no guarantees that local residents would be hired at either facility.
The Beaver Wood Energy plant in Livermore Falls, Maine
She said that company officials change their facts and figures on a regular basis.
“At one meeting, they said that trucks would operate between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.,” she said. “I shouted out that that wasn’t acceptable, and at another meeting, they said trucks would run between 7:30 and 5:30. As soon as they know that we have a concern, they change the numbers.”
Lyttle said that creating a biomass-reliant waste wood market exposes another potential problem. She said she fears that heavy cutting will destroy Vermont’s mountainsides. “We won’t be the Green Mountain State, We’ll be the brown mountain state, “We won’t be the Green Mountain state, we’ll be the brown mountain state.” ~Pam Lyttle she said. “Biomass is not sustainable, and it is not green energy. It is a short-term fix, and we’ll be left with nothing.”
Irving has invited Pownal area residents to visit the McNeil plant in Burlington.
Pownal resident Raymond Shields said: “I’d rather go to Livermore Falls in Maine, that’s a facility he was involved with.”
Previous reports have quoted a Livermore Falls residents as saying the facility corrected problems and acted as a “good neighbor,” while other reports claim the facility has faced ongoing issues. The power plant generates about 39 megawatts of power.
Lyttle said she believes the former race track should operate as a seasonal park or a venue for special events.
“I know that the kids love to go down there with their model airplanes and their motorcycles,” she said. “It would be a great place for horse shows, for car shows. It would be nice if it was a big beautiful park.”
Emero has said that the facility will pay about $525,000 in property taxes. Lyttle said that she believes property values of biomass plant abutters will plummet, and a possible $100-$200 saved on yearly tax bills will not make up for the loss. Selling homes near the site could prove difficult if the facility is built, she said.
“Who’s going to want to live near this?” she asked.
Residents of Williamstown, Mass., the town abutting Pownal to the south, should voice their thoughts about the proposal, Lyttle said.
“I don’t think residents of Williamstown will be happy with those trucks rolling through their town,” she said. “Williamstown will be affected by the plumes and fumes and so will Bennington.”
Additional information about the Beaver Wood proposal is available at http://beaverwoodenergy.com.
Beaver Wood is sponsoring a bus trip to the McNeil biomass plant in Burlington on Oct. 20. The bus will depart the Pownal racetrack at 9 a.m. and return at 4 p.m. Contact Beaver Wood for more information. http://beaverwoodenergy.com/contact-us/
CORRECTIONS: Schlossberg’s town of residence has been corrected. The Beaver Wood biomass plants will burn waste wood. Separate factories on site will manufacture pellets. The company will not burn pellets in its biomass plants as was previously reported.
Permalink |
Massachusetts is strengthening the regulations regarding biomass incineration, so now developers are flocking to Vermont. Vermonters need to ask themselves if they want polluting, forest-burning biomass incineration or zero-waste, zero-emission clean renewable energy like solar and wind.
Clean energy cannot come out of a smokestack.
Efficiency measures alone can make these incinerators unnecessary.
PS: I have lived in Vermont for a total of 9 years, never in Massachusetts.
Permalink |
More info: http://www.stopspewingcarbon.com
Permalink |
Northern Woodlands recently published a very clear analysis of biomass as a fuel and heat source, its impact on forests, and the controversy surrounding it in its Autumn 2010 issue. If you would like some background on this controversial subject, here is a link to the article:
http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/the-burning-question-is-biomass-right-for-the-northeast/
Permalink |
This particular biomass proposal has been floating for a while, certainly since before Massachusetts started ramping up its restrictions for biomass. Utilization of tops and cull trees for biomass is a great situation for forests and the environment. Southern Vermont forests would be greatly benefitted by a local plant to burn these wast woods. These will not be the “brown mountains”. Biomass harvesting in Vermont has to meet both forestry and wildlife standards. Most of the harvesting is done under approved forest management plans, and any heavy cuts over 40 acres (Brown Mountains…) have to be approved under a cutting plan also. So again, we see an emotional response (tree cutting must be bad!) that is not supported by the facts. Of course, the carbon in trees is atmospheric carbon, and in most cases will be replaced by new growing trees. Leaving tops and cull trees to rot will release the same carbon, without the opportunity to capture the energy, and replace fossil fuels. Let me guess, if you are opposed to the Pownal plant, you want VT Yankee shut down also, and the dams pulled out of the rivers, and no windmills anywhere you can see them, right?
Permalink |
According to Beaverwood they would only be harvesting from private wood lots in a 50 mile radius of Pownal. Can we actually tell the private owners of these lots what they can and can not remove from their property? I found it hard to believe that an area that size could sustain this plant for any length of time. Then what? They also tried to tell us that our taxes would go down. He’s a fool if he thinks I believe my taxes are going down for any reason, other than maybe a total loss of value because of the polluted air.
Permalink |
Kim,
Some basic math shows that a 50 mile radius is over 5 million acres. If 60% of that is private commercial forestland, (a reasonable guess considering ag, developed, and state/federal land) and it grows .75 cords per year, that gives a growth rate of 2.25 million cords per year. Since most of these forests are overstocked, let’s guess by 4 cords per acre, you have a ready surplus of 12 million cords. If there was not a surplus of wood available at a relatively cheap price, for at least 20 years, they would not be proposing to build it. If the wood were in short supply the price would be too high. There is enough wood in this area to support at least four of these plants, sustainably. As a manager of some of those private forestlands, I hope to see this succeed, because my clients are eager to get the poor quality trees out of the woods to make more room for trees with value potential. The diameter growth rate of individual trees is almost wholly dependent on how crowded the forests are.
If this forestland can grow quality trees that provide a modest profit to the landowner, they are encouraged to keep the land as forest for another generation. This provides the wildlife habitat, clean water, scenic “green mountain” backdrop, which we all enjoy. Please join me in promoting good long-term stewardship. The price for wood chips is too low to encourage ruining productive and valuable real estate. The economics are fairly simple, but do not make a good bumper sticker.
And we (as a society) do tell people what they can and cannot harvest. There are abundant laws protecting forestland, water resources, wildife habitat, and encouraging long-term stewardship, as I mentioned. Along with very strict air quality protection. So your fears are worth asking about, but you have to be ready to hear the answers.
Taxes are a function the towns expenses divided by the grand list value. Adding the plant to the grand list, since they will pay a whopping tax bill, could reduce your taxes. But the fact is the taxes will continue to go up because the school expenses can never go down.
Permalink |
What is the scientific basis for forests being “overstocked?”
These forests don’t NEED to be logged. Fine if people want to benefit economically from extracting timber, but let’s please stop pretending that taking trees and nutrients out of an ecosystem somehow benefits the forest, soils, watersheds and wildlife.
It is that sort of rationalization that gives the timber industry a bad name. Let’s call a spade a spade here. We log for profit, not for the forest.
I support genuine sustainable forestry, but we have to be honest about the impacts on forests when we do so. Otherwise there will be no restraint (as we’ve seen before in New England).
Permalink |
Josh,
Let me try to cover your comments. You support sustainable forestry even though we log for profit? I find that hard to believe, but will take your words for it. That is what you said, correct?
Let me explain some basic tree physiology, which seems to be lacking from general understanding. Trees get their energy (sugar) from photosynthesis. When the forest is crowded, the trees have less sun on their crown, less sugar, less energy. Incidentally, they grow less wood; their annual ring is smaller. This is not due to weather and only affected in minor ways by most other factors, except severe defoliation. When they have less energy, they are less able to respond and recover from stress, which is an almost universal definition of health. An unmanaged forest is either crowded, just right (in which case it will be crowded after the trees grow a while) or not crowded (probably because a lot of trees have died for some reason). My point is that in a crowded, natural forest, only the trees with dominant crowns are healthy. There may be other ecological values served by that forest, and I am fine with that. But lets be clear: Most of the trees are not healthy in a crowded forest. If we are talking about the health of the trees, they have to have adequate sunlight on their crowns.
“What is the scientific basis for forests being overstocked?” This is forestry 101. Every forest type has a silvicultural guide which includes stocking charts. Let me quote briefly from the Silvicultural Guide for White Pine in the Northeast (Lancaster and Leak, 1978): “Stands near the A-line on the stocking chart are considered at the upper limit of stocking for practical management. The trees are quite crowded, and diameter growth is slow. The B-line, on the other hand, represents minimum stocking for full site utilization…” I was in a pine stand last week that was at the A-line. The crowns are tiny, growth is slow, and the trees are full of red rot. Not healthy. The largest trees are relatively healthy. I like trees.
I manage many properties primarily for improving wildlife habitat. I do many projects that are simply break-even for costs and income. Some forests are managed to maintain and improve the quality and quantity of water produced from the land. The timber may be a by-product of these management goals, and it may or may not turn a profit. You should be knowledgeable about these things.
There is plenty of restraint in New England these days. You should know that Vermont has a process where any biomass harvesting for VT mills has to be approved on both a forestry and a wildlife standard. Any “Heavy Cut” (to below the C-line on the stocking chart, even leaving 100 trees per acre in some cases) over 40 acres has to meet a forestry and a wildlife standard. Water Quality and wetlands are seriously protected. Most of the harvesting is done under state approved forestry plans to be sustainable, and all biomass harvesting (for VT mills) is. You probably know all this, but choose not to mention it in your writing and public presentations.
Do you think that your “journalism” has anything to do with the timber industry having a “bad name” in some people’s eyes?
Robbo
Permalink |
There are abundant laws protecting forestland, water resources, wildife habitat, and encouraging long-term stewardship, as I mentioned. Along with very strict air quality protection. So your fears are worth asking about, but you have to be ready to hear the answers.
http://www.manta.com/c/mm0l2px/william-e-dailey-inc-blacktop
yes there are regulations in place and the violators are only fined and forced to comply AFTER they air has been polluted. If there is any thought before that health issues will result in this incinerator why allow it to be built in the first place? Would you want to move your children next door if there was even a small chance of them becoming ill?