Biomass producer Enviva's recent bankruptcy filing is being considered a sign of the industry's volatility.

Recent financial challenges have hampered the world's largest biomass producer but some feel it has been a long time coming. Studies show biomass companies rely heavily on government subsidies stemming from biomass' status in some states and countries as a clean renewable resource.

Heather Hillaker, senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said it is not the case.

"The use of the wood pellets to generate energy emits a large quantity of carbon dioxide but it is assumed to be carbon-neutral because at some point the trees will regrow and they will reabsorb the carbon that's emitted," Hillaker explained. "What that fails to consider is the time lag, the carbon debt period, as it's referred to."

A 2023 study finds biomass facility emissions are almost three times higher than other fossil-fuel energies. While Enviva has been allowed to restructure, Hillaker noted it could have ripple effects for the biomass industry.

Despite its challenges, biomass remains one of many energy sources in Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's All of the Above Energy Plan. Amendments have been approved to keep biomass plants open as the state works toward its 2050 carbon-neutral goals.

Along with environmental impacts, biomass can be detrimental to human health. The World Health Organization found indoor air pollution from biomass is a top risk for the global burden of disease.

Hillaker pointed out biomass facilities create large amounts of fugitive dust in often overburdened environmental justice communities.

"Fugitive dust is really just particulate matter," Hillaker said. "But it's particulate matter that doesn't come out of a stack, really. It kind of wafts off of the facility. Oftentimes for wood pellet mills, it's woody debris coming off the facility in the breeze or in the wind."

She added the dust keeps people from being able to open their windows or having large dust accumulations gather in air filters. People living in close range of biomass facilities could face health effects such as asthma or cardiovascular disease.


get more stories like this via email

With President Joe Biden in Baltimore today to talk about infrastructure and the climate crisis, the state is in the process of finalizing a new set of energy-use goals for large buildings.

Estimates indicate Maryland's buildings account for around a third of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. To reach goals set under the 2022 Climate Solutions Now Act, the Maryland Department of the Environment has developed energy performance standards for buildings 35,000 square feet and larger.

Veronique Bugnion, CEO of the Maryland-based consulting firm ClearlyEnergy, said performance standards are needed to help cities and states reach climate goals.

"Codes and code improvements are great but there's only so many new buildings being built, and there's an awful lot of existing building stock," Bugnion pointed out. "To tackle the emissions of the existing buildings, new tools were required and that's where building performance standards came from."

There are around 9,000 affected buildings across the state.

Starting next year, building owners will begin reporting energy use to the Maryland Department of the Environment. In 2030 buildings will have to begin meeting interim standards with net-zero emissions set to be required in 2040. Exemptions are available for historic buildings and schools among others.

Bugnion noted one of the virtues of performance standards is allowing flexibility for building owners.

"It really doesn't tell them what to do, it tells them what standard to meet and the standards gradually get more stringent over time," Bugnion explained. "So the first couple years, the expectation is buildings will find ways to do some of the obvious things. But over time, the writing is on the wall that as systems age out, they're going to need to replace them with much more efficient systems."

The department anticipates building owners will eventually convert existing heating and cooling systems to high efficiency electric options such as heat pumps. The energy use data reported next year will be used to calculate Energy Use Intensity Standards which are set to be adopted in 2027.


get more stories like this via email

A new report grades utilities based on their commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

The Sierra Club has graded utilities on their climate pledges since 2021 in its Dirty Truth report.

It finds marginal improvements nationwide, with utilities only committed to retiring 30% of their coal generation by 2030.

Director of the Sierra Club Idaho chapter Lisa Young said one troubling trend is that some utilities claiming to clean up their power generation are simply switching from coal to natural gas.

"Knowing that our ultimate goal and what we need to be doing to address the climate crisis is not replacing one fossil fuel with another," said Young, "but replacing fossil fuels with 100% clean, renewable energy."

The report graded two utilities in Idaho, giving Idaho Power a 'C' grade and PacifiCorp a 'B' grade.

While it operates in fewer parts of Idaho, PacifiCorp serves a large swath of the West - including parts of California, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Idaho Power and PacifiCorp own a coal-fired power plant in Wyoming, with PacifiCorp in control of two-thirds of the plant.

Young said the utilities planned to convert the plant to gas power, which would have had some slight benefits in the long run.

But PacifiCorp changed its mind this year and said it would continue using coal, deciding to install carbon capture technology instead.

"That's why Idaho Power gets a bad score in this report, because PacifiCorp - the co-owner - is making these poor decisions about continuing to burn coal past 2030," said Young, "and it's impacting Idaho Power and all of us as the customers and everyone in the region."

Young said Idaho Power should push PacifiCorp away from coal.

"Even though it's not the majority owner and this other utility, PacifiCorp, has most of the final say in what's going to happen with that coal plant," said Young, "Idaho Power does have an opportunity here and a point of leverage to really try to shut that coal plant down, and to stop burning coal at that plant."

She also noted that Idaho Power should not put any barriers in the way of rooftop solar so that households can also be part of the renewable energy change.

Southwestern Pennsylvania is a major U.S. hotspot for gas extraction through fracking, but new polling reveals overwhelming public support for tighter industry oversight.

More than four in ten Pennsylvanians told pollsters they'd support an outright ban on fracking.

Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, said the poll was conducted to assess voters' attitudes toward the fracking industry.

Multiple questions were asked about what could be done to minimize or reduce some of the impacts of fracking.

"And what we found was that, across the board, across a variety of different measures," said O'Leary, "more than 90% of all Pennsylvanians supported increased efforts in those regards."

O'Leary points to a recent University of Pittsburgh study that found significant health risks associated with living near fracking sites.

The poll shows 86% of Pennsylvanians are broadly concerned about water, and 82% about air pollution.

Nearly eight in ten say they worry about the effects of pollution on their family's and community's health. And more than four in ten believe fracking has negative effects on air and water quality.

O'Leary said voters in Pennsylvania are still generally supportive of the natural gas industry.

But he said he believes that's the result of what he called "a widespread misunderstanding" that fracking is vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

He contended fracking has led to a net loss of jobs and population in some counties, causing significant economic loss to these regions.

"The other thing that I think a lot of people are not aware of is that in Pennsylvania, in just the last four years, the fracking industry has laid off 40% of its workforce," said O'Leary. "Four out of every 10 workers in fracking have lost their jobs."

He said early industry-funded studies predicted fracking would create around 250,000 jobs in Pennsylvania.

But recent data show it's been fewer than 20,000, or less than one-percent of the state's total workforce.