All posts in the topic Apologies and Next Steps (Short link)

From: Lee Martin Date: 2007 Jun 21 12:49 UTC Short link

I would like to see the forum continue to operate.This has been very
educational for mebecause I have learned a lot in the past few months. For me,
it was very helpful toread many different viewpoints. I don't think I would
have been able tolisten to both sides of an issue in any other forum.A live
debate would have ended shortly after itstarted and questions would never have
been resolved. The debates on here were many, but they were also good debates
with the addedopportunity to look at supporting documents.And the Audience,
like myself, could chime in at any point to ask questions.



In that same spirit, I'd like to chime in nowwith some questionsthat wouldhelp
me connect some dots. I thinkthey should be addressed by someone other then
Lynn  so she can continue to moderate, maybe Catherine would be willing to
answer these questions.



Robin published a document called category 8 incentives. After she posted it in
the base camp files, there wasa posting that said that the PVRECnever published
any documents, thenRobin said that it came right off the PVPC website. In
truth, I had looked at this document many months ago when she first posted in
the Russell Biomass forum. My question is,who made thedocument? Is it still
current and is the PVPC or the PVREC still looking for that funding? Are the
same people who started the committee back then, still on it now? If so who?



Also, Jana posted some information yesterday about a Dwayne Breger of the state
Department of Energy Resources. Is this the same Dwayne Breger that is on the
PVREC when it was developed andwhois on it now?



I'll thank you ahead of time for answeringthe questions.In closing, there have
beengreat discussions on this forum.Who ever thought up the idea, should pat
themselves on the back. I hope it doesn't go anywhere soon.

Lee Martin
Westfield, MA
    

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn Benander <<email obscured>>
To: Pioneer Valley Base Camp <<email obscured>>
Sent: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 7:46 pm
Subject: [PV-Base Camp] Apologies and Next Steps




 would like to apologize for raising questions about people's honesty.  In
indsight, I don't believe it was useful to raise my concerns in this manner.
t would have been far more useful if I had picked up the phone and spoken
n-person with people about the things they were doing I found difficult.  More
irect communication is useful... and I've been trying to practice that more.
I also sincerely apologize for anything I have done that was not in service to
his process of building more agreement about how to move forward as a region to
ddress the challenges facing us.
I apologize to anyone I might have offended.  It was not my intent. It's been a
ifficult situation for all of us.  I appreciate the generosity extended from
ll sides as I've attempted to connect and better understand how people have
xperienced these exchanges; what people are concerned about; what's important
o us all.
As the moderator, I also apologize for not moderating the last few weeks of
iscussion.  When I became part of the problem, it was difficult for me to find
 way to serve as moderator for the forum.  With your permission, I'd like to
tep back into that role.
The purpose of this forum is to work together to build a sustainable energy
uture for our region. There are ways we could use this forum to do that.
Do we want to foster a conversation here that could help us build a more
ustainable energy future for our region? Can we identify areas of agreement?
an we find things to support together?  Is it time to close the forum down?
We could discuss how to implement the recommendations of the plan.
There are town energy committees that are working to reduce energy use and
upport renewables - taking the goals from the regional level and translating
hem into what towns are prepared to do.  This forum could support those
fforts.
There are big siting issues facing any proposed large-scale energy plant in our
egion. I don't believe it's in our region's interest to turn them all away, or
o bankrupt them with legal challenges.  And I think we'd all agree that there
re plants that would be unhealthy and unwise to build.  As community leaders,
here might be a way we could work together to build more agreement about the
evelopment we will support and encourage.
We clearly have many areas where there is little agreement about how to move
orward.  I could list a dozen topics where, given five people, you'll have five
iewpoints spanning a wide spectrum of opinions.  I do believe it's important
hat we spend the time to talk with each other, listening carefully to learn
bout how others are seeing things.  Only in this way will we build more
greement about how to face the challenges before us.
We could also make agreements with each other that could help us listen well
and
earn from each other.  I think people have not felt well listened to or well
eard on any side in recent exchanges.  We could all ask more questions of each
ther, demand less, and listen more. Maybe we could make agreements about how
e'll talk with each other and ask us all to talk with people offline if those
greements are not kept.
We could also shut this forum down. I know some people feel very disturbed by
hat has gone on here and others feel it has been useful.  Please let me know
hat you'd like to do - either emailing me directly (<email obscured>) or
esponding to this list.  We have a potentially valuable resource here.  Let me
now what you think would be best to do with it.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
ynn Benander
<email obscured>
13-772-8898
No virus found in this outgoing message.
hecked by AVG Free Edition.
ersion: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/857 - Release Date: 6/20/2007 2:18 PM


ynn Benander
helburne Falls
nfo about Lynn  Benander: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/lynnbenander
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/60Fq22Odh4Epu3kfpCLMGb
----------------------------------------
 DON'T FORGET TO FILL OUT OUR SURVEY: http://e-democracy.org/blog/posts/97
before June 22)
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
 To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
 in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
  More info about Pioneer Valley Base Camp:
 http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/pv-basecamp
  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
----------------------------------------
echnical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net


________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam
and email virus protection.

From: Jonathan Long Date: 2007 Jun 21 18:49 UTC Short link

Hi Lynn, Catherine, et al,

I will state right off the bat that this forum should be kept open.

Lynn, you wrote "The purpose of this forum is to work together to build a
sustainable energy future for our region."

I believe this forum is critical in planning and creating the energy future for
our neck of the woods. I also strongly suspect other communities with similar
energy concerns are noting the content and of the exchanges on these boards. I
feel that this also adds to the importance of keeping these boards open.

You also stated "I could list a dozen topics where, given five people, you will
have five viewpoints spanning a wide spectrum of opinions."

Without this board, I think that list of topics would be cut in half and maybe
two or three non committal people would haphazardly show up on Mass Live. I can
see how certain exchanges on this board have the appearance of a donnybrook at
the local saloon. However, if you really look them over, many folks picked
themselves off the ground, dusted themselves off, and started issuing apologies
all around. This all happened before you stepped back in. I think this would
have happened whether or not you were moderating. While certain people, such as
myself, may express a degree antagonism in posting, I think most ultimately
recognize that a core component of dialogue is being able to bring the these
expressions of antagonism back down to earth so that the discussion may resume.
While it may not at times be readily apparent, I think that most participants
know when they have gone over the line.

I further feel that if you "moderating the last few weeks of discussion," you
might have been dragged into it. You would then be praying to return to a
kinder and gentler time when you were simply referred to as the "incinerator
queen."

It is my belief that the tenure of the exchanges on this board has been due to
two factors.

The first factor concerns INFORMATION, or the sheer lack of it.

These boards play a critical role in the dissemination of information relating
to Russell Biomass. Numerous vital documents, such as the EENF, are posted in
the files section of e-demo. I can affirmatively state that these documents do
not have the circulation of Vanity Fair or Architectural Digest. They are also
not found in your local library. These documents provide the necessary
information allowing citizens, such as myself, to research the plant.

This being said, the EENF is getting a bit long in the tooth. The paucity of
recent information concerning the plant is staggering. In order to fill the
void, participants on this board are asking the Information Officer specific
questions about the plant. However, the responses are rarely adequate or on
point. The official plant website further adds to the frustration of e-demo
participants. Up until recently, it was a one page affair marked PRIVATE DATA
ROOM. Currently it resembles a hole in the wall. Participants then have to
scour the internet for crumbs. The crumbs they amass more or less indicate that
the plant is still moving forward. For example, letters from the plant
proponents to public officials are downloaded and then dissected. While these
documents clearly indicate that something is afoot, the Company and its
Information Officer refuse all relevant comment. The forum should remain open.
Shutting it down would cut off our present diet of data scraps and info tidbits
to the point where we would all resemble Nicole Ritchie.

In many respects I have to take issue with your statement "We could all ask
more questions of each other, demand less, and listen more." I believe that the
basic questions participants are currently asking are not placing extraordinary
burdens on Russell Biomass. These are fundamental questions such as: "What kind
of boiler are you going to use?" "Where is the water data?" "What exactly are
you going to burn for fuel?" "Who owns the company?"

In my mind "demanding less" roughly equates to "asking less." Speaking for
myself, I think I am rather fed up with the diet of extraneous talking points.
In many respects this boils down to the basic concept of corporate
transparency. We have ended up in a present state of affairs worthy of Oliver
Twist where participants are asking "More please..." Basic information provides
the essential groundwork for any assessment, whether favorable or not,
concerning the proposal. This situation has created a dangerous precedent for
future projects.

Projects such as the proposed Biomass project require community input. They
also entail working together with the community to acknowledge and address
concerns both great and small. To do otherwise will lend the impression of
nefarious back room deals hammered out in rooms filled with cigar smoke. Then
the picnic on the grassy knoll begins.

I will try to be brief concerning my second point. It is my understanding that
the Third Party Review is vast approaching. I believe that this has
additionally caused tempers to flare. While I am currently secure with my
conclusions regarding the data, I see that the chess pieces are being moved
around the board in such a manner that leaves me fearing for the worst. While I
am quite fond of Penn and Teller, I suspect we are going to get Doug Henning.
With that, the 1000 foot mountains and elevated terrain surrounding Russell
will disappear along with the any of glaring flaws in the project.
    

From: Robin Unger Date: 2007 Jun 22 13:38 UTC Short link

I too believe that the Forum should remain.   I would also like to sincerely
apologize if I have offended anyone, or any group.    I have found the forum
very useful and would like to also extend my appreciation to the facilitators
for affording us the opportunity to participate.

With that said, I would also like to try and take a turn at connecting some
dots.  If anyone believes I am wrong,  please correct me.  I too and trying to
learn as I go along.    The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) is the
state agency that issued Russell Biomass their pre construction loan to build
the Biomass Plant.  It is also the State Agency that gave the Pioneer Valley
Planning Commission (PVPC) the grant to create the CLEAN energy plan through
the Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Strategic Plan.  (Attached)   The Pioneer
Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative (PVREC), the  Franklin Regional Council
of Governments (FROCG) and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) are
all a part of implementing that plan.

Dwayne Breger, a state staff person from the Massachusetts Division of Energy
Resources (DOER) , also serves on The Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy
Collaborative (PVREC), and serves on the steering committee of Northeast
Regional Biomass Program.  The Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources
(DOER) is the same agency that is currently trying to define Construction and
Demolition as CLEAN fuel for Biomass Plants.    Dwayne Berger, through his role
on The Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative,  has been extremely
helpful in the development of both the inventory of CLEAN energy activity and
the development of this strategic plan for CLEAN energy?

As mentioned about, I have attached a copy of the Pioneer Valley Renewable
Energy Strategic Plan. (Downloaded from the PVPC website) I encourage everyone
to read it.

I hope this helps.

Robin Unger
    

From: Jennifer Burney Date: 2007 Jun 28 18:45 UTC Short link

please remove me from your email list.
thank you



Quoting Lynn  Benander <<email obscured>>:
    

> Jonathan,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Just to clarify what I meant when I said I thought we needed to demand less
> and listen more, I was talking about the tone of our conversation. I think
> asking questions is great. People just don't respond when someone demands
> they do things.  It's human nature.  If you would like information, it's good
> to ask for it.  As moderator, I'd be glad to help gather information to
> present here, but I find it difficult to respond at all when the tone of the
> request isn't respectful. When I've felt questions were phrased in a way that
> completely missed who I am and what I'm doing, I didn't respond. If someone
> where to ask you, "Tell us about when you __________?" and they filled in the
> blank with something you didn't do... what do you say?
>
> The truth is that thoughtful, good people believe there is a role for biomass
> plants in our region.  When questions begin with the assumption that the only
> people supporting biomass are ill-intentioned and are motivated by personal
> greed, it's unlikely we'll have a conversation where people learn from each
> other.  It's just about making the other side look bad.  I belive we all have
> quite a bit to learn from each other.
>
> Lynn
>
> Lynn Benander
> Shelburne Falls
> Info about Lynn  Benander:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/lynnbenander
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6UtHRMl6oPWwQ1MX6o3BWW
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Pioneer Valley Base Camp:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/pv-basecamp
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>


Jennifer Atwood Burney
2nd year graduate student
Masters of Regional Planning
and Landscape Architecture
University of Massachusetts-Amherst

From: John Bos Date: 2007 Jun 28 21:44 UTC Short link

Dear Alan Muller:

FACT: Voting for or against the PVPC Clean Energy Plan has absoultely NO impact
on whether the Russell Biomass electric power plant will be built or not. That
decision is in the hands of twenty different state agencies and departments
charged with assessing, approving or disapproving of the projects plant design
and operations.

The consequence of this reality is that a few people expended a lot of effort
to defeat the PVPC Clean Energy Plan to no avail other than to make more
difficult the PVPC's efforts to do SOMETHING about the climate crisis. The plan
addresses a wide spectrum of actions ranging from conservation and efficiency
to encouraging renewable energy capacity.

Looking at the vote "no" effort as a referendum on the biomass plant, those
opposing the biomass project THROUGH the PVPC plan lost the referendum in the
same way that the local Russell biomass plant "referendum" in Russell failed
for the second time in two years to unseat a highly popular selectboard member
who supports the plant ONLY IF it passes the permitting process. Lots of people
have been made to worry or have unfounded concerns about the biomass plant
because of this "grassroots" disinformation campaign.

What I have come to understand is that the general public has precious little
knowledge about biomass, what it is, and how it works and that is our failure
to communicate...something we are now working on.

One state to watch is California which, thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger, is
leading the nation (not to mention the present administration) in establishing
targets and legislative mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to
increase the amount of electric power generated by renewable energy.

36 biomass-fueled power plants in California currenltly generate about 700 MW
of electricity with fuels derived from the forestry, agricultural, and urban
wood waste sectors.

These biomass power plants are unique in the electrical generation industry
because the contribution of the plants in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is
significantly less than zero. Biomass plant operations cause a major net
negative emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). This is because of the avoidance
of GHG emissions from the alternate fates of the biomass wastes by virtue of
the collection of these wastes for use as fuel in the boilers of the biomass
plants.

At its peak in 1994, biomass power plants generated 800MW of power, a little
over 2 percent of California’s electricity consumption. The biomass industry in
California remains among the most reliable suppliers of power in the state.

However, electricity deregulation in California, which promised relief to
ratepayers (and brought them Enron), poses a serious threat to the continued
existence of the biomass power industry because of its narrow focus on price at
the expense of value. Coal-fired power is cheaper than wood-fired power. So at
a time when more biomass facilities are needed, fewer and fewer are in
operation. Of the 43 that were in operation in California in 1994, only 29 are
currently producing electricity. Ten are available to come back into service
with the right incentives.

The biomass power presence in the United States is substantial. Across the
country in 2003, there were approximately 80 operating biomass power plants.
These plants are located in 19 states. In addition, there were about 40 plants
which could have been operable, but which were not.

Four years ago the operating biomass power plants nationwide represented about
1,676 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity. It may be that no one on the PVPC
forum is aware of that. Also, as I have noted many times, biomass heats and
cools Cooley Dickenson Hospital, heats and makes electricity for Mt. Wachusetts
Community College, Athol High School, 26 public schools in Vermont...and the
beat goes on.

Our future depends upon how well we understand our past. Thirty years ago,
Americans were enduring energy shortages and waiting in long lines just to fill
their gas tanks. OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, was a
household word, because the U.S. was at the mercy of foreign countries for the
supply of crude oil so vital to our economy. OPEC was embargoing its oil, and
energy prices were spurting. America was caught unprepared, and many suffered.

In response to the crisis "Green Power" was born. Congress in 1978 enacted the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in an effort to diversify and
strengthen domestic energy production. California, in turn, instituted policies
to aggressively implement PURPA and stimulate development of renewable energy
sources. In an environment of high inflation and scarce energy, experts in the
late 1970’s projected that the price of crude oil would reach $100 a barrel by
the mid 1980’s.

Out of this background emerged a brand new industry – biomass power. The first
small plants began producing electricity in 1982-3, and the wood-fired
generation infrastructure rapidly expanded throughout California and elsewhere
during the 1980's.

Instead of burning non-renewable fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas,
biomass power plants combust wood waste to generate electricity. In the early
days, most biomass plants utilized sawmill residues exclusively. But as more
plants were constructed and the number of operating sawmills declined, biomass
facilities evolved to provide numerous other solid waste disposal options to
society. Forest thinnings, agricultural byproducts, orchard removals, and urban
wood waste also are now being converted to electricity, reducing the risk of
wildfire in the forests, avoiding tons of open burning and conserving landfill
space. The biomass industry annually consumes 7 million tons of organic waste –
equivalent to about 25 percent of all the waste deposited in California
landfills each year.

The grim oil price projections from the era of the 1970's energy crisis have
turned out to be very wrong. As a result, the PURPA program was closed down and
thus the financial incentive for private enterprise to build safer biomass
plants disappeared. Although the technology is reliable and has proven itself
for many years, biomass power plants struggled to survive in an era of
deregulation and cheap power. Some have even shut down.

But history has a way of repeating itself. We now import more foreign oil and
natural gas than ever before, even in the pre-energy crisis days of the early
1970’s. Peak oil has been reached and the worldwide supply of petroleum is fast
diminishing. Then there is the war in Iraq... Today on NPR there as a story
about citizen revolt in Iran over the government's increase in the cost of
gasoline (up from 11 cents per liter!!). If Iran can see the future of
diminishing oil sitting, as it does, on some of the world's richest deposits,
there might be a message here for Americans.

Bottom line is that to do nothing is morally indefensible. To not build biomass
or wind powered projects (every project of which is opposed by a few community
members in Massachusetts communities) means to accept that the use of coal -
the cheapest of the fossil fuels for the power industry - will be on the
increase. In excess of 250 NEW coal-fired plants are planned in the U.S. over
the next 25 years. Don't even ask about China and India. The air we breath
today contains unwanted pollution from coal plants in the Ohio Valley, from
coal plants in the south (depending on which way the winds are blowing) and
from good 'ol, nearby Mt. Tom.

Hard at work in Washington is the nuclear energy lobby. That industry will
continue to make a comeback as our national thirst for more electric power
grows ever stronger.

So what to do?

Some have claimed that biomass plants smaller in capacity than the proposed
Russell Biomass 50 MW plant are not harmful from a air quality perspective.
Wrong. Dead wrong. A small wood-fired heating source ranging from a home wood
stove to the proposed 100 MW biomass plant in Texas can be safe OR unsafe,
depending upon its design and the type of fuel it burns. You think sitting by
your Yuletide fire roasting chestnuts "over an open fire" is safer than having
a 50 MW power plant at the edge of your town? Wrong. Dead wrong. Check with the
American Lung Association. Ask yourself if Cooley Dickenson Hospital would
operate a wood boiler (NOT an incinerator) in the hospital building complex if
there was ANY possibility that it would be harmful to patients. I don't think
so.

So Alan, some questions:

As a self-professed "student of manipulated public involvement processes," what
do you make of these facts? There's no manipulation in this message...just a
presentation of factual information all of which is verifiable.

What do you see as steps we in western Massachusetts should take to try to
reclaim a healthy environment?

Do you consider the opposition's assertion that our plant's emissions would be
the equivalent of 12,000 wood stoves to be "manipulative?" If so, on what
basis?

Do you think the use of the word "incinerator" in place of the technically
accurate word "boiler" be as "manipulative?" (Is an Outside Wood Boiler an
incinerator? Were the old, pre-diesel steam engines incinerators or boilers?)

Do you view as fact the constant charge that Russell Biomass will one day, if
not now, burn construction and demolition wood (C&D) as fuel? There is now on
record at Russell Town Hall a signed legal agreement to never burn such
material...a guarantee that extends to any and all future owners of the power
plant should it ever be sold. If the opposition one more time asserts that we
will burn C&D, would you consider that as manipulative? Or deliberate
disinformation?

I understand that if people WANT to believe something that facts will not
change their minds. I still encounter supporters of the Bush administration who
believe there WERE weapons of mass desruction in Iraq. So be it...except that
the actions of this country based on that belief have done irreperable damage
to the peoples of both countries and to my son and his two sons' generation.
What irreperable damage are we doing by not moving as fast as possible to
mitigae global warming on both an individual and institutional level?

I understand that once someone professes to "know" all there is about a subject
there is no room left for learning new information or facts. It is people who
say "I don't know?" and "I want to know..." that are the best hope for our
communities and country.

I have no respect for environmental organizations which refuse or "can't find
time" to hear what we have to say or to review our various health and
environmental impact studies.

Do you think it was "manipulative public involvement" for the Toxics Action
Center to award Russell Biomass a "Dirty Dozen Award" for emissions from a
power plant that exists only on paper and for which accurate, FACTUAL emission
measurements are not possible to make? It got them and plant opponents a photo
in the local newspaper, a photo that will one day come back to remind them how
wrong (and manipulative) they were.

That said, I have deep respect for the Massachusetts Chapter of the American
Lung Association with whom we have twice met because they are open to hearing
what we have to say and which allowed their staff and board members to press
their concerns about air quality. We have learned big time from them about
their position and are working to see if there is a way to address their very
specific concerns about ozone and particulate matter concentrations.

Alan, if you, like a growing chorus of participants on this Forum, would like
to engage in an honest discourse, lets talk.

Sincerely,

John Bos
Public Information Officer
RUSSELL BIOMASS LLC
    

From: Lee Martin Date: 2007 Jun 29 21:18 UTC Short link

Thank you John for answering my questions. For those of you who are interested,
I have copied and pasted John's response below my clarification question.

John, my question was:

3) Are you saying that the ALA is showing signs of supporting the project and
that the ALA no longer opposes it's location?

Your response was:


3) ALA will never support or endorse Russell Biomass nor do I intend to ever
indicate that it would.

For clarification, is your response to question #3, confirmingthat the ALA will
never support or endorse the Location?

Lee Martin
Westfield, MA



Lee,

In response to your questions below:

1) My understanding, as I stated in my post on the PVPC Forum to Alan Muller,
is that ALAs chief concerns are ozone emissions and particulate concentrations.

2) We are pushing the best available technology in the plant design to its
maximum capacity and searching for any and all other ways to mitigate the
concerns that ALA has expressed directly to us.

3) ALA will never support or endorse Russell Biomass nor do I intend to ever
indicate that it would.

4) One of ALAs board members with knowledge of terrain and its effect on
weather patterns remains particularly concerned about the question of terrain.

Let me know if you have further questions.
    

John



-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Biomass <<email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>
Sent: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:35 am
Subject: Russell Biomass and ALA




Lee,

In response to your questions below:

1) My understanding, as I stated in my post on the PVPC Forum to Alan Muller,
is that ALAs chief concerns are ozone emissions and particulate concentrations.

2) We are pushing the best available technology in the plant design to its
maximum capacity and searching for any and all other ways to mitigate the
concerns that ALA has expressed directly to us.

3) ALA will never support or endorse Russell Biomass nor do I intend to ever
indicate that it would.

4) One of ALAs board members with knowledge of terrain and its effect on
weather patterns remains particularly concerned about the question of terrain.

Let me know if you have further questions.



John





-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:36 AM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [PV-Base Camp] Apologies and Next Steps



John,



You said that you have twice met with the American Lung Association. Living in
Westfield, my concern is with the ALA's Opposition.



1) What specifically do you understand theAmerican Lung Association'sconcerns
to be?



2) What specific things is Russell Biomass doing to address their concerns?



3) Are you saying that the ALA is showing signs of supporting the project
andthat the ALA no longer opposes it's location?



4) Does the ALA no longer believe thatterrain and weather inversions are an
issue?







Lee Martin

Westfield, MA



-----Original Message-----

From: <email obscured>

To: Pioneer Valley Base Camp <<email obscured>>

Sent: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 2:45 pm

Subject: Re: [PV-Base Camp] Apologies and Next Steps





Dear Alan Muller:

FACT: Voting for or against the PVPC Clean Energy Plan has absoultely NO impact

n whether the Russell Biomass electric power plant will be built or not. That

ecision is in the hands of twenty different state agencies and departments

harged with assessing, approving or disapproving of the projects plant design

nd operations.

The consequence of this reality is that a few people expended a lot of effort
to

efeat the PVPC Clean Energy Plan to no avail other than to make more difficult

he PVPC's efforts to do SOMETHING about the climate crisis. The plan addresses

wide spectrum of actions ranging from conservation and efficiency to

ncouraging renewable energy capacity.

Looking at the vote "no" effort as a referendum on the biomass plant, those

pposing the biomass project THROUGH the PVPC plan lost the referendum in the

ame way that the local Russell biomass plant "referendum" in Russell failed for

he second time in two years to unseat a highly popular selectboard member who

upports the plant ONLY IF it passes the permitting process. Lots of people have

een made to worry or have unfounded concerns about the biomass plant because of

his "grassroots" disinformation campaign.

What I have come to understand is that the general public has precious little

nowledge about biomass, what it is, and how it works and that is our failure to

ommunicate...something we are now working on.

One state to watch is California which, thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger, is

eading the nation (not to mention the present administration) in establishing

argets and legislative mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to

ncrease the amount of electric power generated by renewable energy.

36 biomass-fueled power plants in California currenltly generate about 700 MW
of

lectricity with fuels derived from the forestry, agricultural, and urban wood

aste sectors.

These biomass power plants are unique in the electrical generation industry

ecause the contribution of the plants in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is

ignificantly less than zero. Biomass plant operations cause a major net

egative emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). This is because of the avoidance of

HG emissions from the alternate fates of the biomass wastes by virtue of the

ollection of these wastes for use as fuel in the boilers of the biomass plants.

At its peak in 1994, biomass power plants generated 800MW of power, a little

ver 2 percent of Californias electricity consumption. The biomass industry in

alifornia remains among the most reliable suppliers of power in the state.

However, electricity deregulation in California, which promised relief to

atepayers (and brought them Enron), poses a serious threat to the continued

xistence of the biomass power industry because of its narrow focus on price at

he expense of value. Coal-fired power is cheaper than wood-fired power. So at a

ime when more biomass facilities are needed, fewer and fewer are in operation.

f the 43 that were in operation in California in 1994, only 29 are currently

roducing electricity. Ten are available to come back into service with the

ight incentives.

The biomass power presence in the United States is substantial. Across the

ountry in 2003, there were approximately 80 operating biomass power plants.

hese plants are located in 19 states. In addition, there were about 40 plants

hich could have been operable, but which were not.

Four years ago the operating biomass power plants nationwide represented about

,676 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity. It may be that no one on the PVPC

orum is aware of that. Also, as I have noted many times, biomass heats and

ools Cooley Dickenson Hospital, heats and makes electricity for Mt. Wachusetts

ommunity College, Athol High School, 26 public schools in Vermont...and the

eat goes on.

Our future depends upon how well we understand our past. Thirty years ago,

mericans were enduring energy shortages and waiting in long lines just to fill

heir gas tanks. OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, was a

ousehold word, because the U.S. was at the mercy of foreign countries for the

upply of crude oil so vital to our economy. OPEC was embargoing its oil, and

nergy prices were spurting. America was caught unprepared, and many suffered.

In response to the crisis "Green Power" was born. Congress in 1978 enacted the

ublic Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in an effort to diversify and

trengthen domestic energy production. California, in turn, instituted policies

o aggressively implement PURPA and stimulate development of renewable energy

ources. In an environment of high inflation and scarce energy, experts in the

ate 1970s projected that the price of crude oil would reach $100 a barrel by

he mid 1980s.

Out of this background emerged a brand new industry biomass power. The first

mall plants began producing electricity in 1982-3, and the wood-fired

eneration infrastructure rapidly expanded throughout California and elsewhere

uring the 1980's.

Instead of burning non-renewable fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas,

iomass power plants combust wood waste to generate electricity. In the early

ays, most biomass plants utilized sawmill residues exclusively. But as more

lants were constructed and the number of operating sawmills declined, biomass

acilities evolved to provide numerous other solid waste disposal options to

ociety. Forest thinnings, agricultural byproducts, orchard removals, and urban

ood waste also are now being converted to electricity, reducing the risk of

ildfire in the forests, avoiding tons of open burning and conserving landfill

pace. The biomass industry annually consumes 7 million tons of organic waste

quivalent to about 25 percent of all the waste deposited in California

andfills each year.

The grim oil price projections from the era of the 1970's energy crisis have

urned out to be very wrong. As a result, the PURPA program was closed down and

hus the financial incentive for private enterprise to build safer biomass

lants disappeared. Although the technology is reliable and has proven itself

or many years, biomass power plants struggled to survive in an era of

eregulation and cheap power. Some have even shut down.

But history has a way of repeating itself. We now import more foreign oil and

atural gas than ever before, even in the pre-energy crisis days of the early

970s. Peak oil has been reached and the worldwide supply of petroleum is fast

iminishing. Then there is the war in Iraq... Today on NPR there as a story

bout citizen revolt in Iran over the government's increase in the cost of

asoline (up from 11 cents per liter!!). If Iran can see the future of

iminishing oil sitting, as it does, on some of the world's richest deposits,

here might be a message here for Americans.

Bottom line is that to do nothing is morally indefensible. To not build biomass

r wind powered projects (every project of which is opposed by a few community

embers in Massachusetts communities) means to accept that the use of coal - the

heapest of the fossil fuels for the power industry - will be on the increase.

n excess of 250 NEW coal-fired plants are planned in the U.S. over the next 25

ears. Don't even ask about China and India. The air we breath today contains

nwanted pollution from coal plants in the Ohio Valley, from coal plants in the

outh (depending on which way the winds are blowing) and from good 'ol, nearby

t. Tom.

Hard at work in Washington is the nuclear energy lobby. That industry will

ontinue to make a comeback as our national thirst for more electric power grows

ver stronger.

So what to do?

Some have claimed that biomass plants smaller in capacity than the proposed

ussell Biomass 50 MW plant are not harmful from a air quality perspective.

rong. Dead wrong. A small wood-fired heating source ranging from a home wood

tove to the proposed 100 MW biomass plant in Texas can be safe OR unsafe,

epending upon its design and the type of fuel it burns. You think sitting by

our Yuletide fire roasting chestnuts "over an open fire" is safer than having a

0 MW power plant at the edge of your town? Wrong. Dead wrong. Check with the

merican Lung Association. Ask yourself if Cooley Dickenson Hospital would

perate a wood boiler (NOT an incinerator) in the hospital building complex if

here was ANY possibility that it would be harmful to patients. I don't think

o.

So Alan, some questions:

As a self-professed "student of manipulated public involvement processes," what

o you make of these facts? There's no manipulation in this message...just a

resentation of factual information all of which is verifiable.

What do you see as steps we in western Massachusetts should take to try to

eclaim a healthy environment?

Do you consider the opposition's assertion that our plant's emissions would be

he equivalent of 12,000 wood stoves to be "manipulative?" If so, on what basis?

Do you think the use of the word "incinerator" in place of the technically

ccurate word "boiler" be as "manipulative?" (Is an Outside Wood Boiler an

ncinerator? Were the old, pre-diesel steam engines incinerators or boilers?)

Do you view as fact the constant charge that Russell Biomass will one day, if

ot now, burn construction and demolition wood (C&D) as fuel? There is now on

ecord at Russell Town Hall a signed legal agreement to never burn such

aterial...a guarantee that extends to any and all future owners of the power

lant should it ever be sold. If the opposition one more time asserts that we

ill burn C&D, would you consider that as manipulative? Or deliberate

isinformation?

I understand that if people WANT to believe something that facts will not
change

heir minds. I still encounter supporters of the Bush administration who believe

here WERE weapons of mass desruction in Iraq. So be it...except that the

ctions of this country based on that belief have done irreperable damage to the

eoples of both countries and to my son and his two sons' generation. What

rreperable damage are we doing by not moving as fast as possible to mitigae

lobal warming on both an individual and institutional level?

I understand that once someone professes to "know" all there is about a subject

here is no room left for learning new information or facts. It is people who

ay "I don't know?" and "I want to know..." that are the best hope for our

ommunities and country.

I have no respect for environmental organizations which refuse or "can't find

ime" to hear what we have to say or to review our various health and

nvironmental impact studies.

Do you think it was "manipulative public involvement" for the Toxics Action

enter to award Russell Biomass a "Dirty Dozen Award" for emissions from a power

lant that exists only on paper and for which accurate, FACTUAL emission

easurements are not possible to make? It got them and plant opponents a photo

n the local newspaper, a photo that will one day come back to remind them how

rong (and manipulative) they were.

That said, I have deep respect for the Massachusetts Chapter of the American

ung Association with whom we have twice met because they are open to hearing

hat we have to say and which allowed their staff and board members to press

heir concerns about air quality. We have learned big time from them about their

osition and are working to see if there is a way to address their very specific

oncerns about ozone and particulate matter concentrations.

Alan, if you, like a growing chorus of participants on this Forum, would like
to

ngage in an honest discourse, lets talk.

Sincerely,

John Bos

Public Information Officer

RUSSELL BIOMASS LLC

Info about : http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/bosjohn

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4jKDBlWmUARuRGefUikzAi

----------------------------------------

To post, send your message to: <email obscured>

To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"

in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

 More info about Pioneer Valley Base Camp:

http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/pv-basecamp

 E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules

----------------------------------------

echnical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net





________________________________________________________________________

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading
spam and email virus protection.



Lee Martin

Westfield

Info about Lee Martin: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/leemartin



This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2bv18X7hevPMowJjZpGBFM

-----------------------------------------

 To post, send your message to: <email obscured>

 To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"

 in subject line and send to: <email obscured>



 More info about Pioneer Valley Base Camp:

 http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/pv-basecamp



 E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules

-----------------------------------------

Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net



No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.10/876 - Release Date: 6/28/2007 10:56
AM





No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release Date: 6/28/2007 5:57
PM





________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading
spam and email virus protection.

From: Lee Martin Date: 2007 Jul 02 15:57 UTC Short link

Hello Everyone,

I have been getting personal emails from John Bos and I want everyone to
understand something,?back on Feb 22,? I posted in the Russell Biomass Forum
that I did not want any personal contact from John Boss.? Despite this request,
he has been personally emailing me his responses to my postings and I would
like the forum moderator to ask him to post?his replies on the forum and stop
personally emailing me.??? It wouldn't be a huge deal, except for the fact that
I have?already declined his request for the personal contact.??

If I receive anymore personal emails, especially from someone that I have
already asked not to contact me,? I want?everyone to be aware that the personal
email will be forwarded and posted?to this forum, in it's entirety.????If there
is anyone else?in the same situation, please post?the responses you have been
given?as well.???I am taking time from my daily work schedule?to read and be a
part of this forum because I believe these issues are important.?? If the
responses aren't posted, then what is the point of the forum in the first
place.? Just because one person?poses the question, doesn't mean that?all of us
are not interested in knowing the answers.?? ?

?

The most resent email?from John Bos stated that he believes that the American
Lung Association will never support or endorse the Location,? but that I would
need to?confirm it with Jeff Seyler since he cannot speak for the ALA.??(Copy
of email is below)? If Location is?the problem, I don't see how?that can be
fixed.? Unless,?Russell Biomass is?planning to move mountains.???

?

If the American Lung Association is still on this forum,? would you please
confirm what John Bos is saying?

?

Lee Martin

Westfield, MA
    

?




-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Biomass <<email obscured>>
To: <email obscured>
Sent: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:56 pm
Subject: RE: [PV-Base Camp] Apologies and Next Steps




Lee,

I believe that is the case but you best confirm that with Jeff Seyler since I
cannot speak for the ALA.

John

?

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 5:18 PM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [PV-Base Camp] Apologies and Next Steps

?

?

?

Thank you John for answering my questions. For those of you who are interested,
I have copied and pasted John's response below my clarification question.

?

John, my question was:

?

3) Are you saying that the ALA is showing signs of supporting the project and
that the ALA no longer opposes it's location?

?

Your response was:

?

?

3) ALA will never support or endorse Russell Biomass nor do I intend to ever
indicate that it would.

?

For clarification, is your response to question #3, confirming that the ALA
will never support or endorse the Location?

?

Lee Martin

Westfield, MA

?

?

-----Original Message-----

From: Russell Biomass <<email obscured>>

To: <email obscured>

Sent: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:35 am

Subject: Russell Biomass and ALA

?

Lee,

?

In response to your questions below:

?

1) My understanding, as I stated in my post on the PVPC Forum to Alan Muller,
is that ALAs chief concerns are ozone emissions and particulate concentrations.

?

2) We are pushing the best available technology in the plant design to its
maximum capacity and searching for any and all other ways to mitigate the
concerns that ALA has expressed directly to us.

?

3) ALA will never support or endorse Russell Biomass nor do I intend to ever
indicate that it would.

?

4) One of ALAs board members with knowledge of terrain and its effect on
weather patterns remains particularly concerned about the question of terrain.

?

Let me know if you have further questions.

?

John

?

-----Original Message-----

From: <email obscured> [mailto:<email obscured>]

Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:36 AM

To: <email obscured>

Subject: Re: [PV-Base Camp] Apologies and Next Steps

?

?

John,

?

You said that you have twice met with the American Lung Association. Living in
Westfield, my concern is with the ALA's Opposition.

?

1) What specifically do you understand theAmerican Lung Association'sconcerns
to be?

?

2) What specific things is Russell Biomass doing to address their concerns?

?

3) Are you saying that the ALA is showing signs of supporting the project
andthat the ALA no longer opposes it's location?

?

4) Does the ALA no longer believe thatterrain and weather inversions are an
issue?

?

Lee Martin

?

Westfield, MA

?

?



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release Date: 6/28/2007 5:57
PM



________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading
spam and email virus protection.

From: Alan Muller Date: 2007 Jul 02 16:53 UTC Short link

Note the following report, at
http://www.mtpc.org/Project%20Deliverables/GP_FinalReport_Russell.pdf

What it seems to amount to is that the Commonwealth of Mass. has paid the
promoters of this power plant project to do "public outreach" to manipulate
residents into supporting it.

I've just pulled out a few interesting quotes.  I did some highlighting in red
but don't know whether that will show up as posted.

My main points, as usual, are  (1) there is no integrity to be assumed in
"public outreach" activities;  (2) a key objective of them is to get people to
waste their energy arguing with those causing the problem, rather than putting
that energy into an effective "outreach" effort of their own; and (3) to get
people to think about the implications for democracy of government-funded
propaganda campaigns on behalf of special interests....it takes a lot of smarts
and careful planning to successfully oppose a professional disinformation
campaign that has government support.  It's not impossible, but it's not easy.

Alan Muller
Green Delaware

RUSSELL BIOMASS POWER PLANT
Pre-Construction Development Activities
Final Report for Loan No. GP-05-13

Funded by the Predevelopment Financing Initiative of
The Renewable Energy Trust Clean Energy Program

ABSTRACT
This report describes pre-construction project development activities for a 50
MW biomass-fired electric generation plant in Russell, Massachusetts. These
activities were funded in part by a loan to the developer, Russell Biomass LLC,
from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative through the Predevelopment
Financing Initiative of the Renewable Energy Trust Clean Energy Program. The
activities described in this report include public outreach, preliminary plant
and site engineering, initiation of the permitting and transmission line
interconnection process, obtaining expressions of interest from biomass fuel
suppliers and prospective power purchasers, and preparation of a development
funding solicitation memorandum. All activities were completed successfully,
and the project has advanced to the next stage of development, securing the
remaining permits and approvals.
Key words: biomass, biomass power plant, biomass boiler, biomass fuel supply,
public outreach, permitting, transmission line interconnection, power purchase
solicitation, development financing.

SUMMARY
This report describes pre-construction project development activities of
Russell Biomass LLC in the development of a 50 MW biomass-fired electric
generation plant on 18 acres of a 70-acre site that is owned by the developers
and is located in the town of Russell in Western Massachusetts. The first stage
of development, a feasibility study that helped assure that no technical or
permitting fatal flaws existed, was started in May 2004 and completed
successfully in January 2005.
In the fall of 2004 Russell Biomass applied for a loan to provide partial
financing for the second phase of development, February-June 2005, to finalize
plant design and cost parameters, secure a Special Permit from the Town of
Russell, obtain expressions of interest for biomass fuel supply and power
purchase, and obtain financing for the remaining 18 months of project
development. MTC provided a loan of $150,000 to support these activities, and
the developers were required to provide a cash match of at least 25%.

The project was successful in meeting the objectives. It appears to be
technically and economically viable, and the developers expect to receive a
commitment for development funding by October 2005. The MTC loan played a key
role in moving the project forward. The developers have initiated work on the
third stage of development, securing the remaining permits and approvals. The
project is on track to complete pre-construction development activities in the
first quarter of 2007, and following a 2-year construction period, to start
commercial operation by the second quarter of 2009.

The following tasks were included in the project and are described in this
report:
Task 1: Carry out public outreach program
Task 2: Preliminary plant engineering
Task 3: Site engineering
Task 4: Initiate permit applications
Task 5: Transmission line design
Task 6: Fuel supply commitments
Task 7: Power sale options
Task 8: Project financial viability and development financing
Task 9: Project reporting

Task 1  Russell Biomass initiated a public outreach program in order to ensure
broad public support and maximize the likelihood that the Town of Russell would
grant a Special Permit for the project. The program involved conducting a
survey of all Russell voters to determine what residents thought of the project
and developing communications to respond to resident concerns about the project
and highlight project benefits.

Task 4  The permitting task was focused on obtaining a Special Permit for the
project from the Town of Russell and on documenting the permitting issues
associated with the use of Clean Recycled Wood (CRW) from C&D sources. Russell
Biomass prepared and submitted the Special Permit application and participated
in three public hearings held by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning
Board. The boards approved the Special Permit at the final hearing, although
the developers were forced to drop plans to use CRW because of strong
objections to this fuel from project opponents.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Russell Biomass LLC is developing a base load, 50 MW net biomass-fired (wood
fueled) electric generation plant on 18 acres of a 70-acre site. The site is
owned by the developers and is located in the town of Russell in Western
Massachusetts.
About 500,000 tons of biomass fuel, which is comprised of whole tree chips from
land clearing and tree trimming and ground stumps and pallets, will be consumed
annually.

[Note from Muller:   This equals roughly 23,000 truckloads/year, as 22
tons/truckload.  Assuming continuous operation, this corresponds to about 62
round/trips per day, and of course this does not including hauling the ash
out.]

The developers have strong experience and skills suited to a biomass power
plant development. The team includes a developer, Peter Bos, who previously
developed a 45 MW, 450,000 tpy wood fueled biomass plant in Maine; William
Hull, a forester who owns the site, runs a sawmill in Connecticut, and has
previous biomass power plant development experience; Robert Berti and James
Dammann, foresters who have been procuring wood fuel for biomass plants for 20
years; and James Ramsey, a registered professional engineer and businessman.
The ARS Group LLC (ARS) owned by Peter Bos was the lead developer on the
successful 45 MW, 450,000 tons/year Stratton wood fired electric generation
plant built in 1989.

[What's the relationshop between John Bos and Peter Bos?]

The developers have assembled a highly qualified team of seven engineering and
consulting firms, all of which are currently working on the project:
Tighe & Bond, Inc.  Permitting, site engineering, transmission line
Tech Environmental, Inc.  Air, noise permitting
Waldron Engineering, Inc.  Power plant engineering
Energy Management Group  Power marketing
Financial Management Group LLC  Financing, power marketing
John Bos & Associates/Chestnut Productions LLC  Public outreach

[Note:  A quick search found no site or other activities for the above]

In mid-2004 William Hull formed a development team to investigate the
feasibility of developing a biomass power plant on the Russell site. The
developers met with Russell selectmen in June and December 2004 to describe the
project concept and hear about key issues from the town, and once with the
assessors to discuss property taxes. The Town of Russell has been supportive of
the biomass power plant project from the outset. The small town (population
1500) lost approximately 125 jobs and substantial tax revenues when Westfield
River Paper Company abandoned the site in 1995. The proposed power plant,
providing 50 construction jobs for 2 years, 23 new permanent operating jobs,
and a 20% increase in the town’s property tax revenues, would be a significant
economic development boost for the community.
In addition to supportive Town officials, the developers knew that broad public
support for the project was necessary in order to secure a Special Permit from
the Town, a key approval for the project. The permit application was planned
for March 2005, and in January Russell Biomass engaged consultants John Bos &
Associates and Chestnut Productions to develop a public outreach program to
gain public support for the project. The public outreach effort involved two
tasks:
• Conduct a survey of all Russell voters to learn what Russell residents
thought about the proposed power plant
• Develop effective public communications and education to respond to resident
concerns about the project and highlight project benefits


PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND EDUCATION

Following the survey and immediately prior to the first Special Permit hearing
in April 2005, Russell Biomass published a 4-page newspaper supplement in the
Country Journal, the local weekly newspaper serving Russell and other
communities, entitled “Why a Biomass Power Plant for Russell?” The supplement,
developed by the outreach consultants, included a description and frequently
asked questions about the project, voter survey results, a brief explanation of
biomass energy, and a timeline of industrial activity at the Russell project
site (which reminded residents that the site had a 100+-year history of
industrial operations prior to the closing of the Westfield River Paper Company
in 1995).
The three Special Permit hearings (April, May and June) afforded the developers
an excellent opportunity to respond to citizen concerns and communicate the
benefits of the project. At least 3 of the five developers and two Tighe & Bond
managers attended each meeting. Considerable effort was spent between meetings
preparing responses to questions, mainly related to project impacts (e.g.,
truck traffic, visual) from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board.
The hearings were challenging due to the intensity of citizen concerns
regarding traffic and other project impacts. Just prior to the second and third
hearings, the developers were warned that well-organized opposition groups
woul