Newly Announced Biomass Facilities Facing Obstacles

Over and over again, reports about the many ways that biopower will destroy the planet have raged through the press like the worst pop-up thunder storms. Projects have been felled by these efforts, leaving many of us to wonder whether opposition will amount to static kill for the industry.

No region in the United States has been immune.

• A 60-MW Adage project in Shelton, Wash. A 35-MW facility in Klamath Falls, Ore. A 24-MW plant in Lakeview, Ore.
• A 32-MW facility in Milltown, Ind. The conversion of a First Energy coal plant in Ohio. Traverse City Light and Power’s entire biomass strategy. A 50-MW We Energies project in Rothschild, Wisc.
• A 50-MW plant in Russell, Mass. A 47-MW plant in Greenfield, Mass.
• A 32-MW plant in Perryville, Mo. Plans by Duke Energy and Progress Energy to add biomass capacity in N.C.

While all of these projects are essential if states are going to meet their renewable standards, they are all meeting stiff opposition from environmental groups and community activists.

How can project developers address this opposition successfully? Clearly, the worst approach is to avoid opportunities to provide accurate information and analysis to community members. More and more, project sponsors will be required to respond. Here are some basic guidelines:

1. The boy scouts have it right: be prepared. Don’t wait until opposition arises; make a public relations plan a priority from project inception.
2. Anticipate the opposition, understand their arguments and gather the facts needed to address their concerns. The major reasons projects run into opposition include fears of deforestation, disagreements over the carbon neutrality of wood energy, concerns about air quality, and nuisance factors like noise, traffic, and view obstruction. With careful planning and research, developers can be prepared, in advance, for questions that may arise. Developers should also make sure they have the best data and information available, though, as well as credible experts. Otherwise, there is a risk of damaging the developer’s or project’s credibility.
3. Take every opportunity to share the information and analysis gathered with the wider community. This has several benefits. Providing the other side of the story creates a balanced perspective within the community and encourages an equally vocal group of supporters. Also, when project developers flood the market with positive news, less bandwidth is available for the opposition.
4. Search for common ground and make concessions when possible. Aspen Power in Lufkin, Texas is the perfect example of this. After the permitting process held up construction for about a year, Aspen Power agreed to add more sophisticated emissions control technology to the plant. As a result, the opposition withdrew their complaints, the air permit was approved, and the Lufkin plant is scheduled to open late this year.

A recent example of a biomass energy plant’s response to opposition can be found here. The Op-Ed piece by Rick Re of Seneca appeared in the Eugene Register-Guard on August 8.

In this issue, we’ll evaluate the reasoning provided by some opponents of biomass energy projects and provide some sources of information that can be used to rebut these arguments.