In a significant legislative move, the future of woody biomass energy in Massachusetts faces uncertainty, as the state Senate’s recent amendment redefines its classification. For years, climate advocates have opposed the proposed biomass plant in Springfield, and this development is seen as a victory for their cause.
The newly approved legislation removes biomass from being categorized with solar, wind, and geothermal energy under the state’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Standard. This standard limits the amount of “non-carbon emitting” energy municipal light plants can distribute. Senator Adam Gomez, D-Springfield, who introduced the amendment, stated that it effectively “closes the loophole” for biomass.
Crucially, the amendment also ceases public financial support for wood combustion energy, impacting the Springfield plant proposed by Palmer Renewable Energy. According to James McCaffrey, New England legislative director for Partnership for Policy Integrity, these subsidies were a vital funding source for the project.
The change was approved in a 35-4 roll call vote and is part of a broader bill aimed at enhancing energy affordability and advancing clean energy development. For Springfield’s residents, this is a milestone after 15 years of resistance against the biomass plant.
Teniel Rhiney, an environmental justice organizer at Arise for Social Justice in Springfield, expressed the importance of the amendment, stating, “Closing this loophole acknowledges the urgency of this moment that ties climate, environment and public health within the same intersections.” Despite the Senate’s approval, Rhiney remains cautiously optimistic, awaiting the bill’s final enactment.
The bill, titled “An Act Relative to Energy Affordability, Clean Power and Economic Competitiveness” (H.5175), moved into conference committee on July 16. The debate over biomass as a clean energy source has long been contentious in environmental circles.
Johanna Neumann, a senior director at Environment America’s Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, emphasized, “When I look at where we are coming from and where we are going, truly clean renewable energy sources should be where we set our sights on.” She advocates focusing on wind, solar, and geothermal energy instead.
Biomass energy, according to Partnership for Policy Integrity, releases significantly more carbon dioxide than modern coal plants. Concerns also extend to its health impacts, particularly in Springfield, which was named the asthma capital of the nation in 2018 and 2019 by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.
The proposed biomass power plant dates back to 2008 and has faced continuous opposition through public and legal channels. Despite court rulings favoring Palmer Renewable Energy, the new amendment poses a financial challenge by eliminating subsidies.
Senator Gomez, along with Rep. Orlando Ramos, has been instrumental in removing biomass from clean energy standards. Gomez described the amendment as the “final nail in the coffin” for biomass: “This will shut that [Springfield] plant down and even the idea of creating that plant, not only in Springfield, but across the commonwealth.”
Nonetheless, McCaffrey, Rhiney, and Climate Action Now Western Mass co-founder Susan Theberge acknowledge that the project could still find alternative funding, as building permits remain valid.
Ferd Wulkan of Franklin County Continuing the Political Revolution (FCCPR) supports the legislative change, arguing that biomass should not be categorized with other renewable energy sources due to potential health hazards. Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health highlights biomass-related health risks, including respiratory and cardiovascular issues.
The FCCPR, in alignment with the Springfield Climate Justice Coalition, has previously opposed state subsidies for biomass plants through citizen petitions. This collective effort reflects ongoing community resistance against biomass energy.
Johnny Depin contributed reporting.
Original Story at atholdailynews.com