Hey there, Massachusetts! I want to clear up some confusion about a provision in the climate bill currently on Gov. Baker's desk. The bill DOES NOT put a 5-yr moratorium on wood-burning biomass facilities like the one proposed in Springfield.

(1/8) #mapoli #NextGenRoadmap

(2/8) And it DOES NOT affect the proposed rule changes from the Department of Energy Resources to allow certain biomass facilitates to get lucrative renewable energy subsidies.

Background on Springfield plant & proposed rule changes https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2020/12/22/biomass-palmer-springfield-asthma-rps-change

(3/8) What this bill DOES do is affect how municipal light plants (the 14% of the market not covered by big utilities like Eversource and National Grid) can source energy from biomass facilities and count it toward their renewable energy goals.

(4/8) In the house bill that passed in Aug, a "muni" could count biomass as renewable -- it was on a list right along with solar and wind.

...And then the public revolted, peppering the legislature with calls to take biomass off the list.

(5/8) In the final version of the bill, the authors struck a sort of compromise: for the next five years, munis can't count biomass as renewable (this is the "moratorium") and meanwhile, the state needs to do a new study about the climate and public health impacts of biomass.

(6/8) I've seen a lot of people saying things about how the bill kills the Springfield plant, and that's just not true. There are a bunch of munis that have contracts with it, and there's nothing in the bill that nullifies them. They just can't count it as renewable.

(7/8) ***Side note: if you run a muni and feel duped or angry or have any reaction whatsoever, my DMs are open and I want to hear from you

(8/8) In short:
-The confusion stems from a poorly worded press release
-It's unclear how this bill will impact the future of the Springfield plant
-The DOER changes are still poised to take effect any day now
-And let's hope the state takes the health/climate study seriously