Slow down biomass boondoggle

Ohio's alternative-energy industries got a major boost in June, when Gov. Ted Strickland signed a law that will lower state tax rates on wind, solar, and other forms of renewable power. Solar and wind companies in northwest Ohio will especially benefit.

At the same time, though, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is considering a proposal by FirstEnergy Corp. that could threaten our state's renewable-energy standard and its fledgling clean-energy economy.

FirstEnergy, the parent company of Toledo Edison, intends to burn biomass - fuel produced from plant material or animal waste - to power its R.E. Burger facility in eastern Ohio. The company wants to convert the coal-fired power plant, and has applied to PUCO to certify the plant as a renewable-energy resource facility.

Such certification would allow FirstEnergy to use the energy the plant generates to meet its obligations under Ohio's renewable-energy standard. That mandate requires investor-owned utilities to get at least 12.5 percent of their power from clean-energy sources, such as wind, solar, and renewable biomass, by 2025.

The Burger plant would be one of the world's largest biomass plants. FirstEnergy calculates that the electricity generated by the Burger facility alone could satisfy most if not all of its renewable-energy requirements through 2025.

Moreover, the company could sell excess energy generated by the plant in the form of renewable-energy credits. Other Ohio utilities could buy the credits and use them to help meet their own benchmarks. Every unit of energy produced at Burger would mean less renewable energy produced by solar and wind facilities.

In addition, a special provision in Ohio law makes the energy generated at the Burger plant eligible for a higher rate for renewable-energy credits - an unfair advantage over any other renewable-energy provider in the state.

This makes PUCO's scrutiny of FirstEnergy's biomass project even more critical. The credits generated at the massive Burger plant could flood the renewable-energy market in Ohio, drowning out the demand for wind and solar power.

More important, it's not clear whether the Burger plant would produce cleaner energy. FirstEnergy has provided no details about what type of biomass it will use, how it will obtain and transport the material, or whether sustainable processes will produce the fuel.

The company also has not shown that converting the plant from coal to biomass would result in less mercury, particulate-matter, or carbon-dioxide pollution. In fact, there is no way to know whether the proposed conversion would create any environmental or air-quality benefits, or whether the facility would meet legal requirements for renewable generation.

When Massachusetts grew concerned about the environmental impact of biomass power, the state suspended all applications for biomass certification for six months. State officials commissioned a study of the generation of electricity from biomass.

That report concluded that biomass-based power generation results in emissions reductions only when a narrow set of criteria is satisfied. Biomass energy is not necessarily cleaner than coal, the study added, and a variety of factors affects the sustainability of biomass power.

As a result of the study, Massachusetts' secretary of energy announced that the state will require utilities to submit a greenhouse-gas accounting and a sustainability analysis before it certifies a biomass facility as renewable.

Ohio should similarly slow down. It should carefully consider the implications of biomass energy projects, including air-quality effects, carbon output, and economic consequences.

Certification of the massive Burger project without proper scrutiny could weaken Ohio's renewable-energy standard. And it could hamstring the promising clean-energy economy that is taking root in Toledo and across the state.

Will Reisinger is staff attorney for the Ohio Environmental Council in Columbus.