Feature
Story
Clearing the Air
About Massachusetts
Biomass Study
Media reports oversimplify
Manomet study findings
On June 10, 2010, the Massachu- setts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) and the
Manomet Center for Conservation
Sciences released a report based on a
six-month study of scientific, economic
and technological issues related to the
use of forest biomass for generating
energy in Massachusetts. The Biomass
Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study
was commissioned and funded by DOER
and conducted by a team of experts
in forest ecosystems management and
policy, natural resource economics, and
energy technology and policy.
Some of the report’s findings have
generated controversy among energy
experts, environmentalists and policy
makers, while erroneous statements in
the mainstream media have spread fur-
ther confusion among public officials
and communities. An Associated Press
story carried an especially provocative
headline: “Mass Study: Wood Power
Worse Polluter than Coal.” The article
reported that “wood-burning power
plants using trees and other biomass
from New England forests release more
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
than coal over time,” a statement that
contradicts the report’s findings. Other
headlines shouted “Manomet: Biomass
Isn’t Green” and “Wood Burning Power
Plants May Hurt Global Warming Fight.”
Such headlines are highly misleading,
raising unfounded fears about biomass
as a renewable energy source.
Background
Like many states, Massachusetts has
a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard
(RPS) that requires electric utilities to
deliver a minimum percentage of RPS-qualified energy to their customers. All
Massachusetts retail electricity suppliers
must utilize renewable energy sources for
at least 15 percent of their power supply by 2020. Given that challenge, it is
not surprising that they are considering
biomass as one alternative to fossil fuel-based power generation. However, after
the news media reported that four major
biomass-fueled power plants were being
proposed for Western Massachusetts, people began questioning whether the state
had sufficient forest resources to meet
this new demand on a sustainable basis.
It was widely assumed that the supply of
wood waste was inadequate, and therefore
whole trees would need to be harvested.
“The four proposed plants, which
together would have required about 2
million tons of wood annually, were key
drivers of the concerns in Massachusetts,”
said Christopher Recchia, executive
director of the Biomass Energy Resource
Center and a member of the study team.
“I think people got rightly concerned that
the state would start losing its valuable
forest land if all four plants were built.”
Facing the possibility of a substantial
increase in demand for forest biomass,
DOER commissioned a study team of
scientists and policy experts, led by the
Manomet Center, to examine the issue
and to inform its policies on biomass
incentives. In December 2009, DOER suspended qualification of any new biomass
facility for RPS pending the outcome of
the Manomet study and the development
of sustainability criteria addressing biomass supply and greenhouse gas impacts.
While mainstream media reports
have focused on the carbon emissions
findings of the study, that was not the
original objective. “The goal of the study
was to provide an ecology assessment,”
said Recchia. “We wanted to know how
much wood is growing in our forests and
