SPRINGFIELD, Ma. -- Groups working to reduce air pollution are testifying at a hearing today to urge state lawmakers to prevent wood-burning biomass from being classified as a renewable-energy source.

Dr. Mary Booth, with Partnership for Policy Integrity, said Massachusetts subsidizes clean-energy production, but regulations need to be strengthened to make sure woody biomass power plants cannot qualify.

She noted biomass can actually produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, and added without technology yet to sequester carbon at a mass scale, maintaining forests is key.

"Forests take carbon out of the air and convert it," Booth explained. "So we need an incentive structure that promotes preserving and restoring forests, not burning them for fuel and liquidating forest carbon stocks into the atmosphere."

Booth said in 2012, the Commonwealth did strengthen regulations to only include wood-burning power plants that would emit less carbon than a natural-gas plant over 20 years. But since then, some protections have been rolled back by the Baker administration in ways she said especially harm communities on the front lines of the climate crisis.

Dr. Brita Lundberg, board chair of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, said air pollution from wood-burning power plants leads to negative health outcomes for folks in neighboring communities - from heart disease, stroke and respiratory issues to lung cancer and pneumonia - and increases Medicare costs. She said asking taxpayers to subsidize the pollution of their own communities, or communities in neighboring states, is wrong.

"Air pollution kills more than 10,000 people in the U.S.; 600 people here in Massachusetts just last year," Lundberg reported. "And a disproportionate number of those come from low-income and minority communities."

Lundberg added policy supporting the financing of wood-burning plants does not align with the Commonwealth's commitment to net-zero carbon emissions in Massachusetts and will worsen the climate crisis. She hopes today's hearing will lead to swift passage of the bill, and urged the governor to show leadership on the issue by signing it, if it comes to his desk.

Some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Nick Begich, R-Alaska, are considering repealing the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy incentives. Supporters of the measure say cuts would threaten jobs in Alaska. The efforts come as Alaska's liquid natural gas supplies will not be enough to meet demand in the state. That means the state may have to begin importing gas causing prices to rise.

Jennifer Hyde, federal infrastructure coordinator at the Alaska Center, hoped clean energy projects could begin benefitting the state before the crisis takes hold.

"We're hoping that communities can seize on IRA funds in order to actualize on solar projects, on wind projects, on hydro projects, on a number of other alternatives before this crisis happens," she explained.

Begich and other Republicans signed a letter arguing that the clean energy subsidies in the IRA will undermine America's energy dominance - and inflate energy costs. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has supported the clean energy incentives.

Anchorage business owner Ben Kellie is concerned about the impacts of the possible repeal of clean energy incentives on Alaska's economy, and said the incentives can mean major savings for Alaska families.

"This isn't just saving a few cents off of a bill. A lot of these projects are in communities where people are paying over a thousand dollars to heat and light small homes off the road system," Kellie said. "This is real money that not only stays in the community and circulates, but helps families make ends meet through cold winters."

In 2023, about a quarter of all Alaska energy came from renewable sources.

A bill before Indiana legislators that would have prevented city officials from requesting energy information from large commercial buildings failed in this year's legislative session.

One nonprofit believes if Senate Bill 197/House Bill 1389 had become law, Hoosiers would have faced higher utility bills. The Thriving Buildings Program relies on utility usage data gathered between 2021 and 2025 to help lower utility bills.

Paula Brooks, justice director for the nonprofit Hoosier Environmental Council, said conversations between community stakeholders, public officials and residents about building environments are key to the program's success.

"It gave building owners the opportunity to benchmark -- which is, make comparisons of their energy and water usage -- to be able to identify ways to save money on utility costs and most importantly, improve the air quality, reduce carbon emissions," she explained.

A building environment consists of building and construction materials and is a major contributor to global gas emissions. With the program's collected data, it is predicted that public health savings in Indianapolis could reach $77 million by 2030. Indianapolis is responsible for 66% of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions.

Brooks applauds the Thriving Buildings Program because residents feel their voices are being heard as their communities develop. But these voices also oppose President Donald Trump's recent executive orders to build more coal plants to boost electricity generation, and to ensure the EPA is assisting in promoting America's energy security.

Brooks believes there is another alternative to using coal as a power source.

"Renewables is not only the future, but it's happening now. This distribution model that we have now, where the energy companies hold all the power, it's only about 75 years old," she continued.

Renewable energy creates opportunities to look at new energy delivery models or "energy democracy," with solar for microgrids. So, rather than having a huge power plant somewhere, she noted, the electricity could be in a community and owned by the community, while contributing to the electric generation for industrial use.


get more stories like this via email

A new report from the Ohio River Valley Institute argued the oil and gas industry, not taxpayers, should cover the cost of plugging up hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil wells across Appalachia.

Plugging wells in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia could cost nearly $40 billion, with most of the burden coming from shale wells.

Dwayne Purvis, founder and principal consultant at Purvis Energy Advisors in Fort Worth, Texas, and co-author of the report, said he analyzed the Ohio River Valley along with other states, finding old shale wells are often unable to fund their own decommissioning.

"Of course, there are some shale wells are getting older and depleting, producing at slower rates, and even some that are shut in or marginal," Purvis explained. "What we did in this study that was new for the first time, was to offer ideas on how financial assurance reform can address this disparity."

Purvis pointed out there are currently more than 265,000 unplugged non-shale wells across the three states too, many of which also pose environmental risks. He added hundreds of thousands more were plugged decades ago but often to outdated standards, meaning they may still leak.

Purvis noted the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law jump-started efforts to plug oil wells but the funding was never meant to be permanent. He contended operators should pay for decommissioning the wells but acknowledged many cannot afford to do it.

"The next best option is what we've offered, that it needs to come from, the money for decommissioning, needs to come from other companies in the oil and gas business, who do have the income necessary to cover the liabilities of the industry as a whole in order to protect the public," Purvis outlined.

According to the report in the three states studied, Purvis' proposal would directly increase oil and gas employment by an estimated 32% and create more than 19,000 new jobs.


get more stories like this via email