Print

Delayed RPS rules stall biomass energy in Mass.

By Anna Austin | January 12, 2012

An extended delay of the filing of Massachusetts’ final renewable portfolio standard (RPS) regulations has created a lull in statewide biomass energy development.

The final ruling on RPS qualifications was released in May, and the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources said it anticipated filing the final regulation in July after the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy had reviewed it and provided comments.

Six months later, however, the rules are still not out, and there is no definitive date as to when they will be. While not everyone in the biomass industry was happy with the revised RPS qualifications, developer Russell Biomass said it didn’t pose a significant problem to its project, which was modified to meet the standards.

Originally, the plan was to build a stand-alone, 50 MW biomass power plant in Russell, Mass. But due to the revision that biomass power facilities must a minimum efficiency standard of 40 percent—most achieve around 25 percent—in order to qualify as an RPS Class I Renewable Generation Unit, most proposed projects would be forced to add combined-heat-and-power (CHP) components to receive renewable energy credits (RECs). In doing that, qualifying biomass power projects would receive half a REC per megawatt hour (MWh), ratcheted up to one full REC per MWh upon reaching 60 percent efficiency.

“We can [now] meet those new regulations by converting the biomass only power plant to a thermal project that includes an 80-acre greenhouse,” said Peter Bos of Russell Biomass, which has restructured its proposed project to include the greenhouse, as well as improve its economics by proposing to use 100 percent rail supply for its wood chip fuel. The company believes its new plan would provide major economic benefits to the area, including 150 new jobs and locally grown vegetables. Additionally, the new project components would lower the power purchase rate by four cents from the rate for a stand-alone biomass power plant.

Nonetheless, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs will not consider the project until the new regulations are out, Bos said, though both the House and Senate chairs of the state’s energy committees are behind the project.

And aside from the lag in the release of the RPS regulations, the company needs support of Russell town officials in order to get a power purchase agreement approved by the DOER, and is working to do so.

In the meantime, it’s a waiting game for the filing of the final RPS regulations. “As a result, no biomass is being developed in the state, while adjacent states are supporting the same technology,” Bos said. 

 

 

2 Responses

  1. Keydrick

    2012-01-25

    1

    I'm quite pleased with the ionfmration in this one. TY!

  2. Glen Ayers

    2012-02-01

    2

    This article incorrectly perpetuates the myth that RECs will be available if "total" efficiency reaches 40%, including some sort of heat capturing scheme like 40 acres of "greenhouse vegetables" along with the pathetically-low biomass electrical generation conversion rate of 20-25%. The existing RECs are only allowed to be given for electrical conversion, trying to count some make-believe greenhouse tomato as an increase in efficiency is but a joke. There is no existing technical way to increase electrical energy conversion efficiency when using such a poor fuel with such low energy density. The best attainable levels of electrical conversion are still not nearly good enough to earn any RECs. Subsidies for dirty Biomass incineration are dead, or will be dead by the time these regulations are done going through the legal challenges that will be sure to follow if they allow for counting thermal conversion efficiency without first being allowed by new legislation. Burning live, green trees for energy production was always a scam. Biomass Magazine loses credibility when it supports such obviously absurd proposals like burning living forests at super-low efficiency to produce "green" energy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Biomass Mag, get a clue!

  3.  

    Leave a Reply

    Biomass Magazine encourages civil conversation and debate. However, comments containing personal attacks, profanity, business solicitations or other advertising will be deleted.

    Comments are closed