Opinion
Let Us Let Go of Restaurant

Folks Around Here Ready To Help Out

Co-op CEO Challenges Editorial

Letters To the Editor

Letters To the Editor

Editorial: Electric Co-Op Kidding Itself

Guest View: Loving Nation Means Those in It

Fire Response Shows Spirit

Discuss Drinking Before the Prom

Letters To the Editor

More
Opinion

HOME	CLASSIFIEDS	OBITUARIES	SPORTS	OPINION

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Guest View: Biomass Is Not Renewable Energy

By Paul Davis

    The New Mexico State Legislature enacted the "Renewable Energy Act" (REA) in 2004 to require that public utilities purchase no less than 10% of their energy from clean renewable energy sources by 2011 to promote energy self-sufficiency. The REA allows public utilities to pass on the additional cost of clean, renewable energy to consumers. In addition to this mandate, local, state, and federal tax credits were added as incentives for energy producers to move away from polluting, non-renewable sources of energy. So we the rate and tax payers subsidize the energy companies and in return we get sources of energy that are clean and renewable.
       Unfortunately, biomass was included as an energy source under the REA. Wanting to benefit from the generosity of the taxpayers, Western Water and Power Production LLC (WWP) proposed a biomass plant south of Estancia with the Public Service Company of New Mexico buying the generated power and the public paying the cost. Local citizens like me thought that if biomass was going to qualify as a clean, renewable source of energy, our state officials and regulators would make sure it was both clean and renewable. Did they? No. Instead the biomass plant was treated exactly, and I mean exactly, like a coal-fired power plant. First, the state had not defined what 'clean' meant under the REA. The REA did say the energy source should have "zero or low emissions," but no numeric standards were enacted. Lacking any guidance, the Air Quality Bureau (AQB) rushed to issue WWP an air quality permit, the exact same kind of permit they issue a coal-fired power plant using the exact same criteria they use for a coal-fired power plant. WWP will pump out over 720 tons of toxic air pollutants per year, is officially listed as a 'major source of pollution,' and our state regulators define that as 'clean.' Ron Curry, the secretary of the Environment Department, overruled the AQB, but that brief moment of sanity was quickly reversed by a secret deal between WWP, the AQB, the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB), and supposedly the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (more on this later). So by the AQB standards, a coal-fired power plant would qualify as 'clean' energy. On to renewability.
    Renewability is a simple concept. Take the sun or the wind. The amount of energy used by a solar or wind power plant is never more than the sun and the wind can provide and more importantly, year after year the sun shines and the wind blows. If our tax dollars are invested in a solar or wind plant, it will never run out of energy. Certainly the state would require the biomass plant to prove that the rate of tree growth keeps up with the rate of fuel use by the biomass plant. Using US Forest Service data, several citizens calculated how much fuel is generated every year within a 50 mile radius of the biomass plant. The answer is not surprising for anyone that has lived here for more than a few years. New Mexico trees grow very, very slowly, not nearly fast enough to constitute a renewable source of energy for a power plant that would burn 55 tons of wood per hour. Case closed, right? Wrong. Did the state at least go through the motions of estimating a sustainable, much less renewable, rate of biomass use? No. It turns out that the state does not care if the source of fuel is renewable or not. In giving $24.5 million of our tax dollars to WWP, the secretary of New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, Joanna Prukup, decided that the fuel did not enter into the discussion. Instead she and her attorneys ignored any reasonable interpretation of renewable and decided that the REA only required that the technology have long term production potential. The fuel supply is irrelevant. Under this interpretation, a coal-fire power plant qualifies as a renewable source of energy as does any other technology currently generating electrical power. I strongly encourage you to read the secretary's ruling for one of the most contorted, twisted, and bizarre efforts at avoiding the clear and plain intent of the people. Concerned citizens were hoping to at the very least have a discussion of how an arid environment could produce an endless supply of biomass, why taxpayer money would be used to encourage a source of energy that will also mine about 150 million gallons of water per year from our dying valley fill aquifer, and why the state was supporting a dramatic increase in greenhouse gases by cutting trees that sequester carbon, burning them, and releasing greenhouse gases. We also wanted to know why Pat Lyons, our public lands commissioner, had given away a large chunk of our state forest to WWP. Let's be accurate here – anyone could have bid on this $0.31 per cord bargain. That is, anyone who was planning a biomass plant in the Estancia Basin. No one else was allowed to bid. But instead of any of these discussions we were told that none of our concerns mattered. Specifically it doesn't matter if the fuel (trees) runs out because the technology would still be there to burn the non-existent trees.
    In the face this insanity, one has to wonder what went wrong. I have been asking that question since the AQB rushed to approve WWP's air quality permit. At that time, two ABQ staff members told me that the reason was political. Specifically, Governor Richardson, Senator Bingaman, and Representative Wilson. Asking these three state officials, I got the usual denial of any involvement. Take Mr. Richardson, for example. A group of us asked to meet with him to discuss our concerns. He was too busy. Instead he sent an aide. The aide showed zero interest in air quality, water quality and use, and the proposed clear cutting of our forests. She had one interest – Mr. Richardson's reputation. She adamantly stated that our governor was not involved with the biomass plant in any way. OK – but then I sent a request for Mr. Richardson's schedule to see if he happened to have met with either WWP or PNM in the preceding year. Guess what - you and I are not allowed to know the governor's schedule. So now we have our energy policy being negotiated behind closed doors, we are not allowed to know who the governor discussed our energy policy with, and the result was a no-bid contract to a single company. Sound familiar?
       Another behind the back deal was between the EIB, WWP, the AQB, and supposedly the EPA. Initially the AQB rushed to give WWP an air quality permit. The Environment Department secretary, Ron Curry, then over turned the AQB and denied the permit. Next, WWP appealed Mr. Curry's decision to the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). During EIB's deliberations, the EPA was asked for their opinion on a matter involving the use of fossil fuels for every start up of the biomass plant. Yes, the REA was designed to wean us off of fossil fuels but let's overlook that inconvenient truth. The EPA responded that WWP should be required to start over with their application for an air quality permit. This EPA decision was documented and sent to all involved. At the end of their deliberations, the EIB held two days of public meetings. They listened intently as one after another member of the public detailed the problems with the biomass plant. Then on the second day of the public hearings, the EIB informed us that nothing the public said over the past two days mattered. Prior to the start of the public hearings, the AQB, the EIB, and supposedly the EPA had made a secret deal. The EIB was saying that EPA had changed their mind and not bothered to inform the public. I asked the EIB for documentation of EPA's new position but have yet to receive anything. So I filed a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request with EPA. I still have not found the documentation of EPA's revised position. I am still trying. What did I find? EPA had been interested in WWP's fossil fuel issue for a long time. The staff member assigned to this issue had been trying to get the AQB to adequately address this problem for months. But since the AQB was acting as an agent of WWP, they fought the EPA at every turn. So what about the EPA changing its mind? I still don't know. However I found something more interesting. One day after the EIB ruled that the REA really didn't intend for clean energy sources to be clean and that burning fossil fuels was not an issue, the EPA staff member who had been assigned to this issue wrote an email to her boss. She asked her boss whether or not EPA could appeal the EIB ruling. At a minimum, the key EPA staff member had been excluded from the AQB, WWP, and EPA negotiations – if there were any.
    And what about the sole-source contract to clear cut our state lands? State lands are supposed to be managed to maximize income for our public schools. So how could Patrick Lyons, the Commissioner of Public Lands, issue a sole-source contract to anyone let alone WWP? Obviously an open bid is the way to maximize our income from our public lands. So I asked. I was told that none of the local wood cutters were allowed to bid on this wood because only WWP could guarantee that the state's long-term land management goals were met. Fine, but I asked. What are the state's long-term goals and why is it that only a biomass plant could achieve those goals? That was many, many months ago and still no response. And now the State Land Office is planning to give WWP another no-bid lease on 106,000 acres of our state land.
   
    But politics alone do not account for all of the insanity. To understand the complete insanity of calling 720 tons per year of pollution clean, clear cutting forests as renewable, increasing greenhouse gases, and mining groundwater in the desert to generate energy, you have to add in smoke and mirrors. Reading the local newspapers and listening to WWP you wouldn't have a clue that the biomass plant is only being proposed because of New Mexico's Renewable Energy Act. Instead you would think that the biomass plant was being proposed to reduce our fire risk (smoke) and improve our watersheds (mirrors). Take the hype from our Commissioner of Public Lands, Patrick Lyons, in his recent editorial in the Albuquerque Journal. He argues that the biomass plant is needed because pinions and junipers have been encroaching into historic meadows. This is true, primarily due to overgrazing. Now Mr. Lyons could stop the cause of the encroachment, grazing, but instead he sees the biomass plant as the solution to the problem grazing created. Only one problem, these trees are twigs. According to the National Resource Conservation Service, mature juniper trees 5 inches in diameter are typically 150 years old. The encroaching trees are much smaller, 1 inch in diameter or less. These twigs won't feed the 55 ton per hour biomass plant and the biomass plant agrees. First, WWP has refused to abide by any diameter cap for their so-called 'thinning.' Secondly, the assessment of available wood used by WWP concludes, sufficient biomass would only be available if thinning yields are "maximized." Also, please note the use of the word 'available' instead of sustainable. WWP could clear cut all available lands and, in 20 years when all the trees were gone, they would walk away.
    And then there is fire. Well, actually, there is the drummed up fear of fire. Fear always leads to bad judgment and only bad judgment could lead to a biomass plant in the desert. Ignoring that reducing the risk of fire is not the goal of the REA, let's consider the facts. The USFS recently thinned a large area south and west of the town of Manzano. Prior to that, they had thinned areas further to the west. Now for the test of the effectiveness of thinning in reducing fire risk – this year's Ojo Peak fire. Again using a FOIA request, fire maps were obtained from the USFS. Overlaying these maps on maps of the thinning projects and vegetation maps, two facts became immediately apparent. The fire burned right through all of the thinned areas and the fire, like virtually every fire previously recorded in the Manzano Mountains, barely touched pinyon and juniper. So why is it that Mr. Lyons thinks that thinning our pinyon and juniper forests will reduce fire risk?
    By now we know that when WWP's lawyer walks into hearings with his Cheshire cat smile, the fix is in. Whether through one of WWP's many private meetings with the AQB, the State Land Office, the Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, or the alleged WWP lobbyist meetings with the governor just prior to the recent tax credit hearings, some deal has been made behind our backs once again.
       But it is our health and the health of our state and federal lands that are at stake, so we won't quit fighting against this insanity. We are working to appeal the recent tax give away, we will fight the transfer of water rights to WWP, we will fight their permit to discharge contaminated waters, and we will fight every state and federal land giveaway to come. Unlike WWP and PNM, we cannot hire lobbyists and pass the cost on to you. And we can't afford to donate enough money to the governor to get a private hearing with him. Therefore we need your help. Please contact PNM and tell them not to buy power from WWP, please contact Chris Whitman, the managing director for Alloca, the New York Company that is financing WWP. Contact him at cwhitman@allcony.com and ask that Alloca withdraw their financial support from this project. Contact Torrance County commissioners and ask them to withdraw the additional tax credit that county citizens are providing to WWP. And contact your elected officials and demand that biomass be removed from the REA.