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, April 10, 2008

Guest View: Biomass Plant Not Based on Sense

By Bud Latven
Tajique Resident
    The biomass lunacy continues. Our illustrious leaders in Santa Fe have again defied rationality by approving a $30 million tax giveaway to Western Water and Power (WWP) for the operation of a biomass electric plant in the Estancia valley.
    At a hearing last month before the Secretary of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, citizen and environmental groups along with Mining and Minerals attorney Ted Apodoca argued that a clause in the Renewable Energy Act defining renewable energy as "electric energy generated by use of low- or zero-emission generation technology with substantial long-term production potential" requires WWP to prove there is enough biomass to fuel the plant for its 20-year life span.
    This would seem to make simple common sense. Not so, says the New Mexico Environment Department.
    The state Air Quality Bureau ruled earlier this year that "low- or zero-emissions" is defined as "currently available technology" and has nothing whatsoever to do with actual low or zero emissions. The Bureau approved WWP's air quality permit even though the plant will emit nitrogen oxides (smog) at rates over 50 percent of typical coal-fired plants and emit more than 700 tons of air pollutants a year. So what's to keep the state from saying "long-term production potential" has nothing to do with the fuel to run the plant?
    Well, that's exactly what the state said last month. In a ruling by Joanna Prukop, Secretary of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, "long-term production potential" now means that a biomass producer will simply have to prove they plan to build a biomass plant.
    In a reversal of previous interpretations, "long-term production potential" now has nothing to do with the actual fuel that runs the plant but only with the machine that consumes the biomass. This decision was evidently contrary to the recommendations of the Energy Conservation Management Division (ECMD) of the Environment Department.
    According to the ruling, this new interpretation of the Renewable Energy Act had something to do with the placement of a comma in the act which changed the modifier of the terms "production potential." The ruling also reinterpreted the definition of the term "technology" to exclude the fuel that runs the plant.
    Foresight Wind Energy of San Francisco was recently awarded renewable energy tax credits to build wind generators in the Chupadera Mesa area. They spent a lot of time and money conducting wind tests because the state required them to prove there was enough wind energy to produce electricity before the state would give them the tax credits.
    So what's the difference between fuel (wind) to run a wind generator and fuel (biomass) to run a biomass electric plant? According to the ECMD, the ruling by Prukop on Foresight came before the ruling on the WWP biomass plant. So it appears the later ruling about biomass simply redefined the terms "technology" and "production potential," thereby changing the reasonable understanding of the statutes to accommodate the biomass plant.
    Now, when new renewable energy industries come to New Mexico, they can cite precedence in this ruling and demand they not be required to prove production potential beyond the machinery that produces the energy to qualify for huge tax breaks. This is evidently a major problem the ECMD is now confronted with as a consequence of the Prukop decision.
    As a result of this long running biomass controversy, the Environment Department has now redefined "low or zero emissions" to mean "currently available technology" so long as it meets typical coal-fired emission standards and "long-term production potential" to mean the "machinery to produce renewable energy."
    Further, renewability itself now includes 80 percent to 90 percent clear-cutting of piñon/juniper woodlands on state and private lands to the tune of 3 acres an hour or 500,000 acres over 20 years to fuel the plant, even though it takes 200 to 400 years to regrow these woodlands.
    Having biomass thus defined and placed alongside truly clean renewable energy sources like solar and wind is nothing more than a perversion of the spirit of the Renewable Energy Act. So much for common sense in Santa Fe and Gov. Bill Richardson's vision of a clean, environmentally conscious New Mexico.