PROPOSAL NUMBER: 019-04
1. Date proposed: August 10, 2004
Name of the sponsor: Poudre Valley Greens
2. PROPOSAL SUBJECT: Proposal for GPCO to Support Clean Energy And Oppose BI-145
3. FULL PROPOSAL:
That the Green Party of Colorado Council adopt the following resolution and inform the media via press release and publication on our website of our action:
Resolution
Whereas national Green policy states that Energy management must be governed by the principles of Conservation, Efficiency, and Clean Renewables, and The Green Party strongly opposes the rampant and damaging policies of corporate industrial farming and calls for a national shift away from these practices.
and
Whereas the incineration of animal wastes with no specified limitation creates undue burdens for rural, often poor communities,
and
Whereas specifying no limits to renewable energy credits for animal and animal wastes may subsidize large Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFOs),
and
Whereas the incineration of urban wood waste which is largely contaminated with plastic, chlorine, heavy metals such as arsenic, paints, preservatives, and formaldehyde creates additional pollution when burned by releasing these pollutants into the air and by creating new pollutants such as dioxins and furans, particulates, and greenhouse gases,
and
Whereas giving renewable energy credits for burning urban wood wastes may subsidize sprawl,
and
Whereas the promotion of such waste incineration competes with responsible clean renewables such as wind and solar,
and
Whereas biomass legislation must define specific wastes, amount limits, and destruction methods instead of leaving that solely to industry and government,
and
Whereas local communities affected by such biomass use must be an integral part in any decision making process,
and
Whereas the Colorado Renewable Energy Ballot Initiative creates the aforementioned problems,
Therefore be it resolved,
That for these reasons, the Green Party of Colorado opposes the Colorado Renewable Energy Ballot Initiative, BI-145.
Analysis:
Costs: $0 Unless mass media ads or yard signs are purchased, projected monetary costs are zero.
Resources: Minimal Participating in a press conference, possibly in concert with several other groups and political candidates, as well as letters to the editor and other outreach.
4. BACKGROUND:
For the past several years, renewable energy legislation to promote wind and solar energy has made its way and failed in our Statehouse. Along the way, groups with anti-environmental interests such as the Farm Bureau, had a hand inserting their own special interest language in the form of biomass provisions. While the short biomass provisions may at first glance appear benign, their very lack of specificity means that if enacted, we will have handed all decision-making regarding biomass energy credits to industry and industry-influenced government. Once enacted, we the people and our local communities will have spent our own energies giving away our say in what gets burned, how much, and under what conditions. For Urban Wood Wastes, incineration remains a primary method of disposal. California’s Waste Management’s section on Urban Wood Waste states that construction and demolition urban wood wastes comprise 28% of their entire solid waste stream. Out of 5.1 million tons of annual wood waste, over one quarter, or 1.3 million tons, is incinerated in boilers as fuel for steam or electricity production. This represents the largest single market for Urban Wood Waste, and the only potential market for the poorest condition and most contaminated wastes. (see http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/Wood/) Because of several factors including low landfill costs and lack of landfill diversion legislation, Colorado has not yet seen the entrenchment of large scale incineration industries. Initiative 145 sets that stage by offering substantial subsidies in the form of energy credits. Experience shows that once such industries establish themselves, they become part of our economic fabric and will be difficult or impossible to control.
Support for Initiative 145 rests on three false assumptions:
1. Burning biomass is responsible renewable energy. The initiative says that only nontoxic materials will be considered.
Only clean renewable energy is responsible energy, and burning urban wood waste, much of it composed of construction and demolition wastes, is not clean. Contaminants include plastic laminates, chlorinated adhesives, phenol, urea-formaldehyde resins, lead and mercury from paints, woods preserved with creosote, pentachlorophenol, and copper chromium arsenate (CCA). If this were not bad enough, burning materials containing halogens such as chlorine can produce dioxins and furans, some of the most toxic chemicals known to man. By promoting urban biowaste, we are in effect promoting municipal solid waste incineration. (See info at http://www.greenenergy.org/)
The initiative’s use of the word nontoxic has been used to support the argument that no dangerous materials will be burned. This is false for two reasons. Materials that are not toxic themselves can produce deadly compounds through incineration. Dioxins are some of the most toxic chemicals known to man, and are produced through burning bleached or PVC-containing wood products. Best estimates of worldwide dioxin emissions show:
Municipal solid waste incinerators 37.6% Biomass combustion 12% (urban wood waste NOT included). Wood burning is responsible for 49.6% of all worldwide dioxin emissions. For comparison, steel smelters produce 12% and cars burning unleaded gas produce a mere 0.03%. [Louis B. Brzuzy and Ronald A. Hites, “Global Mass Balance for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-dioxins and Dibenzofurans,” ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Vol. 30, No. 6]
According to the EPA, the word NONTOXIC has no federal regulatory definition…. it is an ADVERTISING word.
2. No burning of objectionable biomass such as contaminated urban wood wastes will occur, since it cannot compete with coal or wind on a cost basis.
This assumption is unfounded. Wind power is not yet available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Biomass burning is. Unlike biomass burning, wind and solar are not readily scalable to meet daily or hourly peak loads. Another advantage of biomass burning over coal, oil, or natural gas is that like wind, the fuel is free. Actually, burning waste biomass can do even better. Waste wood and other biomass products must either be used or disposed. Both entail transportation costs, but disposal also adds the costs of landfilling. Thus, waste biomass costs can be free or even negative, whereby waste generators pay a burner some of the price they would otherwise have to pay the landfill. A November1998 study commissioned by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) concludes:
A biomass project developer [in Denver/Boulder] could probably secure about 300,000-500,000 tons/year of feedstock at close to zero cost, and could produce 20-50 MW of electricity.
One large wood burner in Ashland Wisconsin has been burning wood, coal, and shredded rubber (tires) for over a decade. In their own words:
“Waste wood is Bay Front’s lowest cost fuel option by nearly a factor of two…The Bay Front Station has benefited from its conversion from coal and oil to biomass and other waste fuels.
The reduction in fuel costs has helped keep this old generating station operating and has provided continued employment in the area.
3. Even if contaminated biomass is burned, air quality regulations will protect us.
Air quality regulations for burners generally monitor a few primary pollutants such as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides. A coal burning facility switching to wood waste would generally require only a minor permit modification, meaning no public hearing would be required.
In the unlikely event a test burn was required, that process is a one-time test, conducted under optimum conditions, and measures only several out of hundreds of possible pollutants. All burners suffer from upsets, when conditions for safe combustion cease, while burning still occurs under improper conditions. This frequently produces products of incomplete combustion, or PICs, many of which are extremely toxic as well as carcinogenic. Upsets occur during startups, shutdowns, fuel changes, equipment breakdowns, or from operator error.
Air quality regulations in Colorado are among the poorest in the nation, the result of a hostile state legislature dominated by industry. Department of Health enforcement and inspection resources have been devastated by years of budget cuts and unfriendly political directorships. In addition, oversight is performed by industry dominated Commissions, who themselves are often forbidden under Colorado law (i.e., Norton SB-105) from enacting any standards above the lowest allowed under federal law.
5. JUSTIFICATION/GOALS:
Why should we consider this resolution now? The answer is obvious: a coalition of environmental groups is nearing the successful completion of signature gathering to place this on the November state ballot. If we do not get the facts about the downside of this initiative out to the public, the proposal may pass and we will have to live with the negative consequences for a long time. Let us remember to keep our future focus and think of the effects of BI-145 on the next seven generations, not only on our possible short-term standing with the groups pushing this initiative.
6. PROS AND CONS: Potential benefits:
Educating the public and environmental groups of the potential for hazardous incineration contained in the proposal, thus stopping it.
Opening the door for a better, cleaner wind and solar power bill in the next Legislature or a new initiative.
Being seen as a courageous, far-sighted environmentally aware political party willing to risk alienating even some of our friends for the greater long-term good.
Potential Drawbacks:
Provoking a backlash from some environmental groups who may be unwilling to admit they made a mistake.
Killing off all chance of any renewable energy legislation passing for the short-term.
7. Alternatives to the proposal
Doing nothing now, but likely having to fight subsidized waste-burning projects down the line.
Taking no position on the initiative, but raising concerns with the subsidized waste-burning provisions.
Supporting the bill, but raising concerns with the subsidized waste-burning provisions.
Supporting the bill and pretending everything is hunky-dory with the subsidized waste-burning provisions.
8. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES:
These have already been provided in section 4. For ease of reference, they are:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/Wood/
http://www.greenenergy.org/
