The owners of the BioEnergy Wood burning plant in Hopkinton want to tear it down, and build a new one.
They propose burning pure wood chips, rather than the construction and demolition debris they once planned to burn.
Despite this change, the same group that fought the incineration of C & D is actively opposing the new scheme.
New Hampshire Public Radio’s David Darman has more.
The BioEnergy plant in Hopkinton. (David Darman, NHPR)
It may seem like the drama around the BioEnergy plant in Hopkinton only recently died down.
A few years ago, the company that owned the plant angered many townspeople by proposing to burn construction and demolition debris, C+D, to generate electricity.
As a result of the controversy, the state now has a law against burning that waste.
But BioEnergy’s owners are proposing to build a new plant from the ground up.
Mark Dell’Orfano, vice president of Regenesis, says it will be a modern, efficient plant that is much less polluting than the old one.
You know we’ve heard what everybody had to say, and you know they wanted “latest and greatest” and no c&d and that’s what we’re prepared to deliver.
Dell’Orfano says his company is proposing the plant take advantage of the state’s new renewable portfolio law.
It requires the state to get 25 percent of its electricity through sources other than fossil fuel by 2025.
Dell’Orfano says the design of his new plant has already been employed by Public Service of New Hampshire at its Portsmouth plant.
Its exactly the same technology that used over at schiller. The difference is that schiller is also permitted to burn coal as well as wood chips where as this facility would only be permitted to burn woodchips.
The similarity to PSNH’s plant is proving to be cold comfort to the members of REACH.
REACH, or Residents Environmental Action Committee of Hopkinton, is the group that stirred lawmakers to pass the law burning c + d wood.
REACH vice president John Friberg, Jr. says the new plant would simply be an unacceptable source of pollution.
Although we can’t say exactly that we have a handle on the tons of toxins that will be emitted, we’re fairly confident that there will be some tons of toxins going up the smokestack and into the environment. Right now we’re doing an analysis of that. Tellingly, bioenergy has not provided us with such an analysis. They say they can’t do that until they’re up and running. So we find very little comfort in that fact.
Some REACH members also say they can’t trust the owners of BioEnergy, because they once neglected to tell state officials a former owner had been convicted of a crime.
During that time, Hopkinton officials and REACH worked together to stop C+D burning.
But now town fathers say they’re not inclined to team up with the group against the new BioEnergy proposal.
Selectman Don Lane says he thinks it’s too early to take that stand.
Are people overreacting? Yeah, sure. I think here in this town we’re overreacting. We don’t know enough to make any kind of intelligent judgments at this point.
Selectman Lane also says not everyone in town opposes the construction of a new plant.
He said some residents see tax relief in the building, since it could mean as much as 1.3 million dollars a year for the town’s treasury.
Lane says a new power plant could also help diversify the town’s tax rolls.
We are starving for commercial property here in the town of Hopkinton as almost everyone knows. We have almost none. We have very little space for any to be built…because of our zoning regulations…and so from that point of view, this could be…a real opportunity for the town.
Town officials will probably have little oversight of the proposed facility.
New laws in the state give the Department of Environmental Services the job of overseeing any project that would produce more than 30 megawatts of power.
The new Bioenergy plant would fit that category.
It would burn 300,000 tons of wood a year and generate as much as 34 megawatts.
Still, Hopkinton officials are planning to hold a series of meetings to let residents know about the new BioEnergy facility.
The plants owners say they’re paying close attention to what the residents want.
Regenesis officials sy they won’t build the plant if the town’s residents oppose it.
I find it interesting that virtually everyone wants to 'reduce our dependence on foreign oil.' But when a proposal is presented will do just that I here a myriad of reasons why it can't be done in my town, my state, this region... This is hypocrisy. Tell me, where should it be done?
NH has now a legislated green power standard that requires the use of energy sources like clean wood chips. The site under discussion once burned hundreds of thousands of tons per year of clean chips. I know because I sent many truckloads to this location. It affords NH citizens and businesses the opportunity to solve our problems locally, moves us toward sustainable energy from renewable sources and diminishes our dependence on oil from faraway dictatorships.
The site under discussion is on a state highway and well connected to our highway infrastructure. The site has a long history of industrial use. Why not this site? And if not, where?
Ok, at least one of the prinicipals in the corporation proposing the new facility has some 'credibility problems.' I have to wonder though if the proposal came from another business with a reputation as pure as the driven snow (no pun intended here in snowy '08) if it would matter. I'll bet it wouldn't matter a bit to the opposition. Some are NIMBY's---not in my backyard; others are NOPE--not on planet earth. No proposal would ever be acceptable to these groups no matter how safe, clean, efficient or environmentally responsible.
Hopkinton has many large, fairly new residences---I'm talking about homes that I see of 3-5,000+ square feet. I'm sure they are much larger than the average home in NH and I'm sure their energy consumption is signficant even though well insulated. And I'll bet most are occupied by 'conservationists.' Such folks have a credibility problem with me when they preach conservation but don't appear to practice it themselves and then oppose facilities that generate the electricity we all need and use.
L P F