Ask your state legislators to support House Bill 4458 for clean air and water

[deanwo]

Last week I received an email from Trout Unlimited asking MA residents to contact your local state rep and senator in support of an upcoming MA House Bill 4458. The summary of the bill is as follows:

This proposed law would require waste-to-energy and biomass renewable energy sources relying on combustion or pyrolization (decomposition caused by heat) to emit no more than 250 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour in order to be considered “renewable energy generating sources,” “Class I renewable energy generating sources,” “Class II renewable energy generating sources,” “alternative energy developments,” or “alternative energy properties” under state laws concerning renewable and alternative energy programs.

I would encourage to contact our Westford legislators Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos and Representative James Arciero and ask for their support of this bill before March 17th.

Below is the full email text received from Trout Unlimited.


Please read. We only have 12 days to act on this - March 17th is the deadline.

We have the opportunity to prevent biomass burning power plants from adversely impacting our rivers and streams here in Massachusetts, which has turned into ground zero nationally on the biomass issue. While proponents claim that burning wood, construction waste and other debris is carbon neutral, and this form of power generation has been stamped as "green" in recent federal legislation and by state politicians supporting the plants, biomass burning is anything but.

Biomass-burning plants will generate more fine particulate matter than coal fired plants. It takes 20 years for a new tree planted to replace one that has been harvested for biomass to begin absorbing any significant amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The new biomass power plants on the drawing board now for central and western Massachusetts will require essentially clear cutting forests in the state to provide enough wood for the projected 30 year life of these plants. Even then, there won't be enough raw wood to feed these plants, leading to pressure to burn construction debris, animal waste, and municipal trash as fuel, causing even more health problems.

Aside from the adverse health impacts from the increase in particulate matter, the pressure on wood sources will impact headwater and tributary streams to all the major rivers in the best remaining native trout waters we have. To the extent these plants require water as cooling sources, rivers such as the Westfield will face massive water withdrawals, and hot water discharges of 85 degrees, even in the summertime when rivers are at their lowest. State regulators allow this because Massachusetts regulations permit the use of annual data averages, rather than specific actual data, when considering impacts on river flow and temperature levels. We are concerned that development of biomass plants will have a serious adverse impact on Massachusetts' best coldwater resources, such as the Westfield and Deerfield rivers.

Sadly, none of the planning for biomass considers the potential impact of global warming on our rivers and streams, an impact that would be amplified by the carbon dioxide spewed from biomass plants.

Last year a ballot initiative was circulated that would limit the amount of carbon dioxide a biomass plant in Massachusetts may produce to be eligible for tax and other state subsidies. It received over 100,000 signatures, and was certified for inclusion on the ballot this coming November. As part of the initiative process, the legislature first has an opportunity to pass a bill that would do what the ballot initiatve does.

Right now, House Bill 4458 is before the Joint Committee on Telecommunications and Utilities. The committee has until March 17, 2010, to report out a bill for the legislature to consider. Support for this bill is crucial right now. Having acceptable legislation passed will allow the state to begin addressing the biomass issue much sooner. It also guarantees protection now for our rivers and streams.

Please call your state Senators and Representatives and let them know that you support House Bill 4458. Ask them to contact the members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications and Utilities, and urge them to report out a strong bill. Also ask your legislators to report back to you on the action they took.


Here are some suggestions as to what you should say to your Senator or Representative when you call:

·First, ask to speak directly with the Senator/Representative. If unavailable (most likely), ask to speak to the Senator/Representative's staff person handling the biomass burning issue.

·Introduce yourself, including your home address, and say that you are calling in support of House Bill 4458.
·Ask for support of House Bill 4458, to end state incentives to build biomass and garbage burning power plants in Mass. Biomass electric generating plants are being planned for some of our nicest rivers. These plants need huge volumes of water for cooling, and their withdrawals will add to summer low water conditions, killing off fish and wildlife.
·Biomass-burning plants emit pollutants that cause cancer, asthma, heart attacks and other diseases.
·Urge your (Representative/Senator) to submit a strong recommendation to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications and Utilities to support House Bill 4458. I also would like to hear back from my (Representative/Senator) to know if they will support House Bill 4458 and if they have made a supporting recommendation to the Committee.



Thank you David Glater and Peter Schilling for your hard work on this issue.
Sincerely,
Joseph Overlock
Chairman
MA/RI State Council
19 Royal Ave. - North Adams, MA 01247
Joe.Overlock@gmail.com - (413) 652-1638

[Ghostdog]

Any idea what the financial impact would be on the current businesses would be if this bill passes? Is there a current standard for the particulates and CO2? Does this bill also effect people who burn wood for home heat, specifically Out Door Wood Fired Boilers? I'm not being confrontational I'm seeking infomation. I'm always leery of feel good legislation, case in point the Anti Trapping bill that was overwhelmingly passed a number of years ago. Now we are over run by Coyotes and Beavers and can't do anything about it. I'm also concerned about "Clean Energy" groups like this who always oppose Nuclear Power even though the rest of the world safely and seemlessly uses it.

[deanwo]

I think the main idea here is to limit the impact that biomass power plants will have on our local environment. One plant is planned for Greenfield, MA and another in western MA that will be one of the largest in the country. A mass medical group came out in opposition due to health concerns along with other environmental groups. I believe the intent of the legislation is to make sure biomass power plants are built and run in a way that will not damage the local environment and have a potential impact on our health.

There are regulations published for particulate matter emissions on the US EPA site and programs in place to minimize CO2 emissions.

This does not have anything to do with wood burning for home heating and cooking.

[Tony1941]

I believe the intent of the legislation is to make sure biomass power plants are built and run in a way that will not damage the local environment and have a potential impact on our health.

I believe that special interest groups and ecoterrorists are the sponsors of these bills. Gee. It will take 20 years for the seedlings to grow. Gee Mr. Dillon. The cut and replant method has been used successfully in many tree farming operations.

There are regulations published for particulate matter emissions on the US EPA site and programs in place to minimize CO2 emissions.

Please read the information and you will find that biomass may not be able to compete economically against wind, water, nuclear and certainly not NG plants, it is neutral insofar as impact on the environment.

This does not have anything to do with wood burning for home heating and cooking.

Read my lips,no new taxes POTUS Bush I
Lead pipe cinch no new taxes. Former Gov. Dukakis
etc....
Based on my experience on the accuracy and veracity of statements of public officials and special interest groups, I do not believe it.

BTW Global Warming is no longer the term to use. The latest since the e-mail scandal is Climate Change.
It amazes me that members of the Westford Republican Town Committee are peddling the Al Gore party line.

[deanwo]

Tony, I don't buy into the global warming/climate change crap promoted by the liberal elite. I just don't want to see the excellent cold water fisheries of western mass get destroyed after years of conservation that have finally brought them back.

Also, it is a bit of a stretch to label Trout Unlimited as an eco-terriost group. Yes, they are a special interest group looking to preserve cold water fisheries around the country and if the proposed House Bill 4458 will help accomplish that, then I'm for it. If this is accomplished by limiting the production of CO2, then I will side with the global warming nut cases.

FYI... I'm am not a member of the Westford Republican Town Committee. I tend to agree with their positions and certainly enjoy their company. I am a registered Republican and damm proud of it. Having conservative values and commitment is not the same as following a party line.

[Tony1941]

Tony, I don't buy into the global warming/climate change crap promoted by the liberal elite. I just don't want to see the excellent cold water fisheries of western mass get destroyed after years of conservation that have finally brought them back.

The liberal masters of deception can always find a potential victim to defend in this case "excellent cold water fisheries of western mass".
I fail to see how water being use for cooling of the power generating equipment will disappear into thin air. Based on power plant design, the water taken from the river will be deposited back into the river at a higher temperature. Maybe that is the gripe of the fisherman, the fish will have to adapt to warmer water temperatures.
My experience with Egg Harbor,NJ nuclear power plant, in which concerns about the outlet temperatures were raised and delayed the plant for several years, is that fish adapt quite well. In fact the fish population tripled and the average sized fish was 30% larger.

If this is accomplished by limiting the production of CO2, then I will side with the global warming nut cases.
I am a registered Republican and damm proud of it. Having conservative values and commitment is not the same as following a party line.

Thank you for identifying yourself as a Republican that embraces the global warming nut cases. CO2 believe it or not is exchanged between the trees and the atmosphere constantly. More CO2 more trees.

Since the same question has been qualified for the November ballot, let the voters decide.
Shall we have government of the people, by the people, for the people or shall the special interest groups be allowed to launch "An information Campaign" to have the stooges that pass of as Massachusetts state lawmakers be bought of.

[deanwo]

I fail to see how water being use for cooling of the power generating equipment will disappear into thin air. Based on power plant design, the water taken from the river will be deposited back into the river at a higher temperature. Maybe that is the gripe of the fisherman, the fish will have to adapt to warmer water temperatures.
My experience with Egg Harbor,NJ nuclear power plant, in which concerns about the outlet temperatures were raised and delayed the plant for several years, is that fish adapt quite well. In fact the fish population tripled and the average sized fish was 30% larger.

Apples & Oranges. I guess this depends on what type of fish you are trying to protect. The Egg Harbor plant empties into a salt water estuary and the studies that I found on line for that area stated "Power-plant , point-source impacts (i.e., biocidal releases, thermal discharges, impingement, and entrainment) have increased mortality of estuarine and marine organisms Barnegat Bay-Little Egg". This study started from observations from the mid-70's.

Trout don't survive in warmer waters, other freshwater species move in (bass, carp, catfish) and algae blooms occur. This is a specific issue for these specific waters in western mass so the broad generalizations don't apply.

Since the same question has been qualified for the November ballot, let the voters decide.
Shall we have government of the people, by the people, for the people or shall the special interest groups be allowed to launch "An information Campaign" to have the stooges that pass of as Massachusetts state lawmakers be bought of.

Good point. My emails to both Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos and Representative James Arciero have gone unanswered, so they must side with your point of view that this is a non-issue. Make sure you continue to support these "representatives" since they are doing such a good job for the "people".

[Tony1941]

Apples & Oranges. I guess this depends on what type of fish you are trying to protect. The Egg Harbor plant empties into a salt water estuary and the studies that I found on line for that area stated "Power-plant , point-source impacts (i.e., biocidal releases, thermal discharges, impingement, and entrainment) have increased mortality of estuarine and marine organisms Barnegat Bay-Little Egg".

The source that you referenced starts with the statement "Extensive bioassessment work must be conducted in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary to accurately determine the overall impact of nitrogen loading to the system...."
Except for a random reference to the thermal discharges, the author goes on for 52 pages bemoaning the existence of humans and their impact upon the pristine waters of New Jersey. Therefore,it appears that you took one sentence and tried to give the impression that thermal loading is the primary cause for any real or imaginary problems of the fishes in the NJ waterways.

Good point. My emails to both Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos and Representative James Arciero have gone unanswered, so they must side with your point of view that this is a non-issue. Make sure you continue to support these "representatives" since they are doing such a good job for the "people".

I am glad that my representatives are going to let the people decide in November rather than being fed a big fish story. I shall make sure to buy them a round the next time that I break bread with them.
Look at it this way, if the voters decide to back the proposed referenda bill, both the fisherman and the voters would have benefited from the process.

And the Truth shall make you FREE!!!

BTW Are the Republicans, Tea Party, etc planning to challenge Mr. Arciero and Mr. Panagiotakos jn November?
The blow hard that the Republicans ran against Eagle Scout Arciero was very entertaining but somewhat devoid of ideas and beliefs.

[deanwo]

We have both made our points and the "people" can decide what they want to believe. BTW, there are many other studies referencing the effect of warming and fish habitats, but I could not find one stating warmer water makes fish grow 30% larger.

If you want to talk state politics and prop up candidates of your choosing, please start another thread.

[Amber]

BTW, there are many other studies referencing the effect of warming and fish habitats, but I could not find one stating warmer water makes fish grow 30% larger.

Sounds like quite the fish story put out by the type of person who would use a Monsanto study to prove GMO corn and spraying crops with RoundUp is perfectly safe. Oh, and despite the fact that there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic, autism rates are rising solely because of increased awareness and detection. <snort>