Biomass power plants seek support from state

By Alex MacLean

The Union Democrat, May 23, 2015

County leaders say proposed bill would be a win-win for environment and economy

     Biomass is one of California’s oldest renewable energy sources and a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels.

However, industry leaders say many of the state’s 33 biomass plants – including the Pacific Ultrapower facility in Chinese Camp – are at risk of closing in the next few years because they’re struggling to stay economically competitive with other subsidized forms of renewable energy, such as solar and wind.

“Most biomass plants in the state began operating 25 to 30 years ago,” Rick Spurlock, southern region general manager for the Orange County-based IHI Power Services corporation, which operates the Chinese Camp plant.  “We’re looking at losing up to half in the next three years.”

The Pacific Ultrapower biomass-energy plant has operated since 1986.  It employs 24 people and generates enough electricity per hour to serve 18,000 homes through the burning of woody waste, such as tree trimmings and undergrowth cleared from forests.

Proponent say biomass energy production serves multiple environmental and public benefits beyond producing power by diverting wood material from landfills, reducing the need for open burning of forest and agricultural wood and promoting the reduction of flammable vegetation in forests that can lead to large, environmentally harmful wildfires.

“We like to say we were renewable before renewable was cool,” Spurlock said.

A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Assemblyman Brian Dahle, R-Bieber, and Assemblyman Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, aims to provide support for California’s declining biomass industry by sharing fuel costs with a fund comprised of cap-and-trade revenues that’s intended for projects and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill, AB 590, is scheduled to to be considered next week by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.  If approved, it would go to the Assembly floor for a vote sometime in the first week of June.

According to the bill’s sponsors, the goal is to “provide monthly incentives to maintain the current level of biomass power generation in the state and revitalize idle facilities in strategically located regions.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors unanimously supported the legislation.

“It is important to recognize they (biomass plants) don’t compete financially, predominantly with the natural gas industry,” said District 1 Supervisor Sherri Brennan, who is chairwoman of the county Natural Resources Committee.  “This is important to keeping these here and recognizing the benefits to air quality.”

Electricity generated by the Pacific Ultrapower plant is sold to PG&E under a 30-year contract that expires in 2016.  Spurrlock said the hope is that the subsides will reduce the cost of electricity and help them land another contract.

Sierra Pacific Industries also generates electricity to power its Standard sawmill using sawdust and other logging byproducts.

According to the California Biomass EWnergy Alliance, biomass plants cut emissions of “criteria pollutant” – such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter – by 98 percent compared to open burning.

There could be as much as 2 million tons of flammable biomass sitting on the floor of the 900,000-acre Stanislaus National Forest, said Dave Horak, forest timber management officer.

Horak said the U.S. Forest Service removes about 70,000 tons annually that are transported to biomass energy plants.  That doesn’t include the amount of biomass burned in piles and chopped up for use as soil cover to prevent erosion, but those numbers were not readily available.

Up to 300,000 tons would need to be removed each year from the Stanislaus national Forest to keep up with the annual growth, Horak estimated.

California generates about 25 million tons of organic waste annually, with about 8 million composed, nearly 2 million used for fuel and 15 million dumped in landfills.  Dumping in landfills is not the preferred method, because the material generates harmful methane as it decomposes.

Factors limiting the amount of biomass that can be removed or pile-burned in the forest include industry capacity, burn days and safety issues, according to Horak.  He said having the Chinese Camp energy plant nearby “benefits the forest tremendously.”

“The Stanislaus has been one of the leaders in biomass since (the plant’s) opening in 1986,” he said of the facility.  “We would rather use our resources to do prescribed burning and reintroduce fires into the forest as opposed to burn piles that could otherwise be removed.”

The 2013 Rim Fire burned 257,000 acres in the Central Sierra, including 154,000 in the Stanislaus National Forest.

Horak estimated the fire and subsequent logging of burned timber has generated approximately 700,000 tons of biomass that needs to be removed to reduce the risk for future catastrophic fires in the same area.  Approximately 100,000tons have been piled on roadsides for removal contracts, with 22,000 awarded for contract to date.

Energy initiatives pushed by President Barack Obama and the Environmental protection Agency promote biomass and biofuels – in addition to solar, wind and geothermal – as viable means of weaning the U.S. from its dependency on oil and other fossil fuels.

Not everyone is on the same page when it comes to using biomass for generating electricity, however.

The center for Biological Diversity, a Tucson-based environmental advocacy organization, has expressed opposition to the pending legislation in the state Legislature that would subsidize fuel costs for California biomass plants.

In a formal letter of opposition, the center described biomass energy production as “a technology that has proven to be inordinately inefficient and expensive, results in negative air quality impacts, and which provides highly questionable benefits to the climate.”

Brian Nowicki, the center’s California climate policy director, who works in Sacramento, said the center is against diverting money earmarked for reducing greenhouse gas emissions toward the wood-burning power plants.

“It’s trying to take money intended for meaningful greenhouse gas reductions and direct it to some of the most inefficient outcomes,” he said.

Meanwhile, other environmental organizations have come out in support of the legislation.

The Sierra Forest Legacy, a Garden Valley-based nonprofit organization that promotes the protection of ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada, is supportive of “appropriately scaled biomass facilities in forest communities,” said Craig Thomas, the group’s conservation director.

John Buckley, of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center in Twain Harte, said there’s “no way to overbuild” biomass facilities in the local area with the “huge gut” of biomass material in the forest that needs to be reduced.

“Our center would like to see SPI crate a big plant and the Chinese Camp plant take more from the forest,” he said.  “We believe there’s a huge need to get more of the slash wood and stuff out of the forest.”