The regulations allow unprecedented double-dipping of renewable energy subsidies by polluting bioenergy
Because Clean Energy Doesn't Come Out of a Smokestack
People pay extra on their electricity bill to support clean energy, but with biomass they’re actually paying to pollute.
Legislating that bioenergy produces no carbon pollution makes as little sense as legislating that climate change does not exist.
Policy riders forcing EPA to treat wood-burning power plants as emitting zero carbon pollution defy climate science and the demonstrable fact that burning trees for power emits more carbon than coal or gas.
Watch this space for comments for upcoming meetings on Massachusetts subsidies for thermal bioenergy, including wood pellets
Senate Legislation Cedes the US Forest Carbon Sink to the Biomass Industry – Even as Forests Are Already Declining
We all know burning trees drives climate change, but Senate legislation now being considered would dictate that burning more trees does not increase carbon pollution.
The Biomass Power Association wants Massachusetts to rescind regulations on biomass power plants and go back to a system of paying them to pollute because these highly carbon-intensive facilities can't meet the state's standards.
Municipal Waste Burning: More Polluting Than Coal, But Treated as Zero-Emissions in the Clean Power Plan
A new analysis finds that the Clean Power Plan treats burning even fossil-fuel derived wastes like plastics as having zero emissions.
Representative Beyer (VA) to EPA: Treating biomass as carbon neutral allows Virginia's forests to be harvested for fuel
"I share the concern that Virginia will become known as a state that harvests forests to reduce its dependence on coal, rather than one that develops renewable technologies that clearly reduce emissions, such as solar and wind"
If you're someone who's been suckered by biomass industry claims that burning trees doesn't emit carbon, this post's for you.
The facility, which received millions in federal clean energy funding, has a “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy for fuel contamination
Letter from Rep. Connolly (VA) to EPA: Treating bioenergy as carbon neutral may undermine the Clean Power Plan
Treating biomass as carbon-neutral may have unintended consequences that could actually undermine and inhibit our ability to reduce carbon emissions.
We can’t reduce emissions under the Clean Power Plan by replacing coal with the only thing that emits more carbon pollution: biomass
Since this resolution was offered last year, Washington, DC has eliminated renewable energy subsidies for low efficiency biomass power, meaning that Dominion will not be able to benefit from this market.
DC and MD Health and Environmental Advocates to EPA: Highly Polluting Bioenergy Doesn't Belong In The Clean Power Plan
You can’t meet carbon and air pollution reduction goals by replacing coal with something that’s dirtier than coal
Dominion Power and other big utilities want to replace coal with wood, threatening forests and the climate.
Treating bioenergy as if it has no carbon emissions could make proposed coal-to-wood conversions in Ohio viable, threatening the state's forests with being cut for biomass fuel.
Massachusetts Environmental Groups to EPA – Treating Bioenergy as Having Zero Emissions Undermines the Science
EPA’s decision to override established science and treat biomass energy as carbon neutral is disappointing for clean energy advocates and is a threat to the hard-won, science-based rules adopted in Massachusetts.
There is no better time than ‘National Bioenergy Day’ (October 22nd) for people to learn how much taxpayer money has been wasted on highly polluting biomass burners in Pennsylvania.
Decreasing public and policy support for bioenergy makes the company’s renewable energy investments in bioenergy a liability, instead of an asset.
Lax regulations allowing contaminated wastes to be burned as biomass mean that communities need to protect themselves - they can’t count on air permits to minimize bioenergy pollution.
Dominion should conduct a study explaining the risk to their substantial biomass power investments if, and when, bioenergy CO2 is regulated
Public Service Board states North Springfield Sustainable Energy would “not promote the general good”
Investors With $100 Billion in Assets Complain to SEC of Misleading and Incomplete Statements About Climate Benefits, Carbon Neutrality, and Risk of Regulatory Action.
DC's RPS has been swamped by high-emissions bioenergy burning fuels that are dirtier than coal.
Are legislators ready to explain to families with asthmatic children why the state is paying their neighbors to increase air pollution?
Environmental groups respond to Congressman Maloney dust-up with the White House over Taylor Biomass
We’re not surprised that the President won't discuss the Taylor Biomass DOE loan guarantee. Political pressure makes it harder for DOE to objectively evaluate the project.
The Pioneer Renewable Energy project would have burned almost 600,000 tons of wood a year, the equivalent wood yielded by clearcutting 6,000 acres of Massachusetts' forests annually.
PFPI found Solutia is violating EPA health standards by emitting hundreds of tons of sulfur dioxide each year, but the switch to natural gas will reduce emissions.
The coal plant at Solutia in Springfield is violating air quality standards in one of the most polluted regions of Massachusetts.
Taylor Biomass repeatedly uses the word ‘clean’ in their DOE loan guarantee application, but emissions under the facility's New York State air permit are no better than a conventional garbage incinerator.
The Tennessee Valley Authority doesn’t need renewable energy that increases forest harvesting in the Southeast.
If Connecticut wants move away from purchasing “dirty” biopower from Maine, shouldn’t the state make sure its biopower is actually low-emissions?
Gasification is not a magic technology that makes toxics disappear. New garbage gasifiers in Massachusetts will emit hundreds of tons of air pollution and consume materials that should be recycled.
The Solutia coal plant causes violations of air quality and health standards in the Springfield region. It's time it was modernized.
Pennsylvania has spent millions of dollars in public funds on bioenergy that emits more pollution than oil and gas.
Lithonia, GA and Manchester, UK, are facing polluting, high-emissions biomass power plants sold as "green" power, even though air pollution is already at unhealthy levels.
Considering renewable energy is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including low-efficiency, high-emissions biomass power in state RPS programs doesn't make sense.
Plans for forest thinning and biopower in California would require logging millions of forest acres per year. Is this really the state's "carbon free" renewable energy plan?
The biomass plant proposed for North Springfield VT will be a large source of pollution and use unsustainable amounts of wood for fuel.
The NYPSC denial of NiGen’s petition throws the company back on their own devices.
The State of Massachusetts is serious about reducing carbon emissions and policymakers realized that providing renewable energy subsidies to a technology that makes climate change worse didn’t make sense.
We all pay for phony "clean" and "renewable" energy choices — in publically funded subsidies, but also in toxic air pollution, climate warming, and damage to the environment. It's time to reclaim the concept of clean energy, lest it be contaminated forever.
Senator Collins’ bill to improve cookstoves in the third world outlines exactly why she should support better pollution controls on industirial boilers here at home.
Now is not the time to weaken the Clean Air Act, which has served Maine and the nation well for decades.
The Niagara Generation plant burns coal, tires, and “clean” construction and demolition wood to produce electricity. Now it wants subsidies for dirty wood, too.
High-emissions biomass power doesn't belong in a renewable energy portfolio alongside no-emissions technologies like wind and solar.
"Until the state has a solid understanding of how much wood is realistically available without diminishing the long-term health and diversity of our forests, and until there is a protective harvesting standard in place, there should be a moratorium on any new, large-scale facilities in Vermont.”