GRU’s IRP presentation misrepresents biomass CO2 emissions

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Gainesville Regional Utilities is holding community engagement meetings on the development of its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which is an assessment of future electric needs and the plan to meet those needs; the first meeting was held on May 9.

A presentation given at the meeting includes a slide (page 11) titled, “GRU Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions,” showing that CO2 emissions decreased sharply when the biomass plant (Deerhaven Renewables or DHR) came online. The chart claims a 55% reduction in CO2 since 2000 and credits the drop in 2013 to the operation of the biomass plant.

However, a report that was created in January 2022, similar to other monthly reports produced during the tenure of former GRU General Manager Ed Bielarski, shows different data for 2018, 2019, and 2020 (see page 26).

Specifically, the IRP presentation states that GRU produced about 1.2 million tons of CO2 in 2018, while the 2022 report says the amount was almost 2.1 million; the IRP presentation lists about 1.1 million tons for 2019, while the 2022 report lists 2 million tons; the IRP presentation lists a little over 1 million tons in 2020, while the 2022 report lists 1.5 million tons.

The 2022 report shows that GRU’s fossil fuel plants, as a whole, produce 0.72 tons of CO2 per MW-hour and that the biomass plant produces 1.36 tons of CO2 per MW-hour – nearly double the emissions of the fossil fuel plants.

After Bielarski was fired, beginning with the January 2022 report that was on the consent agenda of the March 17, 2022, City Commission meeting, GRU stopped reporting emissions data for the biomass plant, stating that “DHR CO2 is not included in the YTD since DHR is carbon neutral.”

Alachua Chronicle tried to determine the basis for the claim that “DHR is carbon neutral” in April 2022 and asked for any studies GRU relied on to declare the plant “carbon neutral” as well as an estimate of the carbon payback period for the biomass plant. GRU’s response to the question about studies was, “GRU has no records responsive to this request,” and their response to the question about the carbon payback period was, “Please provide a specific record that you are requesting.”

GRU has in the past stated that biomass can be considered carbon-neutral because the federal Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to Congress supporting that view in 2018, “provided the use of forest biomass does not cause conversion of forests to non-forest use.” The U.S. Energy Information Administration adds, “the plants that are the source of biomass for energy capture almost the same amount of CO₂ through photosynthesis while growing as is released when biomass is burned.”

A Scientific American article published in 2018 questions the conclusion that biomass plants are carbon-neutral. In the article, William Schlesinger, a biogeochemist and former president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, says, “Recent evidence shows that the use of wood as fuel is likely to result in net CO2 emissions.” Beverly Law, an expert in forest science and management from Oregon State University, says, “We call it ‘slow in,’ as in it takes a long time for the carbon to accumulate in the forest, and ‘fast out’—you’re burning it so it goes into the atmosphere rapidly.”

The emissions data previously reported by GRU do not take into account emissions from the many trucks that deliver wood to the plant every day; a 2019 video demonstrates the large number of trucks that deliver wood to the plant.

We asked GRU to explain the difference between the data shown in the IRP presentation and the data in the 2022 report; David Warm, GRU’s Communications Director, responded, “The chart on the IRP presentation is measuring fossil fuel CO₂ only, so Deerhaven Renewable Generating Station (DHR) isn’t included in that analysis. The old report from the Utility Advisory Board presentation includes emissions from DHR. You can see on page EP4 of the UAB report [shown below] that the numbers with and without DHR correspond to the two graphs. Thanks for pointing this out. We’re going to make it more clear on the IRP slide moving forward.” Warm did not explain why DHR’s emissions were omitted from the chart.

Ed Bielarski sent us the following statement, “Pretending that DHR doesn’t produce CO2 emissions is disrespectful of the public’s right to know. Informational and data gymnastics are not in keeping with the mission of a municipally owned utility. However, it is yet another reason Rep. Clemons found it necessary to sponsor his bill, which is awaiting the signature of the governor.”