Project Update: Turning Up the Heat in Ada County

Problems continue to arise for Dynamis Energy as its efforts to push forward with plans for a $70 million gasification facility on the site of the Ada County landfill near Boise, Idaho begin to look more like a daytime drama than a serious discussion.

A newly-formed organization called the Idaho Citizens for a Safe Environment and a Transparent Government sent a formal letter on Monday to Dynamis listing 20 questions it would like to have addressed in the presentation to the Hidden Springs Town Association on June 21^st. Drafted by the Law Office of Andrew T. Schoppe, the questions cover the gamut of issues ranging from the RFP timeline to traffic patterns and intellectual property rights.

Local government officials debate over Dynamis Energy's
proposed project. (KSAW-TV). 

While many of the questions are valid, the tactic of peppering an opponent with questions to put him on the defensive is one taken straight from the pages of the Sierra Club playbook. The lengthy list of questions, some of which have already been answered by Commissioner Sharon Ullman, creates perceptional damage and steals focus away from the main issues.

This effective strategy puts Dynamis between a rock and a hard place. Opponents ask for confidential data knowing it won’t be released but hoping it will make the company look as if its hiding something. The waste-to-energy company hasn’t been the only victim of these attacks: outgoing Commissioner Ullman lost last month’s election amid accusations that resulted because of her support of the project.

But before you pull out the Kleenex for Dynamis, realize that the company has brought some of this on itself. While most projects that use the first commercial installation of a technology face opposition from activists, Dynamis’s disregard for the thoughts and feelings of the surrounding community make it an easy target.  Little has been done by the company to educate the general population on the project and the technology, giving its opponents a chance to swoop in with altered facts and misinformation. Top executives have had brusque encounters with the community at public hearings, almost inviting people to vilify them.

While Dynamis is correct that it’s the government officials and environmental agencies like the DEQ that will ultimately decide if the project moves forward, its attitude could prove to be its Achilles Heel. We remind you of the project at the University of Montana (see A Tale of Two Cities) and offer the story as a warning to Dynamis of how effective a mob of angry citizens can be.

BETTER BTU: Both sides have behaved so badly we’d like to send them back to kindergarten for a refresher on playing nice. Dynamis better get its act together and make an effort to get the people of Ada County on board. On the other hand, we can’t help but notice the irony of an organization that uses the phrase “transparent government” in its title and creates smoke and mirrors itself to detract from the key issues. 

Further Reading:

Comissioner Sharon Ullman answers some of the questions that were directed to Dynamis in her blog entry, dated Apr. 30: Sharon Ullman's Blog

Idaho DEQ Resumes Review of Permit for Dynamis – Idaho Statesman, June 14, 2012

Other Better BTU Blog Posts on Dynamis: 
Project Update: Local Energy Company Becomes Latest Stumbling Block for Dynamis (July 31, 2012)
Better BTU Project Update: Dynamis Energy (May 14, 2012)
Dynamis Energy:Oh the Places You'll Go (Mar. 29, 2012)

A Tale of Two Cities Part II – Educational Institutions

In January, we looked at renewable energy projects in two different towns, examining how community support (or lack thereof) contributed to the success or failure of each. (See: A Tale of Two Cities). Today, we examine a project similar in nature to the canceled project at the University of Montana but that was able to make it over the finish line.

Colby College Biomass Facility; Source: Colby College.

Colby College is a private liberal arts school in Waterville, Maine. The institution took a large step towards its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2015 when it went on line with its new biomass plant in January. Using approximately 22,000 tons of local wood per year, the facility produces steam to make heat and electricity. By replacing close to 1 million gallons of heating fuel each year, the biomass plant is expected to save the college up to $250,000 each month in the winter.

The college chose a gasification system by Chiptec Wood Energy Systems, out of Vermont. Chiptec has been in business for over 90 years, focusing exclusively on biomass waste-to-energy systems since 1986. From the company website, it looks to us like Chiptec uses a partial oxidation technology. Colby is the fourth institution of higher learning to use Chiptec technology for a biomass plant.

Feedstock is supplied by Cousineau Forest Products, bringing wood chips, bark and treetops from a radius of 50 miles to the campus and storing excess in an underground storage bin. The project was made possible by a grant from Efficiency Maine as part of the Competitive Grants for Large Greenhouse Gas Reduction Projects.

So why did the project at the University of Montana fail while the Colby College plant succeeded? Both included gasification systems that would run on woody feedstock and both were situated on college campuses in states that are generally considered environmentally conscious. The answer lies in part, in consideration of what the biomass plant was replacing.

Colby College’s biomass facility allowed it to reduce its oil consumption by almost 90 percent. On the other hand, Missoula’s power was coming from natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper than oil. The Montana project was ultimately canceled as a result of “deteriorating discourse,” from members of the community who were concerned about the emissions. No one was going to argue in favor of keeping a system that relied on oil in Waterville.

Better BTU Take: The moral of the story is go after coal or oil, not the natural gas. Farther down the road, we’d like to see all facilities operating from renewable energy, but right now, let’s approach projects that already have existing infrastructures (as these two did) and replace the most harmful (and expensive) fuels first.

For More Information on Colby College’s Biomass Plant:

Maine College Has Biomass Plant for Heat, Energy – Associated Press, Jan. 18, 2012

Maine College Fires Up Biomass Plant – Biomass Magazine, Jan. 27, 2012

Biomass Expansion Information Sheet – Colby College

Chiptec Wood Energy Systems

Project Update: Taylor Biomass Moves Forward in Montgomery

More than 16 months after beginning initial construction on a 21 MW gasification facility in Montgomery, N.Y., Taylor Biomass Energy has finally received all the necessary approvals from the town board to move forward with its project.

Better BTU first brought you the story on Taylor’s struggle to build a waste-to-energy facility next to his recycling plant in December (See: Taylor Made). Like many proposed WTE projects, its hit its fair share of obstacles, ranging from the possibility of losing a $100 million U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantee due to federal cutbacks to securing feedstock. Taylor Biomass also had to appeal a Supreme Court judge’s decision to invalidate the project permits, a battle the company won late in 2011.

“There have been many steps to bring us to this point,” CEO Jim Taylor Jr. said. “I’m grateful to the town of Montgomery for helping us bring this project online in our own hometown.”

The new plant will be located next to the current Taylor Recycling Facility, expanding its capability to accept wood waste, construction and demolition debris and MSW. Taylor Biomass uses sand to indirectly heat and gasify waste through a process developed by Mark Paisley, the company’s chief technology officer.

Taylor Biomass signed its initial feedstock agreement with the city of Newburgh, approximately 15 miles from the Montgomery facility. Since then, the company has approached 41 municipalities, most recently presenting to the Port Jervis council on May 17^th.

Vice President for Business Development James Rollins estimates the company can save Port Jervis approximately 20 percent of the annual costs of waste disposal, translating to roughly $40,000.

Better BTU Take: Pushing a project through isn’t easy at this point of development in the industry. Taylor Biomass shows that persistence pays off and we hope this is the final hurdle for the company. We know that it isn’t over until the turbine starts spinning so we will keep our eye on it.

For Further Reading:

Waste Firm Makes Pitch to Port's Common Council – The Gazette, May 18, 2012

Taylor Biomass Gets Final Approval – Biomass Magazine, May 14, 2012