Editor’s note: Josh Schlossberg is the editor of The Biomass Monitor.
A groundswell of Vermonters is dead serious about reducing the state’s carbon footprint to tackle runaway climate change. We are committed to energy conservation and efficiency, as well as developing more Vermont-scale clean energy projects, such as solar, residential wind,
and micro-hydro.
Unfortunately, out-of-state developers Beaver Wood Energy/Bechtel (yes, that Bechtel) and Winstanley Enterprises are trying to fool us into believing a pair of inefficient, industrial-scale biomass power proposals for Fair Haven and Springfield are “green” energy — instead of the dirty incinerators they truly are. Before we build any more of these carbon-spewing, air-polluting, forest-devouring incinerators, shouldn’t we first measure the health and environmental impacts of our existing biomass power facilities: McNeil and Ryegate?
While not a single media source in the state has reported on this discrepancy, Burlington’s Climate Action Plan reports only a fraction of the carbon dioxide (CO2) smokestack emissions from the McNeil Generating Station — the 50 megawatt biomass incinerator supplying roughly one-third of Burlington’s electricity — hindering the efforts of Vermont’s largest city to accurately measure and reduce its carbon footprint.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculates McNeil’s CO2 emissions alone at 444,646 tons per year, while the Climate Action Plan reports the entire city of Burlington’s emissions from all sources for 2007 at only 397,272.4 tons. Critics contend that the inaccurate carbon accounting invalidates the plan’s targets for “20% reduction of 2007 [CO2] levels by 2020” and “80% reductions by 2050” — arguably the main purpose of the plan.
Several citizens, including myself and civil engineer and biomass energy researcher Chris Matera, contacted the city about the error. Jon Adams-Kollitz, interim coordinator for Burlington’s Sustainability Action Team, responded that the city “accounted GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions for McNeil with a coefficient of 0.032 kgCO2/kWh [kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt hour].”
“Using Mr. Adams-Kollitz’s factor of 0.032 kgCO2/kWh yields only 10,868 tons of CO2” instead of the 444,646 tons calculated by the EPA, countered Matera by email, showing his calculations. “If the intention was to ‘credit’ only 2% of McNeil emissions to Burlington, this would explain the difference…If so, where do the remaining 98% of McNeil CO2 emissions get counted?”
“We appreciate your perspective, and we will have to agree to disagree on this issue,” Kollitz responded.
It’s very possible for Vermont, and Burlington specifically, to emerge as leaders in the fight against climate change. But how can the state reduce its future carbon footprint if it won’t even acknowledge its current one?
William S. Keeton, professor of forest ecology and forestry chair at UVM’s Rubenstein School emailed the city to weigh in on the controversy, explaining that “on one point there is a growing consensus within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Namely, that we cannot assume biomass energy to be emissions neutral, but rather there are differences in short vs. long-term net emissions.” Keeton recommended that Burlington acknowledge “the high likelihood of net positive emissions during the near term so critical for avoiding irreversible high magnitude climate change.”
350 Vermont, the state chapter of the national climate change advocacy group founded by Bill McKibben, also contacted the city. Burlington resident David Stember sent an email on behalf of “Team 350 Vermont” urging the city to “further develop its greenhouse gas accounting practices.”
“In addition to (not instead of) the emissions estimates determined using the current greenhouse gas accounting practice for climate planning,” reads a 350 Vermont blog post linked to in the email, “we’d like for the City to estimate the lifecycle emissions (a.k.a. as cradle-to-grave emissions) for each energy source.” 350 Vermont recommends that the city “take immediate steps to make carbon accounting more transparent by including an estimated range of lifecycle emissions for each relevant energy source.”
Specifically, the group urges Burlington to “lead other cities” by explaining their current carbon accounting for the Climate Action Plan, including the “actual carbon dioxide smokestack emissions from the McNeil Station, as calculated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”
It’s very possible for Vermont, and Burlington specifically, to emerge as leaders in the fight against climate change. But how can the state reduce its future carbon footprint if it won’t even acknowledge its current one?
