Conservation groups are encouraging people to speak out at a virtual hearing tomorrow on two proposed wood pellet plants. They would be among the largest in the country.

A company called Golden State Natural Resources -- made up of county supervisors from rural counties -- said it wants to reduce the fuel load in national forests by removing what they call "excess biomass."

Laura Haight, U.S. policy director for the nonprofit Partnership for Policy Integrity, said forest thinning does not protect nearby homes and added dead or burned trees should be left in place because they sequester carbon.

"They're claiming this is to help restore forests and make them more resilient," Haight explained. "But in fact, it's logging them sending it overseas where it's burned in the power plant. So, I mean you're actually accelerating climate change because you're accelerating the movement of carbon from these trees into the atmosphere."

The pellets would be shipped from the Port of Stockton. The company previously wanted to use the Port of Richmond as well, but dropped the plan in the face of community opposition. Haight pointed out wood pellet storage piles spew methane and dust, and have been known to spontaneously combust, causing huge fires, which can take months to extinguish.

Shaye Wolf, director of climate science at the Center for Biological Diversity in Oakland, said wood pellet plants in places like North Carolina have led to clear-cut logging and ecological disaster.

"The wood pellet industry has really devastated communities, the climate, and forests in the southeastern United States," Wolf asserted. "We cannot let it get a foothold here in California."

The hearing, via the Golden State Natural Resources website, is a forum for public comment on the scope of the upcoming environmental impact review. Opponents are asking the various permitting agencies to reject the projects.

Local officials concerned about climate change are speaking out, urging the Environmental Protection Agency to finalize its proposed clean-car standards.

The agency aims to ensure 67% of new light-duty vehicles and 25% of new heavy-duty trucks sold in the U.S. are electric by 2032.

New York Rep. Angelo Santabarbara, D-Schenectady, said the clean-car standards are crucial to achieving our climate goals.

"The standards represent a pivotal step towards accelerating the transition to electric vehicles," Santabarbara emphasized. "They are essential to stabilizing our climate and safeguarding public health."

Transportation is responsible for 27% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., more than any other sector. Vehicle emission pollution is believed to lead to up to 200,000 premature deaths per year nationwide.

Opponents of the clean-car standards said they could add to the cost of vehicles. Supporters countered EVs save consumers big bucks at the gas pump.

Alex Walker-Griffin, mayor of the Bay Area town of Hercules, applauded California's commitment to ban the sale of cars with combustion engines by 2035, and its incentives making electric vehicles more affordable.

"We have to keep equity and working-class folks in mind by establishing more tax credits to make sure that these electric vehicles are available," Walker-Griffin urged. "So that when we make this transition, we're not leaving out the Black and brown communities that have historically been impacted by some of these decisions."

New Mexico Rep. Debbie Sariñana, D-Albuquerque, said the science on climate change is real, and urgent.

"Greenhouse-gas emissions are having a devastating impact on the environment and ecosystem we depend on," Sariñana stressed. "We see effects worldwide. Longer, hotter summer temperatures, forest fires of record size, and number of devastating homes, businesses and land across our state."

Advocates argued the transition to clean cars will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They also asserted drought, floods and extreme heat fueled by climate change are causing instability across the world, and thus constitute a threat to our national security.

A proposed bill aims to have solar panels placed on the roofs of all public buildings in New York City.

The bill's goal is 100 megawatts of solar on city-owned buildings by 2025. It also expands a target of getting 150 megawatts into private buildings by 2030. Because the bill is still relatively new, there has not been much opposition to it.

Lenore Friedlaender, executive director of Climate Jobs New York, described some of the opportunities this bill creates.

"If the city retains ownership, it can pay for itself in 20 years," Friedlaender explained. "And not only reduce energy costs but also generate some income because electricity generated over what is needed in the schools can be sold back."

Several proposals are pushing new requirements to aid New York in reaching its 2025 solar energy goals and 2030 renewable goals.

Friedlaender noted the bill strengthens legislation such as Local Law 97, which enforces new energy-efficiency and greenhouse-gas emissions limits by 2024. Stricter limits would take effect six years later in 2030.

In addition to the benefits for climate goals, the new bill creates a series of new jobs in the state's green economy. A report from the New York State Comptroller's Office finds close to 85% of green jobs were in increased demand.

Emanuel Yllescas, member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 3, said the bill provides a boost to construction jobs.

"The jobs it will provide in the city are going to be jobs in photovoltaic solar energy, which is the solar panels, wind energy, geothermal energy and hydro energy," Yllescas outlined.

A 2021 study by New York's Just Transition Working Group found New York City might add around 45,000 green jobs by the end of the decade.


get more stories like this via email

A new report ranks Illinois first among 11 Midwestern states for the amount of clean power capacity under construction, and second for new clean power capacity.

The American Clean Energy Association said wind, solar, and energy storage plants currently provide almost 14% of the electricity produced in Illinois, potentially powering more than 3 million homes with clean energy.

Jeff Danielson vice president of advocacy for the Illinois Clean Grid Association, said some of the benefits of clean energy end up in consumers' pockets.

"There's both a climate benefit, but there's also an economic benefit," Danielson explained. "When you're adding low-cost energy to the grid, that eventually accrues to folks that are paying the utility bills."

Danielson pointed out clean energy is a leading source of job creation and investment, bringing nearly 17,000 good-paying jobs and $17 billion dollars in capital investments to Illinois. In terms of clean power operating capacity, the report showed Texas and California still lead the way nationally.

According to the report, Illinois added 485 megawatts of clean power to the grid in the first half of this year. Two years ago, Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act.

Danielson stressed it establishes a statewide goal of 100% by 2050 and allows for more renewable energy projects to be built.

"Notably is what's in the pipeline, otherwise known as clean power capacity under construction," Danielson emphasized. "I think CEJA had a clear role in creating those greater incentives to bring projects online in Illinois."

Danielson said clean power also provides extra income to farmers, ranchers and other private landowners through $58 million a year in lease payments. He said groups like the Clean Grid Alliance work to match investors with green projects and facilitate renewable energy growth.

"Clean Grid Alliance is a nonprofit focused on utility-scale wind, solar, battery-storage projects, and all things to do with the grid, which ties it all together," Danielson added.