Massachusetts, and the world, must generate more electricity from renewable, non-carbon energy.
What constitutes renewable energy? Should Gov. Charlie Baker and the Massachusetts Department of Energy (DOER) change policy and reclassify wood burning as “renewable energy”? Should we subsidize the construction of more biomass plants?
We know that to mitigate conditions in our growing climate emergency, we have just 12 years to rapidly reduce carbon emissions. The decision to call burning wood “renewable” is unacceptable because:
■Wood burning power plants release more carbon dioxide emissions at the stack per megawatt hour than coal-fired plants.
■ In spite of tremendous public outcry for stronger standards, our biomass plants have weak emissions standards, allowing them to emit hundreds of times more pollutants than do coal-fired plants.
■Springfield is a city with extremely high asthma rates, where the addition of a biomass plant, belching out fine particulates (soot), heavy metals and volatile organic compounds would further degrade public health.
■Ratepayers are already subsidizing dozens of wood burning plants across the state.
Our taxes would subsidize 80 percent of the construction of new biomass plants. Then ratepayers would be charged to use that energy.
It is time to transform electricity production by moving to generating all electricity from zero carbon sources — solar, wind and hydro — with an electric grid capable of storing and distributing power as needed. All decisions must be based on climate science. Our forests are an invaluable resource for removing and sequestering carbon.
The Massachusetts League of Women Voters encourages all of us to write to our representatives, asking them to support H.853, a bill to remove biomass burning and garbage incineration from a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Nancy Polan
Southampton
The writer is the legislative director of the Northampton Area League of Women Voters.