From: Brad Lofton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Michael Noll, “Mary B. Gooding”, Allan Ricketts <email@example.com>, Roy Copeland, “John S. Quarterman, “Susan R. Wehling”, Kay Harris
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:51:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Wiregrass Power, LLC
Good morning Dr. Noll-
Thanks for your e-mail. With all due respect, however, your memory doesn’t serve you correctly, and I would ask you to please review your notes again. The environmental consultant from Golder referred extensively to a seven month environmental analysis performed by the EPD in our state. I’m confused why a seven month study performed by the impartial environmental and regulatory group empowered to provide governance and decisions related to this project isn’t a sufficient enough environmental study for you. During the forum, Golder and Associates, a world renown environmental engineering firm, also went on to provide results of their extensive air modeling study. The fuel supply expert presented the results of a detailed study his firm had just completed that showed 13 times the required regional wood waste fuel needed for this plant. This was his firm’s 20th study across the country, and they are considered experts. The Ph.D economist cited an extensive study his firm had just completed successfully defending a similar biomass facility before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. The Toxicologist has over 27 years of experience and is a leading expert at a major U.S. University. If you would read his CV,
you would notice nearly 30 pps of publications. I believe his testimony speaks for itself.
We will also stand on the EPA’s (and USDA’s) recent announcement promoting biomass as a tool to reduce GHGs. Certainly, you wouldn’t expect the federal EPA to make a statement of that magnitude arbitrarily would you? We can also provide you a link to the GA Tech/Duke University researcher’s press release this week summarizing their extensive study into the positive economic impact of biomass on the ratepayers in the Southeast U.S. ($23 billion per year of savings by 2030).
WACE, on the other hand, has quoted a Manomet Conservancy study (‘Biomass is Dirtier Than Coal’) that has been publicly revoked by their own President (please visit www.Manomet.org), and the American Lung Association’s letter which very clearly lays out three requested action items that our plant not only meets, but exceeds. The letter from the ALA actually strengthens our case, and we have been able to very effectively use the letter publicly to demonstrate the enormous effort the company has gone to in order to ensure safety and zero health impacts (as you recall, Dr. Teaf testified that the plant will actually improve the air quality and fortunately contribute to the elimination of open air burning which is indeed a major health threat to our region). Instead of challenging the numerous studies and the very large amount of support we enjoy, I would respectfully suggest working a little harder to substantiate your own position first. After three years of providing information, hosting forums, and answering the concerns of the community, we plan to move on now and focus our attention on new job and tax revenue creating projects. We look forward to working with you and WACE in that endeavor.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone