All posts in the topic draft plan (Short link)
Summary
- There are 6 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Catherine Miller at 2007 May 31 20:34 UTC
Hi All,
I'm not sure what the process is for editing the draft plan, but it
seems to me that editing is required to make clear that in fact we
all do support 'clean' energy sources and, at the very least, the
technologies involved in a very large biomass plant must be
thoroughly investigated from the perspective of what is being burned
and what is coming out of the stack before we declare it as a 'clean'
energy source. I would hope we are all in agreement about this.
Perhaps someone could suggest a way to edit the document to reflect
this.
Dear David et al,
An excellent suggestion. I would propose that it is no longer appropriate to
work from the present document if it is going to be revised...unless the
revisions are added as a supplement for consideration. Cumbersome? Yes.
Challenging? Yes.
So far only Lyn Benander and Wendy Goodman have responded favorably to the idea
of a facilitated discussion at Greenfields with the aim of identifying and
articulating concerns, then attempting to find ways that those concerns can be
addressed (through suggested alteration of the plan)such that the concerns are,
in fact, addressed and thus are no longer concerns.
Should those involved find this useful, I remain available to act as
facilitator. I would propose that the results be published in the local
newspaper and would hope that this effort would be of value to all.
Debbie Andrew
<email obscured>
413-625-8218
I also think we need some face to face work. However, if Russell Biomass is central to the discussion I think we need a more southerly location, a format that will facilitate constructive interaction, and as many involved parties (Concerned Citizens, Russell Biomass, Russell town government) as possible in attendance. In a previous post I suggested a debate format with each party having an opportunity to state its position, rebut, and respond. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/pv-basecamp/messages/topic/4mb2FGf8a4ysQof9IC4WQJ Given the tenor of the forum I expect charged emotions and we need a way to focus on information and consensus building. I recommend a more southern venue to make it easier for folks from Russell to participate. Stan Swiercz Pelham
Hello to all,
My name is Phil LaBranche, and I'm the Chair of a grassroots
citizens group called Citizens for Renewable Energy (CRE). We have a website,
www.citizens-for-renewable-energy.org; an email list, just send me your email
address at timberwolves ( at ) verizon.net; and a blog located at the website,
which
is easy to join.
In regards to the creation and background of CRE, I'll say that it
is located on the website for those that desire it (to keep the posts to a
minimum). However, I will say that we were created in response to the tactics
being employed by the opposition to the proposed biomass facility in Russell,
MA.
As to the blog, I'm trying to get things up and running and HIGHLY
encourage all to take a couple of minutes to join. The blog was first
conceived last year in an attempt to get folks in the area talking about what
was happening in regards to the biomass project, but things have remained
quiet. There are already several topics on the blog, ranging the gamet of
renewable energy topics-with more to follow. Dr. Lee Frelich, from the
University of Minnisota, will be writing a post about Global Warming, that
should prove very interesting reading.
I just desired to let the folks here on the blog know that there is more than
one citizen action group in Russell, Massachusetts-even though we have
different views. I also completely agree that there should be more face to
face meetings instead of all this email/blog correspondence back and forth.
Thank you,
Phil LaBranche
Dear David,
The process for editing the draft plan is for the planners to take all
our input and produce a revised plan. Catherine Miller from the
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission let us know about the edits she's
planning to make at this point. The comment session closes June 15,
and Catherine Miller and Bill Labich (Franklin Regional Council of
Governments) will prepare a final draft after that. The plan, I
believe, will then go to each of our 69 towns for review and,
hopefully, adoption.
What you've said, I believe, describes what I hear to be a general
consensus. I'd extend the emissions concerns beyond the stack to
emissions from truck traffic required for plant operations.
For both wind and biomass, citizens are also concerned about the site
selection (Will there be a negative impact on communities or the
natural environment?), and about ownership structures (Will it be
owned by a large corporation from out of the region or will there be
come local ownership?).
For almost every project that's proposed, there will be a group of
people who support it and a group of people who oppose it. I'd love to
find a way for the plan to define our common ground and find wise ways
to significantly reduce our energy consumption and identify what kinds
of clean generation resources we do want.
Thank you for your thoughts on how to define a place to begin this
conversation.
Sincerely,
Lynn
Quoting David Greenberg <david.greenberg3@gmail.com>:
David et al: The process of editing the draft plan is that Bill Labich and me and our intern will be working to edit the draft plan after June 15th--when the public comment period is officially over. We plan to make the changes I listed in my post from yesterday, summarized below, which definitely includes clarification of what we mean by "clean" energy versus "renewable" and a detailed discussion of biomass. We plan to post all the comments received, as well as an outline of how we propose to revise the plan--and then make the revisions and post the revised version for a second round of public review. If you would like to help, we would be happy to involve you. So far, planned revisions include, but are definitely NOT limited to: 1) Expanded descriptions and discussion of all the energy efficiency, conservation and use reduction initiatives planned and underway in the Valley. We want the efficiency, conservation, and use reduction efforts to have as much space (or more) in the plan as the proposed clean energy projects. 2) Clarification of the fact that the plan does not endorse any of the proposed clean energy projects in the Valley, rather-it describes guiding principles and selection criteria that can be applied to proposed projects to identify projects more or less likely to meet the approval of Pioneer Valley communities 3) Clarification of what the plan means by "Clean energy" 4) A detailed discussion of the proposed Russell Biomass project-with interviews and/or statements from the Concerned Citizens of Russell, the Russell Select Board and the Russell Biomass company 5) Re-organization of the collective action recommendations 6) Inclusion of priority action recommendations for Municipal Energy Committees 7) Inclusion of an executive summary 8) Improved organization so it's easier to read. -Catherine Catherine Miller Principal Planner/Section Manager SUSTAINABILITY Pioneer Valley Planning Commission 413/781-6045 Please participate in our on-line Clean Energy Planning process, go to http://forums.e-democracy.org/pioneer-valley