From an exchange on the NoAdage list:
Craig,
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:
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/community_dev/adage/november_2010/sepa_cover_letter.pdf
Then see his reference to:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm
and
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/flow-fuel.htm
and
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/flow-ingredient.htm
Adage Calling Long Distance
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.
After The Fix
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.
Becky Penoyar recently admonished as follows:
List etiquette for most lists dictates [Nobody ‘dictates’ what appears on MY Blog!] that cross-posting or forwarding or copying to another list is not allowed without the poster’s specific permission. If you are on other lists you will often see Permission to Cross-post on a message [You won’t find it on mine.] that the author thinks may be useful in another setting. We are not a public e-list, but a group of people who share the same interest. As you remember, your membership required approval to join. I think the ideas and research posted on this is invaluable to the cause. Thank you all for participating.
I believe that respectful discourse/dissent stimulates ideas and energy. The key is respectful. Let’s not let the opposition claim victory because we self-destruct into petty arguments. [Lots of room you could drive a truck through in ‘respectful’, ‘polite’, etc. etc. How about simply sticking to the FACTS & ISSUES?]
Prior to this admonishment to members of her e-list, I responded to and received the following e-mail:
Becky,
You’ve been ‘told’? How about READING (for yourself) what we’re discussing? And *who* told you this? The ‘author’? If not, who else would have the ‘right’ to complain about it?…and I’d like to briefly discuss just how far that ‘right’ does or does not extend. Thanks.
Cordially,
John Smith, goatherd (360)427-3599
DBA: Amicus Curia, paralegal (“We help you help yourself”)
DBA: Amicus Curia Collections, Inc. (“Debt Redemption”)
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
–Samuel Adams–
http://amicuscuria.com http://www.amicuscuria.com/roseycuria2.gif
http://amicuscuria.com/wordpress
From: Chris & Becky Penoyar
To: John Smith
Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 4:04:14 PM
Subject: List Postings
John,
I’ve been told you’re posting the NOADAGE posts and putting them on your blog. It is common courtesy to ask the poster if you have permission to do this. The NOADAGE list is not a Public List. You have to have permission from one of the moderators to join. The general public cannot see it. Please remove those postings unless you have permission of the authors. You can ask the author by replying directly to them from the list. If they decline permission. Please remove them.
Thank you.
Becky Penoyar
and then the following:
I don’t see anything, John. I’m glad this discussion is not on the list, but on your blog.
Just thought I’d restate the rules for the new members.
Becky
My Take?:
NO, I’m NOT going to *ask* permission to quote what’s subject to ‘fair use’ interpretation, to be ‘polite’ anymore than I do so when photo/video-taping public events. That would be a slope far too slippery. One must exercise our rights or we will lose them! That includes the 1st Amendment. Adage and its sympathizers already read the NoAdage list. My posting excerpts on MY Blog to make a point gives NOTHING away. They read community Blogs as well. Points of interest are forwarded from these sources to the Port of Shelton where they’ve been discovered through PDA requests.
Becky Penoyar has expressed concern about her NoAdage e-mail list crumbling under the weight of fractious factions when she asserts it was originally intended as a fast conduit to those interested in BioMassacre proposals. She admits it has also become a ‘forum’ since that inception. We have been friends for many years and she personally invited me (more than once) to participate in that e-mail list. I initially failed to do so because of my ample experience in how petty personal disputes often take over such forums. This one (NoAdage) has proven to be no exception to that tendency.
When a Blog owner or e-mail list coordinator tries to editorialize or censor what occurs elsewhere, that’s overreaching…especially when they ‘assume’ and/or intervene where no dispute exists. NOBODY has contacted *me* regarding quoting their statements in articles appearing here. Had they done so, I’d have discussed ‘fair use’ and whether any harm was apparent. I’m reasonably confident of where copyright boundaries lie. I’m much less so based on what passes for ‘polite’ in one circle or another, hence I don’t use it as my litmus test. It’s far too prone to manipulation and self service.
What you’ll find here is the TRUTH (as I genuinely see it) letting the chips fall where they may. I urge those who have different views to make their case here and engage in the bumps/bruises of material argument. I regret someone as educated as Mrs. Penoyar would deviate from such a path along with our years of friendship. Her insistence on accepting hearsay complaints, refusing to hold her source of the same accountable or subject to confrontation, and the ease with which she allowed herself to be manipulated is disappointing. I regret her vote of ‘no confidence’ in me and the resulting impact on our long standing relationship. I trust the erosion of our friendship satisfies whoever chose to speak ABOUT me rather than (like an adult) TO me.
I may continue to read (through a surrogate) the NoAdage posts. And I will CONTINUE to post what I think is newsworthy under ‘fair use’ guidelines without being ‘polite’ about it! I don’t write letters to the editor of The Journal because I don’t like their editorial policies, either. But I’d certainly quote from one of their letters/articles if it was the focus of commentary for public consumption in a current events context.
Readers will find NO ‘walking on eggshells’ in the editorial policies implemented on this Blog. It is not made available in pursuit of a popularity contest. It is made available to ensure the TRUTH comes out in a manner in which the public may take advantage.
Once again, I’m compelled to choose between ‘social acceptance’ (polite?) and the rigors inherent in unfettered exercise of our inalienable rights reflected in the 1st Amendment. I choose the latter for reasons found elsewhere on this Blog. Those who fail to grasp the benefits of doing so need to reexamine what it means to be an American. I regret having to remind folks that there is such a duty and benefits.