From an exchange on the NoAdage list:
1) See: http://amicuscuria.com/wordpress/?p=451#comment-87 (proof & pique)
2) Eric Laschever (Adage’s attorney) makes persuasive arguments whether anyone likes them (subjectively) or not. See his *memorandum* at the end of the following:
Then see his reference to:
We must *see* what is there, not what we wish was there to be effective. Hiding our heads in the sand won’t help. I do agree that Adage is speaking out of both sides of its mouth at the same time…one side to the public (“It’s waste, slash, unused with no utility/value.”) and the other to the courts and our public officials, (“It’s NOT ‘waste’, it a valuable commodity!”) I agree, it is a valuable commodity–one whose highest value is to remain on/in the forest floor as a soil amendment to sustain the forests. It is also (unfortunately according to the flow chart) a traditional fuel (implying it is non-waste). I, et ux, have been burning it in our wood stove for many years. We have no other source of heat. It is cheap fuel (slash) but nobody pays us to collect it. On the other hand, I don’t burn 604,000 tons/yr of it either. We heat with less than 1 ton/yr total. And we’d find a way to eliminate THAT if it meant preserving our forests and air as well as industry having to follow suit.
The difference is we care about the community and environment we live in. Mr. Wills probably does too…except he doesn’t live HERE…he lives back east. His corporation is disdainful of this community and our environment. In fact, he sees us as the ENEMY despite the propaganda that gushes forth from his corporation. He doesn’t want an open dialog with the community, and from what I can see, the community isn’t listening to each other much of the time either.
ONE other nuance I found *very* interesting in the ‘regs’ (and flow chart?), there was a requirement that the incinerator company must have CONTROL of the fuel from A-Z for it to qualify as non-waste under certain conditions. I can’t predict (at this time) whether those conditions would be triggered in this instance, but Adage certainly can’t claim to have CONTROL over the ‘slash’ from beginning to end since they were not even created before the slash was generated (at least according to them). Again, these are complex, finely nuanced legal arguments. Don’t expect a final resolution anytime soon. Much may depend on how our regulators decide to modify the rules in the interim.
Note: To those who find this kind of dialog *BORING*, the devil’s in the details and it’s YOUR funeral…or a mass one as the case may be. i.e. Pay attention. It’s better to be awake when they come for you.
— In NoAdage@yahoogroups.com, Craig Watson <farfetched@…> wrote:
Several things are happening here.
1. Allegations, that is, one person saying one thing and another saying another, without a written or published record, opens some people to liabilities thay may not want to bear. They have the right to hold posters to certain standards of actual proof without being accused of censorship. It is the poster’s responsibility to provide more than heresay. If that isn’t possible, then the accusations need to be couched in language that implies they are “allegations” or are alleged, and the opposing viewpoint shold be granted the opportunity to answer said “allegations”. The news media has armies of lawyers and various forms of insurance to cover them in such cases.
As such, this has more to do with “proof” (say video of such an exchange) or published proof….say something printed in a newspaper or a signed letter from someone.
This is why people tape these meetings and hearings to begin with.
2. Whether the biomass is waster or not has nothing to do with tipping fees. It has everything to do with what the United States EPA considers a waste incinerator or a whether the woody biomass is grown specifically for burning as a fuel.
The WASTE definition puts the incinerator into the MACT pollution control category and the fuel definition only requires BACT pollution controls.
MACT controls are the MOST stringent and are being challenged by ALL biomass promoters and companies as it would cost a lot more $$ to install MACT controls than BACT controls. They say MACT controls would essentially stop biomass being used as a generating source.
Our job is to make sure slash is viewed and defined as WASTE. It clearly isn’t grown specifically for fuel like some annual crops used specifically for burning as biomass, it is a by-product of logging that would normally be left on the forest flloor and viewed before and now as WASTE. There ARE forms of woody biomass grown specifically for burning, some genetically engineered trees that grow very fast and that re-sequester carbon much more quickly than conifers grown for lumber.
THIS difference can be found in the EPA regulations and definitions and requirements for various forms of pollution controls for incinerators and boilers. As far as I know and remember from reading these regulations and stories about them, they don’t mention tipping fees but center on the source of the woody biomass and what would normally happen to it in the absence of an incinerator of boiler.
The biomass industry is spending gobs of money on lawyers fighting these definitions within the EPA regs and their claim that installing MACT controls would severely hamper the biomass “industry”.
I read that as, it would hamper their making (IMO: stealing) gobs of taxpayer and ratepayer money for cap and trade carbon credits. The cap and trade carbon market is projected to be worth TWO TRILLION $$$ by 2020.
THAT should put the $75 million Adage subsidy into perspective for everyone. Without cap and trade carbon offsets, Duke energy would have to raise the electric rates for all of of its customers east of the Mississippi by up to 40%. WITH cap and trade they instead offset all that carbon and make BILLIONS trading credits GRANTED to them for woody biomass spewing even MORE carbon. Essentially the only difference is if wood can be grown again VS coal that is carbon safely sequestered for eons in rock.
Our job is to make sure that slash is defined as waste, period. If we use Adage’s OWN advertising, statements and public statements used against us to try to site and build the incinerator (“it would just lie on the ground and rot or be burned in slash fires”) then it will be difficult for them to claim otherwise. Getting detoured on some unknown definition that doesn’t apply, IE: tipping fees, then we lose our clear cut this or that definition.
Or as they say “KISS”. Keep it simple……..
If it would be left to rot or to be burned on the ground, it’s WASTE. Let others make the opposing argument if they think they can. To me, if it’s not waste, then it has another use and isn’t left to rot or to be burned on site. Tipping fee just confuses the issue and isn’t a necessary component of a simple definition, regulation or logical argument.