2021-07-30 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
2021-07-30 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
in my uh My watch this 1002. We will wait until 1003. That16 just feels good to me. Couldn't tell you why there's Senator Heinz.21
So I have a senator to24 introduce I don't feel less lonely.
1003. Sounds good to me as well.
All right, thank31 you. I see the commissioner's here as well. I don't want to hold him up. So Maybe we'll start at 10:02.5. Maybe we'll start right now. Um Why don't we begin commence this hearing? We are holding this as some of, you know, pursuant to a special statutory requirement that they Joint Committee on Telecommunications, utilities and Energy uh, issue a report on any regulation issued by the Department of Energy Resources. We may have a hearing, but we must issue a report uh in the interest of issuing a good report. The House Chair and I have determined that it's smart to have hearings as well. So we're commencing this one. This is a a hearing being conducted with respect to witnesses at least by invitation only. And I'm very pleased. Well, first of all I want to introduce on the Senate side, I then want to defer95 to my House chair. I want to introduce on the senate side. Senator Heinz a member of the committee.
I'm senator mike Barrett by the way, the Senate Chair of TUE. We I believe at the moment, Senator Heinz may be the only senator present.113 So I want to hand this over to my House co chair Representative116 Roy to say a few words and to introduce the House members who are with us today.
Great, thank you Chair Barrett, it's great to be with you here today. And uh as the senator said, I'm Jeffrey Roy, I'm the House chair of telecommunications, utilities and energy and I'm happy to see that136 Representative Hawkins, Representative Owens and Representative141 Haggerty are here with us on screen and the Vice chair, Representative Mark is joining us by telephone and he's also on the call and I'm151 sure we'll see others gathering during the day and as they show up, I will introduce him. So thank you for the opportunity. Chair Barrett, thank you sir.
Uh And with that let's hear from our162 first virtual panel. It consists of165 Commissioner Patrick Woodcock of the Department of Energy Resources. I believe Johannes Buchanan, the Director of Legislative Affairs is attending and perhaps and pardon me for not knowing this. But I think eric Steltzer maybe with us as well. I'll leave it up to you. Commissioner too, introduce yourself and your staff and to uh tell us about these proposed regulations.
[COMM PATRICK WOODCOCK (ENE):] Thank you very much, Senator Barrett uh and thank you Representative Roy for holding this hearing. We do have a short presentation to guide the discussion this morning. Um and yes uh Eric Steltzer, the Renewables Division Director at DOER will will be joining me in the presentation um Johannes, would you mind bringing up the slide deck? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
and while he's bringing up the slide deck? I know that rep Meschino oh has joined us as well from the224 house, so thank you.
[WOODCOCK:] So thank you. Yes, we do have a short presentation um and I'd228 want to give some context these regulations uh and where the current regulatory status of these regulations um are currently exist. Um so we are going to give a little bit of analysis of what we have done for research into biomass. Um and then an overview of the provisions in the proposed252 regulation. Just for context I think a lot of you are familiar with this, but if you're not, it is the kind of established principles of what has been guiding deal we are. But a report was done in 2010 that really assessed biomass in the context of a greenhouse gas, a mission scarcity requirement, uh, and what that really established and it it continues283 to be the bedrock of how deal we are considers how to treat biomass is that one,289 the combustion of biomass is not carbon neutral.
And really what you need to assess is what type of biomass is utilized in that combustion, because that has uh, an impact on what type of GHG emissions would be generated. And furthermore, that sustainable forestry is critical to make up for that carbon debt and actually be consistent with the Global Warming Solutions Act. I will go into this a little further, but that a lot of this is intuitive. Clearly, if you're developing a parking lot and uh, and a forest is utilized and then harvesting combusted that has a carbon deficit and that is not being made up with any sustainable forestry. Furthermore, the type of biomass is distinct the way that we define the two main categories. Our forest arrived uh biomass that is thinnings or anything from the forest in in terms of management or if something is a wood waste residue, something that is coming from forest industry operations, like a sawmill, this is two types.
The as you can imagine, the residue is what promotes the377 most carbon benefits rather than forest arrived biomass. But this this continues to be the key principles and in these biomass regulations we retain those core ah of fundamental findings from the Manomet Study.
Next slide, another a go back one. Another study that was completed to give some context for what these regulations mean for our overall forest, both in Massachusetts and in the Northeast. I do want to give a context that we do have a vibrant forest based economy in the Northeast. Over 36 million tons of wood are harvested annually with 74 million tons in annual growth. Just for context the RPS program is a small portion regionally of what is uh utilized from that harvest for RPS programs.
So, as you can imagine, a lot of a lot of forestry is used for uh timber for papermaking operations and for purposes other than the RPS incentive programs. There are two facilities located in Massachusetts that are eligible for the Massachusetts RPS program, um, and that is465 utilizing uh non forest, none of the wood is coming from forest waste. Um, we have found that these two facilities, if you assess them have a 80% reduction compared to natural gas facilities over a 20 year time frame. Next slide. There has been a lot of focus on these regulations and we did undertake a review when these were first proposed of what the implications of the proposed regulations would be on market dynamics. We did assess and undertake a consultant to do this review and assessed based on fundamental wholesale energy prices, the REC market impacts and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions.
There was a conclusion that these regulations would have a modest increase in biomass production. They would be unlikely to create a to be an incentive enough to develop a new biomass plant and we can get into those specifics. Um and that we would yield enhanced life cycle greenhouse gas benefits with these regulations as proposed. I'm going to turn to Mr Steltzer, the renewables division director, to walk through these proposed regulations, but did want to provide that context. Eric.
[ERIC STELTZER (ENE):] Very thank you Commissioner. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Eric Steltzer. I'm the director of the Renewable Energy Division at Department of Energy Resources and I'll walk you through the regulations as proposed and filed with the TUE committee. Um first topic that I'd like to touch on is for sustainability. Um and uh commissioner has highlighted some of the details to this, but I thought would be helpful to go into more specifics into it. Um first are these proposed regulations have maintained the existing requirements that was set in 2012 that only wood that is a byproduct is eligible for this program. That's a really key fundamental elements that was coming out of the Manomet study that if you're622 using uh forest resources, um in particular, large uh sections of wood from areas that are are solely grown for bioenergy that there are detrimental impacts that could happen from a GHG.
And so this RPS program has specifically only required by products um to be eligible within it. Number two, the wood has to be clean. There's been comments that we've received regarding uh concerns about commercial waste potentially getting in there and construction demolition debris and these regulations make it explicitly clear that only clean wood as defined by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection is eligible. Um and any construction demolition debris would673 be explicitly prohibited from being eligible uh in the RPS program. Next, uh as the commissioner highlighted, there are generally two types of feedstocks that we have forest drive feedstocks, which includes tops and limbs. That's uh done through the logging practice. That's a non commercial product is considered a low grade quality wood.
And then under also underneath forest drive feedstocks is thinnings and thinnings is a practice, a self cultural practice where they will in essence harvest the weeds out of the woods in order to uh ensure that the greatest potential from the resource can be grown. The other type of resource that we have is non forest derived resources and that includes municipal and utility clearings, sawmill waste and agricultural waste. The changes that we proposed here for the feedstock requirements are largely to align737 to the alternative energy portfolio standard of the definitions that we have utilized there uh we've also enabled uh for salvage that is classified by the Department of Conservation and Recreation to be eligible within the program. And uh these changes maintain the robust requirement that only clean wood is a byproduct. Just want to emphasize that.
We've also underneath these regulations have removed the eligibility for wood uh that has been cleared from a site for development, land clearing. And so underneath these proposed regulations going forward, they would be ineligible as far as a feedstock goes. And on the four sustainability the other things that we have done is we have strengthened the four sustainability requirements by requiring sign off from the Department of Conservation and Recreation, who are the experts in managing Massachusetts Forest and any sort of wood that is coming from the Forest Drive Resources must be uh signed off by by the Department of Conservation in order to ensure that it's meeting our requirements.813
We've also maintained the tracking of biomass feedstocks that we've had in place and are continuing looking to uh make improvements to those processes so that you can clearly identify where all the wood is coming from within uh that is participating within RPS program. Next slide. Next I'd like to talk a little bit about the overall efficiency requirements that we have proposed within our regulations. And I thought it'd be helpful to start just to provide no review of what combined heat and power is. And combined heat and power quickly is a more efficient way to generate electricity. They're more efficient energy systems and as this diagram shows print's a little small for my glasses,863 but for 100 for 100 units that are going into combined heat and power that generates approximately 35-36 units of electricity873 and 44 units of heat.
The same amount of energy needed to produce that amount of electricity and heat882 if we're using the conventional system would be 155 units. And so CHP systems are inherently more um um efficient889 because they're recovering waste heat in order to generate electricity. And the picture here that we have is a picture of the combined heat and power facility at Siemens Paper, which is one of the facilities that is currently eligible within the RPS program. So underneath the proposed regulations, we've done a few things number one, we've increased the overall efficiency requirement to 60%. Uh and we've eliminated the sliding scale. The current uh requirement for the RPS program is at 50%. Um and so we have increased that to to 60%.
Uh next we've required all new facilities with a commercial operation date after December 31st 2020 to meet the 60% overall efficiency requirement. And then finally, we have implemented a waiver provision to the overall efficiency requirement for existing facilities only so long as they are using primarily a non forest derived feedstock. And the reason that this was done was to support those facilities that are existing to use more preferential feedstocks that will have a less carbon impact on the environment compared to non forest. Excuse me, Forest arrived resources. Next slide. On the greenhouse gas emissions, we've done a few changes as well, but I'd highlight that the majority of the of what we've done here in the greenhouse gas emissions has been to retain what the methodology and the approach that was established through an extensive stakeholder process in 2012.
Um first, we have maintained the existing requirement that 50% reduction of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions must be achieved over a 20 year period of time compared to a combined a natural gas cycle facility. We have also maintained the multi year life cycle, greenhouse-gas emissions accounting principles that are set on a single year of emissions and again, that was set up in 2012 through through that process. We have also gone further to strengthen these greenhouse gas emissions requirements by providing a higher carbon debt to the forest drive residues within the GHG tool1043 that we've we've created. We've also memorialized the requirement that's been in place but made it explicitly clear that this compliance might must not only be done at1055 the time that a facility applies for our program to seek eligibility, but it must be done on a quarterly basis as well.
And then finally,1064 uh we we removed the provision that's in the existing regulations that allowed for facilities to not be compliant with the greenhouse gas emissions but still be able to generate RECs. And so we have removed that probation period and if any entity is not able to verify the 50% reduction life cycle greenhouse gases over 20 years,1087 they would not be eligible to mint those RECs in that quarter. Next slide. And finally, I'd like to talk to you about some new provisions that we've added in following some stakeholder engagement and that's in regards to the environmental justice communities and in this this this this what's on screen here is a direct pull from our proposed regulations.
And what it does is proposes to uh prohibit eligibility within the RPS program for any biomass uh facility that is located um within an1126 environmental justice community or five miles from an environmental environmental justice community as defined by the secretariat. Next slide. And this slide then gives a description of the buffer zones that are around the environmental justice communities1147 of five miles and where um participation would be prohibited um for those facilities in this voluntary program that we have. And with that, I'll turn it back to the chairs for any questions or the Commissioner for any final comments.
[SEN BARRETT:] Uh Commissioner, do you do you wish to make any final comments at this time? There'll be some questions. I'm sure
[WOODLOCK:] That concludes our presentation and certainly open to questions from the committee.1187 Why don't we exit from the presentation? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, let's actually if we could keep up the map uh if that's okay, just so that we can eyeball it. Ah Uh huh. I would like to I'm going to invite members of the committee to ask questions, but well, why don't why don't we begin there? We'll invite I have a number of myself but I'd like to defer to members of the committee. Are there questions from members of the committee? I think, Senator Heinz, did you have your hand up?
[SEN HINDS:] I did thanks. Um and thank you, chair both chairs and and members great to be with you virtually and thanks for the presentations commissioner, uh, and others I, you know, I come from, I represent the 52 westernmost towns and municipalities in the commonwealth. Um, and, and so it's one of the1245 most wooded, if not the most wooded districts in the commonwealth. And because of my district is the size of Rhode Island, a little bit bigger actually I'm willing to bet I have more trees in my district than any of my colleagues. Um and so I'm someone who's kind of seized of this matter, um for a number of reasons and you know, you're also listening to somebody who is trying to explore and thinks there might even be a genuine win win when it comes to sustainable forestry and the fight against climate change.
In fact, I recently gathered a logger forester and climate change expert and a biodiversity expert in my district. It sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it's not in to explore if they were in fact approaches that met the needs of each, for example, could you create multiple pools of carbon sequestration by creating wood projects that lock in carbon, tables, cabinets, floors, houses, etcetera for decades and even centuries um in the process you you allow nutrients to grow, capturing another pool of of carbon while also cutting the underbrush that allows, you1312 know, more trees to grow. You optimize, you know, the biodiversity and wildlife um that that, you know, is so critical1320 as well. Um so that the one issue that kind of is kind of motivating that is natural solutions to carbon sequestration and that has to be a part of our climate strategy.
We're not just reducing carbon emissions, we need to capture carbon and optimize that if we're going to get anywhere close1339 to meeting our goals, so that that conversation around forestry and optimizing sequestration and biodiversity is very distinct in my mind from the conversation around any energy production through burning. Um and so that that's kind of the distinction in my mind, and I guess so I have a couple of questions around how your view, renewable and clean, and I I appreciate that you point out the Manomet study that says, um you know, wood burning is not carbon neutral. Um and and the fact that that that's kind of the basis of this, I guess. I'm curious just to start the conversation, um if it's clear that biomass fuel woody products are not carbon neutral why, how are you, how do you kind of um justify that?
Well, we're still using woody products for um you know, renewable portfolio standards and and moving towards our climate goals and and, you know, the challenge here is the time and you kind of allowed to refer to that in the carbon debt. If it takes up to many, many decades, maybe 90 years for newly planted trees to re absorb that carbon debt and yet our carbon commitment or reduction commitments are in a much shorter time frame 5, 10 years, 20 years. The policy of using wood burning to enhance and incentivize reductions in carbon just seems flawed at face value. So I'm trying to hear your your position on this being in the category of using RPS to create clean energy and moving, you know, our energy resilience forward.
[WOODLOCK:] I I really appreciate the sentiment and the long term vision for forestry Senator. Um couple responses you're really highlighting um how do we maximize the benefits of forestry for long term carbon mitigation and absolutely sequestration needs to be a part of it. I I'm excited about the prospects of using wood waste, long term for insulation, building materials, cross laminated timber. Um there is uh in its infancy right now, but I think there is a long term opportunity to use it in a way that maximizes the benefits um at this point uh and your construct is exactly right of what is the life cycle emission. Um and it is exactly how the Manomet study outlined how we should think about biomass combustion.
You have to make up through sustainable1498 forestry and the construct that we have is a lifetime um uh window and what we require for any uh RPS which is for electrical generation that it has to be 50% better than natural gas facilities. So the facility operating within a year has to uh improve the greenhouse gas emissions compared to a1526 natural gas facility. And the reasoning that that I think that was established1533 back when these, this goes all the way back into a decade ago was that natural gas is the marginal fuel on the ice in New England System. So if if these facilities are not producing natural gas would replace it. So the idea is that where we are currently, if this is significantly better than natural gas, then that is an improvement from an overall emissions uh, inventory.
However, I think it is fair, as we look to your point as we look over the next decade, our emissions will change rapidly with offshore wind, hydro electricity and I do think that we need to continue to monitor whether this is an accurate way and consistent with uh ensuring that biomass is contributing to our overall emissions inventory. So I think it is something to monitor and do agree with you senator, that those areas that you just articulated with that coalition, that your group is going to be imperative to really think about forestry to maximize mitigation.
[SEN HINDS:] Yeah, I guess I guess we disagree then that it has a place in trying to meet our climate goals and and um1618 an example that you just cited that there's a1621 there are better ways out their investments in our offshore wind and solar and on and on and on. And so I I still can't wrap my head around why burning wood would ever be a part of our climate solution and our strategy and our incentives given given what we know. Uh honestly, even myself in recent years, coming to terms with what the science is saying about the greater emissions than even coal and instances from wood. Um and it's just it's deeply concerning that it's a part of this at all. I think the when when it comes to pollution um and I also I take your point.
Um and I want to kind of maybe underscore that that it's uh that the sequestration element in making sure that the administration and and Massachusetts as a whole has very specific sequestration strategies and targets and programmes. Um so let's let's underscore that together um when it comes to the pollutions, pollution, pollution element of this. Um you know, literally during this summer, we've been watching DEP itself issuing air quality alerts because of from wildfires out west traveling here polluting our air just this week, air quality was deemed unsafe and many uh in large swaths across this1694 across the state, well not equivalent, it kind of,1697 it highlights a recognition that burning is causing hard, creating harmful pollutants.
Um and biomass energy is many of the same pollutants in the atmosphere and deliberately, and I do like the prohibition in EJP, the Environmental Justice Populations and establishing a five mile radius. Um, you know, seems to be another recognition by you and the administration that there are harmful pollutants released in this process or else why would you ban them in these areas near population centers and beyond? So with that in mind, I guess I'm curious about your assessment regarding a mere five mile radius. I just talked about1738 pollutants coming across the entire country, why five miles when it seems clear that these pollutants are traveling much further? Um and as a result, you know, it seems to me eliminating them throughout the entire state would be more prudent.
[WOODLOCK:] Thank you. We certainly looked to the Climate Act standard for cumulative impacts as established how DEP will proceed uh as a uh as a construct as we are thinking about this incentive program. So we certainly relied on the Climate Act uh standard for this instantive structure to answer your question.
[SEN HINDS:] So in one of the side effects of the policy in the in the map uh shows that pretty clearly is that 90% of Massachusetts towns will not be eligible based on this regulation. And leaving 10% so 35 towns out of the commonwealth would be eligible to host a biomass woody fuel facility um under this RPS system, and I represent 17 of those 35 towns almost half. Um and so it would seem that this regulation is systematically pushing plants into very specific areas. Um and uh and and of course, you know, right into my district that you could argue. Um and so I guess the question is has DOER decided to push biomass woody fuel facilities into 35 towns deliberately or is it making a larger statement that we're actually moving away from biomass as RPS eligible source of energy?
[WOODLOCK:] I think we certainly want to be cautious with biomass energy. We do not, we certainly do not think that it will be a significant contribution to Massachusetts' overall portfolio. I would note though, um you know, I I've been working for the within the Baker administration since 2017. There are two facilities that are eligible for the standard, the Siemens Paper facility, uh and also the Coolie Dickinson facility. And I haven't heard any concern since 2017 with those facilities1881 at all. Those are the types of facilities that are eligible. And I would encourage the committee as they're1890 thinking long term about these policies to visit those facilities. I do think it's very different. I think we have the, the um construct that and the Springfield proposed facility in Springfield I think it is on our minds.
That is absolutely prohibited for new facilities and cannot be proposed1908 in those communities that you listed senator. So I do encourage to like understand what type of technology and what facilities were talking about when you review and ultimately comment on these regulations.1923
[SEN HINDS:] Would you consider going the extra step in saying that if it's not okay for somebody 4.5 miles from an EJ, Environmental Justice population, that it's not okay for somebody uh in the 17 towns they were in my district where it's eligible, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect and so I'm curious...
[WOODLOCK:] Seriously to feedback. I mean, we're trying to, one biomass is statutorily eligible under the Massachusetts renewable portfolio standards. So that is statutorily established. I think we're trying to reflect upon what we heard from constituents about the concerns about impacts on environmental justice communities. Furthermore, reflect the standard that was established in the Climate Act and propose sensible regulations that are cautious. Uh you will remember the climate bill does also require a study for EEA to go to uh undertake in the next two years. I think that will inform our long term policies. And ultimately, I agree with you senator about the long term focus on looking at how we can use this wood waste in a more carbon, um that maximizes carbon mitigation. So, I agree with your long term vision.
[SEN HINDS:] And and mr Chairman, I don't want to take monopolize the time, but uh and we have a2004 range of other questions we could ask but one that I just couldn't pick out from reading the regulations is, um, will generation units based outside of Massachusetts be eligible uh, to qualify in our system.
[WOODLOCK:] That is how the RPS system works regionally through the knee pull GIS system facilities2025 throughout the region are eligible for the RPS system. So, yes.
[SEN HINDS:] So in Maine companies could utilize and benefit from our RECs?
[WOODLOCK:] Same way with wind solar facilities as well, yes.
[SEN HINDS:] And and with their with their, what are their quality of their emission standards its main standards or is it that they'd have to meet ours to qualify to take our money?
[WOODLOCK:] For all new facilities they need to meet the efficiency standard that Mr Steltzer articulated. The local air quality issues are state by state determined.
[SEN HINDS:] So existing facilities can benefit from our money, but not the same standards of air quality?
[WOODLOCK:] Say that again, sorry.
[SEN HINDS:] Existing facilities in Hampshire and Maine can benefit from2074 our money but not maintain the same air quality standards.
[WOODLOCK:] As for new facilities we do make a distinction...
[SEN HINDS:] No, no for existing for existing previous before 2020, for example.
[WOODLOCK:] Existing facilities may be eligible for these for the Massachusetts RPS system, correct.
[SEN HINDS:] And knock all our air quality standards?
[WOODLOCK:] And not for lower quality standards. I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the question.
[SEN HINDS:] Well, here's the crux. Um, it seems like we are providing a subsidy for older facilities in other states who are polluting more than uh, than we are aiming for in this policy.
[WOODLOCK:] We certainly think that I agree that we certainly think that new facilities should be promoted for combined heat and power. That's different than the emissions. So just2124 just that's a different just separate efficiency and emissions. We do require emissions to meet the 50% reduction over natural gas for all facilities. So that standard exists for for new and existing center.
[SEN HINDS:] We do, but in another state, taking our money, they would not necessarily have to.
[WOODLOCK:] We require that. We require that.
[SEN HINDS:] Even for out of state?
2161 [WOODLOCK:]2161 Yes.2161 SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Yeah. Thanks. Mr Chairman,
thank you, Senator Heinz, Are there additional questions?
Yes, uh Mr Chairman, I I have a few questions, Thank you, sir.
[REP ROY:] And one of them, I I'd like to follow up on uh one of the questions from Senator Hinds because it it is along that same topic and it appears from the new regulations that there is a 60% efficiency standard for a new biomass plants. But am I reading it correctly that the 60% efficiency standard is being removed for2210 existing biomass facilities and I think that pertains to um Senator Hinds' question in that some of these out of state facilities that do not meet that 60% standard may benefit from from the uh the uh the Massachusetts system and in fact, we've heard from some stakeholders that this may even encourage some of the plants that may have closed to reopen and I just want to get some clarity on, first of all whether the 60% has been removed for existing facilities and will only apply to new ones and whether that will have an impact on these out of state operations.
[WOODLOCK:] Yeah, that is correct, exactly how you just articulated it, uh and Johannes, if you go back a few slides, we did do analysis on what that the implications of that would be with an outside consultant. Um I think that's maybe slide three or four. The next slide, I believe that was that was exactly the um focus of the study. And it did, it did find that there would2291 be a small increase in the production of biomass regionally to your point, but ultimately, that would yield a reduction in life cycled greenhouse gas emissions because we require that they use uh non forest derived residue and that would be displacing natural gas.
[REP ROY:] Okay. And um so another question I would have, and I believe this is uh2319 a concern that was raised to us from the Attorney General's office is that why wouldn't we delay the implementation of these regulations until the um the study, the biomass study that was called for in the road map bill was completed, just like to hear your thoughts on that.
[WOODLOCK:] Well, we certainly are open to doing further regulatory action on the RPS regulations. Um we do think that it's important to make alignment with our alternative portfolio standard. A lot of this is um changes to reflect an existing regulation as suppliers are providing biomass fuel for both the APS Program and the biomass by the RPS program. So as a result, we do think that it is important to move forward with consistency between these two programs.
[REP ROY:] Okay. And and then my my final question is I know that we have a lot of a lot of biomass products out there and um what what will we do with these uh materials if we don't do not have any facilities to process these materials? What's the what's the implication for?
[WOODLOCK:] That's a very good question and one thing that ultimately this wood waste can be either decomposed naturally that yields similar greenhouse gas emissions or is2420 placed into landfill or is combusted. So what's the, I guess one crux of this is what is the way to maximize the economic and climate mitigation from this2438 fuel stock is really the heart of what we contemplate with these regulations. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Yeah. All right, well, thank you. And ah just ah I did ah want to indicate that ah lead a jones has joined us from the House side as well and just wanted to point that out. But thank you for your answers to my questions, commissioner and thank you for the opportunity to ask them. MR. Chairman.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and thank you. Thank you for your responses. Commissioner. Are there additional questions of the commissioner?
Is there a hand being raised? I'm sorry. I want to I have a question or two, but I want to deferred to members of the committee if they have additional questions. I don't see any. So please permit me to proceed.
[SEN BARRETT:] I do for all members, for all witnesses certainly for our executive branch witnesses. I want to read into the record a letter signed by six of my colleagues and sent to DOER yesterday and also signed by three members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. This letter originated in the office of Senator Patrick O'Connor, who represents South Shore communities, including coastal communities, which are among the 35 communities reserved now for biomass. I'm going2522 to quote, read selective portions brief ones from this letter so that we can get these thoughts into the record and then I have a question or two. I'm quoting now from Senator O'Connor and Senator Commerford and others, Senator Hinds.
We applaud the DOER's response to residents concerns about the installation of REC eligible biomass facilities near2551 and adjacent to environmental justice communities. However, the proposed regulations leave 35 communities vulnerable to incentivize biomass production and then skipping down these regulations are patently unfair toward these exception communities who are both being targeted for biomass sighting and then are forced to endure the obstructive and harmful consequences of this energy2572 production and skipping down a little further we believe the logical and desirable conclusion is to uniformly eliminate new biomass from all RPS2582 Class One eligibility, providing the same protections to all Massachusetts communities, including these exception communities.
Please endorse formally what you're already promoting informally by supporting legislation disqualifying any new in state biomass generation from qualifying as an RPS Class One resource under state law. May I ask on behalf of my colleagues Commissioner, your your thoughts about their explicit request. Do you endorse formally, what does seem to be the de facto position you're taking, which is somewhat supportive of current biomass but distinctly unenthusiastic and bearish about additional biomass. Why don't we formalize what seems to be the informal2625 and unofficial thrust of these proposed new regulations why leave 35 out of 351 municipalities uh in the crosshairs, I guess, is the question.
[WOODLOCK:] Yeah, just just to provide more context, um, since these regulations that has been established for an efficiency standard of 50%, there hasn't been any proposed new facility since the Springfield facility in Massachusetts. So, and as the study um includes, we do not believe that an RPS change in itself will lead to new facilities being proposed. Um I do think with the with the legislation that was established uh requiring a study that is going to be healthy public policy discussion, senator about long term how to think about biomass in an increasingly ambitious2691 GWS a construct. So I certainly commit to working with this committee on thinking through what what long term biomass policies need to be implemented uh consistent with GWSA and consistent with our overall forestry uh object economic development2709 objectives.
[SEN BARRETT:]Thank you, sir. And I and I I know that offer on your part is his heartfelt and sincere. But to reframe Senator O'Connor's question, if I might be permitted to do that, it seems as if you've omitted the possibility of additional biomass in all but explicit language. Why not simply ask this Legislature to make your de facto position2749 formal and official? Why don't you just ask us to draw the unavoidable inference from your position and extend the protections to the remaining 11% of the land area of Massachusetts?
[WOODLOCK:] Look well, I think as you note in your in your question, it is statutorily uh eligible for the Massachusetts RPS. Now, We are certainly trying to reflect upon the Legislature's work in the Climate Act uh and use that as a construct moving forward. As you know, I I certainly would be willing to engage in discussions on specific language on proposed legislation.
[SEN BARRETT:] Uh would you be willing, Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Would you be willing to engage in that specific discussion before making these regulations final if as long as we're prompt on our end?
[WOODLOCK:] Uh we do think it is important, you know, there there, we can certainly work on parallel tracks to the point from uh Chairman Roy, we do think that it is important to maintain consistency between the APS Program. So I would be concerned at at, you know, we are at the final stages of finalizing this, um, and would be concerned about of modifying that schedule at this time.
[SEN BARRETT:] Mr Commissioner, I will not quote you the famous words that have been said about the dangers of insisting on consistency, but there are well known adages that caution us against being too doctrinaire in that respect. I would ask whether you don't have concerns about the lack of consistency between our requiring a two year study of the public health effects of biomass and you're going ahead with biomass.
[WOODLOCK:] Yeah, I I do think um you know, let's let's separate, you know, DOER um is in control of the RPS program. DEP is the department in charge with Health Assessment and Air Quality. So I certainly viewed the language as, you know, certainly requiring the expertise of DEP and not as a a reflection on these regulations, but that's how I read the merits of the purpose of the study.
[SEN BARRETT:] Aren't you getting a little technical on us here? We there's a clearly expressed legislative intent that the public health effects of biomass be studied, isn't there?
[WOODLOCK:] Absolutely. You know, I think to put it back at you senator and I don't mean to be dismissive, the Legislature clearly could have um required more substantive uh changes to our regulations if they had decided. So, I I think that the Legislature made a decision that this requires more study, but that it should not preclude regulations from going forward. At least that's my interpretation of the study.
[SEN BARRETT:] All right. Not to belabor the point, but you're you're2959 insisting that the Legislature concluded that the matter deserves more study, but that you should go ahead anyway?
[WOODLOCK:] It did certainly not have any legislation that precludes this regulation from going forward.
[SEN BARRETT:] What what is the statutory basis for the regulations that you propose to um to promulgate?
[WOODLOCK:] So that is under the Green Communities Act governing the RPS ah provisions.
[SEN BARRETT:] So that would be Section 11(f)2983 of Chapter 25 A?
[WOODLOCK:] That's correct.
[SEN BARRETT:] And can you quote any provisions of Section 11(f) of Chapter 25 A that have expresses legislative intent that you um single out certain towns for these facilities and absolutely rule out others.
[WOODLOCK:] We certainly have had. We're trying to respond really to what we saw with the legislation enacted to be extremely careful with environmental justice populations. So within that construct, we are certainly trying to respond to public comment as well as the Legislative Act3028 in action with the Climate Act. Um we have in other policies, most notably solar really tried to consider land use that does have restrictions on eligibility uh somewhat consistent to what we are proposing here.
[SEN BARRETT:] As long as you mentioned the environmental justice provisions and I thank you for referencing them. The Legislature amended the so called MEPA3060 lab the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act when we added the environmental justice provisions to the Massachusetts statutes books. And as you know MEPA has to do with enhanced review of the environmental effects of proposed infrastructure or construction projects. So in legislative parliaments that would be again Section 62 of Chapter3084 30. But you've taken our are legislatively mandated language from MEPA and you have extended it to a different part of the Massachusetts Laws Chapter 25 A. Did the legislature um define any of these terms and extend them to chapter 25 A?
[WOODLOCK:] No, Senator and I certainly want to be clear that at Orange you see there any facility can be proposed in these facilities. It is whether they can be eligible for the Massachusetts incentive program. Uh, you know, the climate bill was historic. It has changed the paradigm with uh permitting and with incentive programs we wanted to be careful with. Um it was certainly alignment with the legislation legislative action. We did receive overwhelming public support for this provision and certainly open3178 to feedback from the committee on it.
[SEN BARRETT:] I dare say members of the committee would support the extension of protections to environmental justice populations. But just to be clear, the Legislature uh expressly added these terms to Massachusetts law and I'm now quoting from the Climate Act For the purposes of Section 61 to 62 L of Chapter 30. So the Legislature's intent was to take these policy innovations3219 um and extend them for the purposes of3222 enhanced, ensuring enhanced review of the environmental implications of new construction and infrastructure that would be MEPA so called. But on your own you've taken these concepts which aren't even effective that we've actually delayed the effective date of all these of the five year buffer zone idea, for example until December of this year.
Because we3246 did view working out RECs as a sensitive so you've taken concepts written for chapter 30 and intended and I just quoted for chapter 30 alone, you've imported them yourselves on your own authorities into chapter 25 A in the RPS Program, even though they're not even effective yet from MEPA itself. There are no five mile buffer zones in effect yet for enhanced review of the environmental effects of new construction that will come and I hope soon but it's not in effect because we know again that it's complicated why move ahead on something that's not even in effect and was reserved for MEPA? Why on your own authority import it into the RPS program3298 when we can't find anything in Section 11 of Chapter 25 A that authorizes you could do that?
[WOODLOCK:] Yeah, I certainly open to feedback. We are certainly trying to respond to a significant change that the legislature enacted. These would likely be um to take effect under a regulatory schedule in October and open to feedback if there should be further alignment with the date of effect of the MEPA requirements.
[SEN BARRETT:] You agree that the Legislature could have defined environmental justice population for the purposes of the RPS program, but did not because you just pointed out that the legislature has discretion on these matters?
[WOODLOCK:] Absolutely, senator.
[SEN BARRETT:] So we did. We chose not to do so. Our legislative intent was to reserve these policy innovations at the moment for Chapter 30, the MEPA provisions. But on your own, you have hopscotched over to an entirely new3365 area of law enacted without any authorisation in chapter 253373 A?
[WOODLOCK:] We did. We put these out for public comment, received3377 overwhelming support for this provision.
[SEN BARETT:] Well, I thank you for coming before the legislature, which of course is always concerned to protect its prerogative to legislate and to make sure that the executive branch carries out legislative intent but does not exceed it as may well have been the case here. Let's let's look at the map if we might Mr Commissioner, just for a moment, um I want to thank you for being absolutely transparent, you and your staff and when Representative Roy and I asked you to map out the implications of your written policy, you did produce this map for us, but it was not a part of the regs you issued. It was not released publicly until the committee requested it. Was it in existence before Mr Roy and I requested it?
[WOODLOCK:] We did not have this specific map. No.
[SEN BARRETT:] So without the map it's hard to visually understand which parts of Massachusetts you've left vulnerable, isn't it?
[WOODLOCK:] I disagree with the assessment of vulnerable. We did certainly know that when we reviewed the legislation with the MEPA standard that it would be an expansive scope of human impact review for MEPA purposes.
[SEN BARRETT:] Again, I don't think anyone in this committee is arguing with your wish to protect environmental justice populations, but the decision to go with a five mile buffer when air travels across hundreds of miles and before the legislature's authorized five mile buffers for the MEPA Act itself seems to have been an extraordinary exercise of regulation making by your agency. But the rest of us, including like
[WOODLOCK:] I will certainly agree that we took the feedback from the public about the impacts of bought biomass on environmental justice populations extremely seriously. And this is3502 a significant change and again open to feedback. We are trying to respond to the Climate Act and also to a lot of public input, senator.
[SEN BARRETT:] And I appreciate that but with the public comment that you received, had you shared this map with commentators at the time that they made their comments?
[WOODLOCK:] As you know that this map was developed in response to your request a few weeks ago. So no.
[SEN BARRETT:] Had you had you shared with commentators at the time, they made their comments the list of towns with significant land area vulnerable to citing?
[WOODLOCK:] I I mean I think we all know that the there was an understanding when the Climate Act passed that the changes would have a broad impact on a lot3555 of towns as indicated by this map.
[SEN BARRETT:] My staff Mr. Commissioner has done their calculation and the best we can make out um the particular regulation you propose makes REC Eligible biomass prohibited and 89% of the land area of Massachusetts leaving just 11% vulnerable to biomass citing new for citing, I mean. I think all of us on this committee and I know everyone in the executive branch believes in a proportion of burden sharing rather than disproportionate3596 harm. But this3597 seems to be a case, not a sharing burdens but of concentrating burdens on the remaining 11% of Massachusetts. How does concentrating the burden square with the intuitive feeling that burden sharing is okay but disproportionate harm is to be avoided?
[WOODLOCK:] I guess I I disagree with the fundamental assertion that this will lead to more burden in those facilities. All of our analysis is yielding to conclusion not see significant new biomass facilities proposed irrespective of these regulations.
[SEN BARRETT:] Well, I I take your point, I think you've declared uh in all but formal official language that there aren't going to be any new biomass facilities in Massachusetts and that's fine by DOER. So why again to echo3659 Senator Hinds and Senator O'Connor not make it official? Why not ask this committee to support legislation removing biomass as a class one renewable resource. You're often communicating with us uh with respect to legislation. The clear thrust of3679 these regs is to formally expose 11% of Massachusetts to disproportionate impacts. But the informal thrust seems to be inimical to additional biomass in Massachusetts. Why not or just to make what is all but official official?
[WOODLOCK:] I certainly would be willing to work, I think we need to think comprehensively about biomass. Um just last week, we put out a straw proposal that looks to promote the thermal use of biomass. I think biomass has a role in our energy future. And we have to be thoughtful about for all the reasons from Chairman Roy's question of where will this ah waste biomass go without state policy intervention? I think we do need to think holistically about that and certainly willing to work with the committee on that effort.
[SEN BARRETT:] I agree with you, we should think holistically, but you seem to be in your regs today inevitably funneling all that biomass to roughly out of 35 pounds out of 351, 90% Massachusetts is left is held harmless, 10% is exposed to significant harm. If we're to think holistically, shouldn't we delay3769 these regs, reconvene and promptly come up with a policy that doesn't concentrate the burden3777 but shares the burden?
[WOODLOCK:] Uh again, I think I answered the question earlier, we we do think that it's important to move forward with these regulations for consistency sake, um and certainly willing to work on a parallel track of long term biomass policy center. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. MR. Commissioner. Are there, are there additional questions of Commissioner Woodcock and his staff from the committee?
[REP ROY:] Uh Mr Chairman, I just want to ask one more follow up question, going back to the removal of the 60% efficiency standard for existing facilities, given all of the discussion that we've just heard that I'm not sure I understand why we would want to remove that standard at this time and only keep it for new facilities and could you help me understand that a little bit better?
[WOODLOCK:] Yeah, sorry.3835 Um, I tried to respond to that earlier. We do think that that will have greenhouse gas benefits uh that they will promote the use of non forest derived uh wood that has higher GHG benefits than forest arrived wood and ultimately will displace natural gas consumption uh in the region.
[REP ROY:] Right. And I, and I do understand you uh you were pointing to the study, are you confident that that is the direction that decision will move us and are you suggesting that If we don't remove the 60%, we will not get those benefits?
[WOODLOCK:] Correct. We do think that there will be marginal increases in biomass production. That would not occur without these changes. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay, Thank you.
I guess, yes, Senator.
[SEN HINDS:] Well, one other follow up based on the conversations taking place and first maybe to clarify, is it a burden or not on these now eligible towns or would be eligible towns? I guess the question is, well then, why is 90% of the state not eligible? Uh, what other purposes it then we're trying to ensure that there's not pollution in these targeted areas. Um, and so there's a bit of a disconnect in understanding would this be a problem in one town and then the next town over not a problem. I just don't understand why there's still confusion about the impact of this on the local population. But the question I had was, um, we've now heard several times that it's, it's unlikely that this would be an incentive for any new plants in Massachusetts.
And so if the policy is to incentivize taking on such things, and we're saying this policy is not sufficient, um, then I guess it leads me to kind of the next question that we were leading to, which is, well, it's going to be out of state folks. So we want to keep the policy, we're not going to adjust it so it's more of an incentive. But we think that the uptake might be somewhere else and so we need to maintain the policy. I mean, that's that's where my head is3967 going. So I guess the question is, do we have the mechanism for tracking who is taking up and utilizing this program? Um, and if not, we better.
[WOODLOCK:] Oh, uh, absolutely. We track this annually and put out an annual report of which facilities meet the RPS requirements.
[SEN HINDS:] Not not meet the requirements utilize massachusetts state dollars in a REC program.
[WOODLOCK:] Yes. We track that annually
[SEN HINDS:] Throughout the region?
[SEN HINDS:] Correct.
[SEN BARRETT:] If I could just follow3995 up on Senator Hinds' question in that respect, I'm looking at these regulations Mr Commissioner and I know you can enlighten me with respect to them, but among the regulations you proposed to eliminate is one entitled and I now reference. This is regulation as this is on page 31 of the red lined version of the regs that you provided to us. What you propose to eliminate a red line is the following verification provision. The department or independent third parties contracted for by the department shall conduct document inspections, audits and site visits under 25 CMR 14.11 as often as the department determines the necessary to verify compliance with all relevant provisions of 25 CMR 14.00 pertaining to the use of eligible biomass, woody fuel and then continuing on with the regulations you proposed to limit eliminated is number one advisory panel.
The department shall appoint a panel of nine members representing the executive office, the department DCR Mass DEP and environmental advocacy group, a licensed Massachusetts forester, a conservation biologist, the owner of a biomass generation unit and a member of the public. And this is what you're eliminating as well.4087 The panel shall monitor the ongoing verification processes and shall meet not less than two times per year and provide the department from each meeting its finding and recommendations, including its level of confidence in the verification enforcement provisions regarding and I'm quoting the tracking4106 of biomass fuel certificates and their impact on the biomass fuel market and on greenhouse gas accounting.
So, uh, granted, we don't have the, on the hands on familiarity with the new regs, but our quick review of your proposed new regs suggests that you're not reconstituting this verification provisions, which goes far beyond the question that you would ordinarily ask of a trained forester, a licensed forester. This this not only involves the, the kind of wood being burned by these out of state facilities and the in state ones, but also such additional matters as the quantity involved and presumably the air degradation implications as well. Why eliminate this verification provisions, the advisory panel and the charge to the advisory panel to monitor ongoing verification with respect to the tracking of biomass fuel certificates and their impact on the market and on greenhouse gas accounting. Why eliminate those safeguards at this time?
[WOODLOCK:] I wouldn't well um maybe Eric you can respond to that specific provision. I do think that we are certainly trying to reflect current practice and also uh streamline the regulation. I don't believe we received significant feedback on that provision and certainly open to feedback from the committee but uh Mr Steltzer do you have any any response to that?
[STELTZER:] Sure, yeah, thank you um Senator for the question on that on the biomass verification piece. Um We've simply moved the requirements over into guidelines to be consistent with the alternative portfolio standard. So the intent of the department is not to minimize any sort of existing practices that we have for the tracking of the feedstocks. If anything, it's just to make the proposed regulations just make them more robust.
[SEN BARRETT:] Well, let's pursue that interesting distinction you've raised sir between their appearing in regs as they do today and you're relegating them to guidelines. Could you spell out for us the legal implications of your taking a series of safeguards out of regs which require the public hearing process and putting them in guideline documents instead? What are the what is the difference all of the differences that are implied by your removing this language from regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act?
[STELTZER:] I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the legal elements of it but what I can say is that um guidelines help to support the regulations. There's nothing that can be in a guideline that isn't supported by the regulations, um and all the guidelines are required and continue to be required to go out for public comment before any sort of changes are made.
[SEN BARRETT:] Well, can you explain for us4308 the difference between why not just4310 keep it as a regulation if it's subject to exactly the same public comment requirements and public input guarantees?
[STELTZER:] Really, it's to be consistent with what we have on the books for the alternate portfolio standard which have those requirements within guidelines.
[SEN BARRETT:] I can let me speculate as an attorney myself4328 and please consider this a question that there are in fact legal implications in terms of notice and opportunity to be heard between a regulation promulgated pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act and a guideline derived by the department from those regulations. There are legal implications there. And I'm I have a question as to why you would want to remove transparency guarantees, especially involving the tracking of certificates when we've heard so much reporting in the last 12 months about how there's a sometimes squirrely market in regs and emission allowances. The whole question about how carbon markets operate4375 is now up for discussion.
And at this very moment, the department is proposing to step away from the regulation promulgation process, which is reasonably transparent and to relegate these important safeguards into a a series4393 of guidelines which are not published in the way that regulations are and are not subject to the same hearing procedures.
[WOODLOCK:] Well, we certainly go through a public comment period with guideline changes and open to feedback from the committee. There was no we really wanted to just uh, uh, streamline these regulations and have a consistent um, and didn't have any multi earlier motivations with that section Senator.
[SEN BARRETT:] I'm sure I'm sure that's the4424 case. And and Mr Chairman, you you are familiar with this, these recent questions that are being raised about the integrity4435 of carbon markets right?
[WOODLOCK:] Sorry, senator. Uh, was that a question to me? I think...
[SEN BARRETT:] Generally familiar with this uh, new questions that are being raised about the integrity of different kinds of carbon markets. I'm particularly referring to the biomass fuel certificates, which at the moment are subject to the purview of an appointed advisory committee but are about to move into a different space because you're abolishing the advisory panel itself and certainly abolishing their mandate to track and enforce biomass fuels certificates. Are you familiar with the recent controversies that have generally ensued around sometimes squirrely carbon markets that don't result and the emissions expected of them
[WOODLOCK:] With respect to offset is that what you are referring, yeah. Yes, I am.
[SEN BARRETT:]All right. I just wanted to... Well, I would like to urge you just as one member of the committee to re consider abolishing the advisory panel, reconsider uh abolishing their mandate with respect to tracking biomass fuel certificates. And I hope you will reconsider relegating this enforcement safeguards to a mere4511 guideline when they're currently subject to regulation. I would hope that they would stay where they are. But I'm just expressing a personal opinion. But that's a that's an ask of you that I wanted to make
[WOODLOCK:] Noted. Thank you. Senator. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Are there additional questions of the commissioner and Mr Steltzer?
If not, I want to thank you, sir very much. You're patient. You are always available, whatever differences we have. I appreciate your willingness to come before a set. And I thank you and mr Stelzer,
[WOODLOCK:] Thank you if I could just respond. I certainly welcome the committee's feedback on the regulations where trying to respond to it very rapidly changing public policy with respect to environmental justice. And furthermore, we I did want to note we alluded to it, but this region uh is undergoing fundamental change with our energy markets to look to offshore wind hydropower yet those facilities are not yet in place. We still remain extremely vulnerable in winter scarcity events. And uh that has become in my tenure paris lee close to reliability challenges and looking to alternatives is important in the near future to reduce our exposure to natural gas, both from a reliability standpoint and from a greenhouse gas standpoint. And that underlies some of the thinking that is embodied in these regulations
[SEN BARRETT:] And yet you can see that it is highly unlikely that we'll see new biomass in Massachusetts?
[WOODLOCK:] These regulations will yield increased biomass production regionally goes to the Chairman Roy's point about the um out of state facilities uh and and just wanted to put that4632 in context with the broader energy picture. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
All right, thank you sir. Um much appreciated. And uh we want to thank you again for your time and wish you and Mr Stelzer a good weekend. Thank you. We hope we hope you'll stick around though because Senator Heinz and Senator Commerford have an idea or two additional that they'd like to uh express you. So if you can if you can give yourself some milk and crackers and stay with us, that would be wonderful.
It might be a different beverage at this point. But uh yeah of course.
Thank you. Thank you.
We will go on to our next virtual panel and I see the real life Adam Heinz and the real life joe Comerford are going to be The two anchors for our virtual panel and I invite them to testify now,
so we're walking away from the real, so we'll walk away from the committee chair and and and stand in front sit in front of the committee at this point, Senator Comerford happy to have you go first as I've been talking quite a bit already,
[SEN COMMERFORD:] I am happy to thank you Senator Hinda and uh thank you, Chair Barrett and Chair Roy and committee for hearing my testimony along with Senator Hinds on the issue of biomass in the commonwealth. I've really been4736 glued to this morning's hearing and grateful to you for convening it. Part of the regulations before the committee today stipulate that biomass would not be RPS class one eligible if they are located within five miles of an environmental justice4750 community, as we've heard. And although these regulations are new, this issue, as you well know, is not. Back in 2009 advocates were mobilizing to put a question about biomass eligibility uh in the RPS on the ballot when then Governor Deval Patrick commissioned a report on the issue.
The resulting 182 page report, as discussed earlier this morning, was very clear that biomass was not carbon neutral and emits more carbon than natural gas. The Patrick administration tightened sustainability and efficiency standards for biomass plants and as a result, as a result of that report, we're going to fast forward now to 2019 and Governor Baker's proposed efficiency standard rollbacks. This would have allowed a biomass plant proposed for Springfield, arguably the asthma capital of the nation, to claim millions of dollars in RPS credits annually, virtually ensuring its construction. Most of us know what happened next chairs. A years long tidal wave of activism, urged DOER to reverse course and deny a permit to the proposed plan in Springfield and good4817 for DOER for following this course of action.
And here4820 I am appreciative of the leadership and expertise of secretary Theo Harities and her team4824 and of course, the commissioner. Environmental Justice Communities across the commonwealth have borne the brunt of pollution for generations and tragically, the impact can4833 clearly be seen in the health outcomes of residents. Their activism was based in science. The communities that responded about five years ago, a cadre of leading health organizations sent a letter to Congress, which included this powerful indictment, "Biomass is far from clean. Burning biomass creates air pollution that causes a sweeping array of health harms from asthma attacks to cancer to heart attacks, resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths."
Scientist has also shown that we, as a state in the nation, need to increase carbon sequestration from our forests and our natural and working lands. If we want to have a chance, a chance of meeting our climate goals, our finite tax dollars should be incentivizing the4882 protection of land, the growth of forests as opposed to the burning of4887 wood at an industrial scale. When DOER rightly changed course in Springfield, with regard to the Springfield biomass plant. It arrived at these new proposed regulations, which stipulate that biomass facilities located within five miles of an environmental justice community would not be eligible for RPS subsidies. By proposing that biomass plants sighted near environmental justice communities would not be RPS eligible, DOER is clearly acknowledging that environmental justice communities cannot and should not bear the negative health impacts of large scale biomass plants. But4924 here's the flip side of that proposal, and this has already been stated4929 chairs.
About 11% of the state, including three communities in my district and 21 communities west of the Quabbin Reservoir, which is of course Boston's drinking water um would become the only places in the state where biomass facilities are RPS eligible. It4945 doesn't matter where a facility is cited in Massachusetts or elsewhere. The science still says no. The logic here in these regulations is tortured. A biomass plant cited more than five miles away from the nearest environmental justice community is not any greener than a biomass plant in Springfield. The location of the facility has never been a factor in RPS Class one eligibility. Class one should be reserved for the cleanest energy sources, the truly green infrastructure that we want to see companies invest in because we know it's the energy infrastructure for a sustainable future.
As I close, I strongly urge us to learn the brutal lessons from COVID-19. Exposure to air pollution can cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Those with preexisting respiratory conditions are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die from COVID-19. That's what the science says. There is no mystery to this deadly equation. When we expose our residents to environmental5014 harms, they become less healthy and more vulnerable. I suggest that a key lesson we learn from this pandemic is to recognize once and for all chairs, the inextricable tie between our climate and our health. In May of this year, dozens of national climate and public health organizations released a declaration on climate change and health, calling on President Biden and Congress to quote, heed the clear scientific evidence and take steps now to dramatically reduce pollution that drives climate change and harms health end quote.
These groups called for quote measures to secure dramatic reductions in carbon emissions from power plants, including rapid phase out of power plants that burn fossil fuels, biomass and waste for energy. Earlier this week, as wildfire smoke from the West Coast blew across the entire nation and turned Massachusetts skies hazy and made our air dangerous to breathe it was a stark reminder that we are all in this climate crisis together and being in this together means removing biomass from RPS Class One eligibility. Thank you so much for considering my5094 testimony. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
and thank you Senator
Senator Heinz.
[SEN HINDS:] Great! Thank you Chair Barrett and chair Roy and for allowing me to speak. Uh not as a committee, a member of the committee, but to provide testimony as a member of the Legislature. And today's hearing is focused primarily on biomass energy. And and DOER's proposed new regulations around what biomass energy plants should and should not qualify uh as renewable energy sources. And and so let me be clear on addressing this question. Biomass woody fuel is not clean energy. Biomass energy still relies on combustion like coal, oil and natural gas to produce electricity or heat, and biomass energy still releases carbon into the atmosphere. Biomass energy still releases many other harmful pollutants into the atmosphere.
Biomass energy still is not the solution for our climate crisis, and combustion in any form is not helpful to our climate crisis, regardless of the source of the carbon. And so as we're looking to turn away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner renewable energy sources, we cannot allow biomass energy to be the answer. And that means not using the tools of the state to encourage it be it through renewable energy credits or otherwise. As we've heard today, the current regulations regarding biomass were developed after the DOER commissioned 2010 study by Manomet, a Massachusetts nonprofit and the study looked at the impact on the climate from using biomass to5187 create power. Study was clear that biomass fuels are not carbon neutral.
In fact, the study went on to say that, as I mentioned earlier, that the level of carbon emitted by biomass energy may take particularly would may take as long as 90 years for newly planted trees to reabsorb and make up the carbon debt. So as much as5209 our change has, has understand as much as our understanding has5213 changed since 2010 what's clear is that 90-year timeline is not consistent with other stated policies of the Commonwealth to reduce our carbon emissions in a much shorter time frame. So this is not the solution in a renewable portfolio standard at all and so we do have examples that not only has our thinking um evolved, but it's now been 11 years since that study, and this study did not include key elements including what are the impacts of burning scrap wood or non forest derived residues.
Um and so our understanding of the impact of wood burning as Far outpaced this 2010 study. Now, to be sure as I mentioned, there are societal goods in kind of finding ways for loggers and landowners to benefit economically. But the calculations about how that should be achieved have changed and has become much more complex due to the climate crisis and the state's goals to cut carbon emissions. So as5273 leaders, we can do more to support logging and wood products industry in Massachusetts and developing a market for timber cut from sustainable managed forests to be used for materials. As I said, we can deliberately and strategically5287 try to create multiple pools of carbon sequestration, um and and have that stored for decades, if not centuries, rather than giving it up immediately to the atmosphere should it be burned.
And furthermore, we can compensate landowners, forested lands and other natural lands that sequester carbon for providing a public benefit to us all. And I have filed a bill to do just that, you know, one of the proposed regular changes to the biomass regulations means that new biomass plants, ones with an operation data after December 31st 2020 we need to meet 60% overall efficiently efficiency requirement, regardless of the type of woody massive burn, and that means the older and more air polluting plants throughout New England. Let me, let me say that again. Older, more air polluting plants throughout New England will be supported by Massachusetts taxpayer subsidies. We just heard that in fact from the commissioner, that the policy will not result in more new plants in Massachusetts but will quote, will yield increases in biomass use regionally.
National taxpayer subsidies will yield increases in biomass use regionally. And so a number of these plants are currently shuttered in new Hampshire and but uh biomass changes, biomass regulation changes could offer them a new life. Um we've we've seen a number of older biomass plants closed after Governor Sununu vetoed a bill in 2019 that would have subsidized wood burning power plants. Those shutters were recently purchased by a main company and I'm concerned that these DOER proposed changes will prop up those5393 failing out of state biomass plants and do little to mitigate climate change, reduce air pollution and promote new sources of clean energy. We're simply exporting the problem to New Hampshire and Maine by subsidizing biomass and particularly woody biomass.
And we can5409 look to inspiration in recent decisions in the administration of Dartmouth College actually. In 2019 the college announced it was planning to replace its oil fired heating plant with one that runs on wood chips. But late last year they cancelled that plan after hearing from scientists and community members, and instead the college plans to increase its reliance on a mix of geothermal energy, heat pumps and solar. So in closing, I'll just draw your attention to a letter written to EEA secretary of Theo Harities by a coalition of environmental groups, um including Partnership for Republican for Policy Integrity, Sierra Club and others. And that letter summarized the problems with these proposed rule changes as they relate to biomass.
And should these changes become law, they would eliminate Massachusetts specific forest harvesting criteria, including limits on intensive harvesting for biomass. There are a key maintaining uh that those are key to maintaining forest productivity and forest sequestration, adopt. These would adopt greenhouse gas accounting approaches that qualifying qualifies plants for subsidies by underestimating the life cycle of CO2 emissions as I've described. Both ignoring fossil fuels burned during harvesting, processing and transport of biomass and utilizing the single year approach for estimating cumulative emissions instead of a correct multiyear approach. Provides subsidies to polluting and inefficient wood burning biomass power plants out of the state that are presently eligible to receive Massachusetts regs under the existing regulations.
And incentivize new biomass plants to be constructed if folks decided to do that inside and outside the state. This is precisely the wrong time for Massachusetts to weaken regulations on existing biomass subsidies and to increase subsidies of burning on5515 fuel. It's, it's precisely the wrong direction. And as we've heard during a week, we're watching the several air quality alerts because of burnt wood and wild pirates out west. So thank you again Chair Barrett. Thank you Chair Roy for giving me the opportunity to speak today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
The committee would welcome any written testimony. Senator comfort and Senator Heinz has a, I found5540 both sets of remarks to be very interesting. Are there questions of our witnesses?
We want to thank you both very much for coming before us today.
Thank you chairs and we will submit written testimony.
Thank you. That would be much appreciated. We now want to hear from a, a virtual panel of, we've got to Virtual panels. I guess we're, we've got nine witnesses signed up. We're trying to make a rough distinction in terms of their focus is um, I have a list of all nine in front of me, so my apologies if I don't get the segmentation right before I introduce what I believe to be5585 the first natural grouping, I want it. Welcome Senator Pacheco to this hearing.
Thank you. Welcome Senator Pacheco. Uh, so we'd like to hear from Western Mass voices. Uh, on on my list, This virtual panel would consist of 9 to 10 artists Janet, Sinclair, um,
serena Hudson, perhaps Michael Kellett, Jesse Letterman,
I'm not sure but anyone that with a particular Western Mass perspective to offer is welcome to testify in sequence at this time. And we will then have another panel folks primarily focused on statewide policy. Um so if it's appropriate, I'd5630 like to call on Mr Horowitz and she could introduce herself and give her organizational affiliation and present some testimony to us.
[NYJAH TANAROWITZ (CANWM):] [HB2197] [HB3333] [SB2186] [HB3362] Hi, good morning Chairman Barrett, Chairman Roy and members of the TOE committee. My name is Nyjah Tanarowitz. I am a Springfield resident and a member of Climate Action Now Western Mass and the Springfield Climate Justice Coalition. When I started an internship with Climate Action. Now last year,5663 I found out that Palmer renewable energy has been trying to build a biomass energy plant5669 in east in East Springfield less than five miles from where I live with my asthmatic partner and their family. Learning this spurred me to take action. For this last year. I have been organizing in defense of the health and well being of my community, my family and myself as part of the most recent generation to join a fight that the Springfield community has been waging for over 12 years now.
I'm grateful to the DOER for adding a regulation that would prevent any biomass facility built within five miles of an environmental justice community from qualifying for renewable energy subsidies. This regulation may protect my community, but I stand before you today to advocate for communities everywhere and to ask the TOE committee TOE committee and DOER to reject the regulations that would use our ratepayer money to fund power plants that pollute the air5718 with fine particulate matter, heavy metals and hazardous chemicals that have been linked to asthma, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. As a cancer survivor, I fought for my life and suffered permanent damage to my body before even reaching the age of 22. I had friends even younger than me who lost their lives in their fight against cancer.
Please do not approve regulations that would weaken our environmental protections and consign even more people to that fate by filling our air with carcinogens. Furthermore pollution from biomass plants poses a danger to people who already have respiratory illnesses and other physical vulnerabilities, like my partner. Chronically ill and vulnerable people live everywhere and they deserve to breathe clean5760 air regardless of whether they live in environmental justice communities or not. Every tonne of CO2 emitted by a biomass burning plant makes our future darker, harder and more dangerous. I look through the haze of toxins and pollution that clouds my future and I wonder what horrors I will witness.
How many of my friends and family will die due to environmental contamination, pollution and climate catastrophes? How many species will go extinct in my lifetime? What kind of world will be left for my children and grandchildren? My generation and I will be sorting through the wreckage of this world long after you're gone. So I implore you to take action now. We still have time to turn things around and the power is in your hands. Reject the regulations that would fund biomass plants with Massachusetts, ratepayer money and please sponsor Bills S2197 H3333 and S2186 H3362. That will author offer further protection to not only my community but to communities all throughout Massachusetts and beyond it. Thank you for hearing my testimony today. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to hold questions for the Western mass panel until we've heard from a5843 number of Western Mass perspectives. So I would like to welcome Janet. Sinclair testified
is Janet with us?
I Janet you're muted
Janet your music. Okay. I'm trying to a mute myself. I am I a muted, Congratulations.
[JANET SINCLAIR:] Oh thanks. That was a big thing. Okay, well anyway, I'm going to have a5883 little bit of the little spontaneous here today because thank you so much first senators Commerford and Adam Hinds for saying so much of what needed to be said about this. Um, I can just speak from the point of view of, um, a community, um, organizer and Greenfield. Um, we, um, started in 2009. We were fighting the biomass power plant Greenfield. We also, um, worked with people in Russell in Springfield because we all have these sitting in front of us and just in case all of you don't know this each of those power plants got $250,000 of Massachusetts technology collaborative money to, to, for their lawyers, for their engineers to come and talk to our town officials before we even knew what was going on. And so we put up this huge, huge effort in Greenfield. You cannot, I cannot overstate um, what the massive effort was there.
5938 And,5938 and, and we even had a vote um, in our town that wasn't going to stop the project, but was related. 84% of people in Greenfield in 2010 voted against Biomass Power, 84% and I would suggest to that that's a number that is probably, uh, is replicated today in the state of Massachusetts. And people do not want biomass subsidies period. I'm telling you, I will tell you as a witness on the street. Um, you know, every one of these projects succeeded at that time of, and they all would have5976 been built if these regulations were not passed in 2012. And just to be clear about what happened to get5984 those regulations passed, it wasn't just the Manomet study, it was that one of our colleagues who, I'm sorry, is not speaking here today, proposed a ballot question that meant that we shifted gears and collected.
I really5997 think that at the end it was like about 160,000 registered voters to get this question on the ballot to stop these subsidies for biomass. And what happened at the time was the legislature asked our call everybody sit down together and come up with a compromise.6019 So there is a compromise which isn't even what we wanted and that's what we have today. These are the rigs that we have right now. And so, so after all of that for DOER to come back, like6032 all these years later when the only thing that we6034 know is what we know more of which we always knew which was the health impacts, the forest impacts, the climate impacts. This is not rocket science, it never was we figure it out. Everybody in Greenfield understood it. No one wanted it and wanted this power plant.
And so now I'm just gonna say as one of the people that's been here for the whole time, all 11 years you know, going testifying, you know trying to stop the APS Bill from passing testifying at hearings of DOER of of the legislature of you know, watching thousands of people signed letters, vote, testify. All of us just this big push to just stop this and and we're being being igored and this this attempt6079 right now to change the RPS is such a slap in the face to those of us. And I'm saying thousands of us who fought so hard for the regulations that we have. I don't trust DOER to be reasonable here. I think you should all question why, why, why is this happening? You know, because I don't think it's obvious and what it is to me, but maybe me, I'm just going to suggest one other thing, which is that the only fix here is to change the law. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. We're going to continue to hear from our Western Mass panel and then we're going to put questions to all of you. Um Jacqueline bellas jobs with justice.
If Jack Lines here,
we can return6125 to Jacqueline is serena Hudson here?
Yes, I'm on terrific. Why don't you introduce yourself and your organizational affiliation and testify for the committee?
[SARITA HUDSON (PHIWM):] Sure. Um thank you so much for this opportunity to provide testimony on the latest of the changes to the RPS. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Can you hear me okay? Yes, I speak a little more loudly, but we can hear you. We can't see you,6159 but we can hear you. Yeah, Okay, great.
[HUDSON:] So, um I am the director of programmes and development for the Public Health Institute of Western Massachusetts that was formed over 25 years ago with the goal of building measurably healthier communities using data and are convening power to create collaborative partnerships. We convene the Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition and live off Springfield, both of which work on air quality and climate justice. I've been testifying against biomass for eight years, which is how long I've been here and I know that the work against biomass began well before maybe a decade before I started. We strongly oppose changes to the RPS that would expand incentives for biomass energy since this would lead to increase negative health impacts associated with burning wood for energy and the resulting in an increase in air pollution.
Air pollution is a major health danger for children and adults. Outdoor air pollution from burning fossil fuels such as biomass has been shown to contribute to morbidity for several chronic diseases, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease and,6227 most recently, covid 19. In addition, air pollution affects the development of lungs linked to birth, weight, preterm birth. According to the EPA fine particle pollution causes early death. Um and in the 2013, the World Health Organization concluded that outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic to humans, even though burning wood for fuel is a time honored tradition. Increasingly, there is a consensus around the negative health impacts of incineration such as biomass.
The key pollutants are particulate matter and carbon monoxide and fine particulates PM 2.5 has the greatest health risk. Um according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the state of Massachusetts is home to three of the top 20 asthma capitals in the US Worcester, Boston, Springfield. After two years as the asthma cap number one asthma capital in the nation, the Greater Springfield area has dropped6288 to the 12th6289 most challenging place in the US to live with asthma and we are pleased for that. This improvement coincides with our healthy homes, program efforts, other community health worker asthma interventions from health centers and health health groups, the school interventions to improve school indoor air quality, the pandemic and then an improvement in air quality as reported by the American lung Association.
6312 We6312 are making progress in Worcester in Massachusetts. We cannot go back and we don't want to put that shift that burden to any other communities. We have to move forward with new forms of energy. Warming climate projections are expected to further worsen air quality as we've seen with the smoke from wildfires in Canada and the Western US blowing into our region and causing air quality alerts. Our own Pioneer Valley healthy air network of air sensors, which we're building with partners from academia, local city departments, resident advisors and other collaborating organizations picked up high levels of PM 2.5 particulate matter and that impacted not just uh those who are most sensitive, like people with asthma or older adults, but it impacted everyone.
You saw it in the air quality in the last few weeks. Um, it is critical that we do not add to the burden on our communities who are already facing health inequities. I have written testimony that describes what we're facing in Western Mass. We know that you've listened and change the standards around environmental justice communities. We need to be thinking towards the future. We need to be looking to other sources of energy that do not have the same negative health impacts. Thank you so much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much, Miss Hudson. We will now hear from Councillor Jesse Letterman, who's been uh an outstanding leader on these issues for some time. And we're happy to have you counselor before us today.
[COUN. JESSE LETTERMAN:] Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you so much for those kind words and for the opportunity6435 to testify this morning. As the chairman indicated, my name is Jesse Letterman. I'm an at large city counsellor here in the City of Springfield, and I chair the council's subcommittee on sustainability and environment, as well as health and human services. And as you've heard this morning for more than 10 years, residents in the city of Springfield have been engaged in an intense campaign against a proposal to construct a biomass waste incinerator in the center of our community. This proposal was inappropriate from day one starting with its original origin as a construction and demolition debris incinerator to its current iteration today. Now, Springfield, like many cities that have been targeted by polluters for generations, has faced serious challenges with our air quality and the public health outcomes that go along with those challenges.
As you've heard from Sarita we've received failing grades for air quality6490 in the past and have ranked high on the national list of asthma capitals. Activists and local officials who have raised challenges to this proposal over the years have not done so lightly. I know because I was there from day one. At every turn we've been outspent, we've been threatened with litigation, but more or less the efforts of those looking to bring attention to the ways that this incinerator would harm the people of Springfield6514 in our environment have been successful and I believe that is because deep down the tide is beginning to turn, The evidence is on our side and the days of rubber stamping polluters in communities like ours are over. There's a reason why the Greenfield and Russell proposals are long gone and we're still in court in Springfield it is because people for too long have been told they can come into communities like Springfield and tell us what is going to be good for our neighbors.
Those days are over to6543 better understand the relevance of today's hearing to this decade long example, you have to go to the beginning because it was state financial incentives for biomass that kicked off the Springfield proposal to begin with. The policies that we choose to embrace as elected officials have real consequences for real people in real communities that you've heard today. Many of those original financial incentives have now been rolled back because the science clearly told us they were wrong. The science has not changed. It has only gotten stronger. So I'm glad that DOER heeded the calls of hundreds who turned out at dug in middle school in Springfield by adding provisions to their proposed changes that would create special environmental justice protections for communities like Springfield. But the proposed RPS changes before you today still mean that our clean energy dollars can go to subsidizing pollution in other areas of Massachusetts and in our neighboring states. And just like we shouldn't subsidize pollution in the city of Springfield.
I can't stand by in6606 good conscience and see pollution subsidize in any community no matter where they are, and especially not backed by Massachusetts ratepayers. Our local officials in neighboring communities should be able to focus on building a clean equitable and just future for their neighbors not having to fight massive corporations with seemingly unlimited financial resources to lobby and sue and certainly not backed by our ratepayer dollars. That's the policy decision before the commonwealth. In december6636 of 2020 the Springfield6638 City Council passed a unanimous resolution opposing all subsidies for biomass incineration in the new RPS regulations. And I urge the6646 committee again today6647 to do everything in your power to stop changes to the RPS that grants subsidies of any kind to large scale biomass incinerators here or anywhere. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you sir. And now we're going to hear from Jacqueline velez. Very happy to have you with us.
[JACQUELINE VELEZ (MJWJ):] Thank you so much, sir. Um So my name is Jacqueline6668 Velez. I am a resident of Springfield, the city where the biomass power plant was proposed to be built. Um I feel like I need to give you a little background information about me for you to understand why um this issue um it's something that I've decided to tackle in my personal capacity as well as through my job. Um I'm currently an organizer and activist with the Massachusetts Jobs With Justice nonprofit organization. I have lived in Springfield for the last three years and lived in Holyoke the6705 preceding three years. I am originally from Brooklyn, New York. 26 years ago I had a daughter. She was raised there, taking public transportation such as the New York City subway and buses6718 to go to school.
We used public transportation for6720 98% of the places we would go to. I realized when she was in the seventh grade, around age 12 that I wanted to6729 live somewhere else that was quiet, um, with a connection to nature. Uh, so visiting a friend here in Massachusetts, I decided that this is where I wanted to move, but at the time I was not able to. Um, So when she turned 18, I had a son. He is now eight years old. Um, when he was about to turn two years old, I decided to make the move because I didn't want him to start school in New York and then it would be hard to relocate, harder to relocate. So6760 I did so, and by the time I moved here, he was two and a half years old. Um, since then, um, purchase the home. So in my family, I am the first to purchase my, you know, a home and my daughter and my son live here with me.
I'm a single mom. A few months ago, maybe 2-3 months ago during6787 the fight for the, you know, like ensuring that biomass wouldn't come to the state, my daughter was6794 diagnosed with asthma and this is shocking to me. I thought living in New York that that was probably the dirtiest, most um environmentally unsafe place to6805 live. I never thought that moving to Mass where I wanted, you know, to have sports for my son, nature for my children. Um, and where I eventually purchased a home that my daughter would deal with such a thing. I've also um started to suffer from allergies living here and this is all without a biomass plant. So I, you know, was definitely concerned prior to her diagnosis, but now I'm angry and, you know, I just want um, to keep the environment safe, but not, you know, really for so much myself, but for children, not just my own children, everyone's children.
Um, especially in in communities where we have so many other things stacked against us. I just don't think that's one of those things that they should be dealing with. And I just, you know, testified on behalf of my children right now. Um, so yeah, I I want to leave it at that because I'm getting a little emotional, but I basically, think it's very important for us to keep that stuff out of our communities. We already have high pollution as it is. I didn't want to come at you with stats and numbers because I have a real life personal story that affects my whole household. Um, and I thought that, you know, telling you that would be more effective than doing you know, the numbers thing. Um obviously that6903 complements things that I'm saying, but I just wanted you know to have to basically share that with you all and I appreciate, you know, the time that you've taken to listen to me. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
You're on mute. Mr jones,
thank you very much. Mr Bayless. It's good to know that there are real lives being lived in these situations and that it's not all policy on paper. I appreciate it. We have questions of our Western Mass panels. I I believe they comprise a panel in the remaining witnesses have a statewide perspectives and but I want to make sure that I'm not a group of people mistakenly do we have questions of our Western Mass folks.
I want to thank you very much for6960 I won't say taking the time to appear. I mean you are taking6966 the time. Thank goodness you didn't have to slap into the State House. That's one thing about these remote hearings. So wonderful. I know you're busy enough. Thank you so much for coming before us
chairman. I just wanted to say my word of thanks for the Western House panel. It's many of these folks were the folks who brought this issue to the attention of of us very early on have been been way ahead of the curve and activists and making sure that, um, you know, sprinkled plant and6993 others have a different terms. So thank you for your work and your participation.
So if we're going to transition at this time to a panel with different kinds of statewide perspectives on these regulations, I'd like to ask invite first. Andrew Yeah, rows of the Conservation Law Foundation to testify if Andrew is with us.
[ANDREW YARROWS (CLF):] I am here. Thank you very much. Good afternoon committee members and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Andrew Yarrows and I'm a legal fellow at the Conservation Law Foundation. CLF is a nonprofit member supported environmental advocacy organization working in Massachusetts and across New England to protect our environment and build healthy communities. CLF has been actively involved in shaping the rules around biomass energy in the Commonwealth for more than 10 years when the current regulations were being developed during 2010 through 2012. As other speakers have mentioned, that process concluded with a tightly drafted consensus position whereby the regulation of biomass energy was grounded in7063 science and the recognition that biomass energy is not automatically carbon neutral.
The proposed regulations roll back nearly all of these scientifically rigorous requirements in favor of expediency and economic benefits for biomass facilities. And because the RPS is an incentive program, this means the commonwealth would be spending ratepayer dollars to subsidize and even more polluting and less efficient form of energy generation. Specifically, as others have mentioned, the proposed regulations would completely eliminate the efficiency criteria for existing biomass facilities that claim to burn non forest derived residues for nearly all of their fuel. Beyond lacking a basis in science this change is inconsistent with the statutory requirement that such biomass facilities must use low emission technologies to qualify under the RPS.
Incentivizing a highly inefficient form of energy that leads to additional air pollution is also out of line with the commonwealth's long-term emissions reduction goals expressed in the GWSA and in the recent Climate Act. This process has also been plagued by procedural deficiencies and the public was not given notice or an opportunity to provide input at several stages throughout this process. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to take several actions. First, in its report, we ask that the committee recommend that DOER withdraw all of its proposed changes to these regulations, except for the protections for environmental justice populations. We also urge the committee to find that the department exceeded its authority under the RPS statute in proposing the substantial rollback of environmental protections.
Second, we asked the committee support legislation that would remove biomass from7156 eligibility within the RPS program and ensure that no new combustion facilities within five miles of an7162 EJ Community can qualify for the RPS. Amending the statute in these ways would definitively end subsidies to polluting biomass7169 facilities and solidify protections for EJ Communities. We hope that the committee agrees that Massachusetts7175 should not be subsidizing burning wood for electricity and that the committee makes clear to the department that either the department can hold biomass facilities to rigorous science based standards or the legislature will remove biomass from the RPS by statute. And in closing, I'd just like to thank you again for your time and for your attention to this issue and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Well hold questions until we hear from a number of panelists Andrew. But I appreciate your comments very much. Can we hear from Sarah dueling of the massachusetts Climate Action Next Sarah is available here.
We'll circle back up and invite, I am here. There you are. Excellent,
I see you,
you're on muto,
[SARAH DULING (MCAN):] My apologies. Okay, great to be here. Thank you so much. I was originally intended to be a closer for this panel, but I can certainly come in at this point in time. What has struck me about, uh, pardon me, my name is Sarah Duling, executive director for the Massachusetts Climate Action Network. We are a statewide organization committed to local action that influences state policy, specifically7254 related to clean energy, creating a livable, breathable future for everyone, which is exactly7261 what we have been talking about this morning. And so briefly, I'm not going to repeat all of the points that have been shared with this committee so far. I do want to emphasize that we strongly oppose uh including biomass energy as part of the renewable portfolio standard.
And in fact, MCAN members have been resoundingly clear from Western Mass to Cape Cod that they want their money to support strong climate policies and not subsidize the burning of trees. Uh, and as Senator Hinds mentioned punting this problem up to new Hampshire into Maine. Moreover, for the first time, municipal lighting plants are regulated under the state's greenhouse gas emissions standards, something that is not uh specifically what we are talking7317 about today, but in the broader ecosystem of transitioning the commonwealth to be emissions free. Uh this is going to be part of our ongoing work. So the concerns raised7328 here today affect real people in real places. The public health concerns, are paramount scientists demonstrating the threat of burning biomass over and over.
In addition, there is very strong clear desires among ratepayers among MCAN members to invest in real clean energy and not allow biomass to be eligible for Class One RECs. So this does translate into enacting measures to exclude woody biomass from state clean7366 energy subsidy programs and to offer broader protections for environmental justice communities while making sure that we do not place some of Senator Commerford's communities uh sort of in the bull's eye of a potential new biomas, uh, facility. So with that I'm going to conclude my remarks. Thank you for this opportunity and I will hang on the call in case there are any questions. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Senator Barrett. You are. You have been muted.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Miss7413 doing.7413 Have can we hear from James Mccaffrey? The partnership for policy integrity.
I start James earlier. I see him now.7424
7424 You're7424 still muted. James.
Here we go.
Talk to us. James say something. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Oh, great. I'm sorry. It was not a meeting7448 for a second. Is it possible to ask Michael to go next or7452 would you like me or you know? Yes, Michael, I see Michael kelly here. He's muted at the moment, but he7460 could testify next if he wishes.
Okay, thank you,
Michael. Yeah. there you go.
I can't hear you, Michael. Can you hear me now? Yes, speak loudly though.
[MICHAEL KELLY (RNW):] Okay, thank you Chairman Barrett and Roy. My name is Michael Kelly I live in Lincoln mass. I'm here to comment on behalf of Restore the North Woods, which is a Massachusetts choose. It's based nonprofit organization with members across the state. We strongly oppose the proposed changes in the RPS regulations because in addition to the other issues that have been raised, they would gut the forest protection provision in the current regulations. They'd eliminate restrictions on the amount of wood removed as biomass. Now the regulations allow 25-30% of log wood to qualify, but that would be eliminated in favor of so called sustainable forestry,7521 which is a vague and unenforceable concept that would not prevent abusive logging.7527 They would eliminate forest and soil protections.
The current regulations have clear biomass logging standards to help maintain soil carbon storage and ecosystem values. But DOER would replace these science based standards with toothless forest friendly guidelines attested to by a forester as the standard. Um they would eliminate other forest protections, such as requiring uh, that were quite detailed in the current regulations, including leaving den trees and dead wood and stumps for biodiversity and soils and wildlife. Uh, that would all be eliminated. And again, we would be depending on vega non7571 enforceable sustainable forestry language. Um, the we would replace science based metrics with this sustainable forestry concept and one last thing about that, there's no scientifically agreed upon consensus about what sustainable forestry is, No Massachusetts law or regulation currently has any meaningful definition of what sustainable forestry is. So it's a totally subjective thing.
Um, and in addition deal we are would expand forest salvage, which is really just cutting down trees that are dead and dying from storms, disease, and insect infestation. Except now we're scientists are recognizing these trees are extremely important for not only carbon, continued carbon sequestration, but also for wildlife habitats and nesting areas and so forth. Um and finally the changes would eliminate the accountability of the fuel tracking and certification system that's currently uh in in the current regulations which have been mentioned. Uh, this would be eliminated. Uh and we again, we we would basically be depending on7646 big unenforceable sustainable forestry standards. So basically the current regulations, we think other than we support the addition of the environmental justice provisions, but other than that, we think the current regulations are pretty reasonable and effective and that the the proposed changes by DOER would gut the forest protection aspects and we strongly oppose that. Thank you for the chance to comment and I'd be glad to7674 answer any questions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you Michael. We'll we'll hear first from James if he's uh, still with us and have a mind to, to tell us what he thinks I am. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh great.
[JAMES MCCAFFREWY (NEPPI):] Um, good afternoon everyone. And uh, thank you so much for holding this hearing. My name is James Mccaffrey. I am the legislative director for New England for Partnership for Policy Integrity. We are a science and data driven nonprofit organization. We use advocacy, litigation, policy analysis, strategic communications to the public grassroots efforts working with others to help promote policies that protect the climate, ecosystems and people. And again, we want to say uh enthusiastically thank you so much for holding this oversight hearing for the attention and excellent work done by this body during the climate bill. And we also owe a debt of gratitude to former provost to carry the torch on this issue for so many years and all the co sponsors then and now of our simple legislation that we filed to actually fix this all together and remove these technologies from our clean energy programs.
I want to uh take you on a little bit of a journey here if you can bear with me for a minute since our monumental state efforts in 2012 to help get this ship off on the right track, we developed a science based standards that stand to this day, and it's important to note that they were landmark standards. They were the first in the nation, we believe possibly the first in the world because the Manomet study that we conducted here in massachusetts appears to be the first study Conducted globally to actually look at the implications and the timelines of the CO2 emissions from the biomass sector. Um, and so, uh, we're truly at a crossroads here for thinking about changing these regulations, um, but not only here in Massachusetts, but also globally.
And if you compare with me for a second, I want to talk about what's happening globally, and then I can bring it back home to the commonwealth, sadly. Um, so the biomass industry is poised to expand globally right now and indeed it's already happening all across the planet. Um, there's even coal plants are waiting anxiously in the wings for rules like these to be either weakened or dropped altogether so that they can also co fire trees with coal under this mythological carbon free scenario that's been perpetuated by the industry. Uh, and where the emissions, in most cases, are simply not counted, they're not on the books at all. Um, and in Europe where this is happening PFPI has a lawsuit against the EU to block these efforts and now it has come home to Massachusetts and in 2020 Drax, which is a massive coal and biomass plant in the UK that burns about 7.3 million tons of pellets a year um usually made from about 14 million tons of green wood.
Um, just by comparison, the UK's total annual wood production altogether is only 11.1 million tons. So where's that would coming from? We look very closely at the fuel supplies for all of these facilities all around the world. And the latest report from Drax, which has a 2.6 gigawatt capacity for biomass shows that they are now sourcing wood from Massachusetts as well. We are working to get more details on that, but this is incredibly alarming. Up until now. The bulk of their supply has been coming from the southeastern United States, where forests are clear cut, chipped, barged, sent across the ocean and then incinerated at Drax in just a few moments. So, um, it does not sound to us and I think we all know that that is not a very um, carbon wise way to, to, to handle our, our energy supply when we're cutting down forests7682 and one continent and shipping them across the sea to burn them elsewhere.
Um, and the carbon accountability from that entire process is essentially zero because once again, these emissions were off the books and bringing it back home here to the US stage. While Governor Baker was testing before Congress in DC about the urgent need to address climate change back here at home. This, this administration was working fervently to try and weaken and gut these laws. And um, we, it was not a surprise because while serving as the main energy bizarre commissioner are now Commissioner Woodcock was aggressively lobbying the Patrick administration to get those laws. So I wanted to make sure that you have that perspective and there was a number of issues that were raised during the comment period.
I can take questions, I know that I'm over time now, but there are a lot of other pieces here to talk about and I'd love to address a few of those, either through the questioning or through just respond. Being able to respond to a few things that were raised by their agency during their comment period. But I want to give the opportunity to for you to stop me from talking since I've now gone over and I appreciate the time and again you're interest and attention to this matter.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, sir very much. Are there questions of our panels?
[SEN BARRETT:] I have a question, but I want to defer to our panelists and I apologize if I'm missing a raised hand, I would like to ask each of our panelists from the segment, their their feelings about the Beyond Five Mile towns, largely rural communities that remain vulnerable to biomass because they're not swept within the five mile buffers around environmental justice populations. Uh what are we you've indicated your support for the provisions that have to do with environmental justice populations, and I specifically reference the Conservation Law Foundation, I think, among others. Um are there any inferences we should draw about your position with regard8029 to the 35 communities that remain vulnerable to biomass citing and that are not covered by the environmental justice population provisions at present? Mr Yarrows do you have a view to express
[YARROWS:] Sure I agree with um what others have said previously on the call that pollution can absolutely spread beyond five miles and that doesn't sort of limiting to those locations doesn't uh protect you know, the state as a whole and and protect those locations specifically the buffer zones don't obviously stop the pollution. Um and just would also note that even with certainly with these, with these provisions in the regulations that would not stop the biomass facilities from being built because from receiving the RPS the incentives. I just would like to add that in context as well and definitely um look up to hear from other panelists on8090 your question.
[SEN BARRETT:] Yes. So any of the other panelists, do you have a a view on whether the 35 towns are so beyond the buffer, should be should remain a eligible for REC eligible biomass?
[MCCAFFREY:] If I can comment on that, chairman, thank you for the question. Uh you only have to look to the administration's own DEP denial of the air quality permit for palma renewal energy, where they lay out the reasons why it is not acceptable or appropriate to place a facility like this in that community which then once again begs the question, why would we allow it in any communities in the commonwealth if you are going to deny a permit of facility in the community? Well now I have to use some biscuit strategy here to my dog quiet now, sorry. Um and uh it also, you know, it just points us back towards the reason behind these rules in that um the timing of this uh is this suspect at best because it just points to the fact that there's companies buying up shuttered biomass plants, some of8154 them shuttered for years in New Hampshire and Maine and that these plants in New Hampshire and Maine, the older, dirtier plants will be able to avail themselves of these incentives.
All um, at the cost of massachusetts rate payer dollars that Massachusetts will ratepayer dollars. Massachusetts ratepayers will be subsidizing polluting energy in new Hampshire and Maine, it's plain and simple. That is what these regulations will do. That is what they have been on a course to do since they have been proposed and all of our recommendations and suggestions to avoid that outcome have been largely ignored by the agency.
[SEN BARRETT:] Could you just elaborate? Because I didn't quite, I wanted to make sure I grasp your point uh the acronym Drax is the wrong acronym, but the European user, you said potentially of Massachusetts wood products, could you, what Massachusetts company is currently exporting wood for overseas biomass combustion or did I mishear you?
[MCCAFFREY:] No, you did not miss hear me so, this is what we're actually trying to determine. We just discovered in reviewing the reports from this massive power plant in the UK called Drax,8218 which is named after the town. That is that it's in8221 D-R-A-X. Um, as I mentioned, this is an absolutely massive facility that burns both coal and biomass. And um, they have to file an annual report with the EU on where they are sourcing their wood from. Um, this does not mean that they're taking any great measures to actually make sure that it's sustainable or anything like that, but they do have to list their fuel sources. And we noticed for the first time in the most recent report that Massachusetts is now on the list. So we are working to find out what is that fuel8248 supply and where is it coming from and we should be able to get to the bottom of that. But because we just learned this information and I'm happy to be able to present it to the committee today because it really brings it home, we will get you that information as soon as we can determine what it is and we're working to do that. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Yes, I'm sure the committee would would really appreciate hearing any additional information you gather James. Thank you. Okay, are there additional8268 questions of our panelists?
This has been a most Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Representative.
[REP MESCHINO:] Uh I just wanted to follow up from what Mr Mccaffrey was just saying, are you suggesting that part of the motivation behind um this change in8287 the regulations at this time is to make8291 it easier for Massachusetts companies to so you don't have8295 to source externally to another country, but we'll be able to source woods here um, in our biomass facilities. Is that what you're8305 suggesting? I guess I understood what I thought, I heard the commissioners say was that it would be more of a regional impact and that other um, other facilities would say externally within the region, um, not so much about Mass. Could you just clarify a little bit on what you were saying?
[MCCAFFREY:] Yes, I think it is probably accurate to say that, um, with the proposed rules here in Massachusetts, that it is unlikely to see a utility scale biomass plant built here, that would be able to avail themselves of the rate payer subsidies through the RECs. But that does not mean that a proposal can't come forward if they determine that they do not want to use those RECs and it does mean that those RECs will probably be gobbled up by new Hampshire and Maine plants. And and this, I'm glad that you asked that question. Thank you, because this begs the question of the RECs themselves. It's important to note that the a typical plant, um you know, utility scale plant of 30-50 MW at the current record prices would8372 probably receive about $10-$15 million dollars a year in REC value for the energy that they produce.
And that's a significant number for a biomass plant, especially since when you look at the industry across the country and globally. But even right here in Maine, we did a report that I'm happy to share with the committee called Maine at the crossroads that actually looked at the financing of the main biomass industry. And since 2008 the Maine bios biomass industry has received more than a quarter of a billion dollars in either taxpayer or ratepayer or grants subsidies through various programs at the federal and state level. So that industry in Maine is struggling. They continue to struggle and they continue to come back and ask for money, money money. The same thing is happening in New Hampshire that the industry is finds it very difficult to survive without these massive subsidies.
So that brings us right back to the question of what are we subsidising with our clean energy dollars. Um and these are no small amounts, these are massive amounts of money that helped them with their financing, their construction and their operations and most of them need it, which is why you see them being shuttered and which is why we're so nervous that right at this time some company uh came in and actually purchased the8448 number of the plants in New Hampshire and Maine that8451 have that have been shuttered for quite some time.
[REP MESCHINO:] Is that? Um and just I'm sorry, mr chairman, I just to understand better. Um are you suggesting that the industry itself isn't economically viable and thus requires the subsidies um, from the REC programs? Um And so in the absence of REC programs it's highly unlikely that they would be able to sustain themselves as an industry is that we're sort of saying?
[MCCAFFREY:] It does seem to be that way and I will send you this report, um and it actually details uh, exactly what each of these plants received in grants and ratepayers subsidies and taxpayer subsidies over the years since 2008. And then what the ultimate demise of those plants was whether they're still operating or whether they're not operating, and in many cases, many of them closed down shortly after receiving massive amounts of money. Um, so I will send that report along to the committee today.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. That was very interesting. Thank you. Thank you representative and, and thank you Mr Mccaffrey are there and we would like that8519 that study and we would like any written testimony that any of you might have that accompanied your eloquent remarks. Do8527 we have additional questions of the panel?
I want to thank you all very much for joining us today and please have a good weekend. Uh, we have, I believe one additional, uh, witness before us8543 today, a representative of the massachusetts Forest Alliance. I apologize for not having your specific name, but I hope you're with us and welcome you testifying today.
[CHRIS EGAN (MFA)] Yes, thank you. My name is Chris Egan and I'm the8559 executive director of the Massachusetts Forest8560 Alliance. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
If you could talk up chris just a little bit, a little8564 bit. Sorry. Um,8566 you just try to reconnect,
uh, my, is that any better? Uh, yes.
[EGAN:] Okay, so we're a trade association, we represent forest landowners, foresters, timber harvesters and, and forest products companies in Massachusetts and um, you know, our take on this regulatory processes, there's been significant misunderstanding throughout the whole thing. And I think hopefully today members of the committee have been reassured a little8600 bit that, as even Mr McCaffrey said there's, there won't be any utility scale biomass power plants built in Massachusetts, um, because of that efficiency standards. So there simply won't be any built in those 358616 communities or anywhere else in Massachusetts that's just not going to happen. So for people who8622 are concerned about that, you know, a giant plant, I appreciate the senator's letter to DOER.
But there won't be any plant burning 1200 tons of wood um, in Massachusetts just simply will not be built. Um, so the question is what is left in the regulations because we won't have this, we won't have any new biomass power plants. So what's left in the regulations is high efficiency biomass CHP, which is combined heat and power and what you heard about in the deal we are presentation at the beginning. Um, so those are, those are basically heating systems.8658 They often make most of the facilities heat and they have a sort of a bonus of a small amount of power. Uh, we talked a little8664 bit about the Manomet studies. So this is how the state formed these regulations was by doing this study and what the Manomet study said.
It frowned on utility scale biomass power, but it was supportive, high efficiency biomass CHP and modern wood heating thermal use. It was it was, you know, it's supported those uses as a decarbonization measure. So those uh it was not a 90-year payback of carbon debt for those types of systems, it could be as little as three years. So what was true for utility scale biomass plant was not true for these small CHP facilities or for a thermal use for modern wood heating. So that and that science has been amplified. There's been follow on studies that I've done8716 ever more elaborate life cycle analyses, peer reviewed, published in scientific journals. They continue to support the CHP and thermal use, if not utility scale biomass power.
So there's there's sort of two different things and we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because these small one facility CHP uh units are a tiny tiny fraction of the size as you've heard there's only two in Massachusetts. Um And they have operated without any issues or complaints for a long time. So this is what we're talking about in the regulations are these small one facility uh CHP systems will be the only things that earned RECs, you know in in Massachusetts. So uh and I think people should feel reassured that the science supports that that usage and and these are small. The system's not gigantic utility8774 scale biomass power plants. Those are simply off the table for new construction. I also just want to address the issues around forced sustainability and so forth.
We've heard that people saying well it's just up to the forester now they just signed something and there's no there's no accountability and so forth. You know. In fact they have to submit these cutting plans to DCR the service foresters. The Service8800 Forester has to go through this process of looking at this elaborate cutting plan. They have to certify that it's sustainable. They have to check that off and this is not a rubber stamp process. These guys uh you know can push back and ask for changes and then it goes beyond just approving the plan. The service forester will actually go out to the harvest as it's happening to make sure that the the harvest is being done in accordance with the plan that they approved. The old standards what we found was nobody certified forest derived wood for the project under the old standards there were too complex.
So it required foresters draw extensive maps, there was a tremendous amount of paperwork so literally nobody did it. As you heard in the DOER presentation they were getting wood from other sources. Um these standards aligned with the APS there is accountability and remembered like just like attorneys foresters are licensed, there's a licensing board that can investigate them and8859 mete out discipline if they were to lie about the sustainability of these materials. But remember, you know, this is the single lowest value forest product there is. This is what you do with wood that you cannot sell for any other purpose because its lowest value. So the idea that forester would mislead or attest to something being sustainable when it really isn't is really not the case. No, forester is going to jeopardize their license without which they cannot work in order to do that.
Finally there's new technologies coming down the pike. So what I don't want what we're hoping the committee does not do is close off those new technologies. So one of those is biochar CHP. Um and this is a completely different kind of product. It does not combust wood. The wood is not burned, okay, it's heated in a low oxygen environment and that low oxygen environment means that it can't burn, there's no flame. And it produces two things biochar, which is an almost pure carbon charcoal and bio gas, which is similar to natural gas, which is then burned to create heat and power. And so the carbon profile is much different. Uh the biochar itself locks that carbon away and has a projected lifespan in the thousands of years. And it has tremendous beneficial uses for agriculture, uh water purification and so forth.
So we don't want to close off any future technologies that don't carry the same concerns that the committee has about utility scale biomas power. It's just completely different things. So we hope that that will be considered as you as you go through rulemaking and review of these regulations. Happy to answer any questions for you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Mr. Egan, are there questions of our of our witness, of our panels?
[SEN BARRETT:] You know, I have a question of a logical inference that I might draw from your testimony is that you oppose these regulations in that you see no reason whatsoever to limit biomas to just 11% of the land area of Massachusetts. Is that a fair inference?
[EGAN:] Um, I number one, no utility scale biomas power plant is going to be built, period. So, I think that's what people's major concern. I think these smaller systems don't carry those same concerns. The CHP systems, which are the only...
[SEN BARRETT:] The smaller systems at the moment, would be barred from 89% of the land area of Massachusetts. Do you disagree with that extreme position the administration takes?
[EGAN:] Yeah, I don't think these carry the same concerns, frankly, so I don't think that it's necessary. However, you know, there are also, to my knowledge, aren't any CHP systems on the drawing board other than biochar systems, there's no traditional biomass CHP facilities that are on the drawing board. What we want to do is protect the existing facilities. We want to yank the rug out from underneath them.
[SEN BARRETT:] Could you share with us the proposed location of any biochar systems?
[EGAN:] You know, there there is one in in Ashfield in Massachusetts, uh, which is not covered by9068 the9068 environmental justice area. It's a very rural area in Western Mass, but again, that doesn't combust wood, so we don't9077 have the same concerns about, uh, particulate emissions or air pollution or whatever. It's essentially similar to a natural gas generator.
[SEN BARRETT:] All right. And, uh, another natural inference one might draw from from the, from your testimony, is that none of this will contribute significantly to meeting our emissions reductions goals because, as you point out, these are very small operations?
[EGAN:] I think they can meet our emissions goals, particularly for thermal use. But in power generation, these coming biochar systems have incredibly good carbon profiles. They can it's much different than than these traditional systems. So they have the potential to significantly decarbonization while creating power.
[SEN BARRETT:] So there's tiny operations that have the ability to significantly decarbonize Massachusetts say?
[EGAN:] The biochar systems potentially could scale up and and develop, you know, significant power generation to the commonwealth.
[SEN BARRETT:] But if they scaled up, they would have conflict with the assurances of smallness that you've just offered us?
[EGAN:] I'm talking about the traditional biomass CHP systems. Those are facility based systems. They're really not designed to generate power to put into the grid, so that's not how they work.
[SEN BARRETT:] Okay. There are provisions of these proposed regulations, as you might have heard earlier, would do away with the advisory panel9169 whose current mission is to includes the monitoring ongoing verification processes in the tracking of biomass fuel certificates and their impact on biomass fuel markets and greenhouse gas accounting. Do you see any reason to abolish this advisory panel?
[EGAN:] I'm not sure the advisory panel has ever met. So I think abolishing it is uh does not change the status quo at all.
[SEN BARRETT:] So to your mind, do you know whether or not9204 it's ever met?
[EGAN:] I don't believe it has, I don't know for sure. But that's my understanding is I9211 I don't believe that that has at least not in recent years.
[SEN BARRETT:] Do you have a position on whether it should meet?
[EGAN:] I don't have any concern about the the providence of these biomass systems. It's very closely regulated by DOER and you know in fact we've had people run into issues getting wood certified. So you know they...
[SEN BARRETT:] But these are the very regulations of deal we are that are now being dispensed with. So if there's been rigorous enforcement by DOER then that would argue for maintaining the regs says they are, wouldn't it?
[EGAN:] I have no reason to believe that they will change the series of that enforcement whether it's in regulations or guidelines.
[SEN BARRETT:] Well I want you to know and this is please consider this has a question that my staff and I have reviewed these proposed regulations and we cannot find any substitute verification procedures for the verification procedures that are proposed to be eliminated. Do you, have you checked them out and can you identify a substitute verification procedure that we've overlooked?
[EGAN:] I'm not not off hands , no. That's not something we followed very closely because you know the fact is that that's between DOER and the suppliers. Um so it's it's not something we've been actively involved in.
[SEN BARRETT:] So you your position is not that we should target Biomass to just 35 towns out of 351. That's not your position?
[EGAN:] I am saying that for small scale CHP I don't believe that's necessary to limit it to 35 towns and I especially don't think that you know technology that's quite different like biochar should be limited to 35 times. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Uh Do we have additional questions of Mr Egan?
Yes
I'm sorry, did someone did someone say yes, Is there a member of the legislative panel, Chico has his hand up.
Oh I'm sorry. Thank you very much, Senator Pacheco.
[SEN PACHECO:] Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman to you and to Chairman Roy and members of the committee. Um Chris I'm interested in the way you define uh combined heat and power the small combined heat and power, you know, systems. I've spent a considerable amount of time9356 in Austria, Germany uh a number of European countries that utilize small a combined heat and power um in a country like Austria for example, they have a forester for both public and private sector land ownership and every acre is managed uh with certified, you know, foresters a combined heat and power technology that is used is some of the highest efficiency technology on the market anywhere in the world. So it's a very very low uh emissions uh and the species of trees allowed to be used also very heavily regulated.
Uh and where9421 the where the fuel power comes from is very heavily regulated. So we're not dealing with clear cutting or you know those types of those types of issues. My concern about uh and any credits or any RECs going to any of the biomass technology that is out there today in Massachusetts is that firstly they don't come anywhere close to where to where the European model is at all uh number one. And secondly, as I think you unintentionally may have identified that the regulatory framework that is presently there uh and the ability to actually make it work, in other words, enforce it, having meetings of this particular committee or others it's just not happen. It just doesn't happen, hasn't happened and I don't think if it wasn't for the significant amount of outreach by uh citizens in Massachusetts in Western Mass and others, and because of the advocacy groups that are testifying in the legislative action that has been taken, we wouldn't have seen alternative regulations coming to us at all.
Uh and it is totally, you know, leaving things the way they are or even with the environmental justice communities off the map. Um if we don't do a heck of9558 a lot more in that area, uh that it is certainly not helping us get to a net zero carbon emissions requirement, which is what we're really trying to do. I appreciate we are coming from with the forest tree industry is, but if we're going to be looking9585 at alternatives in the forestry industry for combined heat and power, there's a whole lot that has to change in terms9594 of the technology that's being utilized and the types of species that are being utilized and the regulations and enforcement of regulations around the type of fuel product that's being utilized because right now, uh, you know, nobody's paying attention to all of that stuff and that's pretty sad. But anyway, back9622 to you, Mr Chairman. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Um, you did Mr Chairman
Mr Egan. If you wish to9628 comment on Senator Pacheco's observation, feel free.
[EGAN:] Yeah, I appreciate, I appreciate that senator. You know, I wouldn't say that there's a perception that forest management isn't regulated9641 in Massachusetts and that's just not the case. There's significant regulation. As I said, these DCR service foresters oversee this whole process, they are on site during harvest time. They are pushing back on the actual trees that are being removed. I'll give you an example. I ran a summer camp in Otis years ago and we developed a forest management plan how to harvest and there was a section of low, very low quality trees and we are master plan had had said that9683 we were going to part of living unit, a group of cabins on that within three years. And so my forester said okay we'll leave it alone because you're going to come in later and we won't know which trees to remove, we should remove some of them but we can do that when you build your thing.
And the DCR Service forester just said no for forest health you've got to take some of those trees out now to allow the healthier ones to grow faster and thrive. So there's there's9710 it's not a rubber stamp, there's significant regulation and oversight and so you can't do the things the forest management practices of you know the Southeastern United States or Northern Maine. Those things generally are not permitted here under our current regulations.
We want to thank both of you
for for an interesting colloquy just then and we want to thank you Mr Egan for stepping up and testifying and offering your perspective, Are9758 there additional questions of Mr Egan
hearing? None will. Well thank you very much sir, and I wish you a good weekend.
Thank you.
I believe. Sure.9770 I believe that that concludes our hearing today and I want to thank all members of the committee and everyone who participated or who listened. It's been quite provocative and useful to the committee. We are required to issue a report
within 30 days of are receiving the referral from the House clerk and I think that 30 days maybe up next to Tuesday or Wednesday, I'll have to verify that. So some kind of report. Well issue. Um we'll need to talk to the House chair and to all of the all of you in order to figure out what that report might consist of. But I want to thank you all very much again for coming and I wish you all a good weekend. This has been a informative hearing. Thank9827 you very much. And thank you. Mr. Chair.
9833 Thank9833 you. Mr. Chairman. And everyone. Yes.9836 Yes. And our level will declare this hearing concluded. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank9842 you.
© InstaTrac 2025