The energy center debate

Yes, there is a debate to be had, as evidenced by the two letters on the next page.

The Northwest Florida Renewable Energy Center proposed for Port St. Joe has attracted mixed reaction among residents of the community.

In significant part due to arguments on both sides of the debate that are mind-numbingly technical and difficult to sort through amidst the rhetoric.

Certainly, a citizens group has some questions and concerns and it is to the credit of the Gulf Citizens for Clean and Renewable Energy that they are willing to stand up and voice them.

We need more of that in our representative democracy – emphasis on representative.

The group has not attracted a large following to their two public “informational” meetings – and eliminating those who are not residents of the county would reduce that number.

But the attendance for a weekday night meeting is hardly representative of the discussion this project is generating county-wide.

What is clear is that biomass technology is at the center of a national debate about moving the country forward on renewable energy.

Debate points includes whether biomass burning is carbon neutral, to what extent it poses a health risk, how much water is used in the process, whether it is sustainable and whether the nation should be expending billions in developing that energy.

Somehow, the Northwest Florida Renewable Energy Center has become something of a front line in that national battle.

That is highlighted by appearances of lobbyists in that debate at the local public meetings.

The individuals may have identified themselves with varying adjectives, but they are lobbyists representing industries seeking the same billions in federal dollars they bemoan being offered biomass projects.

And they often came across as condescending – in the way a parent is to a 16-year-old child wishing to drive their first car – and shrill in their opposition to biomass.

This while providing little in the way of specifics about this particular project.

As one champion of the plant noted, if cleaning the region’s air is the goal, then folks in the north end of the county are geographically closer to the Bay County Smurfit-Stone and Arizona Chemical plants and the toxins those facilities – not to mention the Bay County incinerator – spew into the air.

Go on the Internet and the debate about biomass is played out in sites across the ether. There are too many pages to count, too many arguments across the spectrum to condense into one presentation, one document.

Consider only a much-cited pilot project for the process to be used in Port St. Joe. The project, which took place in Burlington, VT, is the topic of several papers that take wildly differing views of the outcomes of that project.

As compelling as opponents’ arguments may be so too are those offered locally by academia in the form of the University of South Carolina and Auburn University.

Both have undertaken woody biomass research – while opponents note they have stopped the building of more than 200 biomass plants, there are nearly twice the number currently in operation – to varying levels.

USC has a small, much smaller than the plant proposed for Port St. Joe, plant operating on campus, among buildings with classrooms.

Auburn researchers brought down a demonstration model of a process similar to the one to be used in Port St. Joe and explained the depth of research the university is doing in the area of woody biomass.

For every vocal opponent of biomass, there is a vocal proponent.

There are certain realities on the ground, however, when it comes to the Port St. Joe project.

One, the numbers on state air emission standards are the numbers.

While opponents make the argument that regulation has not caught up with, or has ignored, science, the numbers are the numbers. If the plant is permitted for a certain level of emissions and meets those standards, it has played by the rules.

Relief for opponents is a legislative issue.

Sure, arguing that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection stands alone as a paragon of virtue in Tallahassee is a non-starter. It is a bureaucracy. But the agency, through the legislature, provides the rules.

Reality number two is that there is absent from Gulf County the political will to challenge, or deny, the local permitting of the plant. County and Port St. Joe city commissioners have championed the project, done their own research the project and expressed their satisfaction and desire to bring the project here.

Yes, as one opponent has said, that alone is enough to give pause, but officials are also playing by the rules in front of them and there is little desire among any commission to rock this boat.

For the third reality is that this project has JOBS attached to it, maybe not that many, but jobs in a county where hundreds are out of work, on government assistance and in otherwise dire straits. When the local unemployment rate is over 12 percent, there is no way to understate at lure of the word – jobs.

There are broader potential benefits, according to former economic development officials, such as aiding the development of the port or a “green” energy park in partnership with Florida’s Great Northwest and The St. Joe Company, but with the county’s economic development structure in upheaval, again, the payoff on that potential is unclear.

The fourth reality is two-pronged: the plant, provided financing falls into place, is likely rising from the ground come fall; and county and Port St. Joe commissioners would be foolhardy not to address valid concerns when it comes to the local agreements and permits required to make this project reality.