New Mexico Biomass Blog

Below is what David Cohen wrote back in December at the Mountain View Telegraph. You’ll remember that the anti-biomass lobby downplayed the wildfire threat to the area and slurred him as a fear-monger.

“Mega-fires are torching America as never before, with towering infernos scorching more than 1.5 million acres this year, consuming homes block-by-block, and forcing hundreds of thousands of people to flee,” the Chicago Tribune recently reported. “And as numerous large fires barrel over Southern California, experts warn things will likely only get worse, especially across the West.”

Recently, the residents of the East Mountains got a mild taste of what’s to come.

At a time like this, New Mexicans expect forceful and responsible government action, not foot-dragging, in addressing the looming catastrophe. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Sandia District Ranger Cid Morgan recently warned: “Don’t be surprised if we have a large, catastrophic wildfire in the East Mountains.” Given low moisture next year and the great number of dead trees lying at the floor of our overgrown forests, Morgan says “you’re talking explosive conditions, and if we get a fire in there (the Sandias) we will not be able to put it out.”

The Edgewood Independent added more bad news: “… the National Weather Service is now predicting a dry winter and a hot, windy spring— the worst possible conditions for potential wildfires. Add the climate forecasts to the (bug) infestations and you have the makings of a disaster.”

As evidenced by the California fires, the impacts could well be awful: loss of life and property, death of wildlife and habitat, water pollution and enormous plumes of dirty wildfire smoke traveling hundreds of miles, putting human health at grave risk.

Already the Manzano Mountains have suffered. During the Thanksgiving holiday, a fire destroyed 7,500 acres and at least three houses, while 100 families were evacuated from their homes.
   
Moves delayed

So what’s our government’s response?

Important tax credits, which create incentives to clean up forest waste, are being arbitrarily delayed and withheld. The state government, contrary to the direction of the Legislature and the governor, is attempting to deny needed tax incentives on ever-changing, unreasonable and unlawful grounds to biomass projects seeking to clean up the dangerous forest and brush waste, which fuels these wildfires.

This is more than odd. The Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department categorically asserts on its Web site that biomass energy development would reduce the wildfire threat. Yet bureaucrats in this same department would now recklessly make biomass impossible.

Why?

Incredibly, they argue, contrary to accepted rangeland practices, that landowners in the area are not serious about removing brush and cannot be trusted to honor contracts because they are unable to specify every shrub to be picked up under existing multi-year landowner contracts and state Land Office leases. They are in effect implying that locals and the Land Commissioner do not care that the nearby forests are on the verge of explosion.

Evidently, cleaning up these dangerous conditions, while also making practical use of the waste for energy, isn’t a pressing priority. And so, while state government fiddles and attempts to justify its arbitrary decision, life and property are endangered. We deserve better.

News reports from California showed that homes remained untouched where forest thinning programs were implemented, while hundreds of homes were destroyed where it was not. This was also true of the fire that hit the Manzano Mountains.
   
Biomass opponents

But if certain attitudes toward biomass are a public safety menace, then the attitude of some of our state’s self-labeled environmentalists to air pollution and public health is no better.

The Forest Guardians, a litigious activist organization that calls for “more use of prescribed fires closer to home,” has utterly demonized biomass by grossly exaggerating the impacts of biomass facility air and greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of biomass to be removed.

They and certain misguided anti-development status quo East Mountains zealots, and their apparent political and bureaucratic allies, are spearheading the effort to unlawfully derail biomass development in the East Mountains based on junk science and misinformation to the endangerment of the community.

European environmentalists and governments are far more enlightened. Witness the Swedish city of Växjö, winner of this year’s prestigious European Union’s sustainable energy award. According to the London Independent, it was the city’s “(biomass) power plant that has helped the small Swedish city … become arguably the greenest place in Europe. On closer observation, the only thing emerging from the chimneys is the faintest wisp of steam. And inside it smells more like a sauna than a furnace.”

Indeed, rather than harming air quality, the U.S. Renewable Energy Laboratory found that, compared to a biomass facility, open burning of wood— i.e., what the Guardians advocate— puts into the air more than double the nitrogen oxides, more than 1,000 times the particulate matter, 20 times more carbon monoxide, more than 30 times the methane and about 1,000 times more volatile organic compounds. Rather than harming the forests and rangelands, responsible thinning proposed by biomass developers and landowners improves the health of the forests and restores rangelands.

Even the recently mild prescribed fire in the Jemez caused such pollution that the Albuquerque Journal had to warn that “people with asthma or other lung diseases should avoid prolonged exertion outdoors.” The Manzano fire demonstrated the air pollution consequences of wildfires in our midst.

With embers still smoldering in California and New Mexico, with homes destroyed in the Manzano Mountains, with a catastrophic wildfire still on the horizon, this is no time for bureaucratic appeasement of radical groups, but leadership. As things stand now, the fire next time will indeed be catastrophic if nothing is done.

KOAT 7 News:

A history of the Trigo Fire to date:

Tuesday, April 15: A fire on the west side of the Manzano Mountains southwest of Capilla Peak is reported just before 10 a.m. Dubbed the Trigo Fire, the blaze is reported to be over 200 acres. Air resources are grounded early Tuesday afternoon due to high winds. Hot Shot crews work on establishing an anchor point and flanking the fire. Firefighters are challenged by extremely high winds as well as very steep, rugged terrain.

Wednesday, April 16: Air resources are grounded again at noon due to high winds. The use of air tankers and helicopters continues to be wind dependent. Fire size is estimated at 250-300 acres. Fire fighters continue to be challenged by high winds as well as very steep, rugged terrain. The Trigo Fire experiences significant growth Wednesday night. As a cold front approaches the fire at around 8 p.m., winds increase, causing the fire to cross the Trigo Canyon. The fire then begins a substantial push up the canyon in a northeast direction. The fire reaches Osha Peak around 10:30 p.m.

Thursday, April 17: The U.S. Forest Service spends Thursday spreading the word to residents to prepare for possible evacuation. Cloudy conditions, cool temperatures and higher relative humidity aided firefighters in the containment effort Thursday. Crews work to establish fire lines and reinforce anchor points on existing lines. Approximately one mile of hand line has been completed on the extreme western edge of the fire. Clearing skies Thursday afternoon allow air tankers to make numerous retardant drops, slowing the advance of the flames. A total of 44,000 gallons of retardant is dropped in front of the flames Thursday. Spot fires on the east side of the mountain range are lined Thursday.

Friday, April 18: Officials bring a fresh task force to strengthen a community contingency line on the Trigo Fire Friday as Manzano and Torreon residents remain on standby for possible evacuations. As the fire continues to grow, firefighters develop strategies actively working contingency lines between the head of the fire and the local communities. The line, comprising the existing road network, is between the fire and rural villages on the eastern boundary of the Manzano Mountains. Other crews continue to build hand lines to flank the fire, as air tankers drop more retardant in front of active fire fronts. Crews continue to encircle and cool any remaining flames. Structure protection crews and engines work to improve defensible space around the electronic sites at Capilla Peak.

The brush fire has consumes more than 800 acres and is 20 percent contained early Friday morning.

Saturday, April 19: Firefighters are unable to strengthen containment lines as planned due to uncooperative weather. Crews attempt to deepen the black line between the fire front and the northern perimeter of the fire by consuming unburned fuel with drip torches. However, single-digit humidity and strong south winds force suspension of the effort about midday. Conditions caused some interior runs and spotting over containment lines, but all spots are quickly corralled or extinguished with retardant. Air tankers and helicopters dropped 65,000 gallons of retardant on hot spots and in front of flame fronts.

Sunday, April 20: High winds fan the flames and local officials ask about 200 residents of the Manzano and Torreon communities to evacuate. Shelters close late Sunday night because few people show up; shelters may reopen Monday. Gusty winds and low humidity send the Trigo Fire east toward Manzano Sunday and past pre-established landmarks, which trigger the evacuations. The blaze jumps a contingency line, forcing firefighters to fall back. Fire information officer Dan Baston says the wildfire jumped its northern boundary and moved from Cibola National Forest land to private property, roaring onto flatter land with grass and shrubs. Winds at 40 mph push the flames to the northeast. The interior flame formed a column from convection heat. The column rose high into the air sending burning embers in one-half mile or more to the east. The burning embers quickly ignited dry fuels, resulting in a wind driven fire that traveled three miles within five hours, producing flame lengths of 100 – 200 feet. Crews work on the east side of the blaze and air tankers were dropping fire retardant on the west side. Southwest Coordination Center officials say five helicopters out of Belen are being used on the fire. Air tankers are grounded. Fire information officer Deanna Younger says bulldozers worked overnight Sunday, cutting lines around the flanks and head of the fire.

Monday, April 21: Forestry officials tell Action 7 News that the fire has grown to 3,750 acres as of Monday morning. Crews work Monday to strengthen fire lines and hold them against windy conditions. Wind gusts of over 40 mph hamper firefighting efforts Monday as the Trigo fire progressed to the east where most of the people live. Nine homes, nine outbuildings and two recreational vehicles succumb to the fire, and a flare-up occurs on the west side of the fire at Meadowlake near 2 p.m. Fire crews from Arizona are dispatched to assist the effort, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency approves the state’s request to help pay for state and local efforts to fight the Trigo fire. About 14,000 tons of fire retardant was dropped on the blaze Monday, while helicopters dumped water on hot spots.

Tuesday, April 22: Crews took advantage of milder wind conditions Tuesday as progress continues on control lines. Cooler portions of the fire are in the mop-up stage. Crews that have camped out near their assigned divisions will soon return to the Incident Command Post in Mountainair. Gov. Bill Richardson met with Craig Cowie, Commander of the New Mexico Incident Management Team for a briefing and recon flight over the fire area. The fire has consumed more than 4,130 acres. Officials said they estimate containment at 27 percent and estimate the cost of fighting the blaze at $2,300,000. Cooler portions of the fire are in the mop-up stage.

Torrance County’s emergency management director lift voluntary evacuations Tuesday morning for Torreon and Manzano. County officials say that neighbors need to remain on alert in case the situation worsens and evacuations are ordered again.

Wednesday, April 23/Thursday, April 24 Officials say the Trigo Fire is refusing to lay down. Firefighters on the swing shift stayed out much Wednesday night fighting active fire behavior on the north side, below Capilla Peak. Crews managed to catch a couple of small slopovers and a few spot fires that tried to escape Wednesday night. The east and west extremities of the fire cool down and rehabilitation efforts are underway in those areas. The area below Capilla Peak however, continues to provide resistance.

Firefighters were battered by gusty winds Thursday as they continue to strengthen control lines on the Trigo Fire, bringing containment to 53 percent. Strong, gusty winds prevented the use of air tankers, and only three bucket drops are made by a heavy helicopter before air operations are suspended. Hand crews begin rehabilitation efforts on the west side, while crews on the eastern front approach completion of mop up operations.

Friday, April 25 Friday, dozer line rehabilitation begins along the easternmost containment line, and mop up continues along the southern flank. Three hotshot crews begin construction of hand line from Bartolo Canyon uphill toward the Manzano crest. A frontal passage Thursday evening brings a change in wind direction, from southwest to northwest, causing some concern along the southern flank. However, lower wind speeds and higher humidity will likely work in firefighters’ favor, allowing them to secure containment lines and cool any hotspots. Aerial operations will resume if winds permit. Crews plan to continue concentrating on the northern and southern sides Friday.

Saturday, April 26: Firefighters use a multi-faceted approach to significantly cool the Trigo fire. Mop up crews with hose lays dowsed sources of residual heat in the New Canyon campground area with 25,000 gallons of water. This effort will continue down canyon to the east. Most of the eastern and southern flanks have been mopped up and rehabilitated. Completion of that effort is expected Sunday.

Helicopters dropped about 12,000 gallons of water on hot fuels. Winds Sunday are predicted to be favorable for a burnout operation above Bartolo Canyon.

Residents from Mountainair, Torreon and Tajique attend a public meeting at the Torreon Community Center Saturday evening. The purpose of the meeting was to assess the current fire situation, gather information on available resources for rehabilitation, and discuss wildfire preparedness for the future.

Sunday, April 27: Firefighters move steadily toward full containment of the Trigo fire. Crews expect to finish mop up in the New Canyon campground area Monday. One smoke persists on the west side, which will be worked by hand crews. Helicopters drop about 8,000 gallons of water on burning interior fuels, and will be available again Monday for additional drops where needed. The burnout operation above Bartolo Canyon may continue tomorrow to reinforce the containment line. The BAER (burned area emergency rehabilitation) team will be on the incident Monday to begin assessment of damage to natural resources, prior to making recommendations for restoration.

Monday, April 28/Tuesday April 29 As the Trigo Fire nears 95 percent containment, crews are reduced by half Tuesday while the 4,832-acre blaze is handed over to a Type 3 management team. Fire information officer Dan Bastion says crews will be mopping up hot spots.

Wednesday, April 30/Thursday,May 1 Officials urge evacuations for several area neighborhoods Wednesday. Residents in Sufi Campground, Sherwood Forest, Apple Mountain Campground and Ten Pines Road are asked to evacuate to the Estancia Community Center at Williams Street in Estancia.

Thursday, the evacuations expand to include Torreon and Tajique as wind continues to push the fire, charring an estimated 13,000 acres. The fire destroys more homes Thursday, but because of the thick smoke and dangerous conditions, fire officials say crews have not been able to go into the area to determine how many structures have been burned or their locations.

The U.S. Postal Service evacuates the Torreon Post Office and will facilitate mail delivery to the affected Torreon Post Office through the Estancia Post Office.

Gov. Bill Richardson orders activation of the state Emergency Operation Center to monitor the Trigo Fire and fire conditions around the state and to offer help.

Friday, May 2 The wind continues to cause problems for firefighters, as a slight change in wind direction and speed keeep the fire’s east flank from burning with the intensity seen over the past two days. There is still concern on the part of fire managers for a portion of the south fire perimeter as well as other points.

An active part of the fire was pushes up against a previously constructed fire line on the south side. That line consists of hand line and retardant line dropped several days ago but as of Friday this part of the fire has laid down and remains within the lines.

Friday afternoon the Torreon Fire Department responded to a structure fire, unrelated to the Trigo fire, near the Abo turnoff on Hwy 55. One drop from a large helicopter assigned to Trigo, along with some initial attack wildland engines kept that fire to a few acres. This quick reaction allowed the Torreon Fire Department to concentrate on the private structure.

Less wind early in the day allowed for air assets to put 3 loads of retardant on the fire. Aircraft included 2 heavy tankers, 2 heavy helicopters, 1 light helicopter and 2 air attack platforms. When strong winds picked up the aircraft had to stand down.

Saturday, May 3 Winds diminish but still continue to be a factor. “Winds today were a far cry from what happened over the past few days,” said Jeff Whitney, Incident Commander of the Southwest Area Incident Management Team.

The fire management team continues working closely with all the tribal, federal, state, county and local agencies to facilitate the return of evacuated residences as quickly as it can happen in a safe manner. This continues to be a top priority during this faze of the fire incident.

The public can expect to still see smoke from the interior of the fire over the next several days. Along with continued work on patrolling and strengthening the fire containment line, fire managers will burn out some of the islands of heavy fuel in the interior part of the fire.

Sunday, May 4 Firefighters spend much of Sunday strengthening fire line and burning out pockets of fuel. Some interior burning produces a few smoke columns. Additional firefighters and heavy equipment will continue to focus on areas with urban interface implications, and continue to strengthen control lines. Operations are moving more from line construction to mop-up operations.

As residents return to the homes they had evacuated five days ago, many expressed concern after seeing large black smoke columns near the fire.

Firefighters were using fire to fight fire.

“They were cleaning out pockets of fuel that could threaten the line. Using small burnouts, carefully managed to keep the fire’s intensity and movement down. The idea’s to burn fuel that’s going to burn anyway under conditions we can predict and control rather then it burning when the wind and humidity are out of control,” said Buck Wickham, Operations Chief for the Southwest Area Incident Management Team.

It is expected that more smoke within the line will be seen over the next few days as conditions safely allow.

This one really gives you some perspective regarding the harrowing destruction and pollution of the fire.

A number of people have posted photos of their experience with the Trigo fire at Eyewitness News 4. Here is one from mdietz:

Says mdietz: “Now that we are back to our computers we have been able to download the 200 pictures we have taken of both the first and the second evacuations. These three are from the second evacuation when we only had 30 mintues to get out.”

Thank God, they got out in time. We’re glad they’re back at their computers.

From the AP:

The cost of the human-caused fire so far is $8.2 million. The fire has been burning oak brush and pinon, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer trees west of the small communities of Manzano, Torreon and Tajique. The fire began April 15th.

As we’ve argued many times on this blog, the emissions from a forest fire are far worse than anything that would come out of the Estancia biomass project. Watch below at this footage from the recent Trigo Forest Fire:

Picture from World of Energy Fact Sheets.

Another cool video about biomass in India and the positive social changes it’s bringing about:

From the MVT editorial this week:

While we hear news reports that the spring run-off will be high this year, what is missed is that the Manzanos and Sandias didn’t get the amount of snow pack this year that mountains in northern New Mexico did. Last November, more than 7,000 acres burned in the Ojo Peak fire. Seven structures were destroyed in that fire and evacuations were conducted. Living in and enjoying the mountains is special, but we need to work together to keep the mountains from burning. The Forest Service has implemented thinning projects, but residents and visitors also need to use some common sense. A wildfire can start from something as simple as a cigarette butt or a campfire that isn’t extinguished all the way.

But don’t take our word for it. The Mountain View Telegraph is again reporting the bad news:

Dry conditions in the Mountainair Ranger District may soon lead to restrictions, said Arlene Perea, the district’s fire information officer. “Fire danger is up,” Perea said. “With no moisture in the next few weeks … we’re looking at restrictions.” Perea said people may not realize there is a high fire danger in the Mountainair area. “The snow line just sort of ends somewhere between here and Sandia (Ranger District),” she said. In spite of reports of heavy moisture and snowfall in northern New Mexico, even down to the Sandia Ranger District, the Mountainair Ranger District is unseasonably dry, Perea said. She said even the Gila National Forest to the southwest has gotten some recent moisture. “It’s just kind of deceiving, what (people) are hearing in the news,” she said. The rangers have already responded to fire rings that were not completely extinguished, a dangerous situation should the wind carry sparks into the brush, Perea said. Unfortunately, the careless behavior persists in spite of the recent Ojo Peak Fire.

…by Yael Naim for your weekend:

Have a great weekend!

…Biomass Magazine. Interesting and informative, with loads of information.  

Elected Commissioner of Public Lands, Patrick Lyons, just published a powerful op-ed in New Mexico’s largest newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal, wherein he defends the Estancia Biomass Project and concludes that with this project: “Everybody wins.” His article—Many Benefits to Biomass Plant—is below:

I applaud Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Secretary Joanna Prukop for granting a tax credit to Western Water and Power Production, which plans to build a $90 million, 35-megawatt biofuel plant on nearly 44,000 acres of state trust lands in Torrance and Socorro counties.

New Mexico’s legislative and executive leaders continue to drive an agenda that calls for utilities to meet renewable portfolio standards. Incentives, credits, exemptions, and mandates are passed, not only to attract new business to the state, but to make green energy sources affordable and readily available to New Mexico families and businesses.

The state Land Office is playing a pivotal role in the development of clean renewable energy supplies, including leasing trust lands for the state’s first large-scale biomass power plant.

In order to restore a natural equilibrium in a region that was once sparse woodlands and savannahs, we must reduce the ecological degradation created by the encroachment of piñon and juniper. Land analysis reveals that there are 250 to 520 trees per acre in the area now leased to Western Water and Power Production. According to staff biologists, the ideal number of trees per acre is 20.

Overgrown forests and rangeland are a direct threat to life and property, wildlife habitat and overall woodland health. For example, last November the Ojo Peak fire in the Manzano Mountains destroyed 7,500 acres and forced the evacuation of about 100 families. Decades of fire suppression, combined with years of drought and insect damage, created a tinderbox.

As a landowner from rural New Mexico, I believe that healthy lands and economic stability are directly related. Western Water and Power has guaranteed up to 150 jobs during the construction phase and 20 to 30 permanent full-time jobs over the lifetime of the facility. The average annual payroll has the potential to exceed over $1 million.

There has been some opposition to this project, however be assured that Western Water and Power Production is bound to adhere to a specific harvest plan that will enhance land management goals and meet all environmental, biological and archaeological standards. Any harvesting of trees will follow New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles.

The Commissioner of Public Lands and the state Land Office manage millions of acres of surface and mineral estate held in trust to help support public schools, universities, hospitals, public buildings, the penitentiary and water projects— 21 institutions and programs in all.

The recipients of revenue generated by the biomass project include public schools, University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, New Mexico Military Institute, New Mexico School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Miners’ Colfax Medical Center, and the state penitentiary.

The Western Water and Power biofuel project will create a viable renewable energy source, improve rangeland, create jobs and economic development opportunities, and generate millions of dollars for education. Everybody wins.

Guess what? This is what: “Biomass accounts for two thirds of all renewables used in France today.”

As our readers are aware, Western Water and Power just received some important tax credits to develop a biomass facility in Torrance County. Less well known is that Foresight Wind Energy for High Lonesome Wind Ranch had competed with them for those tax credits, but we’re happy to read in the Mountain View Telegraph that Foresight Wind Energy will also be getting tax credits from the state, $222, 730 annually. Their regional development manager, Amy LeGere, published a cogent op-ed in the Telegraph this week:

The winds blow strong in the heart of New Mexico. With the county’s first wind project finalizing plans for construction in 2008, Torrance County and the Estancia Basin communities stand to reap the benefits from wind energy.

Harnessing the power of the wind is part of rural America’s past and future. Small turbines dotted the landscape long before rural electrification. Today, wind projects across America help preserve rural communities with new jobs, spending injected into local economies and an increased tax base. Wind energy is homegrown energy that helps secure our energy future. Unlike other electricity sources, wind turbines don’t use water or produce emissions to generate electricity. Wind is very compatible with ranching. Since only 2-3 percent of the land is utilized for the wind ranch infrastructure, livestock and wildlife can graze to the base of the turbines.

New Mexico looks to the tremendous potential of wind and other clean renewable energy for economic development, energy resource diversity, and environmental protection. The state seeks to meet its aggressive renewable portfolio standard to help provide New Mexico citizens with clean, stable-priced electricity and to harness the wind as a commodity crop for export to states with a large demand for renewable energy.

The wind industry contributes to the economies of 46 states, and communities across the nation are actively working to attract wind projects. Local spending to build and operate wind projects provides an important economic stimulus, and an increased tax base benefits counties, schools and states. Construction for a typical 100 megawatt wind project creates approximately 200 temporary jobs, with much of the work done by local contractors. Modern wind plants are designed to operate for a minimum of 30 years and require about 10 full-time employees to operate and maintain the facility. A 100-megawatt wind energy project will support the average annual electricity needs of 25,000 to 30,000 homes in the Southwest.

Torrance County’s first wind project is designed to essentially be self-sufficient, placing minimal or no demand on county services while bringing significant economic and social benefits. The project will boost the local construction and services economy during 2008. During the 30-year life of the project, the local and state economy will benefit from new high-tech jobs, an increased tax base, local expenditures, and project visitation and ecotourism revenues. 

We wish them well and…may the alternative energy revolution continue to move forward in New Mexico!  

The US Department of Energy explains:

Biomass is any organic material made from plants or animals. Domestic biomass resources include agricultural and forestry residues, municipal solid wastes, industrial wastes, and terrestrial and aquatic crops grown solely for energy purposes.

Biomass can be converted to other usable forms of energy and is an attractive petroleum alternative for a number of reasons. First, it is a renewable resource that is more evenly distributed over the Earth’s surface than are finite energy sources, and may be exploited using more environmentally friendly technologies.

Agriculture and forestry residues, and in particular residues from paper mills, are the most common biomass resources used for generating electricity and power, including industrial process heat and steam, as well as for a variety of biobased products. Use of liquid transportation fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, however, currently derived primarily from agricultural crops, is increasing dramatically.

In the face of lies, slurs and slander, the Estancia biomass project finally got the tax credits it deserved with NM Energy Secretary Joanna Prukop upholding Western Water and Power in every point of its appeal–and incredibly we haven’t yet celebrated at NMBIOMASS BLOG. Not right. So, to celebrate, here’s a montage from the 2008 NBA slam dunk contest, which was without a doubt the most creative dunk contest in all of NBA history.

Dude.

From the folks at Our Children, Our Future:

New Mexico has great potential to develop its biomass resources, from piñon and juniper to dairy and landfill waste to soybeans and grass.

Our Children, Our Future is “a diverse group of people living in New Mexico working to protect the health and wellbeing of our children. We support common sense solutions including high performance buildings, clean cars, and solar and wind power. We also are working for responsible reductions in emissions that will slow, stop, and reverse global warming.”

They helpfully offer links and information to a number of biomass projects going on in New Mexico.

From the Journal:

A company proposing to build a biomass plant near Estancia has been granted a tax credit worth $2.74 million a year. In an order issued Thursday, Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Secretary Joanna Prukop upheld Western Water and Power in every point of its appeal of a September decision by her department’s staff to deny it the credit. [Emphasis ours].

 

The company plans to build a $90 million, 35-megawatt electric power plant that would be fueled by wood and forest byproducts, primarily local piñon and juniper. But in two letters to the company last year, staff of ENMR’s Energy Conservation and Management Division told it that its application for the renewable energy production tax credit was incomplete. In response to an appeal by Western Water and Power, the division’s staff argued the company had failed to show two things: 1) that the resource powering the plant, biomass in the area, had “substantial long-term production potential,” and 2) that it had contracts to actually buy biomass from surrounding landowners.

 

But in her order, Prukop says the staff misinterpreted state law and that the company’s application was complete when it was submitted. “I find that the specific requirements mandated by ECMD are not supported by the Act or Rules,” Prukop writes. “However, if ECMD’s interpretation of the Act is correct, and ‘substantial long term production potential’ is connected to the resources being consumed to generate electricity, WWPP did provide documentation to support production potential.”

Reported in the MVT:

Even though the Edgewood town logo has a windmill on it, wind turbines recently received an unenthusiastic reception.

Say what you want about the corny Ukulele, but we think it’s pretty cool use of biomass, especially when playing Mozart:

Hope you had a great weekend and that you have a great week ahead!

The Albuquerque Journal recently reported that the Forest Guardians is changing its name and broadening its mission. The Guardian press release says:

Forest Guardians and Sinapu, two regional conservation groups have joined forces to create a stronger organization to protect and restore the wild places, wildlife and wild rivers in the American West….

The group is now called the WildEarth Guardians.

Among WildEarth Guardians priorities are: restoring wolves to the American West, including protecting Mexican wolves in the Gila bioregion and reintroducing wolves to the Southern Rockies; protecting the Rio Grande from its headwaters in Colorado to the Gulf of Mexico; restoring keystone species such as prairie dogs across the American West; restoring wildfire as a natural and restorative process in healthy western forest ecosystems; abolishing the USDA’s Wildlife Services wildlife-killing program; and inspiring residents of the West’s urban and rural communities to become a cohesive and powerful voice for the protection of wild nature…

The Climate & Energy program will fight fossil fuel extraction including coal and oil and gas while promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency. “Unless we do more to bring about a shift away from dirty energy and towards clean, renewable energy and efficiency, the climate crisis is going to have a devastating effect on the wild places, wildlife and wild rivers of the American West,” said Robert Ukeiley, the Climate & Energy Program Director for WildEarth Guardians.

We’re excited to learn more about their new Climate & Energy Program.  

To get your weekend started off right, here’s Chet Atkins, paying his respects to the great Zorba the Greek.

New Mexico is quickly becoming a center for creative thinking about alternative energy. Check out New World Biomass:

New World Biomass, LLC was established in the Spring of 2007 with the primary goal of bringing biomass and biomass technology to mainstream America. Headquartered in New Mexico, this company was formed by three individuals with different, yet complimentary backgrounds….

And they’re doing some cool things too, like hosting the New World Biomass Conference, which will be opened by Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez, who was rightly awarded the United States Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Award for his indefatigable efforts at increasing energy efficiency.

Other leading alternative energy educators will be speaking as well. We encourage all those who are interested in biomass and the alternative energy revolution to attend.

MVT: Letters to the Editor

Victim of Fire Needs Your Help

 

PLEASE HELP!

 

On Dec. 10 at 2 a.m. our friend, Tom Honea of Prairie Wood Lane in Stanley, lost his home and everything in it to a fire. He has been a longtime friend of this community, living in Stanley for over 20 years. All the tools of his trade were burned in the fire.

 

Please help if you can by contributing to the Tom Honea Relief Fund at any Wells Fargo Bank.

 

Friends of Tom Honea

 

Stanley

David S. Cohen has another cogent piece in the Mountain View Telegraph: Biomass Plant May Prevent Fire.

“Mega-fires are torching America as never before, with towering infernos scorching more than 1.5 million acres this year, consuming homes block-by-block, and forcing hundreds of thousands of people to flee,” the Chicago Tribune recently reported. “And as numerous large fires barrel over Southern California, experts warn things will likely only get worse, especially across the West.”

Recently, the residents of the East Mountains got a mild taste of what’s to come.

At a time like this, New Mexicans expect forceful and responsible government action, not foot-dragging, in addressing the looming catastrophe. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Sandia District Ranger Cid Morgan recently warned: “Don’t be surprised if we have a large, catastrophic wildfire in the East Mountains.” Given low moisture next year and the great number of dead trees lying at the floor of our overgrown forests, Morgan says “you’re talking explosive conditions, and if we get a fire in there (the Sandias) we will not be able to put it out.”

The Edgewood Independent added more bad news: “… the National Weather Service is now predicting a dry winter and a hot, windy spring— the worst possible conditions for potential wildfires. Add the climate forecasts to the (bug) infestations and you have the makings of a disaster.”

As evidenced by the California fires, the impacts could well be awful: loss of life and property, death of wildlife and habitat, water pollution and enormous plumes of dirty wildfire smoke traveling hundreds of miles, putting human health at grave risk.

Already the Manzano Mountains have suffered. During the Thanksgiving holiday, a fire destroyed 7,500 acres and at least three houses, while 100 families were evacuated from their homes.

So what’s our government’s response?

Important tax credits, which create incentives to clean up forest waste, are being arbitrarily delayed and withheld. The state government, contrary to the direction of the Legislature and the governor, is attempting to deny needed tax incentives on ever-changing, unreasonable and unlawful grounds to biomass projects seeking to clean up the dangerous forest and brush waste, which fuels these wildfires.

This is more than odd. The Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department categorically asserts on its Web site that biomass energy development would reduce the wildfire threat. Yet bureaucrats in this same department would now recklessly make biomass impossible.

Why?

Read the whole thing. Also, don’t miss the harrowing article from last week: Resident Flees ‘Wall of Fire’.

Quote of the Day:”Energy Independence Vital to U.S. Future.” To read on, click here.

When you look at the picture above from the ABQTribune,  just remember that mainstream environmental organizations, several university research departments and many government agencies, including the NM Energy Department, are all on record asserting that biomass development helps stymie the wildfire threat, a threat that we at New Mexico Biomass Blog have long been warning about.

Hat tip: Mountainair Arts

The Albuquerque Journal: Couple Lose Almost Everything in Fire, but Still Have Hope. Fortunately, an evacuation order issued to area residents was lifted on Friday by Torrance County. However, not everyone is returning to what they left:

MOUNTAINAIR— Two terrified dogs roamed the blackened forest with their tails between their legs. Four cats mewed as they looked for shelter underneath a fallen metal roof. Nearby, their 70-year-old owner Ursula Torres sat on a rock and looked at what was left of her and her husband’s dreams.

Our prayers are with them.

The Albuquerque Journal’s recent article “Biomass Study Not Impartial” unmasks the spin that the Forest Guardians have been promulgating to the public. Here’s the key passage:

An “independent” report aimed at proving that a planned biomass power plant south of Estancia fails to comply with state law and lacks enough biomass fuel to fulfill its contract was actually done by outspoken opponents of the project.

 

The report was submitted this month to the state Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, which is considering whether to give tax credits to Western Water and Power, the company proposing to build the plant.

 

A Nov. 1 press release from the Forest Guardians, which has been fighting the plant, said the report was submitted by “an independent group for citizen-scientists.” However, one of the authors, Paul Davis, told the Journal that the word “independent” only meant that the group is independent from Western Water and Power.

Read the whole thing.

Answer:

• The Governor of New Mexico
• The Congresswoman who represents Torrance County
• The Mayor of Estancia
• The Estancia Valley Economic Development Association
• The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board
• The New Mexico Land Commissioner
• The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission
• New Mexico’s largest newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal

On the side bar, to your right, we’ve added links that highlight the many leading figures in our state who support biomass development in New Mexico.

Paul Davis, Bud Latven, Bill Fogleman, and Bryan Bird (of the Forest Guardians) have again submitted an anti-biomass disinformation report; this time to the State Energy Secretary. They are not rangeland scientists, and it soon shows in their confused arguments (herein called “FG Fuel-Wood Estimate”). Dr. Brent Racher, a rangeland scientist with a BA, MS and PhD in Range Science and years of field experience in New Mexico, has carefully reviewed their report and has found it flawed on several grounds. Below is from his affidavit to the Energy Secretary.

I have reviewed the FG Fuel-Wood Estimate. This report starts by confusing the units for measuring biomass. It compares dry tons or bone-dry tons (the weight of biomass without any moisture in it) and green tons (the weight of biomass plus the weight of the moisture within the biomass). In doing this, the report states the quantity of fuel the Project will utilize 481,800 green tons at a worst case scenario of 45% moisture (equivalent to 264,990 BDT), which is correct as the maximum allowed within the Air Quality Permit, and uses this fuel in green tons to compare the calculated levels of biomass, 21 million BDT, from the 2005 Assessment. Then, the authors use this confusion throughout the report to define the length of time the plant can operate under various scenarios they present. These comparisons are not valid in any way because of the mistake associated with using differing units of measure.

Second, the report contains information from outside sources and uses it out of context to skew the output. The report uses Juniperus scopulorum (Rocky Mountain juniper) recommendations for applying to this project area. The primary species within the pinon-juniper type of the project area are primarily made up of one-seed juniper, pinon pine, and alligator juniper. Rocky Mountain juniper is a species that has different characteristics and, I estimate, makes up less than one-tenth of one percent (<0.1%) of the composition of the woody plants in the Project area.

The report then takes generalized prescriptions from a couple of different areas and applies them throughout the project area. It uses a prescription of 45-75% removal from a site-specific project on USFS land where ponderosa pine and pinon-juniper woodlands in the Manzano Mountains were being thinned, and also imposes another self-serving prescription of only harvesting trees less than nine inches (<9″) in diameter. As…described in the New Mexico Restoration Principles, prescriptions need to be applied based upon the site-specific factors. The Project also is not limited to <9″ diameter biomass material by law, regulations, or any other factor.

The Renewable Energy Act (REA) did initially require only small diameter timber to be cut, but this definition was up to 15″ diameter, not 9″. In fact, for ecosystem and natural fire perspectives on a landsape scale, putting size caps of <9″ will not achieve objectives of restoring  ecosystems and watershed function. The report takes these two different types of prescriptions and overlays them to greatly reduce the amount of material that may be harvested by the Project. For example, the report uses a prescription of material <9″ stated as only being 40% of the total  material in the pinon-juniper types, and then applies a 45-75% thinning prescription on this material. Thereby reducing the material that is thinned to 18-30% of the total material present, a prescription that is not practical, does not restore ecosystems, or is not recommended by any natural resource agency.

The report further skews information related to the Project by using specific information from studies outside the Project area from Nevada and other areas to describe conditions within the Project area. This information is not valid and barely anecdotal when compared to the area- and site-specific information the Project is using to plan and move forward.

In my expert opinion, the FG Fuel-Wood Estimate is not consistent with recognized industry practices and should not be relied upon by the Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resource Department in assessing substantial long-term production potential of the Project. Taking these factors into account, the report should be recognized for what it is, an effort to delay or halt the Project because the “group of concerned citizens” are not ”independent” experts, but rather known opponents of the Project that do not agree with the need to see our forests, woodlands, and watersheds restored to healthy, functional ecosystems by standard thinning practices.   

Dr. Brent Racher, a rangeland scientist with many years of field experience in New Mexico, has submitted an affidavit to the Energy Secretary, wherein he shows there is far more than enough biomass fuel available for the Estancia biomass project.

For ease of reading, below are excerpts of this important affidavit, organized around common questions that one often hears in the media which are then followed by Dr. Racher’s explanations from the affidavit. (We’ve left out his charts).

Scientific Credentials?

My professional experience includes a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D in Range Science, and as part of this professional training, have been part of implementation/evaluation of numerous technologies, research, and training of other professional/practitioners in forest, woodland, riparian, and rangeland management.

What’s this talk about a  “50-mile radius”  for biomass projects?

Based upon forest industry standards, the primary fuel supply of a biomass facility is considered to be within a 50-mile radius of that facility. This radius is simply for project planning at a landscape scale. However, it is not a constraint of the fuel harvesting to within that radius. Harvesting can occur outside of the 50-mile radius if the project feels it is viable based upon a variety of factors. For example, ease of fuel harvesting, access to outside funding to offset fuel cost, or the presence of transportation corridors can result in fuel being acquired outside of this radius. Project concentrate on a 50-mile radius of fuel as a ‘rule of thumb’ for planning and feasibility purposes. Like any rule of thumb, however, there exist exceptions to this rule.

What’s the relation between this  “50-mile radius” rule of thumb and the availability of biomass for the Estancia Project?

The 2005 and 2007 Biomass Resource Assessments (Assessments) performed by Native Communities Development Corporation (NCDC) submitted with the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Application 
Form to ENMRD (the NM Energy Department) by Western Water Power Production Limited, LLC (WWPP) represents an assessment, using the aforementioned rule of thumb, for the Estancia Basin Biomass Project (Project).

These Assessments are site specific, based upon monitoring and sampling within the project area, and do not use estimates of biomass from other areas of the country or from other species. Therefore, this is the best assessment of the project area available at this time.

There are on-going thinning projects, commercial/residential land development, fuelwood cutting, and natural events such as fires which are changing the fuel supply daily.

Similarly, fuel growth is continually on-going. As I have previously testified in an affidavit to EMNRD in October, 2007, woody biomass in forests and woodlands is a dynamic fuel source which is constantly changing in quantity in small increments. 

How reasonable is the assessment that there is adequate biomass fuel for the Project?

I have conducted an analysis to test the resiliency and sensitivity of the fuel supply within the Project area based upon the information contained in the Assessments in order to determine the reasonableness of the Assessments’ conclusion that there is adequate biomass fuel for the Project over its practical life of thirty years and primarily reviewing the economic life of the first twenty years where a Power Purchase Agreement is in place.

I used a starting point of the tonnage of biomass identified in the 2005 Assessment. The Assessment performed in 2005 calculated 21.5 million bone-dry tons (BDT) of biomass present within the assessment area under the identified constraints contained in the Assessment. The Assessments did not account for any annual growth in the Project area. As previously stated in my affidavit of October, 2007, a conservative estimate of annual growth within the fuel types identified in the Assessments are at least 1% (215,000 BDT).

This growth factor has been accepted in a report titled ‘FUEL-WOOD ESTIMATE FOR THE PROPOSED WWP BIOMASS PLANT NEAR ESTANCIA, NEW MEXICO’ by [biomass opponents'] Paul Davis, Bud Latven, and Bill Fogleman (FG Fuel-Wood Estimate) in this proceeding.

Next, I calculated the actual fuel need of the Project based upon the information supplied to me from Jack Maddox of WWPP on a BDT basis in order to be consistent with the data from the Assessments. According to the Affidavit of Jack Maddox, the actual projected utilization of biomass by the Project is 250,000 BDT annually. However, the Project is permitted to use up to 481,800 green tons (269,990 BCT at 45% moisture) in its Air Quality permit.

Within this Air Quality Permit, the Project is permitted to use up to 30% agricultural waste, but for this analysis I have assumed that 100% of the fuel comes from woody biomass in the form of forest, woodland, and rangeland thinning  residues.

After taking into consideration an annual growth as low as 1%, I have calculated and concluded the Project will only reduce the biomass present within the 50-mile radius by 2% if utilizing 250,000 BDT annually or by 5% if utilizing 264,990 BDT annually compared to 2005 levels.

So, on a landscape scale, the Project will only slightly be keeping ahead of annual growth. From a natural perspective, the goal should be to restore ecosystem and watershed function and to return these ecosystems to a natural fire regime. A greater need to protect lives and structures is also present within the wildland/urban interface (WUI).

A much greater level of thinning treatments are needed to accomplish these ecosystem and WUI goals within the area of the Project than this biomass facility and on-going treatments can supply. Based upon this analysis, the Project area has and is growing much more biomass than can be utilized by this Project alone. Similar scale biomass utilization projects are necessary if the goal is to restore forest health and ecosystem/watershed functions.

If the Estancia Biomass Project doesn’t use thinnings from the national forests, will it have enough fuel?

Moreover, because the Project has stated that it does not intend to utilize US Forest Service thinning residues unless made available to it by the Forest Service, I conducted another scenario by excluding all land ownerships including federal lands identified in the Assessments to analyze fuel quantity only included upon State and private lands to be the fuel resource for the Project. From this perspective, the 2005 Assessment calculated over 16.8 million BDT of fuel within the constraints. Using the same utilization and growth rates mentioned above, the Project will only reduce the biomass present on these properties within the 50-mile radius by 14% or 17% at 250,000 or 264,990 BDT of annual utilization, respectively. This is only the change on those state and private lands and does not account for growth, densification of forest/woodlands, and the hazards (ecological and watershed) that other land ownerships represent within the landscape.

Imagine the worst case scenario; will the Estancia Project have enough biomass fuel? 

Finally, in order to provide a worse case scenario for analysis, I made an extremely conservative assumption that one-third (1/3) of the State and private lands will not be available for biomass harvesting based upon such factors as wildfire completely burning the fuel source; covenants within developed areas; public safety issues; archaeological site protection; residential or commercial development; or personal preference of the property owner. These constraints are very conservative because of the history of the area, the current land uses in the area, and the actions of the landowners in the area. Under this scenario, over 11.2 million BDT are present within the area for biomass harvesting based upon the 2005 Assessment with the constraints in that report and the constraint described above. Using the same utilization and growth rates stated above, the Project will only reduce the biomass present on the properties (using the given constraints) within the 50-mile radius by 41% or 46% at 250,000 or 264,990 BDT of annual utilization, respectively. This reduction in biomass reflects only what is occurring on the properties where biomass treatments are applied. This does not take into account the continued growth and the densification of forests/woodlands that will continue to occur within the overall landscape.

Given all your studies based on various scenarios, what’s your conclusion about the long-term production potential for the Estancia Project?

Based upon the above scenarios, it is my opinion that the biomass within the Project area is robust and can supply the biomass fuel needs for the long-term production potential of the Project without causing over-harvesting to the watersheds and ecosystems. Under any of these scenarios and constraints, the quantity of fuel within the area is more than adequate to provide the Project with biomass for the planning horizon of the facility. In fact, these demonstrations show that the Project’s needs for biomass, if maximized in the use of woody fuel from forest/woodland thinning residues, may solve some energy needs, but do little to reverse the downward trend our ecosystems and watersheds are facing. Additional utilization projects for woody material and biomass are needed with the area to correct and sustain healthy and functional watersheds and ecosystems in the Project area. 

Brian Bingham, Director of Commercial Resource Management Division and the Renewable Energy Program at the State Land Office (“SLO”), submitted an affidavit challenging the dubious position that the State Energy Department has taken towards the Estanica Biomass Project. Here are the money quotes from the affidavit: 

The SLO has determined  that the thinning and removal of biomass material from SLO Trust properties is necessary for the SLO to satisfy its trust obligations under the Enabling Act of the New Mexico Constitution. These trust lands over the past one hundred years have seen the invasion of pinion and juniper trees which have killed the native grasses necessary for optimal cattle grazing thereby materially and adversely impacting the carrying capacity of the land, the health of the watershed and the native habitat, and Trust revenues and increasing the potential for wildfires. The removal of biomass for electric energy generation will also produce enhanced revenues to the School Trust Fund while at the same time stimulating the development of renewable energy as required by law.

It is not commercially feasible or reasonable to rely upon grazing leaseholders to incur the substantial  costs for removal of the biomass material from the land because of the economics of ranching and the unavailablity of state and federal subsidies for this activity on the property. Without WWPP’s willingness to undertake this activity the Trust lands will continue to be adversely impacted by the over abundance of pinion and juniper trees.

….

It is the SLO’s opinion that the denial of the tax credits [to WWPP's biomass project] will interfere with the accomplishment of the SLO’s Trust responsibilities to the detriment to the schoolchildren of the state and the health and value of state Trust Lands. 

As is by now well-known, the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department is, contrary to applicable law and policy, attempting to deny the Estancia biomass project’s application for a Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit.

Without any support under the New Mexico statue establishing the renewable energy tax credit (NMSA 1978, 7-2A-19), and without any support from the Energy Department’s own rules, they are seeking to deny the tax-credit application solely because Western, the biomass company, didn’t provide documentation establishing with certainty that it has an actual and guaranteed available supply of biomass material (fuel) under binding contract throughout the twenty-year economic life of the planned biomass facility.

Nowhere, but nowhere–not under state statue, not under the Energy Department’s own rules–does it state that alternative energy companies must prove a guaranteed and certain supply of fuel; it only asks that you demonstrate potential. And Western provided that information, according to the written and established rules.

If their decision is sustained, the Energy Department will have undermined the legislative intent of the Statue, whose enactment was supported by the Energy Department itself during the 2007 legislative session.

Ultimately, what makes their current anti-biomass decision so bizarre is that they affirmatively represented to members of the Legislature that the Statute should be enacted in part because of the benefits flowing to the State from Western’s biomass project in Estancia.

Incredible. And now they’re literally making up rules, out of thin air, to thwart the very project they were touting less than a year ago.

It’s a mad, mad world.   

Thus reports the Mountain View Telegraph:

Bryan Bird, director for public lands for Forest Guardians, an environmental group that has opposed the construction of the [Estancia biomass] plant, said there are differences between the WWPP assessment of available biomass materials and a study done by “an independent group (of) citizen-scientists” that was also submitted to the state.

Citizen-scientists? Scientists? Well, not quite. The article goes on to report:

Three individuals with “a scientific background,” but not in the area of forestry, performed the study, said Paul Davis, one of those individuals listed, along with Bud Latven and Bill Fogleman.

Anyone who has taken some science classes in high school can be said to have a “scientific background,” but that fact alone doesn’t make them “scientists,” does it? On-going research, hands-on experience, postgraduate education, site-specific knowledge should mean something, right? We know, for example, that Bud Latven is not a scientist at all, but an artist who makes his living carving up biomass. Yet Bryan Bird and the Forest Guardians just spin that away in the media. Classy.  

1. It’s A Clean Energy Source. — Biomass energy is widely embraced in the United States and Europe as a clean alternative energy source, and is widely recognized by mainstream environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists, as a critical component in an overall renewable energy portfolio. It’s a firm resource that can generate electricity as and when needed, complementing intermittent resources such as wind and solar energy. There are hundreds of biomass facilities in America. And recently in Sweden a town was awarded the European Union’s prestigious sustainable energy award because of its use of biomass.

2. It’s Safe. —The emissions from the Estancia Project are significantly better than state and federal ambient air quality standards, as attested by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and by the New Mexico Environment Department’s own experts who testified at the air permit hearing in April that the project complied with all requirements and that Western, the biomass company proposing the facility near Estancia, had gone well beyond what was required of it. The state Environmental Improvement Board unanimously demanded that an air quality permit be issued for the project, since it will pose no threat to human, animal or crop health.

3. It’s Renewable. — According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, biomass is America’s leading renewable energy resource, contributing more to our national renewable energy portfolio than geothermal, wind and solar combined. The Estancia biomass project will use waste and invasive species that have harmed New Mexico’s traditional rangelands and natural grasses, while at the same time help restore the health of the piñon, our state tree that has abjectly suffered from overgrowth, drought and bug infestations. Along with juniper, such trees are expanding at a rate of 10 thousand acres per year, which is not sustainable or healthy. Piñon, while long-living when not attacked by bark beetles and drought, reach cone bearing age relatively young, by about 25 years old, and juniper “mature in 1 to 3 seasons and contain 1-12 seeds, usually 3,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Importantly, the faster-growing juniper make up the vast majority of the biomass material that will be used in the Estancia project. The project is also allowed to use up to 30% agricultural waste, thereby potentially dropping the need to use juniper-piñon even further, thus making the project all the more renewable.

4. It’s Cleaner Than Open-Burning. — The emissions from the Estancia biomass project are far lower than emissions from the open burning of wood—such as in a wildfire, a prescribed fire or where rangeland thinning is deliberately burned, which is now often the case. Says the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), part of the U.S. Department of Energy: When compared with a biomass facility, the open burning of wood puts into the air more than double the nitrogen oxides, more than 1,000 times the particulate matter, 20 times more carbon monoxide, more than 30 times the methane, and about 1,000 times more volatile organic compounds.

5. It’s Cleaner Than Coal. — The Estancia project will produce far lower emissions than burning coal, the most likely alternative in New Mexico for providing firm electricity. NREL found that direct-fired biomass emits 1/2 the carbon monoxide, 1/40 the particulates, 1/4 the nitrous oxides and 1/15 the sulfur dioxide compared  with same amount of energy produced in a coal-fired plant.

6. It Makes Practical Use Of Waste. — The primary fuel source for the project will come from rangeland, not the forests. Much of this material is already dead and lying on the ground. Without the biomass project it will end up decaying or being open burned, creating much worse pollution than it otherwise would in the biomass facility. Both satellite studies of the area and on-the-ground surveys by rangeland experts have shown that there are at least three times more biomass material than needed to fuel the project. The biomass company and the landowner are required to jointly develop a plan for what may and may not be cut, which includes government oversight.

Currently, rangeland conservation programs intend to remove approximately 100 years of juniper and piñon growth, and local contractors working under these programs have already thinned 20,000 acres. As a result of that fact, we in New Mexico are faced with two basic choices: either we leave the thinnings as potential fuel for uncontrolled fires or to decompose while at the same time releasing greenhouse gases, or we use them as potential fuel for a clean biomass power facility.

Supporters of alternative energy development are rooting for the latter. And this is where Western has come into the picture. Working within the framework of rangeland conservation programs, it has entered into agreements with the state and private rangeland owners to utilize the overgrowth on their properties.

7. It Helps Reduce Dangerous Wildfires. — The ailing forests of the East Mountains are in danger of a catastrophic wildfire. According to University of Florida scientists, thinning invasive species and overgrown ecosystems reduces the risk of, and damage from, forest fires. Existing regulations and government agencies protect the state and federal forests, and the agencies that oversee the forests will continue to formulate their own policies and rules. To the extent that, in the future, the relevant agencies do elect to thin the East Mountains (as they are now discussing in order to thwart the wildfire threat), combustion of those materials in a biomass facility is the most environmentally responsible means of disposal. The Estancia biomass facility will in no way drive the decision whether or not to thin the forests. Where the relevant land management agency adopts the New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles, which were developed to regulate biomass projects by a cross-section of governmental and non-governmental organizations (including the Forest Guardians), Western has publicly pledged to adhere to the Principles in the event that it becomes involved in any thinning in the state and federal forests.

8. It’s Not An Economic Risk On The County. —The issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRBs) by Torrance County does not place the financial risk of the biomass project on the County or its citizens. IRBs are widely used around the country as an economic development tool, and the financial responsibility for the bonds rests only on the biomass project. The IRBs do provide some tax relief, but local government will still receive more revenue, not less, than if the project did not go forward.

9. It Helps Reduce Greenhouse Gases. — Governor Bill Richardson, on June 5th 2005, signed an Executive Order that established targets for reducing New Mexico’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Open burning of trees, whether through wildfires, prescribed fires or open-burns of wood waste, will result in a significant increase in greenhouse gases. The Estancia biomass facility is the only way our state can control these burns in a clean and environmentally responsible way.   

10. It’s An Economic Benefit For The County. — As attested by the Mayor of Estancia (D) and Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R) and the Editors of the Albuquerque Journal (I), the Estancia biomass project is great for economic development in Torrance County and the Estancia Valley, creating hundreds of jobs and stimulating business activity in the area. The biomass facility will employ over 150 construction workers during a 12-18 month construction period and over 20 permanent operation and maintenance workers. In addition, around another 100 jobs will be created in the area of collecting and transporting the biomass. Plus, the neighboring greenhouse will benefit from cogeneration from the biomass facility, allowing the greenhouse to sustain more employees in year-round operations and potentially even to expand, further aiding the regional economy. What is more, a large solar energy project, to be built next to the biomass facility, is also being planned by Western, which will create yet more jobs and economic growth. All together the project will profoundly stimulate the economy—as well as turn the area into a Mecca of clean alternative energy, providing the rest of the state and country with a green energy example of which Torrance County residents can be proud.          

Worth reading: An article in this week’s US News & World Report entitled “Power Revolution.” You can see from the graph above what an important role biomass plays in our national renewable energy portfolio, contributing more than geothermal, solar and wind combined. If it weren’t for biomass, the United States would enjoy virtually no renewable energy, and our country would pollute far worse than it now does. Fortunately, other parts of the country don’t have to deal with the kind of ignorance and radicalism that is slowing biomass development in this state.    

“Natural light floods the sales floor, earth mounds surround the building and almost nothing is wasted. It may sound more like a bronze-age village than a modern supermarket, but there is no doubt that the Sainsbury’s in Greenwich is truly a technological marvel.” — Cities of Science, London, about Britain’s Sainsbury’s in Greenwich. Pretty cool.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune article entitled “Did you see a single blade of grass left?”

To fully appreciate just how big, just how destructive, the Witch Creek fire was in its first night, when one of its tentacles passed to the north of Ramona, stand in the middle of Pamo Valley and turn 360 degrees.

The mountains that frame the valley, all part of the Cleveland National Forest, have been denuded of their towering pines. The Orosco Ridge, a popular shooting area to the west, is black and empty. Black Mountain to the east is foreboding and lifeless.

The valley floor, where oaks, sycamores, willows and cottonwoods thrived until last week, now looks like a windswept moonscape.

Talk about clear-cutting.

Yahoo News:

Some rare types of trees, butterflies and other wildlife could lose their struggle for survival after this month’s southern California fires, which ravaged one of the most unique, biodiverse areas in the world, scientists say.

Spewing alarming levels of toxins into the atmosphere, the blazes — reportedly sparked by arson and a downed power line — ripped across the landscape just four years after another massive wildfire swept through.

Vaxjo, Sweden (population 78,500) recently won the European Union’s inaugural sustainable energy award for a community, making it perhaps the greenest city in the world. And guess what? They rely heavily on biomass power. Post Carbon Cities has the story, entitled “In Europe’s greenest city, even its power plant smells like a sauna.”

The article says that it is the city’s “(biomass) power plant that has helped the small Swedish city of Växjö (pronounced vek-shur) become arguably the greenest place in Europe. On closer observation, the only thing emerging from the chimneys is the faintest wisp of steam. And inside it smells more like a sauna than a furnace. That’s because it is not oil fuelling the plant, but woodchip and other wood waste from the area’s sawmills. And as well as generating electricity, it also supplies 90 per cent of this southern Swedish town with heating and hot water.” 

The article goes on to say: “It was this biomass plant that netted Växjö the European Union’s inaugural award for sustainable development this year, an accolade which some might say makes it the greenest city on the continent.”

Read the whole article.

Sadly, this photo now represents a typical sight in New Mexico and the broader Southwest. Many of our piñon forests now look like eerie graveyards. Following recent drought years, our overgrown piñon have been unable to produce enough sap to close the holes made by the beetle infestations. Within a mere few months, they are killed by these hungry invaders, leaving only the skeletal remains of our state tree.   

Last week Chirglichin, a group of musicians from Tuva, a small Russian province north of Western Mongolia, brought their beautiful and haunting music to New Mexico, where they performed in Albuquerque as well as in several pueblos (Santa Ana,  San Felipe and Santa Domingo). Many thanks to our friend Michael Crofoot, an indefatigable supporter of biomass, for making such a wonderful cross-cultural exchange possible between our state and Asia.

We’re depressed to see the position Jim Baca has taken towards the Estancia biomass project, a position with which we obviously disagree:

 It is all really a ploy to clear land for more grazing for the Land Commissioners friends.

On what evidence is this statement based? Judging from Jim’s post, as well as other comments he’s made about the Estancia biomass project, it seems his objection is based not on any induction from the empirical facts but on a deductive and a priori dislike of Land Commissioner Pat Lyons. For some reason he almost always ties Lyons to the project, while utterly ignoring the biomass support given by the Mayor of Estancia and the Environmental Improvement Board.

Baca calls the Albuquerque Journal’s defense of Estancia biomass “bizarre,” because they are (so he says without any qualifier) “supporting the burning of our piñon-juniper forests to generate electricity.” He then claims:

The Journal did put in a good letter to the editor explaining why their editorial was wrong.

This statement is ambiguous, wrongly suggesting that the Journal wrote the letter correcting their own editorial, but they did no such thing. They published a letter by Peggy Norton, a well known anti-biomass firebrand. 

Since Baca evidently found her letter persuasive, and since we like Baca, perhaps it’s time to do a little ol’ fashioned fisking, in the hope that he might see something of our side of the story too. 

So let the fisking begin. Norton opens her letter with this:

I am so disappointed to read your editorial regarding the proposed biomass plant….You totally  ignore the other side of the issue and write about the project from the view of (Western Water and Power co-owner) Cohen.

So filled by the self-righteousness of her anti-biomass opinion, it doesn’t even occur to Norton that the Journal’s editors have heard her side’s point of view and yet still they disagree with it. After all, they’ve published far more anti-biomass opinion at the Mountain View Telegraph than they have the views of biomass supporters. So it’s not as if the editors are unaware of her litany of complaints. Clearly they have heard them. And clearly they beg to differ. Their message is clear: They agree with Cohen.

Norton goes on:

(Western has) taken advantage of many loopholes regarding the licensing of this plant.

Biomass opponents keep saying this. But they never offer any evidence to back up the claim. What loopholes? Please spell them out, because we can’t think of any other alternative energy company that has had to satisfy more needless and difficult government obstacles, and which has been more up-front with the public and more scrutinized, than Western, Water and Power.

But that fact doesn’t stop Norton:

This is a new technology in the state and it needs to be done correctly because it will have a huge impact for many years.

Yes, it is new to New Mexico, but it’s certainly not “new technology.” As we’ve pointed out before, biomass is successful across the developed world. Moreover, no one disagrees that it needs to be done correctly. Western plans to use the best available control technology that is currently being used in California.

Nevertheless, Norton says: 

This is not clean energy, spewing 750 tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, which does not include diesel fumes and dust created by the trucks hauling wood.

For the umpteenth time: The Environmental Improvement Board conceded that the Estancia biomass project’s emissions are significantly better than state and federal air quality standards, and therefore demanded from the Environment Department that an air quality permit be issued for the project. Moreover, the prime alternative to the baseload resource of biomass is coal, a far dirtier option for our state. For more information on this apparently undying issue, please click here. Also, click here too.

Furthermore, Norton complains about the alleged fumes and dust kicked up by trucks hauling wood, but totally ignores the drop in pollution that will occur when, instead of having to commute to work in Albuquerque, locals have jobs at the biomass facility and the large adjacent greenhouse and solar facilities that are also planned by Western, all of which will reduce pollution in our state.

Norton now claims:   

It is not renewable, because it necessitates burning trees that take 100-500 years to grow. It requires 10 million tons of trees if the plant is in operation for 20 years, and all these must come from within 50 miles of the plant.

Actually, piñon reach cone bearing age relatively young, by about 25 years old, and juniper “mature in 1 to 3 seasons and contain 1-12 seeds, usually 3,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. And, importantly, juniper trees make up the vast majority of the biomass material that will be used in the Estancia project, not piñon. Furthermore, the project is allowed to use up to 30% agricultural waste, thereby potentially dropping the need to use piñon-juniper even further.

Moreover, at the August hearing on the subject, a rangeland expert—who wasn’t affiliated with Western—testified under oath that there’s around 23 million tons of available biomass material to satisfy the 8 million tons of biomass for the project, and that the piñon and juniper are expanding at a rate of 10 thousand acres per year. This means that there simply won’t be any clear-cutting. What’s more, there is three times more than enough biomass material within the 50 miles of the facility, as proved by satellite imagery.

About this issue, we think David Cohen summed it up best when he pointed out that “rangeland conservation programs intend to remove approximately 100 years of juniper and piñon growth, and local contractors working under these programs have already thinned 20,000 acres. Given that fact, we in New Mexico are faced with two choices: either we leave the thinnings as potential fuel for uncontrolled fires or to decompose while at the same time releasing greenhouse gases, or we use them as potential fuel for a clean biomass power facility.” The cutting, in other words, is now being done–and not by the biomass facility. So the question then becomes: What are we going to do?

Still, Norton says:

I think the Energy, Material (?) and Natural Resources Department is wise to be looking ahead at the impact of this plant, and I wish the Environmental Improvement Board could have done so also.

Now that you have all of her arguments, you can see that Norton’s letter doesn’t at all address the thesis of the Journal’s editorial. If you read the editorial, you’ll see that their thesis is that it is unreasonable for the Energy Department to request that the biomass company provide contracts for each tree that will be used over twenty years.

Says the Journal: “That’s a tall order, considering fires, drought and bark beetles can mean a tree that’s here today is gone tomorrow.” That’s their thesis. But Norton’s letter offers nothing that would dispute the Journal’s central argument, proving, so it seems, that she doesn’t even know what people are talking about.

She concludes:

Do we really want to give $20 million in renewable energy tax credits for someone to clearcut our land and pollute our air? Wouldn’t this money be much better spent supporting solar and wind energy sources, which truly are renewable and clean?

Since it has already been proven that the Estancia biomass project won’t clear-cut, since its emissions are better than state and federal air quality standards, since the Public Regulation Commission has mandated the baseload resource of biomass in our state as an alternative to dirty coal-fired plants, since solar and wind energy sources receive more federal and state tax help than biomass, since the Estancia biomass project would make prudent use of thinning that is happening anyway, since there is more than three times the biomass needed, since the biomass project could help with the potential wildfire that is threatening the East Mountains, since it will bring in millions to poor Torrance County and generate hundreds of solid jobs, since along with the adjacent greenhouse and solar facility next door, it will help turn the area into a renewable energy Mecca—yes, why not give it the tax credits? It’s a great idea.

Certainly, Peggy Norton’s arguments don’t explain denying them, and nor do they explain why an otherwise intelligent man like Jim Baca is so hostile towards the Estancia biomass project.      

The Associated Press:

Even as many of the wildfires in flame-ravaged Southern California died down and residents returned home, lingering dust and soot-laden air made it difficult for many to breathe even a sigh of relief Saturday….

Satellite pictures showed thick smoke continuing to hang over the entire region, affecting schools, events and the health of residents all over Southern California.

Residents staying in areas with bad air were advised to avoid exerting themselves. Children and people with heart and respiratory conditions were urged to stay indoors with the windows and doors closed and the air conditioner on.

Given that the Forest Guardians advocate for “more use of prescribed fire closer to home,” keep the following ABQJournal article in mind next time you hear the Guardians demonize the Estancia biomass project over air quality issues. Not only are the emissions from the Estancia biomass project significantly better than state and federal air quality standards, they are also much, much better than what gets blown into the air from a prescribed fire. Witness what the Journal is reporting today:

Jemez Smoke Clouds Duke City’s Air

 

Where there’s fire, there’s smoke. And when there’s fire in the Jemez Mountains and the wind is blowing from the north, you’re going to see and even smell smoke in Albuquerque. The city’s air quality office received a few phone calls Wednesday morning from people concerned about the haze hanging over the Rio Grande Valley, according to staff meteorologist Jeffrey Stonesifer.

 

Yes, the haze was due to fire, he told them. And, no, it was not blowing in from the massive fires in California, nor was it unhealthy for most people in Albuquerque.”This smoke is from the fires in the Jemez,” Stonesifer said Wednesday. “It’s getting pushed down into the Rio Grande Valley by northerly winds.”

 

Fire crews in the Santa Fe National Forest took advantage of cool weather this week to set several fires as part of a forest management plan, and forest spokeswoman Dolores Maese said about 10 people called to complain about the smoke. One of those calls came from Geoff Klise, who lives near the University of New Mexico and was amazed when he woke up Wednesday morning.

 

“I could just taste it in the air,” he said. “It created an awful haze in the city.”

 

Klise, a scientist, said he understands the theory behind intentional forest burns and supports them, but he wondered why the Forest Service chose to burn on a day when it was obvious the wind would push the smoke over the state’s largest city….

 

The smoke hung in the river valley in Albuquerque Wednesday morning because of high pressure. That caused particulate matter— tiny bits of burned stuff that colors the air gray— to bump the air quality index into the “unhealthy for sensitive groups” range at monitoring stations in the North Valley and South Valley between 6 and 9 a.m., Stonesifer said.

 

That range, defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as an air quality index number between 101 and 150, means active people and people with asthma or other lung diseases should avoid prolonged exertion outdoors.

Avoid prolonged exertion outdoors because of a prescribed fire—the very thing for which the Guardians advocate. Don’t they feel at all disingenuous or hypocritical for attacking biomass supporters over air quality issues? They must know that the Estancia biomass project won’t ever result in the terrible kind of pollution that eventuates from what they promote. Such incredible self-righteousness, isn’t it?

The Associated Press:

A handful of fire engines and 16 more firefighters from New Mexico were dispatched Thursday to help with the wildfires burning in Southern California. “Today, we continue our response to help a neighbor in need,” Gov. Bill Richardson said. The 16 firefighters deployed Thursday will join more than 40 firefighters from around the state and a medical assistance team that left for California on Wednesday. The latest team is made up of one New Mexico State Forestry fire engine, two Santa Fe County engines and two Bureau of Indian Affairs engines from Zuni and Ramah. The state Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management is coordinating New Mexico’s participation in the California wildfire deployment and will continue to monitor the need for additional resources.

The AP: “Crews found two burned bodies in a gutted house, authorities said Thursday, and flames drew perilously close to thousands of homes in Southern California’s firestorm despite a break in the harsh winds and a massive aerial assault.”

Talk about air pollution. Those wisps are enormous plumes blowing out into the Pacific. (NASA has added red to mark out the fire areas).

So do you think biomass is the only type of alternative energy hitting regulatory obstacles these days?

Well, get wind of this. Last week the Boston Globe reported that the Cape Cod Commission denied Cape Wind Associates permission to run transmission lines to their offshore wind farm due to a  “procedural denial, based on a lack of information,” so they say.  

That is exactly the same spin on which our own state Energy Department denied tax credits to biomass in New Mexico. Fernando Martinez, the Energy Department’s director, said that the biomass application was rejected “because it was incomplete,” despite the fact that the biomass company was asked to provide more information than was required by law, as our state Land Commissioner publicly stated.  

Interestingly, around the same time that the Albuquerque Journal was criticizing the Energy Department for its possible hidden agenda, the Globe was also editorializing that the Cape Cod Commission’s decision appeared to be a result of special interest groups playing fast-and-loose with the law:

There is evidence that the Cape Cod Commission is finding fault with the cable proposal because some commission members or residents of the towns they represent do not want the turbines, which at their closest point would be about five miles from the Cape, in their viewscape. At the same time the commission was dealing with the cable proposal from Cape Wind, it approved without benefit of any review at all a new electric cable linking Nantucket with the Cape. At 26 miles, that cable has already been built, and it is double the length of Cape Wind’s.

Does this political game sound familiar? Like the biomass company in New Mexico, the wind company can appeal the decision or seek to satisfy the Commission’s information request. Still, both way, it involves troubling delays and increased costs, which seem deliberately intended to defeat the project.

And make no mistake: If the game is successful–and if the biomass project in New Mexico is also thwarted for the same reasons–then it could produce some foul winds for alternative energy companies across the nation. The message will go out loud and clear that, to defeat alternative energy development in this country, you only need a well-financed opposition group who can make loud, exaggerated claims that intimidate politicians and government bureaucrats.   

So what then is going to happen? It seems that, bottom line, either this country is serious about developing alternative energy or it’s not. If we are, then it means we have to be willing to make some trade-offs and recognize that, like most things in this imperfect world, there are pros and cons to each of our alternative energy options. 

However, if we’re not serious, then the depressing fact is that all the recent political calls about getting our country off coal, oil and gas are nothing more than just that—meaningless political slogans designed to make us feel like we’re doing something when, in fact, we’re doing very little.       

Yesterday, the Albuquerque Journal published a letter from the state Commissioner of Public Lands, Pat Lyons, in which he defended the Estancia biomass project and raised serious concerns about the rationality and legal basis for the Energy Department’s controversial denial of tax-credits for the project. Here’s the letter:

State Open to New Energy Ideas

 

RE: “Biomass Rejection Looks Pretty Thin” editorial regarding Western Water and Power’s difficulties in obtaining tax credits for its planned Estancia biomass plant.

 

As commissioner of public lands I have promoted and will continue to promote alternative fuels, including biomass, as viable renewable energy resources. The dilemma with solar, wind, hydrologic, biomass, and other renewable energy sources is that they all depend on some natural variable. Natural conditions over long periods are extremely difficult to accurately quantify.

 

To request that Western’s attempt to quantify the amount of biomass beyond the estimates it provided is both unreasonable, and not specifically required by law. As pointed out by the editorial, the grounds on which Energy Director Fernando R. Martinez rejected Western’s application for a renewable-energy tax credit appear thin. It would appear to the public that this denial is more about the agenda of that division, than in helping to foster and promote alternative energy projects.

 

During this critical period when we as a nation determine our future energy sources, it is time to decide if we are serious about addressing climate change and pursuing alternative energy. If companies continue to receive these roadblocks, the state of New Mexico will tarnish its reputation as a progressive state that supports and creates opportunities for new and creative energy solutions.

PATRICK H. LYONS

Commissioner Of Public Lands

Santa Fe

For a different perspective from the Forest Guardians, here is a must-watch video from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a very important video given that the East Mountains are in grave danger of a catastrophic wildfire:

How’s that for pollution and air quality? More news at the Washington Post.

Bryan Bird in a recent press release:

“The Forest Service needs to get serious about fire as a cost efficient and ecologically superior management tool.”

The press release goes on to say:

Fire naturally and cost-effectively reduces fuels, small trees and brush that grow under mature trees, but with housing rapidly encroaching on once natural areas, fire is suppressed more often. According to a recent analysis by Headwaters Economics, New Mexico has 24,899 residences in its wildland urban interface, of which 34 percent are seasonal homes or cabins. New Mexico ranks eighth among western states in the number of homes built in forested areas next to public wildlands, and fifth in the percentage of those homes that are only seasonally occupied.

Humans encroaching on “once natural areas” is the fundamental problem, according to the worldview of the Forest Guardians. But by what criteria do the Forest Guardians define “natural” and “unnatural”? And why do they assume humans are somehow outside nature?

Unless they define and defend their terms, this press release will remain unconvincing to those who don’t already share their philosophical assumptions, a philosophy that appears rather misanthropic.   

Not only is the Albuquerque Journal coming out strongly in favor of the Estancia biomass project. So too is Congresswoman Heather Wilson who, two days before the Albuquerque Journal’s editorial, wrote a letter to Governor Richardson “urging him to work with Western Water and Power Production, LLC, the operator of the future Torrance County Biomass Power Plant, and approve their application for a renewable energy production tax credit.” From the letter:

As a renewable energy resource, the biomass electricity-generating plant is good for the Estancia Valley and New Mexico. I am asking that you work with Western Water and Power Production LLC so that the Biomass Plant can receive their critical financing to meet its scheduled power delivery date.

It is worth noting that Congresswoman Wilson in 2006 won Torrance County by a wide margin. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she knows this county well and that she has their broad support.     

So says the ABQJournal:

If a tree falls near a planned Estancia biomass plant, the state Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department wants to know about it. Even if it won’t fall for two decades.

 

That’s the apparent message in the department’s rejection of Western Water and Power’s application for $2 million in annual renewable-energy tax credits for its $80 million biomass project. The plant would burn organic waste— from piñon and juniper cut from rangeland to agricultural waste— and generate electricity.

 

A letter from Energy Director Fernando R. Martinez says Western’s application didn’t include the amount of biomass or acreage available for thinning and removal on the area of land in each contract. Western co-owner David Cohen says state statute refers to “long-term potential” of “production capacity,” which he reads as the generator, not the fuel. That makes sense, considering the challenge in pinpointing the speed of gusts for a wind plant or number of sunny days for a solar plant in 2027.

 

Nevertheless, Cohen says Western provided copies of six of its eight five-to-10-year contracts with private landowners, a description of acreage it has under a 25-year contract with the State Land Office, an estimated tonnage of biomass available on the acreage based on satellite and on-the-ground surveys, and two studies showing 21 million tons of biomass within a 50-mile radius of the plant and 5.9 million tons in a 25-mile radius.

 

And on Sept. 25, he says, Western’s tax-credit application was rejected— because it didn’t show actual fuel supply for the 20-year life of the project.

 

That’s a tall order, considering fires, drought and bark beetles can mean a tree that’s here today is gone tomorrow. And it’s a dubious one, coming on the heels of Environment Secretary Ron Curry’s rejection of Western’s air-quality permit, which was subsequently overturned by the state Environmental Improvement Board.

 

Western has appealed the tax-credit decision to Energy Secretary Joanna Prukop. At the very least, Cohen wants a public hearing on the case.

 

At the very least, there should be a public airing. Gov. Bill Richardson has made biomass one of the planks in the state’s renewable energy platform. Cleaning up what’s on the ground, thinning what’s overgrown, eradicating non-native species and returning grasslands to their natural state— all while spurring economic development and providing an alternative to coal-fired electric plants— makes sense.

 

And the public should know if the company that’s stepped up to do just that can’t deliver, or if it’s just getting short-circuited in government bureaucracy with a hidden agenda.

From the Associated Press article “Curry To Testify On Greenhouse Gas Pollution“:

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico, followed by oil and gas operations and transportation, the state Environment Department has said.

 It’s important to note that coal-fired plants are the prime alternative to the baseload resource of biomass.

Russell Biomass, a green energy company in Massachusetts, has the info:

Every year, one million tons of green energy rots on the vast Adirondack forest floor in New York State. Now, the State’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is studying ways to convert that material to a woody biomass fuel. The plan is being supported by conservation organisations and environmental groups, and is part of New York’s goal to have 25 per cent of the state’s electricity coming from renewables.

The DEC has secured a grant from the U.S. Forest Service to explore the feasibility of converting leftover wood from logging operations on private lands into a solid biofuel source. The $64,000 award will fund a one-year project to evaluate whether there would be enough potential users in and around the Adirondack Park to make woody biomass a go. Covering around 6.1 million acres (24,000 km²), the Adirondack Park in the Northeast of the state is one of the largest forested state parks in the United States – roughly the size of the state of Vermont. However, more than half of the land is privately owned.

Proving that the Estancia Biomass Saga is getting national attention, the Russell Biomass Company unbeknownst to us republished David Cohen’s fine article: Let’s See Biomass’s Bright Side. To which we say: Cheers to them for their support of New Mexico Biomass development and the wider alternative energy revolution now happening in this country. We wish them much success.  

Now for some basic economics. Tax help for biomass development in New Mexico has, for now, been denied on the following grounds:

Contracts for harvesting biomass material contained in the application are incomplete, according to public information officer Jodi McGinnis Porter….McGinnis Porter used a hypothetical example to explain the state’s problem with the application. “For example you have a contract to cut my grass,” McGinnis Porter said Friday. “I have agreed to let you cut my grass but I haven’t agreed how much to pay and how much you’ll cut and for how long.”

This justification won’t hold up in court, much less among the educated public who understands how business works in a competitive market. Judging from Mrs. Porter’s justification, it seems the state didn’t even bother to read the contract. The contract states (1) the price, (2) the amount (what is legally allowed and environmentally responsible), and (3) the terms of the contract.

To continue with her metaphor of the lawn, yes, the contract did not say each day over a twenty year period the grass will be cut and how much would be necessary to cut, as the Energy Department is demanding. Of course not.

And why do we say “of course not”?

For a very simple economic reason. Neither the supplier (private landowners and the State Land Office) nor the consumer (the biomass company) are foolish enough to bind themselves to a contract that spells out exactly which particular material will be used each day over a twenty year timeframe.

If they were to agree to such a contract, then private landowners and the State Land Office would painfully constrain their oversight over their properties as well as potentially weaken their negotiating power as the market changes over those twenty years, just as the biomass company would potentially lose its freedom to adapt to market conditions and advanced technology that may well reduce its demand for the amount of the material needed to purchase. Neither supplier nor consumer wants such a long-range contract–and quite wisely so. 

For example, consider recent news about the potential thinning projects for the unhealthy forests of the East Mountains, now at grave risk of a catastrophic wildfire. Perhaps those thinnings will eventually be sold on the market, thereby dropping the price and demand for the material needed for the Estancia biomass project.  

And that’s just one example of how economic conditions may change, which would render foolish the kind of contract that the Energy Department now (retroactively) requires, and which other State agencies would never sign anyway. 

Here’s one final example for you to chew on, a metaphor to understand what the Energy Department is requesting of biomass in this state. Imagine you own a store that sells jeans. Would you sign a contract to sell one and only one style of jeans from one supplier for a twenty year period? Highly doubtful. If you did, then you’d be blind to the fact that styles change. In a year or even a month from now, your store won’t likely be selling very many jeans after your competitor has all the latest fashions: the loose fits, the relax fits, the original fits, the blue color, the faded color, the ripped look and all the other brands, while you only sell one style. But, again, you likely wouldn’t sign such a foolish contract—unless of course the State made you, which is what our state is now doing to biomass development.

Take a look below at these two separate responses made by Jodi Porter on two different occasions to two different journalists.

Jack King of the ABQJournal reports her saying the following:

Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources spokeswoman Jodi Porter said the department makes all applicants follow the same requirements.

In a different conversation, another journalist, Laura Nesbitt, of the Mountain View Telegraph reports her saying:

[Porter] added that WWPP has not been “singled out” or treated any differently than other applicants.

Why is there the need to tell the media that the biomass company isn’t being “singled out” or “treated any differently”? Should that even be a question? Either the journalists are getting suspicious and are starting to ask the question, or unconsciously Mrs. Porter let the cat out of the bag. As the famous phrase from Act III of Hamlet goes, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

From the ABQJournal today:

A company trying to build a biomass power plant south of Estancia says the state made a mistake when it recently denied it renewable-energy tax credits worth about $2 million a year.

 

Western Water and Power filed an appeal this week with Joanna Prukop, the secretary of Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, asking her to reverse a Sept. 25 decision denying the tax credits or to hold a public hearing on the facts of the case….The company applied twice for the tax credit. Following its second application in August, it received a letter from Fernando R. Martinez, the department’s director, stating the application was rejected because it was incomplete.

 

Contracts with landowners providing the biomass fuel failed to specify the biomass available or the acreage available for thinning and removal, according to the state. Western Water and Power, however, insists it included copies of the contracts and provided a description of acreage the company has under contract with the State Land Office. The company, in its appeal, also said it specified the estimated tonnage of biomass available on the acreage, taking into consideration roadless areas, steep slopes, tree diameter and environmentally sensitive areas. And it provided the texts of two studies showing there is 21 million tons of biomass within a 50-mile radius of the plant, and 5.9 million tons in a 25-mile radius, the company’s appeal said.

 

State statutes don’t even require the agency to ask for specific biomass available, said Western Water and Power co-owner David Cohen.

 

Brent Racher, of biomass provider Racher Resource Management, said expecting the company to provide more specific data for the life of the plant is unreasonable.

 

Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources spokeswoman Jodi Porter said the department makes all applicants follow the same requirements. “A wind farm applied for the tax credits recently and we denied its application, because it had to have some contracts with the State Land Office finalized,” she said.

From the ABQJournal today:

Now that environmentally friendly, energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings have hit mainstream, a national leader in all things E is suggesting builders and developers take their efforts a step further: Build green neighborhoods.

 

The call from the United States Green Building Council and others officially went out in July, and even as the bar on green building was being raised, some New Mexico nonprofits were jumping over it. The Greater Albuquerque Housing Partnership’s 22-house Barelas Homes project has taken on the challenge. So has the Santa Fe Community Housing Trust with its Eldergrace elder co-housing community. And the Commonweal Conservancy, a land conservation and community development organization in Santa Fe, seeks recognition for a $115 million “community preserve” combining 12,000 acres of open space with 300 acres of dense development.

 

The three are among 234 projects nationwide participating in a pilot program initiated by USGBC, in partnership with the Congress for the New Urbanism and the National Resources Defense Council. The program, called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND), is a sequel to other LEED programs. Those have primarily focused on awarding green certification to individual buildings that meet certain sustainability requirements.

“Either no one told them we were coming or they don’t give a hoot.” – from a caption to a cartoon in The Independent, offering a satire regarding local insouciance towards the terrible conditions that are promising a devastating wildfire in the East Mountains.

In case you missed it, last week the editors of The Independent (page 6) gave the same warning as the Mountain View Telegraph: the East Mountains are in danger of a catastrophic wildfire due to “huge amounts of dead and dry kindling.” As we’ve stated a gazillion times–and as the New Mexico Energy Department categorically asserts–biomass projects help protect us against these kinds of wildfire threat. 

Anyroad, below is The Independent’s editorial (and since we’re typing it out here for you, let us just say, boy, do we wish The Independent would change their online content from .pdf format, so we could simply link to them, as the super-cool lady at Mountainair Arts recently blogged):

The makings of a disaster

Front-page stories in recent issues of The Independent spell extremely bad news for the East Mountain area.

Two weeks ago, we broke the story about renewed bug infestations killing tens of thousands of trees in the Sandia Mountains, and today we amplify the story with an investigation by Allison Williams.

The infestations, which are also beginning to show the first signs of affecting the Manzanitas and Manzanos are worse even than the catastrophic forest kill two to three years ago. It will leave huge amounts of dead and dry kindling for lightning or human-caused fire to ignite.

And last week we reported that the National Weather Service is now predicting a dry winter and a hot, windy  spring—the worst possible conditions for potential wildfires.

Add the climate forecasts to the infestations and you have the makings of a disaster.

The Forest Service is looking at doing additional  thinning, particularly around the periphery of the national  forest where it  borders private land. But bureaucracy moves at a pace that makes a snail look like a speed demon. Besides, little can be done during the winter, when roads are muddy and snow carpets the high country and by next spring it may already be too late.

Thus the  burden for preventing or at least reducing the virulence of fires next spring and summer will fall on landowners. Undertaken now, clearing  land adjacent to homes and thinning woods elsewhere are measures that could help preserve property and even lives next year.

Er… now tell us again why biomass energy development is bad for New Mexico? It’s simply crazy our state doesn’t have at least one serious biomass facility to make use of these thinnings.

This week the Independent stopped local residents outside Mountainair Grocery in Mountainair and posed the question: What do you think about the biomass plant? Below are the samples that the Independent found representative of the community:

Monie Dew, Mountainair: “I don’t know enough about it.”

Tina Shatto, Mountainair: “From what I read, it will bring a lot of jobs.”

Harry Brown, La Joya: “Anything to do with getting off of petroleum, I’m for it.”

Lara Dale, Manzano Land Grant: “I think people are uneducated and need to read more about it.”

Pauline Morales, Albuquerque: “Just came from Albuquerque and have heard people talk about it.”

If these samples are representative, it would seem a logical inference to say that people are neither terribly for nor terribly against the biomass project, and that the more people know about it, the more they seem to be supportive of the idea. At any rate, the political spin that most locals are swelling with rage is yet another fiction of the anti-biomass lobby.

In their latest press release–in which once again they declare victory over the Estancia biomass project–the Forest Guardians make the following complaint:

Western Water and Power LLC is co-owned by a Wall Street company, Allco Renewable Energy Group Limited LLC (www.allcorenewableenergy.com), that is part of the U.S.-based Allco group of companies including, Allco Finance Group Limited and Allco Equity Partners LLC with investments in “aviation, rail, high technology, water/wastewater, power, infrastructure and film, for a wide-variety of corporate and government entities.”

A “Wall Street company” bringing investment and jobs to one of the poorest counties in one of the poorest states in the Union, and doing so by way of developing clean alternative energy…. Oh, the horror.

Of all the Forest Guardians’ complaints, this has to be the most ridiculous. Our state needs exactly this kind of alternative energy investment and job creation. Yet they’re writing as if it’s a bad thing. Strange.

As David Cohen pointed out recently, the Forest Guardians furtively change the goalposts whenever their original position is found to be less than persuasive. Witness the comment below sent to the Albuquerque Journal last Sunday (in response to a letter by John Weckerle). This letter is written by Jon Spar, a board member for the Forest Guardians, and in the letter he quietly changed the organization’s mission statement to the following:

Forest Guardians advocates protecting communities and carefully reintroducing natural fire in remote forests.

Only in remote forests? Hmm. The Forest Guardians have changed their spin. Here’s what they were saying before:

Forest Guardians proposed an alternative vision, promoted in Born of Fire, which calls on the government to allow fire to reassert its natural role in backcountry forests and for more use of prescribed fire closer to home.

For some reason, Mr. Spar left out of his letter the embarrassing fact that his organization calls for “fire closer to home.”

Besides that change in their diction, Spar’s letter also demonstrates that the Forest Guardians are again flip-flopping on the subject of biomass, making impossible a good faith discussion with them. On the one hand, they sign the New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles which were designed to support New Mexico biomass projects. And, on the other hand, they reject biomass totally. Spar writes: “Cutting forests to generate electricity truncates their useful lifetime of sequestration.” And Bryan Bird says that biomass energy is “a marginal proposition at best in our dry, lightly forested region.” From these statements, it is clear that the Forest Guardians simply do not support biomass at all and therefore were not sincere when they signed the Forest Principles. This is bad faith.

We could stop now. But Spar’s letter contains other slipshod arguments that need to be highlighted. Mr. Spar writes:

Natural fires rarely burn up entire forests to [sic], releasing their carbon in a single pulse. According to the U.S. Forest Service, wildfire burns variably across the landscape, typically leaving 75 percent unburned or moderately burned. Removing forests for biomass electricity is not a direct comparison.  

Typically unburned? Typically is a rather wide and vague word. But, okay, 75 percent is unburned. That means 25 percent of the forest is burned. 25 percent. That’s a huge figure. The pollution from such wildfires far exceeds anything a biomass facility would ever do. And the death and misery to wildlife from a fire that burns 25 percent of the forest probably isn’t pretty either. 

So, in a sense, Spar is right: there is no direct comparison between the pollution and danger of a wildfire and a biomass facility. A wildfire is much worse. Yet advocating for them is exactly the Forest Guardian’s central position, even as they claim to care about air quality and demonize biomass energy.

Lastly, what does Spar mean by “moderately burned”? Are the homes that have suffered such fires also only moderately burned? How is he defining his terms? For an organization that fancies itself “scientific,” they sure are sloppy with their language.

And no one does it better than Paco de Lucia. Here’s a thoughtful bulerias to begin your weekend; we hope you have a great one. Thanks for stopping by!   

Today, the Mountain View Telegraph published an editorial that warns of “large, catastrophic wildfire in the East Mountains” due to existing ailing conditions within the forest. The Estancia Biomass project was developed in part to address exactly these kinds of problems.

The latest hazard, according to U.S. Forest Service officials, is standing dead trees— or snags, as the Forest Service calls them.

 

An infestation of insects is killing large numbers of trees on the Sandia Ranger District. The culprits this time are the Western balsam bark beetle, fir engraver beetle and Douglas-fir tussock moth.

 

Coming on the heels of the bark beetle infestation that destroyed thousands of trees in the Sandias in recent years, this latest blight means you can’t walk very far in the forest without seeing snags….

 

Most chillingly, Morgan says, “Don’t be surprised if we have a large, catastrophic wildfire in the East Mountains.”

 

As it turns out, the bugs and the snags and the dense forest itself are symptoms of an ecosystem that is not in the best of health. And that can pose a threat to the health and well being of anyone who lives near the woods….

 

A number of intertwined factors got us where we are.

 

Putting out fires has led to overgrowth of the forest, providing plenty of fuel. The overcrowded conditions allow enemies such as bugs and disease to spread more easily among the trees. Drought has weakened the trees, making them more susceptible to attack by the bugs.

 

All of this means snags are probably not the greatest worry when it comes to the forested slopes of the Sandias.

 

Morgan says if there is low moisture next year— which would mean the living trees are dried out— and fallen snags on the forest floor, “you’re talking explosive conditions, and if we get a fire in there (the Sandias) we will not be able to put it out.”

 

The conditions on the Sandia Ranger District have taken decades to reach this point, and things are not likely to get much better any time soon.

 

Morgan and a team of experts are looking at potential forest thinning projects to protect homes near the woods, but the area they could realistically clear is a drop in the bucket.

Last week, political lobbyist Bryan Bird published a nasty personal attack against David Cohen, who’s one of our state’s leading defenders of alternative energy development. Here is Cohen’s spot-on reply (published at the Mountain View Telegraph):

Personal Attacks A Last Resort 

 

In his sinister little book, “The Art of Always Being Right,” the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer offered this wicked advice on how to win an argument: “A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst.”

 

Evidently, Mr. (Bryan) Bird of the Forest Guardians has been reading his Schopenhauer. Unable to win the biomass argument under cross-examination in a public hearing process, he’s now reduced to attacking me personally in newspapers: “It is up to the reader to judge Mr. Cohen’s expertise in forest science and ranching in New Mexico,” he says sarcastically in a recent op-ed in this paper (“Lawyer Has His Science Mixed Up,” Telegraph, Sept. 20), asserting that as a lawyer I don’t have any “scientific credentials” to comment on biomass.

 

I plead guilty to being a lawyer, but the expert witnesses who testified under oath in the recent hearing on the subject of biomass weren’t lawyers. They certainly have scientific credentials. As a result of their expert testimony, the Environmental Improvement Board unanimously approved the Estancia biomass project. Unanimously.

 

Apparently, personal attacks have become the Guardians’ modus operandi— after being repeatedly rebuffed in several public hearings, they then toss out personal slurs in newspaper op-eds where they can’t be immediately challenged, especially in a weekly publication such as this paper.

 

To be sure, Mr. Bird can attack my credentials in newspapers all he wants, but that’s neither here nor there. Many others are saying the same thing I’ve been saying, including scientists, local ranchers and government officials.

 

They’re the ones winning this argument, not me, not Mr. Bird.

 

Let’s compare Bird’s claims with what others say and do regarding biomass.

 

Bird claims that, in general, biomass energy is a “marginal proposition at best in our dry, lightly forested region.” And yet the governor of this state, Bill Richardson, doesn’t agree. He is all over YouTube, on video, praising biomass. Of biomass, he says: “It shows if we’re ingenious, we can have renewable fuel and renewable energy as the main source for the future. Even if it means government subsidies, I would be supportive of that.”

 

Further, the New Mexico Legislature, the state Land Office and our Congressional delegation have overwhelmingly supported biomass, including Estancia biomass, as part of our renewable energy policy. In addition, the Public Regulation Commission has mandated biomass in our state, even as the Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the Torrance County area are actively supporting biomass. Clearly, Mr. Bird and his team of op-ed writers are in the minority among those who’ve studied this issue.

 

Bird also claims that the Estancia biomass project has “never provided satellite imagery or any other credible demonstration that sufficient ‘excess’ wood is present for its 30-year lifetime.” That’s funny. I had a conversation with Mr. Bird on Sept. 20, 2007, and he admitted to me that he saw the satellite imagery. Moreover, the imagery was filed, as a matter of public record, in a New Mexico regulation proceeding in 2006, as well as at the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department in August of this year. This report establishes that there are three times more than enough accessible and available material to meet the project’s needs in an ecologically and environmentally sound manner.

 

Why Mr. Bird is now saying something different to the public is curious.

 

Consider the words of Richard Spencer, a rangeland expert from Mountainair: “After reviewing the Biomass Resource Assessment prepared by Native Communities Development Corp., it is evident that the available biomass was conservatively estimated. My field experience, working in the area as a natural resource conservation professional and measuring tree densities for 23 years, confirms to me that the biomass supply to power the plant is available.”

 

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is true that there’s not enough fuel. What would happen?

 

Obviously the project would never get off the ground— state and private landowners wouldn’t sign any contracts (they have), investors wouldn’t invest in the project (they have), and PNM wouldn’t sign a contract for the biomass energy (they have).

 

Indeed, if Mr. Bird believes his own argument, it’s a wonder that he’s worried about the biomass project. Were he correct, biomass would never happen in the first place. None of these other many organizations would be supporting Estancia biomass as they in fact are.

 

“The bottom line is that Mr. Cohen is grasping at straws to justify his corporation’s desire to build a biomass power plant,” asserts Bird. Grasping at straws? Whether it is before the Public Regulation Commission, the Environmental Improvement Board or the New Mexico Environment Department’s own expert staff, the Guardians have repeatedly lost the debate when their claims are put to cross-examination— a very scientific practice, mind you— and biomass supporters have won.

 

In fact, the only time the Guardians and their supporters have succeeded is when they play politics: behind-the-scenes lobbying and pressuring of politicians and bureaucrats, writing angry letters to news editors and government officials, stirring up public hysteria with hyperbolic predictions and action alerts, threatening groundless lawsuits, penning mean-spirited op-eds, and changing the goalposts every time their original complaints prove untrue.

 

If such behavior is the scientific method, then my understanding of science is indeed confused. Even to the untutored eye, it looks like sheer politics, not science. So who really has their science mixed up?

Mountainair Arts reminds us:

Have you been thinking about your car’s effect on the environment? Here is an opportunity to get information you need to start learning about how to change your vehicles to sustainable fuel.

ALTERNATIVE FUEL CONVERSION WORKSHOP

Saturday, October 13, 2007
9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
UNM Continuing Education
1634 University Blvd. NE, Albuquerque

Charles Anderson, President of Golden Fuels Systems will present and show how to transform diesel engines to renewable fuel. To attend is $30 and includes a chance to win $500 towards engine conversion. You can reserve a place in the workshop online at http://dce.unm.edu or by calling 277-0077. For additional information, call 275-0597. Supported by UNM Sustainability Studies Program. Sponsored by World Voices Newspaper

This panda sneeze is too funny:

 Have a great weekend to all our readers!

Linda Rundell, state director of the Bureau of Land Managment, today published an important article in the ABQJournal: “Stop this Invader from Cheating N.M. Environment.”

Our state is being invaded by a nefarious multitalented exotic plant called cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) that seriously outcompetes native grassland species. If unchecked, it spreads rapidly and degrades our environment, affecting not just aesthetics but soil moisture, groundwater supplies, native fish, wildlife and plant communities.

 

Cheatgrass-dominated landscapes host hotter and more frequent wildfires, further degrading rangelands and reducing wildlife populations. It even converts ecosystems that are carbon “sinks” (storing more carbon than they release) to carbon “smokestacks,” increasing the amounts of greenhouse gases we must cope with.

 

Steve Urquhart, a state representative in Utah, calls cheatgrass “a 6′8,” 250-pound, tattooed, heavily-armed, escaped-from-death-row invasive species that is taking over the West,” since the fires it fuels wipe out other plants, furthering the spread of cheatgrass. Some exotic species are worse than others; cheatgrass is near the top of the bad list.

 

So far 100 million acres of land in the West have been infested. This invasion is occurring under the radar for most New Mexicans, hence this article.

 

A native of Eurasia, cheatgrass has already taken over huge areas in states to the north and west of New Mexico. It’s starting to crop up here, especially in the northwestern part of our state. Nationally, exotic and invasive species of all kinds damage or destroy as many acres of land each year as wildfire.

 

Cheatgrass can arrive by planes, trains and automobiles, and is further spread by heavy equipment used by developers, not to mention hikers or drivers touring our Land of Enchantment, plus livestock and big game. It came to the U.S. in the late 1800s in shipments of seed and grain but took a while to get going, kind of like the spread of starlings from Central Park in New York City….

 

So, why get so upset about a plant? Here’s why: in Utah, a blaze started this summer by a bolt of lightning charred 160,000 acres of cheatgrass-dominated grasslands in less than 24 hours and scorched another 200,000 acres before firefighters contained it. Nowhere is the problem worse than in Nevada, where more than a million acres have already burned this year. New Mexico is not nearly as infested as other Western states. But what can be done?

 

Fight the good fight along with all the other good environmental fights we’re fighting? Actually, yeah.

The following letter was published in the ABQJournal today:

Forest Guardians Must Get Their Biomass Facts Right

 

IN AN OPINION piece, “Biomass Poses ‘Treacherous’ Path,” Bryan Bird of Forest Guardians proposes that forests perform a function of carbon sequestration.

 

It would appear that some correction of this misconception is in order. Carbon sequestration involves a process of removing carbon dioxide from the biosphere and rendering it unavailable for release into the atmosphere. Examples of natural sequestration include geologic processes such as the formation of limestone or burial of organic material through sedimentation; human-accomplished examples include injection of carbon dioxide into deep rock formations.

 

While forests may fix carbon in the relatively short term, fire and biological processes of decomposition are easily able to release most of the carbon into the atmosphere, and inevitably do so. Therefore, forests are not capable of carbon sequestration.

 

A second misconception seems to involve the proposition that biomass remains “in the forest, building soils and storing carbon.” Certainly, biomass does contribute to soil development. However, natural processes of succession, especially involving fire, often remove much of the organic material, which is emitted as smoke, particulates and gases.

 

Anyone who has visited the site of a forest fire— or who owns a fireplace— realizes that the material remaining after combustion represents a fraction of the original mass. Some of the remaining ash is also often removed by wind and/or water. While the remaining organic material contributes to soil formation, it is perhaps less than accurate to suggest that natural processes leave most or all of the biomass intact in a forest.

 

Since Forest Guardians actively advocates reasserting the role of fire in forest processes, it is unclear how this misconception came to be expressed. …

 

JOHN WECKERLE

Edgewood

The Albuquerque Journal:

The state Environmental Improvement Board on Monday unanimously approved an air quality permit for the state’s first large biomass power plant.

The New Mexico Environment Department has changed its position, having mislead Western Water and Power and biomass supporters. Now, out of the blue, they’re requesting that the Environment Improvement Board remand the issue over the air quality permit back to Environment Secretary Ron Curry, a man who apparently claims he can deny the permit without regard for the law. As part of the justification for their request to remand, the Environment Department is proffering this dubious argument (stated in their latest filing):

However, the public does not feel it had an opportunity to fully participate in the hearing that took place on August 20-21, 2007….One solution to the public perception is to remand this proceeding back to the Department [in other words, back to Ron Curry].

The public didn’t participate? That’s odd. The Mountain View Telegraph editorial on the hearing of August 20-21, 2007 reported exactly the opposite, reporting the public was very much involved and “kept in the loop”:

When the Telegraph learned of a pre-hearing conference in Santa Fe last week, involving the parties to the appeal that was the subject of this week’s hearings in Moriarty, it was easy to be suspicious that some sort of back-room deal was in the offing. But what the reporter who rushed to Santa Fe for the meeting found was something else entirely. While the parties appeared to have found common ground for a resolution to the air-permit showdown, none of those parties wanted to do an end-run around the hearings scheduled for Monday and Tuesday. To their credit, they all felt the public should be a party to the new information that appeared likely to break the impasse, and to offer its opinions once again on the issues.

Plenty of opinions were expressed during the two days, and perhaps still more common ground was revealed. That’s what happens when the public is kept in the loop.

How ironic that biomass opponents claim that they’ve been denied the opportunity to comment on the Estancia project when the truth is entirely the other way around, as John Weckerle observes:

[H]ad the Secretary truly felt that additional information was needed to address the issue of the PSD criteria, he could have requested it before making a decision on whether to deny the permit. He did not. Rather, less than two weeks after a public meeting that apparently became an unannounced – and therefore in violation of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act – public hearing at which the Secretary and staff received public comment (after the public comment period associated with the legal permit hearings had closed), the Secretary precipitously denied the permit with no further discussion and no attempt to resolve the issues associated with the PSD criteria. In my opinion, it was the Secretary’s duty to examine precedent both within and without the State of New Mexico with regard to this issue or, at the very least, request that the applicant provide additional information. The Secretary also had an obligation to receive and review the proposed findings and conclusions and/or a recommended final order from the hearing officer.

Again, John Weckerle makes a persuasive case in a recent letter to the Environmental Improvement Board:

I have reviewed the September 6, 2007 memorandum from Tracey Hughes regarding the Environmental Improvement Board’s “authority to remand” and recommending that the Board do so with respect to the air quality permit for the Estancia biomass facility. I disagree with Ms. Hughes’s position in this matter.

 

As Ms. Hughes points out, there is no statutory basis for remanding the permit to NMED. While Ms. Hughes asserts that a remand is a ” lesser power” than those specifically granted by statute, it does not automatically follow that any such power is authorized simply because it is “lesser” than those directly allowed by law. Ms. Hughes does cite a definition of remand associated with a legal case, but fails to provide any precedent whatsoever wherein a body such as the EIB which is not specifically granted the power to remand cases has done so, been challenged legally, and prevailed. Ms. Hughes cites The Regents of the University of California v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission to support the statement that “While not statutorily provided the authority to remand, the Board generally has authority ‘necessary and appropriate to exercise the powers it is given.’” It does not follow, however, that the Board has authority to exercise powers that it is not specifically given. The Board should consider that the act of remanding this permit application to the NMED may be a precedent-setting action, does not have a statutory basis, and should be regarded with caution.

 

Ms. Hughes states that the Secretary’s denial of the permit was based on the belief that “the record lacks support for the determination that the facility is not subject to 20.2.74 NMAC – Prevention of Significant Deterioration.”

 

First, it should be noted that the PSD criteria have never been applied to facilities such as the biomass plant, despite the fact that it is apparently common industry practice to use natural gas to restart these plants after routine maintenance shutdowns.

 

Second, NMED has already issued a permit for an identical facility near Raton, establishing precedent that the PSD criteria do not apply to facilities of this kind.

 

Third, had the Secretary truly felt that additional information was needed to address the issue of the PSD criteria, he could have requested it before making a decision on whether to deny the permit. He did not. Rather, less than two weeks after a public meeting that apparently became an unannounced – and therefore in violation of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act – public hearing at which the Secretary and staff received public comment (after the public comment period associated with the legal permit hearings had closed), the Secretary precipitously denied the permit with no further discussion and no attempt to resolve the issues associated with the PSD criteria. In my opinion, it was the Secretary’s duty to examine precedent both within and without the State of New Mexico with regard to this issue or, at the very least, request that the applicant provide additional information. The Secretary also had an obligation to receive and review the proposed findings and conclusions and/or a recommended final order from the hearing officer.

 

Again, he chose not to do so, choosing not to be provided with critical information and insight commonly associated with review of an air quality permit application.

 

Further, the NMED’s communications director, Marissa Stone stated that “All this means is that the Secretary has made his decision and that he has sufficient information to make the decision.” It seems contradictory to suggest that, having not requested either information on the PSD issue or the final recommendations of the hearing officer in the context of the initial permit review, the Secretary is now in a position to make a decision based on information he apparently thought was unnecessary in the first place.

 

Ms. Hughes asserts that “it is possible to have the Secretary take further action on the permit in light of the additional information.” As discussed above, this is not necessarily apparent. It is also not apparent – possible or not – whether this is a necessary, desirable, or appropriate measure in this case; the recommendation seems to imply that the Board does not possess the ability to complete the process itself, which is simply not the case. Given the Secretary’s prior actions and the relative insignificance of the changes to the permit conditions regarding emissions associated with the use of natural gas, there appears little need for the Board to remand the application to NMED for further consideration.

 

The memorandum also states “The Board is currently allowing written public comment on the added conditions proposed by the Department, NMED Exhibit F, which arose from the August 2, 2007 e-mail from EPA, NMED Exhibit E. The Board is also allowing verbal comment from the public at its September 10, 2007 meeting. However, the public does not feel it had an opportunity to fully participate in the hearing that took place on August 20-21, 2007. The Department did not present its pre-filed testimony and the public has expressed its frustration with the hearing process. One solution to the public perception is to remand this proceeding to the Department to take further evidence on the Department’s pre-filed testimony and the proposed added conditions, subject to cross-examination.”

 

First, what is meant by “the public” is extraordinarily unclear. Exactly how many people have expressed this opinion, and in what context? As a member of the public, I certainly feel that both the Department and the EIB have made more than adequate- perhaps even commendable – efforts to ensure that those who are opposed to the project have had every opportunity to comment on the various aspects of the project. However, it does not seem entirely necessary that relatively minor changes to the application, in response to both the Secretary’s concerns and those of the public, should trigger another round of public hearings. If the changes do not result in a substantial, negative impact on air quality, there appears to be little reason to take further evidence simply to allow opponents of the project to repeat their objections – especially since they have been given adequate opportunity to do so during the first round of public hearings and in the current context of the appeal.

 

We must acknowledge that, even in the best of circumstances, there will always be those who are not satisfied by legitimate and appropriate public participation efforts, especially when the process does not bring about the results they desire. This dissatisfaction does not necessarily mean that the process was not conducted properly.

 

Further, while remanding the proceeding to NMED is one option for addressing public perception concerns, essentially sending the application back to “square one,” a far more rapid and effective solution would be for the EIB to complete any necessary public input activities as part of the appeal process. We should always be mindful of the fact that, in addition to securing the rights to comment on the part of the public, government has an obligation to applicants to ensure their equal right to due process under the law and complete permit application processes within reasonable and appropriate time frames.

 

Further, if it is the opinion of the Department that its pre-filed testimony should have been presented, it is unclear why the NMED did not do so during the public hearings of August 20-21, 2007. It is not clear whether this represents a strategic omission designed to protract the permitting process in the hope of stalling or stopping the project, or the latest in a series of missteps in processing the permit application. In either case, there appears to be reason for serious concern regarding the ability of the NMED to manage the public participation associated with the permitting process, especially in the context of the current application.

 

It may be appropriate for the EIB to consider asking the Attorney General, whose background, experience, and character make him perhaps uniquely qualified, to review the manner in which the permit was processed to help identify any potential misapplication of the process and provide recommendations for avoiding pitfalls in the future.

 

In my opinion, the NMED’s suggestion that the application be remanded is unprecedented, not supported by statute, and unnecessary. In this particular case, given the past actions of the NMED and the fact that the Secretary’s decision has been appealed, I do not support the NMED’s proposal to have the permit application remanded to its authority for the purpose of conducting additional public hearings. In addition to being inappropriate, it also places an unnecessary and unreasonable burden upon an applicant who has been extremely cooperative with the requests of the NMED, both in terms of permit conditions and hearing extensions. I strongly believe that the EIB should complete the appeal process, reverse the Secretary’s decision, and require the permit to be issued. If public hearings must be held (and I do not believe that they must), they should be held under the authority of the EIB rather than NMED, limited to discussion of the changes made to the permit during the appeal process, and allow only the minimum statutorily-required time for public testimony and comment.

 

Sincerely,

John E. Weckerle

Based on the first of a series of articles at the Mountain View Telegraph, you will find below replies to questions and assertions about the Estancia biomass project.

Question: “The Union of Concerned Scientists may assert that biomass in general belongs on the list of clean energy sources, but I wonder whether Western’s biomass emissions are a clean energy source.”

Reply: Emissions from the Estancia biomass facility are significantly better than the state and federal air quality standards, as demonstrated without dispute by either the Forest Guardians or the New Mexico Environment Department at the March and April hearings on the subject, as well as during the most recent hearing in August. In fact, Western presented testimony that established that the Estancia Basin project will be using best available control technology and a fluidized boiler system that is currently being used in California, which according to the U.S. Department of Energy is actually emitting for some pollutants 90 percent less emissions than it is permitted to emit.

Make no mistake: The emissions will pose no danger to human health or crops.

Question: “In a recent Albuquerque Journal piece, Jack Maddox, VP of Western, said ‘in some areas, trees will be completely cleared, providing more biomass per acre.’ How can you deny that your project won’t clear cut?”

Reply: Be careful about taking quotes out of context. The project plan, which was forthrightly presented at public hearings, states clearly that the facility is to be powered by residue obtained from state-owned and private rangelands. The removal plans have been developed in a public process by various local and regional planning organizations.

Why was this fuel source chosen? Answer: the state of New Mexico, private landowners, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, are trying to restore the region’s traditional rangeland to a stable and sustainable condition, one that predates the current juniper and piñon infestation.

And why do they wish to thin this overgrowth? Because it harms our aquifers, kills native vegetation and grasses, reduces forage for cattle and native habitat, and leads to forest fires. The blighted northern New Mexico landscape ravaged by the deadly bark beetle, for example, attests to the lack of sustainability of the piñon population in the face of drought. Piñon and juniper are not endangered species, but their aggressive encroachment has endangered native rangeland vegetation.

For the above reasons, rangeland conservation programs intend to remove approximately 100 years of juniper and piñon growth, and local contractors working under these programs have already thinned 20,000 acres. Given that fact, we in New Mexico are faced with two choices: either we leave the thinnings as potential fuel for uncontrolled fires or to decompose while at the same time releasing greenhouse gases, or we use them as potential fuel for a clean biomass power facility.

Supporters of alternative energy development vote for the latter. And this is where Western has come into the picture. Working within the framework of rangeland conservation programs, it has entered into agreements with the state and private rangeland owners to utilize the overgrowth on their properties.

Question: “But it still sounds like you’re going to clear cut. Plus, it seems that you would have to mine the forests in order to have enough fuel to run the facility?”

Reply: Not so. Satellite imagery shows that there is three times enough piñon and juniper on nearby native rangelands to supply the facility with sufficient fuel. And there are enough ongoing and planned rangeland thinning operations to sustain the facility without “mining” forests.

At the August hearing, a rangeland expert unaffiliated with Western testified that there is approximately 23 million tons of available biomass material to meet the 8 million tons of biomass for the project and that the piñon/juniper are expanding at a rate of 10,000 acres per year.

In fact, forest wood would be used only if the U.S. Forest Service (1) decides to carry out thinning programs; (2) offers the wood residue to buyers in a public auction process; and (3) Western agrees to purchase that residue. To Western’s knowledge, the above public agencies have not completed plans for such an undertaking.

Moreover, Western has all along publicly and privately committed itself to abiding by the 18 Principles of Forest Management, of which the Forest Guardians are signatories. There is, then, no need to fear the “mining” of forests, at least not by the hands of Western, a local green energy company committed to conservation.

Question: “The only way the project can succeed is if it harvests the forests well in excess of the renewable rate. How can you then say the biomass project is sustainable?”

Reply: Biomass opponents have offered this argument to the public in various forms, all of them resting on erroneous assumptions.

Not only does the argument ignore that there is, by proof of satellite imagery, at least three times enough fuel than needed; not only does it misunderstand the science of using biomass (e.g., expected heat value and moisture content of the renewable wood); not only does it call traditional rangelands “forests”; it also mistakenly defines “renewable” in terms of “sustaining” invasive species.

The fact of the matter is that, since the “white man” settled in this region over the last hundred years, the land has become overgrown with aggressive species that have brutalized our native grasslands and river basins. Sadly, instead of being good stewards of the Earth, our current practices have precipitated the ruin of land.

So, in fact, the biomass project is a question of sustainability: we seek to keep our rangelands alive and thriving, instead of laden with rotting brush residue, all the while maintaining the forests, heating our homes and schools, and reducing our contribution to global warming by utilizing biomass rather than coal, oil or gas.

From the Forest Encyclopedia Network:

The use of sustainable forest biomass for bioenergy and bio-based products will benefit forests, wildlife, and humanity.

Okay, okay this doesn’t have much to do with biomass (other than the fact that most porches–well, the good ones anyway–are made from wood), but this sounds like a terrific union to us:

Professional Porch Sitters (PPS) is an informal organization with a large and growing grassroots membership. To become a member you simply need to say you are a member and agree to sit around with friends and neighbors shooting the breeze as often as possible or practical.

Hat tip: Mountainair Arts

From the AP:

Firefighters on Sunday braced for a second day of windy weather that has stoked a huge wildfire and forced the evacuation of more than 1,000 homes. The blaze near the mountain town of Ketchum in central Idaho surged on Saturday, when wind also grounded firefighting aircraft, but on Sunday officials said no buildings had been lost and no one had been seriously injured.

The lightning-caused fire had spread across 40 square miles. The main concern Sunday was wind-blown embers that can start new fires ahead of the main blaze, said Julie Thomas, fire information officer for the Sawtooth National Forest. She said crews stationed in residential areas had put out such fires within 200 yards of buildings.

Bloomberg:

The death toll in Greece’s forest fires reached at least 59 as European Union nations sent fire- fighting planes and a blaze damaged the site of the ancient Olympic games. High temperatures and strong winds contributed to the spread of more than 220 blazes across the country since Aug. 24. “We have every reason to believe it won’t stop here,” Health Ministry official Panos Efstathiou said yesterday by phone, detailing the casualties.

Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis mobilized the army to battle the flames after declaring a state of emergency that allowed the government to requisition private property and labor. Karamanlis, who faces an election on Sept. 16, put the entire country on alert and called on citizens to assist firefighters.

“This is an indescribable national tragedy, and my pain and my anger are as deep as yours,” Karamanlis said in a televised statement.

Flames trapped people who tried to flee in their cars, save their homes and fields or rescue others. Several villages in central and southern Greece were evacuated. About 60 people were hospitalized and dozens reported missing….

The flames in the Ilia region have damaged the Olympia archeological site that marks the birthplace of the Olympic Games. The fire swept through the site, scorching several trees and hills at the ancient Olympic stadium while leaving the ruins and monuments unharmed, Greek Culture Minister George Voulgarakis told reporters, according to a statement posted on the ministry’s Web site.

The adjacent museum, which houses classical Greek antiquities from the 5th century B.C., was evacuated and narrowly escaped the flames after a last-ditch effort by firemen.

Here’s Andres Segovia’s masterful performance of Asturias (made possible from a little bit of biomass and a good deal of genius): 

Have a great weekend–to all our readers!

From the editors of the Mountain View Telegraph:

While a state-issued air quality permit for the proposed biomass power plant south of Estancia is still not assured, what happened over two days in Moriarty earlier this week may have been a step toward clearing the air…. When the Telegraph learned of a pre-hearing conference in Santa Fe last week, involving the parties to the appeal that was the subject of this week’s hearings in Moriarty, it was easy to be suspicious that some sort of back-room deal was in the offing.

 

But what the reporter who rushed to Santa Fe for the meeting found was something else entirely.

 

While the parties appeared to have found common ground for a resolution to the air-permit showdown, none of those parties wanted to do an end-run around the hearings scheduled for Monday and Tuesday. To their credit, they all felt the public should be a party to the new information that appeared likely to break the impasse, and to offer its opinions once again on the issues.

 

Plenty of opinions were expressed during the two days, and perhaps still more common ground was revealed. That’s what happens when the public is kept in the loop. It’s important to remember that the air quality permit is just one of a series of hoops through which the Estancia biomass plant must pass before the first piñon is burned. At each step along the way, the public should be a prominent part of the process.

Well said. Let us confess that we think the Mountain View Telegraph has done a superb job for the community, allowing people to express their diverse views on the subject of biomass. A number of readers have complained to us that the paper has given more room to biomass critics than to supporters. This is true. However, a few things need to be said about that fact. 

First, we welcome the debate and criticism and think it is healthy, as the Mountain View Telegraph argues above.

Second, the reason the paper has published more criticism than support is because biomass supporters don’t tend to be “activists” who spend their free-time writing op-eds and angry letters to the editor. Nor are they particularly eager to get involved in the “screaming match” and name-calling that frequently characterize the more passionate opponents of biomass.

Lastly, if you’d like to see the Mountain View Telegraph publish more pro-biomass opinion articles, then, why not write one yourself? We’re sure they’d be happy to publish your point of view.     

From the Mountain View Telegraph:

Taking up most of the two days of hearings, Cohen called four expert witnesses, who each addressed different critical points.

 

Gary D. McCutchen, who worked for the EPA for 26 years and said he was responsible for implementing the PSD program nationwide in 1986, said the PSD program was deliberately set up with a two-tier threshold— either 100 tons or 250 tons per year— to limit particulate emissions from any particular plant.

 

McCutchen cited a “somewhat famous” and “key” 1990 EPA memo that, in effect, set a limit for use of fossil fuels like natural gas of 10 percent or less, and plants that used more than that would be deemed fossil fuel plants.” Applying these criteria, the Estancia basin facility would not be a fossil fuel boiler,” McCutchen said. He said the Estancia plant would use natural gas as fuel “less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the time,” because it will only use gas to start its boiler, which is anticipated to be once a year— unless there is a forced outage.

 

Charles Tyburk, Cohen’s third expert witness, addressed the idea of unscheduled or forced outages, which could be caused by lightning strikes or equipment failures. “A plant like this could possibly have one or two per year. Sometimes more per year,” Tyburk said.

 

Cohen’s second expert was Jack Maddox, president of Maddox Engineering Services and vice president of WWPP. Maddox is responsible for planning, designing and developing several power plants in the state, including the Raton and Estancia biomass plants, and has a master’s degree in nuclear engineering.

The Mountain View Telegraph reports:

At issue was whether the plant is subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations because of its use of natural gas to start its boiler. Curry cited natural gas emissions in his denial. Tracy Hughes, Environment Department general counsel, said Tuesday the department will support issuing the air quality permit if conditions are added. David Cohen, president of WWPP, said the PSD issue was the one thing “that separates the parties from solving this.”

….

Hughes’ expert witness, Richard Goodyear, manager of permit programs within the state Air Quality Bureau, also testified that “because the Estancia Basin facility would fall within the 100 tons per year threshold, it therefore would not be subject to PSD.”

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) helpfully provides an informative intro to biomass energy. What are the sources of biomass? Explains the NREL:

We have used biomass energy or “bioenergy”—the energy from plants and plant-derived materials—since people began burning wood to cook food and keep warm. Wood is still the largest biomass energy resource today, but other sources of biomass can also be used. These include food crops, grassy and woody plants, residues from agriculture or forestry, and the organic component of municipal and industrial wastes. Even the fumes from landfills (which are methane, a natural gas) can be used as a biomass energy source.

And what are the benefits of biomass? Says the NREL:

Biomass can be used for fuels, power production, and products that would otherwise be made from fossil fuels. In such scenarios, biomass can provide an array of benefits. For example: The use of biomass energy has the potential to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Burning biomass releases about the same amount of carbon dioxide as burning fossil fuels. However, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide captured by photosynthesis millions of years ago—an essentially “new” greenhouse gas. Biomass, on the other hand, releases carbon dioxide that is largely balanced by the carbon dioxide captured in its own growth (depending how much energy was used to grow, harvest, and process the fuel).

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal today:

State forestry chief says season will be manageable without more blazes

CARSON CITY — Fires have burned nearly 900,000 acres in Nevada so far this year, and the costs to battle the blazes are expected to total at least $7.6 million through October, the Board of Examiners was told Tuesday.

The 870,000 acres that have burned in the state through Aug. 10 are mostly in Humboldt and Elko counties in Northern Nevada, said Pete Anderson, administrator of the state Division of Forestry. The state is just about through the season when lightening strikes can start multiple fires….

Anderson reported on the fire situation to the board, made up of Gov. Jim Gibbons, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Secretary of State Ross Miller. The panel approved a request to seek a portion of the firefighting costs, $3.3 million, from the Legislature’s contingency fund.State Budget Director Andrew Clinger said firefighting costs could still rise this year if major fires break out over the next several weeks.

Fires burned 1.3 million acres in Nevada last year, and firefighting costs to the state totaled $10 million.

While the burned acreage so far is less than last year, Anderson said, the costs of fighting fires, from air support to fuel costs to personnel, continue to rise.

It has been a bad fire season across the country, he said. So far 6 million acres have burned nationally, and there are 50 large fires burning now across the country that are not contained, Anderson said.

Once again, John Weckerle of Edgewood offers sensible arguments for Estancia biomass. The following is an excerpt of a letter that he recently sent to the Environmental Improvement Board, in which he forensically takes apart the objections of biomass opponents.

There have been a number of objections raised to this project, and in considering such objections, one must consider both the subject and the source. I firmly respect the right, and obligation, of citizens to challenge decisions and projects when the risks of those projects appear to be unacceptable. However, I also believe that such objections, and the debate over associated subjects, should be based on legitimate and credible information rather than exaggeration or imagination. A variety of unsupportable claims regarding this project have been made by its opponents, often in the form of newspaper guest editorials, letters to the editor, and other publications.

 

One such editorial was penned by Bud Latven in the August 24, 2006 edition of the Mountain View Telegraph, in which Mr. Latven attempts to convince readers that a study conducted by Pace University provided warnings against the dire consequences of air emissions associated with biomass plants. A review of the material – and correspondence with its originators – indicated that the study indicated the exact opposite. Despite Mr. Latven’s subsequent statements to the contrary, the project leader (Sam Swanson) himself stated, in an e-mail: “The quotes cited are taken out of context.”

 

Mr. Latven and others make a point of citing emissions from the plant – 230 tons NOx, 40 tons SO2, 48 tons VOCs, 221 CO, 72 tons large particulates, and 50 tons PM10 – and implying that these are problematic without delving into real question: What are the effects? There is much expression of concern, but apparently little attempt to discuss issues such as the dispersion modeling that is required to demonstrate that these levels of emissions will not harm public health. Despite the fact that NMED’s staff has concluded that there would be no adverse effect on public health, the “emissions question” continues to be repeated as if an answer has never been given.

 

Several references have been made to unfettered thinning and/or clear-cutting of forests, which is not proposed and which would likely not occur; in fact, the New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles (developed by the Biomass Evaluation Task Force, which was a collaboration of 13 organizations including Forest Guardians) provide the framework under which associated thinning projects on public lands would be accomplished. Further, the State Land Office has publicly stated that environmental and archaeological studies will be required before trees are cut on the State land leased for the property, and that the project must meet the reforestation principles (Albuquerque Journal, January 4, 2007).

 

In a June 28, 2007 editorial, David Heddens suggested that the 457 acre-feet would increase Torrance County’s water use by 30%, a patently absurd assertion. Despite the fact that the plant would use waste from a variety of thinning and other projects on rangeland and in overgrown forested areas, Mr. Heddens states that the project could only operate 22 days per year based on an annual “renewable” growth of 2/3 tons per acre. Mr. Heddens also criticizes the tax credit and other incentives that were applied to attract the project, all of which are part of legitimate State programs designed to enable exactly this type of project. None of these complaints, however, are cause to deny the permit, although Mr. Heddens seemed to believe that they provided justification to do so.

 

In an August 10, 2007 opinion piece (“Biomass Poses ‘Treacherous’ Path”, Albuquerque Journal), Bryan Bird of Forest Guardians proposes that forests perform a function of carbon sequestration. It would appear that some correction of this misconception is in order. Carbon sequestration involves a process of removing carbon dioxide from the biosphere and rendering it unavailable for release into the atmosphere. Examples of natural sequestration include geologic processes such as the formation of limestones or burial of organic material through sedimentation; human-accomplished examples include injection of carbon dioxide into deep rock formations. While forests may fix carbon in the relatively short term, fire and biological processes of decomposition are easily able to release the carbon into the atmosphere, and inevitably do so. Therefore, forests are not capable of carbon sequestration.

 

Another misconception presented in this article seems to involve the proposition that biomass remains “in the forest, building soils and storing carbon.” Certainly, biomass does contribute to soil development. However, natural processes of succession, especially involving fire, often remove much of the organic material, which is emitted as smoke, particulates, and gases. Anyone who has visited the site of a forest fire – or who owns a fireplace – realizes that the material remaining after combustion represents a fraction of the original mass. Some of the remaining ash is also often removed by wind and/or water. While the remaining organic material contributes to soil formation, it is perhaps less than accurate to suggest that natural processes leave most or all of the biomass intact in a forest. Since Forest Guardians actively advocates reasserting the role of fire in forest processes, it is unclear how this misconception came to be expressed.

 

To sum this up, it appears that few of the arguments against this project stand up to even casual scrutiny. The real source of the opposition to this project appears to be philosophical rather than environmental. This philosophy is perhaps best stated by Bryan Bird of Forest Guardians, in a May 17, 2006 article on the New West web site. On the subject of biomass production on public forests, Mr. Bird writes “It may be that such use of our public forest lands is unjustifiable ethically, let alone ecologically. Should public forests even be considered for private profit?”

 

Regardless, the issue at hand is simply this: Does the permit application for this project satisfy the requirements for issuance of the permit, and should the decision made by Mr. Curry to deny the permit be reversed? That decision should be based solely on the permit application and the air quality information, and not on the basis of other environmental concerns (which should be resolved in the appropriate regulatory contexts), political maneuvering, exaggeration of impacts, or popularity among interest groups.

 

There is, of course, an issue of process. On May 9, Mr. Curry and NMED Staff held a meeting in Moriarty, the published intent of which was a discussion of ways in which the NMED could improve its public participation. According to an article in the Mountain View Telegraph (May 17, 2007), the meeting swiftly became a referendum on the biomass at which Mr. Curry and staff received public testimony on the project while the permit process was proceeding, but after the public hearing for the plant had officially closed. This would appear to be in violation of both the public hearing process for the air quality permit and, because the meeting was not advertised as a public hearing on the air quality permit, the Open Meetings Act. Less than two weeks later, Mr. Curry reportedly denied the permit in what appeared to be a highly unusual point in the application process, suggesting that his decision may have been a result of testimony received at the May 9 hearing.

 

Given that your staff has recommended issuance of the permit, and the fact that the use of natural gas to fire the boiler once a year appears both minimal and within the realm of common practice for such facilities, it appears appropriate to grant this permit and allow other issues to be settled in the appropriate venues.

Yet more good news today for supporters of alternative energy:

The proposed biomass power plant south of Estanica appears to be back on track. State Environment Department general counsel Tracy Hughes said Tuesday the department will support granting an air quality permit for the plant, provided that a set of conditions are added to the permit. Hughes told members of the state Environmental Improvement Board during the second day of a hearing here that, because of new information, the department can modify a decision by Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry that denied a permit to the plant.

David Cohen, co-owner and attorney for Western Water and Power, which plans to build the plant, told the board members his company will accept the new conditions.

The full Environmental Improvement Board will consider recommending that the department add the conditions and issue the air quality permit at a meeting Sept. 10 in Santa Fe….Richard Goodyear, with the Air Quality Bureau of the Environment Department, told board members that after consulting with the Environmental Protection Agency, he determined the plant’s heat output from natural gas falls below the threshold for regulation.

He said four conditions should be added to the permit: The design capacity of the plant’s natural gas burners shall not exceed 175 million Btu per hour, and gas used in the boiler shall not exceed 0.184 million standard cubic feet per hour. The company must continually monitor the natural gas used with a flow meter. It must record the cumulative flow of gas to the boiler at least every 60 minutes during operation. Every six months, it must report to the Environment Department all instances when the natural gas flow rate exceeds the allowable amount.

Wonderful news from the AP:

N.M. Factory Would Make a Fuel From Manure

 

An alternative energy company is planning two biogas plants in eastern New Mexico— one each in Curry and Roosevelt counties. The details on the Roosevelt County production plant haven’t been released, but officials said Tuesday the $36 million one in Curry County is expected to employ about 250 people in the first four years. The city will provide 20 acres of land to New Jersey-based White Hat Energy adjacent to the city’s wastewater treatment plant south of Clovis, according to the Clovis Industrial Development Corp….

 

White Hat plans to extract methane gas from cow manure, clean the gas using anaerobic digesters and pump it into a pipeline, said company president Gene Carey….

 

The company will initially construct two 200,000-tons-per-year anaerobic digesters for processing cow manure into biogas, which could be used to power generators, provide heat or produce soil amendments. The plant is expected to reduce methane gas emissions and improve the quality of groundwater, officials said.

From the New Mexican:

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — Dozens of ranch properties were put on alert as the relentless 214,725-acre Zaca wildfire, third largest in modern California history, raged untamed Monday in Los Padres National Forest backcountry. A fleet of aircraft, including a DC-10 that can swoop in with 12,000 gallons of fire retardant, made sorties over the blaze, which started July 4. The fire, equivalent to 336 square miles, was 75 percent surrounded with full containment Sept. 7.

The 3,015 firefighters on the ground face rugged terrain, temperatures in the 90s and extremely low humidity levels. The area hasn’t burned in 75 to 100 years, fire bosses said. “The fuel conditions are extreme. The chaparral we’re working with is literally explosive,” said incident commander Mike Dietrich of the U.S. Forest Service….

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency Sunday for Ventura County, clearing the way for state government cost assistance. Sparks from equipment being used to repair a water pipe ignited the blaze north of Los Olivos on July 4. Firefighting costs have exceeded $85 million.

The state’s biggest wildfire was the 2003 Cedar Fire near San Diego, which burned more than 273,000 acres, destroyed 4,847 structures and killed 15 people.

In 1932, the Matilija Fire burned about 220,000 acres in the Los Padres National Forest, near the current Zaca blaze.

In his State of the State, Governor Richardson said:

We have invested heavily in clean energies like wind, solar and biomass, while requiring utilities to produce more of their energy through renewable sources.