Public Comment – Humboldt Sawmill Company Renewable Energy Credits — Redwood Coast Energy Authority Board of Directors, August 24, 2023

PUBLIC COMMENT
RCEA Board of Directors
August 24, 2023
Regular Mee�ng

8.2 – Por�olio Content Category 3
Renewable Energy Cer�ficate Purchase
from Humboldt Sawmill Company
From: Sue Parsons
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 8.2
Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 9:23:27 AM
Dear RCEA:

Re: Agenda Item 8.2, please act now to facilitate Humboldt’s sawmill’s transition to cleaner uses for its waste. Not to do so means that you are choosing to reward the sawmill’s bad behavior and to ignore planet-warming. The biomass plant repeatedly violates the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Please act to stop that now.

RCEA's REC money should go to climate solutions and not to worsening the climate crisis.

Thank you,
Susan Parsons
Bayside, CA 95524
--
"A book, too, can be a star, explosive material capable of stirring up fresh life endlessly, a living fire to brighten the darkness, leading out into the expanding universe." - Madeleine L'Engle From: David Klass
To: Public Comment
Subject: Humboldt Sawmill
Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 10:25:18 PM
To Whom It May Concern:

I was stunned to find out that RCEA now proposes to give Humboldt Sawmill’s biomass plant in Scotia more money. The plant won’t produce more electricity in return. It is just receiving “credit” for the power it already generates for its own needs. “Renewable Energy Certificates” sold to RCEA represent this credit.

Please do NOT buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company. That money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, battery storage, and geothermal.

The biomass plant repeatedly violates the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, emitting more carbon than coal, fanning the flames of climate crisis. Supporting incinerated biomass electricity means less support for real solutions. And Humboldt Sawmill will never develop alternative ways of dealing with its woody waste as long as RCEA keeps supplying it with dollars.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

From: Naomi Klass
To: Public Comment
Subject: Humboldt Sawmill
Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 10:24:41 PM
To Whom It May Concern:

Please do NOT buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company. That money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, battery storage, and geothermal.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Naomi Klass
From: Lori Taketa
To: Lori Taketa
Subject: RE: Agenda item 8.2
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 5:47:59 PM
From: Wendy Ring
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 11:38 AM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda item 8.2
I strongly oppose the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill's biomass plant. Diverting resources from clean energy to reward a source of global heating is a hell of a way to celebrate the hottest summer in recorded history. HSC's biomass plant emits close to 300,000 metric tons of CO2e a year. It takes decades we don't have for tree regrowth to remove one year's worth of CO2 from the atmosphere, and hundreds to thousands of years for the heating of oceans, glaciers, and permafrost it caused in the meantime to cool.

Humboldt Sawmill is a habitual polluter with multiple violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. If lying about its 700+ violations to get the contract was strike one, and the 12 air violations while under contract were strike 2, then the more than 37 water violations for polluting the Eel River should be more than enough for this company to strike out. There were so many water violations this past May that the inspector just gave examples for each of the 20 different sections of the permit that were violated, because there were too many to enumerate. Not all the violations belonged to the biomass side of the operation, but many had to do with piles of bottom ash left where they would leach into stormwater.

More air violations are coming, according to Brian Wilson at NCUAQMD, as a result of my findings from reviewing six years of air district documents pertaining to the plant. The air district also recently rejected Humboldt Sawmill's craven plan to underestimate its toxic emissions to avoid a community health risk assessment and any subsequent requirements to reduce emissions. These are not the actions of a company that cares about the community.

The argument will be made “if we don't buy them, someone else will.” We learned in grade school that “everyone else is doing it” is not sufficient justification for wrongdoing. For everyone to stop buying dirty energy, someone has to go first, and I'd like to think we have the morals and common sense to do that. Price will also be presented as a reason. We all know that buying crappy stuff because it's cheap doesn't pay in the long run, especially when it causes harm instead of just falling apart (think cheap e-bikes with exploding batteries). Price considerations must also include the price society pays for externalized costs. The EPA's proposed Social Cost of Carbon is $190 per ton, or around $57 million for each year of HSC's emissions. That dwarfs EPA's estimate of health costs from HSC's particulates at $3-7 million a year. Both of these costs should be factored in before deciding clean RECs are more expensive.

The HSC biomass plant burns mill waste, which would not otherwise be open burned or dumped in landfills because both of those actions are illegal. There is no data, evidence, or even an unequivocal statement from HSC that the plant burns significant amounts of wood thinned from fuel overloaded forests. This is unlikely given that the amount of fuel they burn has not substantially increased from years when they were less coy about their fuel sources and said it was all mill waste. Supporting HSC's biomass plant does not aid forest or human health. It just encourages HSC to put off investing in alternatives like a gasification plant that would pollute less and create products like hydrogen which displace

Humboldt Coalition for Clean Energy
350 Humboldt
Humboldt Unitarian Climate Action Campaign
EPIC
Northcoast Environmental Center
Women's Intl League for Peace and Freedom-Humboldt
Humboldt Health Care for All
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
HOPE Coalition
Redwood Alliance
Lost Coast League
Sierra Club Redwoods North Group
Friends of the Eel River
Humboldt Green Party
Humboldt Democratic Central Committee
Humboldt Progressive Democrats
Climate Health Now
CA Alliance for Retired Americans-North State
CA Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice

Humboldt Redwood Company &
Humboldt Sawmill Company Scotia, CA
On average in the US, 51% of a redwood sawlog ends up as waste

INCINERATING
MILL WASTE is
Not cool.

Not clean.

Not just.

Not necessary.
from CPUC 2018

NOT COOL
Now 50% less efficient than in 1980s
Scotia Biomass

2.27 MT CO2e/MWh
299,000 metric tons of
CO2e/year
75% of emissions from
Humboldt's passenger
vehicles
PGE + max upstream

0.77 MT CO2e/MWh
Wheelabrator in Anderson

1.71 MT CO2e/MWh
HSC biomass emits >800 tons of CO2 every day.

Absorbing by regrowth takes decades.

Warming starts right away.

Climate Emergency Now
July 2023 Hottest month ever
Nearly 5,000 US heat and rainfall records broken

NOAA

NEXT DECADE: 6 GLOBAL TIPPING POINTS
McKay et al. SCIENCE 9 Sep 2022 Vol 377, Issue 6611
National Resource Defense Council:

Burning forest biomass cannot reduce emissions compared with fossil fuels within timeframes relevant to averting the worst dangers of climate change.

Center for Biological Diversity:

Biomass could be a significant factor ... in pushing us past the point of no return.

California Sierra Club
Conventional biomass incineration is an irresponsible means of generating electricity.

NOT CLEAN.

LEGAL POLLUTION Biomass emits as much pollution as coal.

CLEAN AIR ACT
Not health based.

Average of the “cleanest” 12%

BIOMASS COAL
PM lb/mmbtu .034 .039
CO ppm 1100 150
(proxy for air toxics )

Annual Tons Criteria Pollutants
When Compliant
Particulates 32
SO2 39
VOCs 66
NOx 239
Ammonia 560
Carbon Monoxide 634
-------------------------------
Total
1,570 Tons/year
Health organizations oppose biomass.

Humboldt Del Norte Medical Society
Health impact from Scotia's 2021 pm2.5 emissions

$3-7 million per year
“I stopped reporting. The
guy always made
excuses about "oh the
sun's behind the plume
that's why it seems more
opaque. So I gave up.”
Scotia Resident

ILLEGAL POLLUTION

THE ENFORCER
North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District
Issue permits
Monitor emissions
Ensure compliance with state and federal regulations
Issue Notices of Violation & negotiate settlements
Measure at the Source
Every 1-3 years (depending on prior results)
Continuous Monitoring
Continuous monitoring is most important.

Will Brieger, former attorney for EPA & CARB:
“Anyone can pass a stack test”.

A relationship based on a lie
2015 HRC buys closed plant and restarts it
2016 HRC bid claims 1 air quality violation while
withholding 12 months of monitoring data from Air District 2017
HSC Signed contract claiming “good standing under the Laws” BOILER A 407 violations
Overdue reports from all 3 boilers showed over 700 violations of pollution limits

ONE MONTH AFTER RCEA STAFF ADVISED BOARD TO CONTRACT

WITH HUMBOLDT REDWOOD FOR BIOMASS
2017-2023

VIOLATIONS CONTINUE
12 Clean Air Act violations (cited by air district)
37 Clean Water Act violations

LAX ENFORCEMENT CONTINUES
HSC failed to test opacity monitors for accuracy for years Air District allowed up to 20% opacity when EPA limit is 10%

> 80 Air Toxics from Biomass
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Acrolein
Dioxin
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
Arsenic
EPA, AP-42 1.6 Wood Residue Combustion in Boilers
CA Toxic Hot Spot Program
IS health based.

1. Toxic Emissions Inventory

2. Prioritization Score

3. Assess Health Risk to Community

4. Inform/Reduce or Repeat every 4 years

AT STEP ONE for last 20 years

From 2000 to 2020 the plant's Prioritization Score rose from 79 to 5,999 STILL STUCK AT STEP 1
Still waiting for a plan to do another inventory
7-8 years from Inventory Plan to Risk Reduced
NOT JUST.
3 blocks from plant
Stanwood Murphy Elementary
178 students:
32% non-white,
74% economically disadvantaged
Am. Lung Assoc. 2022

NOT NECESSARY
Compared to PGE gas plant
3x more CO2/MWh
1/3 as much electricity & 10x more pollution
(pounds)
BEST: COMPOSTING

NET CARBON NEGATIVE, PROVEN AT SCALE, LOW COST
Sequesters 4 tons CO2e per acre per year
Increased resilience to drought and erosion
Source: California Air Resource Board

GASIFICATION
produces hydrogen, power, biofuels, & biochar
Much less pollution, same GHG but lower net emissions
if displacing fuels that emit more carbon, like diesel.

C + H2O → H2 + CO and CO + H2O ⇆ CO2 + H2

GASIFICATION
6 woody biomass to H2 plants in CA
Jet fuel & gasoline plants in ME, LA, MS, TX
Petrochemical substitutes

OTHER USES
 Mulch post-fire restoration
 Animal bedding
 Chip exports for paper
 Compressed wood pallets, wood composites
Extended biomass contract till 2031
Violations allow RCEA to terminate early
& get back on track
Redwood Coast Energy Authority
In 2019 promised 100% clean by 2025
Let's keep our renewable energy clean
Pass resolution to terminate the biomass contract

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

NORTH COAST REGION
In the matter of: )
) Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, )

LLC, ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration ) STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF Plant ) ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY
Humboldt County ) ORDER
)
)
Section I: Introduction
This Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Administrative Civil Liability Order (Stipulated Order or Order) is entered into by and between the Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, Prosecution Team (Prosecution Team) and Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC (Discharger) (collectively, Parties) and is presented to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (Regional Water Board), or its delegate, for adoption as an Order by settlement pursuant to California Water Code section 13323 and Government Code section 11415.60. This Stipulated Order resolves the violations alleged herein by the imposition of administrative civil liability (ACL) against the Discharger in the amount of $39,000.

Section II: Recitals

1. The Discharger owns and operates the Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant (Facility) (formerly Eel River Power Plant), located at 157 Main Street, Town of Scotia, in Humboldt County. On April 26, 2012, the Regional Water Board issued Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R1-2012-0065 (Permit) to the Town of Scotia Company, LLC and Eel River Power, LLC to regulate the Facility, which became effective on July 1, 2012. The Permit requires compliance with effluent limitations for discharges to Eel River and its tributaries at Discharge Points M003, M013, M014 (A), M014 (B), M015, M016, and M017.

2. On October 30, 2015, ownership interest in the Facility was transferred from Eel River Power, LLC to Humboldt Redwood Company. On May 26, 2017, the Permit was administratively extended and currently regulates the Facility. On June 8, 2018, the Discharger provided notice to the Regional Water Board that Humboldt Redwood Company’s ownership interest in the Facility, which included the Facility’s sawmill and power plant assets, would be transferred to the Discharger effective July 1, 2018. The notice included a Form 200, changing the Facility owner from Humboldt Redwood Company to the Discharger. On August 4, 2022, the Regional Water Board adopted Name Change Order R1-2022-0026, formally Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 2 of 21 ends

recognizing the prior change in ownership of the Facility and identifying the Discharger as the permittee responsible for compliance with all Permit terms.

3. From July 12, 2016 through March 16, 2021, the Discharger violated effluent limitations at Discharge Points M014, M015(A), M015 (B), and M017 17 times, including violations of effluent limitations for total suspended solids (daily maximum) four times, total suspended solids (monthly average) seven times, pH instantaneous maximum limits five times, and free available chlorine once. These violations are set forth in Attachment A, which is incorporated fully herein by reference, and are subject to mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) pursuant to Water Code section 13385, subdivisions (h) and (i).

4. Water Code section 13385, subdivisions (h) and (i) require the assessment of MMPs as follows
Water Code section 13385, subdivision (h)(1) states:

Water Code section 13385, subdivision (h)(2) states:

For the purposes of this section, a “serious violation” means any waste discharge that violates the effluent limitations contained in the applicable waste discharge requirements for a Group II pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to Section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by 20 percent or more or for a Group I pollutant, as specified in Appendix A to Section 123.45 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by 40 percent or more.

Water Code section 13385, subdivision (i)(1) states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, and except as provided in subdivisions (j), (k), and (l), a mandatory minimum penalty of three thousand dollars ($3,000) shall be assessed for each violation whenever the person does any of the following four or more times in any period of six consecutive months, except that the requirement to assess the mandatory minimum penalty shall not be applicable to the first three violations:

A) Violates a waste discharge requirement effluent limitation.

B) Fails to file a report pursuant to Section 13260.

C) Files an incomplete report pursuant to Section 13260.

D) Violates a toxicity effluent limitation contained in the applicable waste discharge requirements where the waste discharge requirements do not contain pollutant-specific effluent limitations for toxic pollutant

5. On August 27, 2021, the Regional Water Board issued to Humboldt Redwood Company1 an Invitation to Participate in Expedited Payment Program Prior to Issuance of Formal Administrative Civil Liability Complaint for Mandatory Minimum Penalties (Conditional Settlement Offer), which alleged $33,000 in MMPs arising from fourteen violations of effluent limitations in the Permit. On September 14, 2021, the Discharger returned a signed Agreement to Engage in Settlement Discussions to Propose a Supplemental Environmental Project (Exhibit C). On January 14, 2022, the Regional Water Board informed the Discharger of two additional violations of the effluent limitation for total suspended solids and one additional violation of the limitation for instantaneous PH, resulting in an additional $6,000 in MMPs, and provided the Discharger with a revised Exhibit C. See violations identified in Attachment A. On June 1, 2022, the Regional Water Board received a signed, revised Exhibit C from the Discharger. The Discharger has agreed to resolve the violations alleged on Attachment A, as it was the permittee enrolled in the Permit during the time of the alleged violations. The Discharger has also proposed and will carry out the SEP detailed in Attachment B.

6. This Stipulated Order resolves 17 effluent limitation violations, nine of which are subject to $27,000 in MMPs pursuant to Water Code section 13385, subdivision (h), and four of which are subject to $12,000 in MMPs pursuant to Water Code section 13385, subdivision (i), as identified in Attachment A, incorporated herein by reference. The total proposed administrative civil liability amount is $39,000.

7. Pursuant to Water Code section 13385, subdivision (I)(1), in lieu of assessing penalties pursuant to subdivision (h) or (i), the Regional Water Board, with the concurrence of the Discharger, may direct a portion of the penalty amount to be expended on a SEP in accordance with the enforcement policy of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board). If the penalty amount exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), the portion of the penalty amount that may be directed to be expended on a SEP may not exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) plus 50 percent of the penalty amount that exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). 1 The Conditional Settlement Offer was erroneously sent to Humboldt Redwood Company, a prior owner of the Facility. However, the Discharger (Humboldt Sawmill Company) has responded to the Conditional Settlement Offer as the permittee responsible for Permit compliance.

Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 4 of 21 ends

a. Water Code section 13385, subdivision (l)(2), provides: “For the purposes of this section, a ’supplemental environmental project’ means an environmentally beneficial project that a person agrees to undertake, with the approval of the regional board, that would not be undertaken in the absence of an enforcement action under this section.”,

8. Pursuant to Water Code section 13385, subdivision (I)(1), the Discharger may spend an amount of money on an approved SEP up to $15,000 plus 50 percent of the penalty amount that exceeds $15,000, or up to $27,000. The Discharger has proposed to direct $18,900 of the penalty amount towards construction of a “deflector log jam” as part of the Lawrence Creek Off Channel Habitat Connectivity, Phase III project described in Section III, paragraph 14 below.

9. To resolve the alleged violations set forth in Attachment A, by consent and without further administrative proceedings, the Parties have agreed to the imposition of an administrative civil liability of $39,000 against the Discharger. $18,900 shall be permanently suspended upon timely completion of the SEP required herein.

10. The Parties have engaged in confidential settlement negotiations and agree to settle the matter without administrative or civil litigation by presenting this Stipulated Order to the Regional Water Board, or its delegee, for adoption as an order by settlement, pursuant to Water Code section 13323 and Government Code section 11415.60. To resolve the violations set forth in Attachment A, by consent and without further administrative proceedings, the Parties have agreed to the imposition of an ACL in the amount of thirty-nine thousand dollars ($39,000) in MMPs against the Discharger.

11. The Prosecution Team believes that the resolution of the alleged violations is fair and reasonable and fulfills its enforcement objectives, that no further action is warranted concerning the alleged violations except as provided in this Stipulated Order, and that this Stipulated Order is in the public’s best interest.

Section III: Stipulations
The foregoing Recitals are adopted by the Parties and they stipulate to the following:

12. Jurisdiction: The Regional Water Board has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in this action and personal jurisdiction over the Parties to this Stipulated Order.

13. Administrative Civil Liability: The Discharger hereby agrees to pay the ACL totaling $39,000 to resolve the alleged violations. The Parties agree that of the $39,000, the Discharger shall expend $18,900 (SEP Amount) to implement the SEP. Upon the Regional Water Board’s review and approval of the information submitted pursuant to paragraph 16, the Discharger’s obligation to pay the SEP Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 5 of 21 ends

Amount shall be permanently suspended. The balance of the ACL amount, which is $20,100, is due and payable pursuant to this paragraph and shall be submitted by check, made payable to the “State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account,” no later than 30 days following adoption of this Order. The check shall reference the Order number (R1-2022-0030), and be mailed to:

State Water Resources Control Board Accounting Office
Attn: ACL Payment
P.O. Box 1888
Sacramento, CA 95812-1888
The Discharger shall provide a copy of the check via e-mail to the State Water Board, Office of Enforcement ([email protected]) and the Regional Water Board ([email protected]).

14. SEP Description: The Discharger has proposed to construct a deflector log jam (Deflector Project) as a component of the Lawrence Creek Off-Channel Coho Habitat Improvement Project 3.0 (Lawrence Creek Improvement), which is designed to increase the quality and quantity of winter rearing habitat for Coho Salmon by expanding and enhancing off-channel riparian area in the Yager Creek/lower Van Duzen River basin. The complete SEP description, project milestones, budget, and reporting schedule are contained in Attachment B, which is incorporated herein by reference.

15. Representations and Agreements Regarding the SEP:
a. As a material condition for the Regional Water Board’s acceptance of this Stipulated Order, the Discharger represents that the SEP Amount will be used to implement the SEP, as set forth in Attachment B. The Discharger understands that its promise to implement the SEP, in its entirety and in accordance with the implementation schedules and budgets set forth in Attachment B, represents a material condition of this settlement of liability between the Discharger and the Regional Water Board.
b. The Discharger agrees to (1) spend the SEP Amount as described in this Stipulated Order; (2) have certified, written reports provided to the Regional Water Board consistent with the terms of this Stipulated Order detailing SEP implementation; and (3) submit a final completion report for the SEP by December 31, 2023, which will include a certification by a responsible official, signed under penalty of perjury, that the Discharger followed all applicable environmental laws and regulations in implementing the SEP, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Porter-Cologne Act, and federal Clean Water Act.
c. The Discharger agrees that the Regional Water Board has the right to require a third-party audit, to be paid by the Discharger, of the funds expended to Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 6 of 21 ends

implement the SEP, and that the Discharger bears ultimate responsibility for meeting all deadlines specified in this Stipulated Order.

16. SEP Oversight Costs: Regional Water Board staff will oversee implementation of the SEP. The Discharger is responsible for any charged costs for such oversight, which are not included in the SEP Amount. The Regional Water Board’s oversight tasks will include, without limitation, reviewing and evaluating progress reports, reviewing final completion reports, and communicating with the Discharger (if needed).

17. Publicity Associated with the SEP: Whenever the Discharger or its agents or subcontractors publicize one or more elements of the SEP, they shall state in a prominent manner that the project is undertaken as part of a settlement to a Regional Water Board enforcement action against the Discharger.

18. Progress Reports and Inspection Authority: The Discharger has agreed to submit progress reports in implementing the SEP to the Regional Water Board as described in Attachment B. The Discharger agrees that Regional Water Board staff has permission to observe and inspect the SEP at any time without notice.

19. Time Extension for SEP: The Executive Officer may extend the deadlines contained in this Stipulated Order if the Discharger demonstrates delays from unforeseeable contingencies, provided that the Discharger continues to undertake all appropriate measures to meet its deadlines. The Discharger shall make any deadline extension request in writing at least 30 days prior to the applicable deadline. Under no circumstances may the completion of the SEP extend past five (5) years from the effective date of this Stipulated Order. Any approval of extension by the Executive Officer must be in writing.

20. Regional Water Board Acceptance of Completed SEP: Upon the Discharger’s satisfaction of its obligations under this Stipulated Order, completion of the SEP, and any audits, the Executive Officer will issue a “Satisfaction of Order.” The Satisfaction of Order shall terminate any further obligations of the Discharger under this Stipulated Order and permanently suspend the remaining penalty amount.

21. Failure to Expend All Suspended Funds on the Approved SEP: If the Discharger is not able to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Executive Officer that the entire SEP amount was spent on the completed SEP by December 31, 2023 (SEP Completion Date), the Discharger shall pay the difference between the SEP Amount and the amount the Discharger can demonstrate was actually spent on the SEP (the Difference). The Executive Officer shall issue a “Notice of Violation” that will require the Discharger to pay the Difference to the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account within 30 days of the Notice of Violation’s issuance date. The Discharger shall submit payment consistent with the payment method described in Section III, paragraph Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 7 of 21 ends

13. Timely payment of the Difference shall satisfy the Discharger’s obligations to implement the SEP.

22. Failure to Complete the SEP: If the SEP is not fully implemented by the SEP Completion Date, or if there has been a material failure to satisfy a project milestone, Regional Water Board staff shall issue a “Notice of Violation” to the Discharger. As a consequence, the Discharger shall be liable to pay the entire SEP Amount, less any amount that has been permanently suspended or excused based on the timely and successful completion of any interim project milestone that has an identifiable and stand-alone environmental benefit. Unless the Regional Water Board or its delegate determines otherwise, the Discharger shall not be entitled to any credit, offset, or reimbursement from the Regional Water Board for expenditures made on the SEP prior to the Notice of Violation’s issuance date. The amount of the suspended liability owed shall be determined via a written, stipulated agreement between the Parties or, if the Parties cannot reach an agreement on the amount owed, via a “Motion for Payment of Suspended Liability” before the Regional Water Board or its delegate. Within 30 days of the Regional Water Board’s or its delegate’s determination of the suspended liability assessed, the Discharger shall pay the amount owed to the “State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account.” Within 30 days of the Regional Water Board’s or its delegate’s determination of the suspended liability amount assessed for the Discharger to pay, the Discharger shall submit payment consistent with the payment method described in Section III, paragraph 13. Payment of the assessed amount shall satisfy the Discharger’s obligation to implement the SEP.

23. Regional Water Board is Not Liable: Neither the Regional Water Board members nor the Regional Water Board staff, attorneys, or representatives shall be liable for any injury or damage to persons or property resulting from negligent or intentional acts or omissions by the Discharger, its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, or contractors in carrying out activities pursuant to this Stipulated Order, nor shall the Regional Water Board, its members, or staff be held as parties to or guarantors of any contract entered into by the Discharger, its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, or contractors in carrying out activities pursuant to this Stipulated Order.

24. Compliance with Applicable Laws: The Discharger understands that payment of administrative civil liability in accordance with the terms of this Stipulated Order or compliance with the terms of this Stipulated Order is not a substitute for compliance with applicable laws, and that continuing violations of the type alleged herein may subject it to further enforcement, including additional administrative civil liability.

25. Party Contacts for Communications related to Stipulation/Order:

Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 8 of 21 ends

For the Regional Water Board: For the Discharger:

Jordan Filak Suzanne McClurkin-Nelson
Environmental Scientist Environmental Specialist
North Coast Regional Water Humboldt Sawmill Company,
Quality Control Board LLC
5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A P.O. Box 37
Santa Rosa, CA 95403 125 Main Street
[email protected] Scotia, CA 95565
(707) 576-6743 [email protected]
(707) 764-4268

26. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: Except as otherwise provided herein, each Party shall bear all attorneys’ fees and costs arising from the Party’s own counsel in connection with the matters set forth herein.

27. Matters Addressed by Stipulation: Upon the Regional Water Board’s or its delegate’s adoption, this Stipulated Order represents a final and binding resolution and settlement of the alleged violation(s) as of the effective date of this Stipulated Order. The provisions of this paragraph are expressly conditioned on the completion of the SEP as specified herein.

28. Public Notice: The Discharger understands that this Stipulated Order must be noticed for a 30-day public review and comment period prior to consideration by the Regional Water Board or its delegate. If significant new information is received that reasonably affects the propriety of presenting this Stipulated Order to the Regional Water Board, or its delegate, for adoption, the Prosecution Team may unilaterally declare this Stipulated Order void and decide not to present it to the Regional Water Board or its delegate. The Discharger agrees that it shall not rescind or otherwise withdraw its approval of this proposed Stipulated Order.

29. Addressing Objections Raised During Public Comment Period: The Parties agree that the procedure contemplated for the Regional Water Board’s or its delegate’s adoption of the Order, and public review of this Stipulated Order, is lawful and adequate. The Parties understand that the Regional Water Board, or its delegate, has the authority to require a public hearing on this Stipulated Order. In the event procedural objections are raised or the Regional Water Board requires a public hearing prior to the Order becoming effective, the Parties agree to meet and confer concerning any such objections or hearings, and may agree to revise or adjust the procedure and/or this Stipulated Order as necessary or advisable under the circumstances.

30. No Waiver of Right to Enforce: The failure of the Prosecution Team or Regional Water Board to enforce any provision of this Stipulated Order shall in no way be Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 9 of 21 ends

deemed a waiver of such provision, or in any way affect the validity of this Stipulated Order. The failure of the Prosecution Team or Regional Water Board to enforce any such provision shall not preclude it from later enforcing the same or any other provision of this Stipulated Order. No oral advice, guidance, suggestions, or comments by employees or officials of any Party regarding matters covered under this Stipulated Order shall be construed to relieve any Party regarding matters covered in this Stipulated Order. The Regional Water Board reserves all rights to take additional enforcement actions, including without limitation the issuance of administrative civil liability complaints or orders for violations other than those addressed by this Stipulated Order.

31. Effect of the Stipulated Order: Except as expressly provided in this Stipulated Order, nothing in this Stipulated Order precludes the Regional Water Board or any State agency, department, board, or local agency from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation.

32. Interpretation: This Stipulated Order shall be construed as if the Parties prepared it jointly. Any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one Party. The Parties are represented by counsel in this matter.

33. Modification: The Parties shall not modify this Stipulated Order by oral representation made before or after its execution. All modifications must be in writing, signed by all Parties, and approved by the Regional Water Board or its delegate.

34. If Order Does Not Take Effect: In the event that the Order does not take effect because the Regional Water Board or its delegate does not approve it, or the State Water Board or a court vacates it in whole or in part, the Parties acknowledge that they expect to proceed to a contested evidentiary hearing before the Regional Water Board to determine whether to assess administrative civil liabilities for the underlying alleged violation(s), unless the Parties agree otherwise. The Parties agree that all oral and written statements and agreements made during the course of settlement discussions will not be admissible as evidence in the hearing. The Parties agree to waive any and all objections based on settlement communications in this matter, including but not limited to the following:
a. Objections related to prejudice or bias of any of the Regional Water Board members or their advisors and any other objections that are premised in whole or in part on the fact that the Regional Water Board members or their advisors were exposed to some of the material facts and the Parties’ settlement positions as a consequence of reviewing the Stipulated Order, and therefore may have formed impressions or conclusions prior to any contested evidentiary hearing on the violations alleged in this matter; or Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 10 of 21 ends

b. Laches or delay or other equitable defenses based on the time period for administrative or judicial review to the extent this period has been extended by these settlement proceedings.

35. Waiver of Hearing: The Discharger has been informed of the rights Water Code section 13323, subdivision (b) provides, and hereby waives its right to a hearing before the Regional Water Board prior to the Order’s adoption.

36. Waiver of Right to Petition or Appeal: The Discharger hereby waives its right to petition the Regional Water Board’s adoption of the Order for review by the State Water Board, and further waives its rights, if any, to appeal the same to a California Superior Court and/or any California appellate level court. This explicit waiver of rights includes potential future decisions by the Regional Water Board or its delegate directly related to this Stipulated Order, including, but not limited to time extensions, SEP completion, and other terms contained in this Stipulated Order.

37. Covenant Not to Sue: The Discharger covenants not to sue or pursue any administrative or civil claim(s) against any State agency or the State of California, their officers, Board Members, employees, representatives, agents, or attorneys arising out of or relating to any matter expressly addressed by the Conditional Settlement Offer, this Stipulated Order, or the SEP.

38. Necessity for Written Approvals: All approvals and decisions of the Regional Water Board under the terms of this Stipulated Order shall be communicated to the Discharger in writing. No oral advice, guidance, suggestions, or comments from Regional Water Board employees or officials regarding submissions or notices shall be construed to relieve the Discharger of its obligation to obtain any final written approval this Stipulated Order requires.

39. Authority to Bind: Each person executing this Stipulated Order in a representative capacity represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to execute this Stipulated Order on behalf of and to bind the entity on whose behalf he or she executes the Stipulated Order.

40. No Third-Party Beneficiaries: This Stipulated Order is not intended to confer any rights or obligations on any third party, and no third party shall have any right of action under this Stipulated Order for any cause whatsoever.

41. Severability: This Stipulated Order is severable; should any provision be found invalid, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.

42. Counterpart Signatures; Facsimile and Electronic Signature: This Stipulated Order may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but such Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 11 of 21 ends

counterparts shall together constitute one document. Further, this Stipulated Order may be executed by facsimile or electronic signature, and any such facsimile or electronic signature by any Party hereto shall be deemed to be an original signature and shall be binding on such Party to the same extent as if such facsimile or electronic signature were an original signature.

43. Effective Date: This Stipulated Order shall be effective and binding on the Parties upon the date the Regional Water Board, or its delegate, enters the Order incorporating the terms of this Stipulated Order.
(continued on next page)

Stipulated Order R1-2022-0030
Humboldt Sawmill Company, LLC
Confidential Settlement Communication

Page 14 of 21 ends

ORDER OF THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD

44. This Order incorporates the foregoing Sections I through III by this reference as if set forth fully herein.

45. Issuance of this Order is being taken for the protection of the environment and to enforce the laws and regulations administered by the Regional Water Board and is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15321(a)(2). This Order includes a SEP in the North Coast Region. If the Regional Water Board determines that implementation of any plan required by this Order will have a significant effect on the environment that is not otherwise exempt from CEQA, the Regional Water Board will conduct the necessary and appropriate environmental review prior to approval of the applicable plan. The Discharger will bear the costs, including the Regional Water Board’s costs, of determining whether implementation of any plan required by this Order will have a significant effect on the environment and, if so, in preparing and handing any documents necessary for environmental review. If necessary, the Discharger and a consultant acceptable to the Regional Water Board shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Regional Water Board regarding such costs prior to undertaking any environmental review.

46. The Executive Officer is authorized to refer this matter directly to the Attorney General for enforcement if the Discharger fails to perform any of its obligations under the Order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to Water Code section 13323 and Government Code section 11415.60, on behalf of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region.

Date: By:

Matthias St. John
Executive Officer
Attachments:

A. Effluent Limitation Violations Requiring Mandatory Minimum Penalties B. SEP

ATTACHMENT A

EFFLUENT LIMITATION VIOLATIONS REQUIRING MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES

Page 15 of 21 ends

Liability Scotia Town Power Plant
Scotia Town - Humboldt Sawmill Company (Eel River
Power)
WDID No. 1B83104OHUM
NPDES No. CA0006017
Effluent Limitations Violations Requiring Mandatory Minimum Penalties #
Violation
Number
Violation
Date Constituent
Pollutant
Group
Limitation
Period Limit
Result/
Average Units
Exempted
from MMP? Exempt
Reason
% Over Limit Date 180
Days Prior
Serious or
Chronic
Violation?
No. of
Violations
within 180
days
Mandatory
Fine?
Water
Code Pena
lty
1 1011809 07/12/2016 pH Other Instantaneous 9 10.5 SU Y a 17% 01/14/2016 C Ct. 1 N $ 0 2 1086713 07/12/2016 pH Other Instantaneous 9 9.1 SU Y a 1% 01/14/2016 C Ct. 2 N $ 0 3 1086714 09/07/2016 pH Other Instantaneous 9 9.1 SU Y a 1% 03/11/2016 C Ct. 3 N $ 0 4 1086740 10/05/2016 pH Other Instantaneous 9 9.2 SU N 2% 04/08/2016 C Ct. 4 Y 13385(i) $ 3,00
0 5 1086744 01/17/2017 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Monthly Average
30 240 mg/L N 700% 07/21/2016 S Ct. 5 Y 13385(h) $
3,00
0 6 1086742 01/17/2017 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Maximum Daily 100 240 mg/L N 140% 07/21/2016 S Ct. 6 Y 13385(h) $ 3,00
0 7 1086749 02/21/2017 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Maximum Daily 100 150 mg/L N 50% 08/25/2016 S Ct. 7 Y 13385(h) $ 3,00
0 8 1086750 02/21/2017 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Monthly Average
30 150 mg/L N 400% 08/25/2016 S Ct. 8 Y 13385(h) $
3,00
0 9 1086747 02/21/2017 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Monthly Average
30 140 mg/L N 367% 08/25/2016 S Ct. 9 Y 13385(h) $
3,00
0 10 1023060 02/21/2017 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Daily Maximum 100 140 mg/L N 40% 08/25/2016 S Ct. 10 Y 13385(h) $ 3,00
0 11 1086752 03/30/2017 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Monthly Average
30 46 mg/L N 53% 10/01/2016 S Ct. 11 Y 13385(i) $
3,00
0 12 1086754 03/30/2017 Chlorine, Free Available Group 2 Monthly Average

0.2 0.22 mg/L N 10% 10/01/2016 C Ct. 12 Y 13385(i) $
3,00
0 13 1086751 03/30/2017 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Monthly Average
30 46 mg/L N 53% 10/01/2016 S Ct. 13 Y 13385(i) $
3,00
0 14 1086767 12/11/2018 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Monthly Average
30 74 mg/L N 147% 06/14/2018 S Ct. 1 Y 13385(h) $
3,00
0 15 1060096 05/17/2019 pH Other Instantaneous 9 9.2 SU N a 2% 11/18/2018 C Ct. 2 N $ 0 16 1089596 03/16/2021 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Monthly Average 30 280 mg/L N 933% 09/17/2020 S Ct. 1 Y 13385(h) $ 3,000
17 1089597 03/16/2021 Total Suspended Solids Group 1 Maximum Daily 100 280 mg/L N 140% 09/17/2020 S Ct. 2 Y 13385(h) $ 3,000
Total Penalty: $ 39,000
Legend of Table

ATTACHMENT A

EFFLUENT LIMITATION VIOLATIONS REQUIRING MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES

Page 16 of 21 ends

a. The first three violations in a 180 day period shall not receive MMP assessment unless serious.

Ct. Count – The number that follows represents the number of exceedances in the past 180 days. A count > than Ct. 3 means that a penalty under Water Code Section 13385 (i) applies. 1 - Violation occurs on sample date or last date of averaging period. 2 - For Group I pollutants, a violation is serious when the limit is exceeded by 40% or more - For Group II pollutants, a violation is serious when the limit is exceeded by 20% or more 3 - When a serious violation occurs on the same day as a chronic, the serious violation is only assessed an MMP once and is counted last for the day when determining the number of chronic violations to be assessed a penalty.

Violations from July 12, 2016 through January 14, 2022
Group I Violations Assessed MMP: 11
Group II Violations Assessed MMP: 1
Other Effluent Violations Assessed MMP: 1
Violations Exempt from MMP: 0
Total Violations Assessed MMP: 13
Mandatory Minimum Penalty = (9 Serious Violations + 4 Non-Serious Violations) x $3,000 = $39,000

ATTACHMENT B

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT

DEFLECTOR LOG JAM

Page 17 of 21 ends

1 Name of Project: Deflector Log Jam
2 Project Applicant: Humboldt Sawmill Co. (HSC). Project Lead is Trout Unlimited. 3 Contact Person and Title:

Suzanne McClurkin-Nelson, Environmental Specialist
Humboldt Sawmill Co.

PO Box 37, Scotia, CA 95565
(707) 485-4408
[email protected]
Anna Halligan, North Coast Coho Project Director
Trout Unlimited
PO Box 1966
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
(707) 734-0112
[email protected]
4 Project Description:

Within the Van Duzen River Basin, the Yager Creek Sub Basin maintains a high salmonid fisheries value, particularly for the presence and viability of Coho Salmon (a threatened species under both federal and state listings) within the Lawrence Creek drainage. The proposed Deflector Project would include a deflector log jam on the bank of Lawrence Creek to focus flow toward the side channel and bar apex jam. The intent of the deflector is to replicate wood jams located on outside bends, and it is designed to withstand buoyancy and lift forces associated with floods as severe as 100-year flood events. The large bar apex and deflector proposed under this Project will be placed to raise storm water surface elevations, which will induce greater flow into the side channel. With this design it is anticipated that the off-channel pond will be hydraulically connected during 15% exceedance flows and greater, or on average 55 days out of the year. Remove of the deflector jam from the underlying Lawrence Creek Improvement project will reduce the days of connectivity and the number of high flow resting/refugia areas for salmonids.
5 Compliance with SEP Criteria
The Deflector Project will provide species listed under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts with access to historic floodplain habitats by enhancing hydrologic connectivity to a side channel feature along Lawrence Creek, which will provide shelter during intense storm events. Low-velocity refugia is important for reducing juvenile salmonid mortality during high-flow events. The Deflector Project will provide sustainable and lasting ecological benefits to core populations of SONCC Coho and CC Salmon as well as NC

ATTACHMENT B

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT

DEFLECTOR LOG JAM

Page 18 of 21 ends

Steelhead trout by enhancing and restoring salmonid habitats. In addition, restoration of habitat provides substantial benefits for human communities by improving and protecting water quality, reducing damage from flooding, and preserving tribal and cultural heritage. Many Native Americans rely on fish for sustenance, and loss of reliable fish habitat can reduce fish populations that serve as a food source and can cause cultural harm.
6 Above and Beyond Discharger’s Obligations:

HSC voluntarily agrees to undertake the SEP, and HSC is not required to undertake this project and this project was never considered by HSC before or absent the current regulatory enforcement action.
7 No Benefit to the Water Board Members, Staff, Family:

This SEP provides no direct fiscal benefit to the Regional Water Board’s functions, its members, its staff, or family of members or staff. 8 Nexus to the Nature or Location of Violations:

The SEP will be located on Lawrence Creek, a tributary of the Lower Eel River, which is the location of the alleged violations. Thus, the SEP has a direct nexus to the nature of the violation alleged.
9 Brief work plan containing tasks, deliverables, milestones, and schedule. The deliverables must include quarterly progress reports and a final completion report.

Project Term: August 31, 2022 through December 31, 2023 Task Description Estimated Date Estimated Budget
Project
Management
(oversight)
Trout Unlimited (TU)
(manage contractors &
project execution,
report writing, mileage
reimbursement,
reporting supplies)
8/31/22 –
7/31/23
$1,216.55
Construction VS-Const-Shinn
(labor and heavy
equipment)
8/31/22 –
11/1/22
$15,500
Administrativ
e Overhead
Administrative services
and accounting
8/31/22 –
7/31/23
$2,273.45

ATTACHMENT B

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT

DEFLECTOR LOG JAM

Page 19 of 21 ends

Monitoring Monthly monitoring (by
HRC)
11/1/2022-
5/30/2023
$0.00
Project Timeline:

Task Description Proposed Completion Date
1 Finalize grant agreement and schedule
field work with construction contractor
August 31, 2022
2 First Quarterly Progress Report September 30, 2022
3 Complete construction of Deflector Log
Jam
November 1, 2022
4 Monthly site visit (monitor water quality &
salmonid presence/absence)[HRC]
November 30, 2022
5 Monthly site visit (monitor water quality &
salmonid presence/absence)[HRC]
December 30, 2022
6 Second Quarterly Progress Report December 30, 2022
7 Monthly ent site visit (monitor water quality
& salmonid presence/absence)[HRC]
January 31, 2023
8 Monthly site visit (monitor water quality &
salmonid presence/absence)[HRC]
February 29, 2023
9 Third Quarterly Progress Report March 30, 2023
10 Monthly site visit (monitor water quality &
salmonid presence/absence)[HRC]
March 31, 2023
11 Monthly site visit (monitor water quality &
salmonid presence/absence)[HRC]
April 28, 2023
12 Monthly site visit (monitor water quality &
salmonid presence/absence)[HRC]
May 31, 2023
13 Fourth Quarterly Progress Report June 30, 2023
15 Submit Final Report/Certificate of
Completion
December 31, 2023

ATTACHMENT B

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT

DEFLECTOR LOG JAM

Page 20 of 21 ends

Milestones: Construction is expected to occur between August 31, 2022 and November 1, 2022. Monitoring will be conducted for one winter season following construction and is expected to occur between November 2022 and May 2023 for the purpose of this SEP; a second consecutive year of monitoring may be performed if deemed useful but is considered to be outside the scope of this SEP and will not use SEP funds. HRC staff shall conduct monthly site visits to monitor water quality (dissolved oxygen, temperature) and salmonid presence/absence via baited minnow traps. Photographs will be taken to document site conditions during each visitation throughout the monitoring period. Data collected during these site visits will be included in each progress report. 10 Performance Standard
The following performance standards must be achieved for the SEP to be deemed complete: (1) complete construction of the Deflector Log Jam by November 1, 2022; and (2) one winter season of post-construction monitoring. 11 Reports to the Regional Water Board
Progress Reports:

HSC will submit a progress report including, at a minimum, updated photographs of construction activity, a summary of budget expenditures to date, and a summary of the remaining work to be completed.

Due Date: Quarterly Progress reports will be submitted to the RWQCB by HSC by September 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, and September 30, 2023.

Final Report
The final report will document that the project has been completed, will include a summary of all completed tasks, and will have an accounting of all expenditures.

The accounting will clearly show whether the final cost of the successfully completed SEP was less than, equal to, or more than the liability suspended amount of $18,900. The following statement will be included above the signature line of the report: “I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”
Due Date: Within one month after the project is complete, as defined by the “Performance Standard” above, but no later than December 31, 2023.

All reports shall be submitted to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Regional Water Board) contact, Jordan Filak via email at [email protected].
12 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance:

ATTACHMENT B

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT

DEFLECTOR LOG JAM

Page 21 of 21 ends

The project is ready for implementation and construction will occur this summer/fall. This project is CEQA exempt (Article 19, Section 15333) and fully permitted (401 Water Quality Certification, Army Corps 404 Nationwide 27, 1653- HREA CDFW permit, and the NOAA Programmatic Approach). Construction is scheduled to occur late summer 2022, and will take approximately 2 weeks. The project is occurring on property owned by HRC with their participation (as noted above), and a landowner agreement was secured.
13 Extensions:

The SEP Completion Date is the due date of the final report, December 31, 2023, unless the Executive Officer approves an extension. If an extension is granted, it shall apply to the reports to the Regional Water Board. If an extension is necessary, HSC shall submit a written request for such extension to the Executive Officer as required by Stipulated Order paragraph 19.

WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 2 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant
processes lumber for sale and to generate power at its cogeneration plant. The Company’s tenant, Kansas Asphalt Timber Operations, operates an asphalt batch plant and conducts the associated gravel operations on 5.5 acres at the southernmost portion of the Facility. The Facility’s runoff is discharged directly to the Eel River, to tributaries to the Eel River, and into a log pond off-site, which is owned and operated by the Scotia Community Services District (CSD).

Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) documents identify the Humboldt Redwood Company as the previous owner and operator for the sawmill, the cogeneration plant, and the asphalt plant on the Facility, having filed for permit coverage in 2008. In 2018, the Humboldt Sawmill Company took over permit coverage and operating the sawmill and cogeneration plant, while Humboldt Redwood Company continued to operate the asphalt plant. Prior to the inspection, Kansas Asphalt Timber Operations began operating the asphalt plant. Following the inspection, they filed for permit coverage for the asphalt plant as a tenant to Humboldt Sawmill Company who continues to own the entire 247-acre Facility. This Notice of Violation is issued to the Humboldt Sawmill Company as owner of the 247- acre Facility, and as the operator for the sawmill and cogeneration plant.

On May 9 and 10, 2022, Regional Water Board State Water Board and U.S. EPA staff inspected the Facility during heavy rain1 and observed several violations of the Industrial General Permit (IGP) requirements as described in the inspection memo.

On October 18, 2022, the inspection memo was provided to the Discharger and uploaded to SMARTS on the same day.

On March 3, 2023, the Discharger provided written comments on the inspection memo to the North Coast Regional Water Board and this NOV considers those comments.

Alleged Violations
As the operator of the Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant, the Humboldt Sawmill Company is hereby given notice that it has violated the federal Clean Water Act section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311), Waste Discharge Requirements Order R1-2012- 0065 Discharge Prohibitions, the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region, and the following sections of the Industrial General Permit:

1. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection E.3.a, Site Map, Stormwater drainage areas

2. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection E.3.b, Site Map, Stormwater conveyance systems

3. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection E.3.c, Site Map, Structural control measures

4. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection E.3.e, Site Map, Materials and spill locations 1 Local Climatological Data Station Details: ROHNERVILLE AIRPORT, CA US, WBAN:00396 | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) (noaa.gov),( https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/LCD/stations/WBAN:00396/detail) Rohnerville Airport Rain Gauge Station WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 3 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant

5. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection E.3.f, Site Map, Areas of industrial activities

6. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection F, List of Industrial Materials

7. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection G, Potential Pollutant Sources

8. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.a.iv, Wash water

9. Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.a.v, Cover industrial materials

10.Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.a.vii, Industrial material to storm drain

11.Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.c, Spill and Leak Prevention

12.Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.d.i, Prevent handling Materials

13.Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.d.iv, Stormwater and stockpiles

14.Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.d.v, Spills of industrial materials

15.Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.e.iv, Divert stormwater

16.Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.e.v, Sediment basin design

17.Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.6, Design Storm Standards

18.Section XI. Monitoring, Subsection B.4., Representative sampling

19.Section XI. Monitoring, Subsection B.6.c, Additional parameters

20.Section XI. Monitoring, Subsection B.6.d, SIC parameters.

These violations may subject the Humboldt Sawmill Company to administrative liability pursuant to California Water Code section 13385.

These provisions are included in detail in Attachment A.

This letter notifies the Discharger that it has violated provisions of the IGP. Each provision of the IGP violated is identified, but due to the volume of violations, the specific individual violations are often represented by an example. For example, staff estimate seeing over forty instances of Violation 1 where the site map did not accurately reflect the drainage and flow areas on the Facility. A general description and some examples are provided in the description below, but please see the inspection reports for further information. North Coast Regional Water Board Staff are willing to meet with your representatives to identify each individual violation.

Violations 1 through 5:

Per Section X.E.3. of the IGP, a discharger shall include information on the site map including: drainage areas, flow direction, all stormwater collection and conveyance systems, structural control measures, impervious areas, locations where materials are stored with exposure to precipitation, locations of significant spills, and all areas of industrial activity.

The Facility site map available in SMARTS dated November 8, 2021, and uploaded by the Discharger, did not reflect the Facility’s condition at the time of the May 2022 inspection. Facility conditions were significantly different than those represented on the Facility’ site map. Per Regional Water Board staff observations and document review, the following permit requirements were not met:

WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 4 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant
Violation 1:

Section X.E.3.a: The site map does not correctly show all drainage areas and flow directions. Each drainage area shown on the site map includes multiple storm drain inlets each of which should be included as their own tributary area (Site Map 1 and 2, as referenced in the May 9-10, 2022 Inspection Memo). Flow arrows indicating surface flow direction on the site map were incorrect in many locations across the Facility (Site Map 1 and 2). Storm drain pipes coming from the adjacent roadway and town into Drainage Areas 2 and 3 are shown on the site map with no associated offsite drainage areas (Site Map 1 and 2). Areas of run-on from Highway 101 were observed in the field but not included on the Facility map (Site Map 2). Many storm drain lines were shown on the site map without any inlet or connection points (Site Map 1 and 2).

Violation 2:

Section X.E.3.b: Inlets are shown on the site map that no longer exist, while other inlets were identified in the field that were not present on the site map. Other structures such as valves were also missing from the site map.

Storm drain lines and outfalls were included on the site map indicating discharge from the Facility from Drainage Area 3 into the Scotia CSD wastewater treatment plant’s aeration ponds (Site Map 1). However, Facility staff said during the inspection that these pipes were no longer present and were incorrectly shown on the site map. Facility staff could not explain where the storm drain lines discharge.

Storm drain inlets were observed along the eastern edge of the Planer Building that were not included on the site map (Site Map 1 and Attachment B, the May 9- 10, 2023, Inspection Memo (Inspection) picture 20d). Storm drain inlets near the staff parking area that are shown on the site map were no longer present (Site Map 2). Additional storm drain inlets and/or valve boxes within the paved log deck are also shown on the site map but not present (Site Map 2 and Inspection pictures 1h,1i, 1f). Additional storm drain structures and outfall pipes were observed near 002-OUT by the Ball Field that were not on the site map and that Facility staff were unable to identify if these outfall pipes were from their facility, or where the discharge was from (Site Map 2).

Violation 3:

Section X.E.3.c: Structural controls such as secondary containment and berms and barriers were not shown on the site map. The oil water separator in the fueling area was present on-site but not shown on the site map as an advanced BMP (Inspection picture 10a).

WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 5 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant
Violation 4:

Section X.E.3.e: Locations of materials are not identified on the site map, including stockpiles of bottom ash, hazardous materials collected from vehicle washing, and industrial materials and wastes. Stockpiles of bottom ash were observed all along the edge of the log pond adjacent to the Cogen facility (Inspection pictures 18c, 18d, and 18e) as well as along the north edge between the garage and the Cogen facility (pictures 16c, 16b, and 17a). Stockpiles of material washed from vehicles and stored prior to being disposed of as hazardous material were located immediately south of the wash bay within the garage building and exposed to rain (pictures 14a, 14b, and 14c). Large spills of sulfuric acid were observed on the pavement between the Cogen facility and the log pond but were not indicated on the site map (pictures 19a, 19b). Staining was also observed around the hypochlorite tank adjacent to the Cogen facility indicating materials had been stored there (picture 19c).

Violation 5:

Section X.E.3.f: All areas where industrial activities occur are not identified on the site map. The locations of chemical storage for hypochlorite observed on-site were not included on the site map (Site Map 1 and Inspection picture 19c). Areas associated with cogeneration were also not indicated on the site map (Site Map 1 and pictures 17a, 17b, 17c, 18a, 18b, 18c,19c, 19d). Areas where equipment was washed and maintained adjacent to the garage and as observed were also not included on the site map (pictures 14a, 14b, and 14c).

Violation 6:

Per Section X. SWPPP, Subsection F:The SWPPP does not include in its List of Industrial Materials bottom ash as well as industrial chemicals such as sulfuric acid and hypochlorite though they were observed at the Facility adjacent to the Cogen facility and placed along the edge of the log pond (Inspection pictures 18c, 18d,18e, 19a, 19b, and 19c).

Violation 7:

Per Section X. SWPPP, Subsection G: The SWPPP does not include a complete assessment of potential pollutant sources including bottom ash and industrial chemicals such as sulfuric acid and hypochlorite though they were observed at the Facility adjacent to the Cogeneration Plant and placed along the edge of the log pond. Not all areas where industrial processes and material handling and storage take place are identified. Areas where there is evidence of significant spills are not identified as required in the SWPPP (Inspection pictures 18c, 18d,18e, 19a, 19b, and 19c). Stockpiles of material washed from vehicles and stored prior to being disposed of as hazardous material were located immediately south of the wash bay within the garage building and exposed to rain (pictures 14a, 14b, and 14c).

WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 6 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant
Violation 8:

Per Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.a.iv: Wash water was being discharged without BMP controls in place. Wash water was discharging onto a paved surface that drains into the adjacent storm drain system that ultimately discharges to the Eel River (Inspection pictures 14a, 14b, 14c). The unauthorized discharge of wash water violates the IGP discharge prohibitions as well as the discharge provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region, also known as the Basin Plan.2
Violation 9:

Per Section X.H.1.a.v: Stored industrial materials at the Facility were not covered. The Discharger failed to cover the stockpiles of material such as sawdust, bottom ash, and fine woody debris that can be readily mobilized through contact with stormwater. Uncovered stockpiles of sawdust were observed adjacent to the Planar building as well as throughout the sawmill in multiple locations and in large quantities (Inspection pictures 1g, 2g, 3a, 3b, and 20a). Large stockpiles of bottom ash were observed at the Facility placed along the edge of the log pond adjacent to the Cogeneration Plant as well as along the northern edge of the Cogen facility (pictures 16c, 16b,17a, 18a, 18c, 18d, and 18e). Uncovered piles of industrial materials such as bark were also observed on the paved log deck in multiple large piles (pictures 2h, 2i, and 3e).

Violation 10:

Per Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.a.vii: Industrial materials such as bottom ash, sawdust, wood debris, and hydrocarbons were discharging into the stormwater conveyance system. Stormwater runoff with a sheen was observed at the Facility discharging to multiple storm drain inlets between the Sawmill Planer Building and the Former Lumber Storage Building (Inspection pictures 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1h. Sawdust and woody debris wood observed discharging into multiple storm drain inlets throughout drainage area 7 on the paved log deck and the industrial area adjacent to the sawmill and planer building (pictures 1h, 1i,1j, 19d, 20d). Evidence of bottom ash discharge was observed adjacent to the Cogeneration Plant into the log pond (19d). Sheen was observed discharging into multiple storm drain inlets within the Cogen facility area (17b).

Violation 11:

Per Section X. SWPPP, Subsection H.1.c: Evidence of substantial and persistent spills of chemicals such as sulfuric acid and hypochlorite were observed on the ground around the chemical storage tanks. No containment mechanism was 2 The Basin Plan is available online at
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/) WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 7 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant
observed that would prevent the discharge of material spilled when these chemicals are dispensed from these tanks (Inspection pictures 19a, 19b, 19c).

Violation 12:

Per Section X.H.1.d.i: Industrial materials or wastes that can be readily mobilized by contact with storm water such as fine wood debris and bottom ash materials were observed outside exposed to rain with no effective BMPs in place during rain on May 9, 2022. These materials were discharging to the Log Pond or retention pond on its way to Eel River and were not controlled by preventing or minimizing the handling of these materials and wastes during the storm event.

On the first day of inspection during heavy rain industrial activities where being conducted that involved, sawdust, woody debris, mud, silt, and bottom ash materials was observed (Inspection pictures 2a, 2b, 2c, 2j, 3a, 3b, and 4a).

Violation 13:

Per Section X.H.1.d.iv: The Discharger failed to divert run-on and storm water generated from within the Facility away from all stockpiled materials during the rain event on May 9, 2022. Stockpiles throughout the Facility were uncovered and placed within drainage flow paths (Inspection pictures 1g, 2h, 2i, 3a, 14b, 16a, 16b, 17a, 18d, and 20a).

Violation 14:

Per Section X.H.1.d.v: Evidence of substantial and persistent spills of chemicals, such as sulfuric acid and hypochlorite, as well as oily material under equipment, and accumulated materials washed from equipment and vehicles (14a, 14b, 14c and 15), were observed on the ground without spill containment or cleanup activities being initiated by the Discharger. Stormwater was observed discharging into storm drain inlets with a sheen during rain. Oily material was observed on the ground below equipment (Inspection picture 17b). Large areas of the pavement surrounding the sulfuric acid storage tanks were stained (Inspection pictures 18c, 18d,18e, 19a, 19b, and 19c). No effort was made during the course of the two-day inspection by Facility staff to clean up or contain the spilled material.

Violation 15:

Per Section X.H.1.e.iv: The Discharger failed to divert stormwater runoff away from erodible material such as sawdust, fine woody material, and accumulated sediment. Large stockpiles of sawdust and fine woody material were present throughout the Facility in discharge flow paths and within standing water (Inspection pictures 1f, 1g, 1h, 2c, 2f, 2g, 2h, 2i, 3a, 3c, 3d, 3e, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 18d, 19d, 20a).

WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 8 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant
Violation 16:

Per Section X.H.1.e.v: The Discharger has failed to comply with the design storm standard requirement for the constructed retention pond that receives the majority of untreated runoff from the industrial areas. Based on Facility staff’s statement at the time of the inspection, there are no existing volume- based or flow-based calculations to demonstrate that the pond is sized to meet the requirements of the IGP. When asked directly if the ponds on the Facility had been sized in accordance with design requirements and if calculations, designs, and specifications were available, Facility staff stated that none of these items existed and that the ponds had simply been built to utilize available space.

Subsequent to the date of the inspection, the Discharger provided supplemental calculations associated with this pond3. However, these calculations also fail to demonstrate that the pond has been designed to meet the sizing requirements of the IGP.

Violation 17:

Per Section X.H.6: The Discharger has failed to comply with the design storm standard requirement for the constructed retention pond that receives the majority of untreated runoff from the industrial areas as required for all sediment basins.

Violation 18:

Per Section XI.B.4: The Discharger has failed to collect samples that are representative of the Facility’s discharge from all drainage areas. Due to the fact that there are numerous locations where run-on enters the Facility and commingles with discharge from the Facility without adequate characterization of the run-on the combined discharge is not fully representative of the facilities runoff. Additionally, the separately permitted wastewater discharge from the Cogeneration Plant authorized under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Order No. R1-2012-0065 is commingling with industrial stormwater through a slotted drain resulting in a commingled flow. The discharge of stormwater is specifically prohibited by Discharge Prohibition III.C.

Violation 19:

Per Section XI.B.6.c: The Discharger has failed to conduct an accurate Potential Pollutant Source Assessment. It would be reasonable and expected that a facility of this type would need to analyze its discharge for additional parameters beyond the standard minimums identified in the IGP. At a minimum, the discharge should be analyzed for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) which is considered by US 3 2022 Updated SWPPP uploaded to SMARTS in October 19, 2022, Appendix D WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 9 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant
EPA as a pollutant of concern for timber operations4. Also, the Discharger failed to analyze samples for Aluminum, Copper and Chromium, which is considered by US EPA as pollutant of concerns for Steam Electric Generating Facilities5.

Violation 20:

Per Section XI.B.6.d: The Discharger has failed to analyze all collected samples for all additional applicable parameters associated with the Facility’s multiple standard industrial classification (SIC) codes, per Table 1 of the IGP. The Discharger has enrolled two separate SIC codes under a single waste discharger identification WDID number under the IGP. As such, all parameters required for both SIC codes must be sampled for at all discharge points. The Discharger has failed to do this and instead has bifurcated its monitoring such that samples are only analyzed for the parameters associated with its individual SIC code.

Based on both SIC codes 2421 and 4911 listed in SMARTS, all collected samples must be analyzed for the minimum parameters (total suspended solids, pH, and Oil and Grease), as well as for zinc, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and iron. However, per the submitted sampling reports, not all collected samples were analyzed for iron as required.

Enforcement
We encourage you to take steps to correct the violations as soon as possible to protect water quality and to minimize Humboldt Sawmill Company’s exposure to additional liability. Many of the existing conditions, as observed and documented in the Inspection Memo, may represent continuing violations, and are subject to administrative liabilities assessed for each day for each violation beginning with the first day of violation.

Correcting the conditions of non‐compliance at the Facility does not preclude enforcement for the violations alleged in this notice. As noted above, the Regional Water Board reserves its right to fully enforce the law against any violation and threatened violation by taking enforcement actions such as issuing a cleanup and abatement order or time schedule order, seeking administrative civil liabilities, and referring this matter to the California Attorney General’s office for enforcement.

Administrative civil liabilities may be assessed by the Regional Water Board for up to $10,000 for each day a violation occurs for each violation, including up to $10 per gallon 4 Pages 2 and 3 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015- 10/documents/sector_a_timber.pdf).
5 Page 3 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015- 10/documents/sector_o_steamelectricpower.pdf).

WDID No. 1 12I027974 - 10 - May 05, 2023
Scotia Sawmill and Cogeneration Plant
of waste discharged minus 1,000 gallons not cleaned up, pursuant to Water Code section 13385.

If you have questions about this Notice of Violation (NOV), please contact Regional Water Board Staff Farzad Kasmaei at [email protected] or Senior Water Resource Control Engineer Heaven Moore at
[email protected]. Additionally, we are available to meet with you if you wish to discuss this letter or the permit requirements in further detail. For any legal questions, please contact Laura Drabandt, Attorney IV with the State Water Quality Control Board Office of Enforcement at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Claudia E. Villacorta, P.E.

Assistant Executive Officer
Enclosures
Attachment A – Regulatory Citations
Attachment B – May 9 and 10, 2022 Inspection Memo
cc:

Heaven Moore, RWQCB, [email protected]
Farzad Kasmaei, [email protected]
Laura Drabandt, SWRCB, [email protected] Kristine Karlson, U.S. EPA, [email protected]
Suzanne McClurkin-Nelson, Facility Staff, [email protected] David Brown, Discharger Consultant (Lawrence & Associates), [email protected]
Charles Reed, RWQCB, [email protected]
Mona Dougherty, RWQCB, [email protected] Jeremiah Puget, RWQCB, [email protected] Chris Watt, RWQCB, [email protected]
A1
Attachment A – Regulatory Citations
Regulatory Section Citation
Violations 1 through 5:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection E.3,
subsections a through f
The Discharger shall include the following information on the site map:
a. The facility boundary, storm water drainage areas within the facility boundary, and portions of any drainage area impacted by discharges from surrounding areas. Include the flow direction of each drainage area, on-facility surface water bodies, areas of soil erosion, and location(s) of nearby water bodies (such as rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.) or municipal storm drain inlets that may receive the facility’s industrial storm water discharges and authorized NSWDs;
b. Locations of storm water collection and conveyance systems, associated discharge locations, and direction of flow. Include any sample locations if different than the identified discharge locations;
c. Locations and descriptions of structural control measures11 that affect industrial storm water discharges, authorized NSWDs, and/or run-on;
e. Locations where materials are directly exposed to precipitation and the locations where identified significant spills or leaks (Section X.G.1.d) have occurred; and f. Areas of industrial activity subject to this General Permit. Identify all industrial storage areas and storage tanks, shipping and receiving areas, fueling areas, vehicle and equipment storage/maintenance areas, material handling and processing areas, waste treatment and disposal areas, dust or particulate generating areas, cleaning and material reuse areas, and other areas of industrial activity that may have potential pollutant sources.

Violation 6:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection F
The Discharger shall ensure the SWPPP includes a list of industrial materials handled at the facility, and the locations where each material is stored, received, shipped, and handled, as well as the typical quantities and handling frequency.

A2
Regulatory Section Citation
Violation 7:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection G
Potential Pollutant Sources6
Violation 8:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection H.1.a.iv
Good Housekeeping:

The Discharger shall ensure that all facility areas impacted by rinse/wash waters are cleaned as soon as possible.

Violation 9:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection H.1.a.v
Good Housekeeping:

The Discharger shall cover all stored industrial materials that can be readily mobilized by contact with storm water
Violation 10:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection H.1.a.vii
Good Housekeeping:

The Discharger shall prevent disposal of any rinse/wash waters or industrial materials into the storm water conveyance system.

Violation 11:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection H.1.c
Spill and Leak Prevention and Response
The Discharger shall:
i. Establish procedures and/or controls to minimize spills and leaks; ii. Develop and implement spill and leak response procedures to prevent industrial materials from discharging through the storm water conveyance system. Spilled or leaked industrial materials shall be cleaned promptly and disposed of properly; iii. Identify and describe all necessary and appropriate spill and leak response equipment, location(s) of spill and leak response equipment, and spill or leak response equipment maintenance procedures; and,
iv. Identify and train appropriate spill and leak response personnel. 6 Industrial General Permit
A3
Regulatory Section Citation
Violation 12:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection H.1.d.i
Material Handling and Waste Management:

The Discharger shall prevent or minimize handling of industrial materials or wastes that can be readily mobilized by contact with storm water during a storm event Violation 13:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection H.1.d.iv
Material Handling and Waste Management:

The Discharger shall divert run-on and storm water generated from within the facility away from all stockpiled materials.

Violation 14:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection H.1.d.v
Material Handling and Waste Management:

The Discharger shall clean all spills of industrial materials or wastes that occur during handling in accordance with the spill response procedures (Section X.H.1.c) Violations 15 and 16:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsections H.1.e.iv and
v
Erosion and Sediment Controls
For each erodible surface facility location identified in the SWPPP (Section X.G.1.f), the Discharger shall:
iv. Divert run-on and storm water generated from within the facility away from all erodible materials; and,
v. If sediment basins are implemented, ensure compliance with the design storm standards in Section X.H.6.

A4
Violation 17:

Industrial General Permit
Section X. SWPPP,
Subsection H.6
Design Storm Standard for Treatment Control BMPs
All new treatment control BMPs employed by the Discharger to comply with Section X.H.2 Advanced BMPs and new sediment basins installed after the effective date of this order shall be designed to comply with design storm standards in this Section, except as provided in an Industrial Activity BMP Demonstration (Section XII.D.2.a). A Factor of Safety shall be incorporated into the design of all treatment control BMPs to ensure that storm water is sufficiently treated throughout the life of the treatment control BMPs. The design storm standards for treatment control BMPs are as follows:
a. Volume-based BMPs: The Discharger, at a minimum, shall calculate13 the volume to be treated using one of the following methods:
i. The volume of runoff produced from an 85th percentile 24-hour storm event, as determined from local, historical rainfall records;
ii. The volume of runoff produced by the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event, determined as the maximized capture runoff volume for the facility, from the formula recommended in the Water Environment Federation’s Manual of Practice;14 or, iii. The volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80% or more treatment, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in the latest edition of California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook15, using local, historical rainfall records. b. Flow-based BMPs: The Discharger shall calculate the flow needed to be treated using one of the following methods:
i. The maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of at least 0.2 inches per hour for each hour of a storm event;
ii. The maximum flow rate of runoff produced by the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity, as determined from local historical rainfall records, multiplied by a factor of two; or,
iii. The maximum flow rate of runoff, as determined using local historical rainfall records, that achieves approximately the same reduction in total pollutant loads as would be achieved by treatment of the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity multiplied by a factor of two.

A5
Regulatory Section Citation
Violation 18:

Industrial General Permit
Section XI. Monitoring,
Subsection B.4
Except as provided in Section XI.C.4 (Representative Sampling Reduction), samples shall be collected from each drainage area at all discharge locations. The samples must be:
a. Representative of storm water associated with industrial activities and any commingled authorized NSWDs; or,
b. Associated with the discharge of contained storm water.

Violation 19:

Industrial General Permit
Section XI. Monitoring,
Subsection B.6.c
The Discharger shall analyze all collected samples for the following parameters:

Additional parameters identified by the Discharger on a facility-specific basis that serve as indicators of the presence of all industrial pollutants identified in the pollutant source assessment (Section X.G.2). These additional parameters may be modified (added or removed) in accordance with any updated SWPPP pollutant source assessment Violation 20:

Industrial General Permit
Section XI. Monitoring,
Subsection B.6.d
The Discharger shall analyze all collected samples for the following parameters:

Additional applicable parameters listed in Table 1 below. These parameters are dependent on the facility Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code(s) A6
Attachment B – May 9 and 10, 2022 Inspection Memo
From: Ann Feeney
To: Public Comment
Subject: Do not buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humbolt Sawmill company Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 6:48:11 AM
Burning wood (incinerated biomass) is NOT renewable energy! Reserve Renewable Energy Certificates for real renewable energy.

From: David Moller
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment for August 24, 2023 RCEA Mtg
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 2:35:27 PM
Dear RCEA Board of Directors,
This is to ask that RCEA NOT buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company.

That money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, hydro, battery storage, and geothermal – that don’t worsen our climate crisis. We need to stop burning things! Other solutions are available. Let’s use them!
David Moller, P.E.

Larkspur, CA
From: Edith F Butler
To: Public Comment
Subject: RECs
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 2:10:03 PM
RCEA,
Please vote to NOT buy Renewable Energy Certificates from the biomass plant in Scotia.

That energy is too dirty and we need clean energy now and in the future.

Thank you.

Edith Butler
From: Gordon Inkeles
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 8.2
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 2:30:58 PM
Attention RCEA Board:

I’m writing in support of the letter you received from Wendy Ring MD, MPH.

Dr Ring has called your attention to a serious public health risk that’s posed by biomass plant in Scotia, CA. There is no higher priority for RECA than protecting public health. Failing to act now will expose the public to serious health risks and RECA could be held responsible for damages.

Please vote to oppose this purchase.

Sincerely,
Gordon Inkeles
Bayside, CA. 95524
From: Louis Rodriguez
To: Lori Taketa
Subject: FW: Please stop supporting biomass burning.

Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:11:53 PM
Louis Rodriguez
Customer Service Associate | Redwood Coast Energy Authority Office (707) 269-1700 x 306 | Cell (707) 572-8437 | www.RedwoodEnergy.org Email: [email protected]
Pronouns: he/him
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: We respect your privacy. Please review our privacy policy for more information. http://redwoodenergy.org/privacy/ The information in this e-mail may be confidential, subject to legal privilege, or otherwise protected from disclosure. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by mis-transmission. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your computer system.

From: Julie Doerner
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 8:19 AM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Please stop supporting biomass burning.

Dear RCEA,
Burning biomass is not a step toward alleviating the climate crisis we find ourselves in. Please stop including it as a "clean" source of electricity and energy. Please do not allow Humboldt Sawmill Company to earn credit for creating smoke, ash, and emitting carbon into the air!! It just doesn't fit with what you stand for and are trying to achieve. No more renewable energy credits for Humboldt Sawmill Company when the credits are for burning biomass!! Our air quality is already compromised enough.

With sincerity and concern, Julie Doerner
From: Senorjoel
To: Public Comment
Subject: BIomass Burning: Humboldt Sawmill Company
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 12:05:39 AM
To the Redwood Coast Energy Authority:

Please do not buy any more Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company.

That money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, battery storage, and geothermal.

The Humboldt Sawmill biomass plant repeatedly violates the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and it emits more carbon than coal. This only serves to fan the flames of the climate crisis. Supporting incinerated biomass electricity means less support for real solutions. Humboldt Sawmill will not develop alternative ways of dealing with its woody waste as long as you keep funding its biomass burning.

Sincerely,
Joel Hildebrandt
Alameda County
From: Jasmin Segura
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 8:08:52 AM
Hello,
As a citizen of this fine county, I'm asking you NOT to buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company. That money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, battery storage, and geothermal.

Thanks for your time,
Jasmin Segura
From: Lynn Kerman
To: Public Comment
Subject: Humboldt Sawmill Company
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 3:55:10 PM
I am writing to urge you to NOT buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company. That money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, battery storage, and geothermal.

The biomass plant repeatedly violates the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, plus it emits more carbon than coal, fanning the flames of climate crisis. Supporting incinerated biomass electricity means less support for real solutions. And Humboldt Sawmill will never develop alternative ways of dealing with its woody waste as long as RCEA keeps supplying it with dollars.

We are in the midst here in Humboldt of the tragic effects of climate change and we need to put all of our efforts into developing renewables. This is not the right course.

Thank you,
Lynn Kerman
Eureka
From: Mary Hurley
To: Public Comment
Subject: RCEA Priorities for Sources of Renewal Energy
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 11:12:56 AM
I am writing to submit a public comment regarding the decision to purchase additional renewable energy certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company at your Thursday, Aug. 24 meeting.

I urge the RCEA Board not to purchase these certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company as part of the sourcing of renewable energy. I have chosen to receive part of my energy through RCEA in lieu of Pacific Gas and Electric. I made that decision based on information given by RCEA that your priority is to emphasize renewable sources of energy to supply our region. These sources include solar, wind, battery storage, and geothermal.

Energy generated from biomass sources burning wood such as the Humboldt Sawmill Company has been shown to produce heat, smoke, air pollution, and more carbon emissions than coal.

Given the ever increasing climate crisis events occurring, we must stop producing sources of electricity that increase carbon emissions now.

Your organization has received much support for greener sources of energy and to move away from biomass electricity from both organizations and individuals. It therefore makes no sense to now propose giving the Humboldt Sawmill biomass plant in Scotia more money. There won't be any additional increase in electricity production from this additional money.

As an organization in this region of CA that holds the ability to make important decisions that affect more fossil fuel output, you must listen to your constituents and make the right decisions for public policies that are urgently needed to stop further emissions of carbon that is destroying the planet.

I urge you to listen to your ratepayers and make the right decision to move away now from further biomass electricity production and credits.

Thank you.

Mary Hurley
Eureka, CA 95503
From: Paula Morgan
To: Public Comment
Subject: RCEA
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 4:11:06 AM
I am writing to request the RCEA to NOT buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company. That money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, battery storage, and geothermal.

Thank you,
P. Morgan
From: Ron Sadler
To: Public Comment
Subject: Don"t buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 11:28:27 AM
Please do not buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company. Burning wood produces a lot of heat, smoke, air pollution, and carbon. One thing it doesn’t produce is clean energy.

Please, for the sake of your children and mine, don't buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company.

Sincerely,
Ron Sadler
From: Sarah Brooks
To: Public Comment
Subject: Biomass
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 11:16:43 AM
To RCEA,
This year of extreme heat, fires, and floods is just another sign of the urgency with which we must address the climate crisis! I support RCEA in its efforts to provide us with clean energy in Humboldt County but we must look at ways to improve and recognize that the burning of biomass is not a clean source of energy! Please take this opportunity to be more proactive in holding Humboldt Sawmill accountable for consistent violations of air quality and reduce, rather than increase, the amount they are getting from our support of RCEA! Thank you,
Sarah Brooks, Redway RCEA customer
Elected AD2 Delegate to the California Democratic Party From: Diane Korsower
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 8.2
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 10:12:10 PM
I am writing as a long-time Humboldt County resident, a mother and grandmother, and as a physician concerned, as you are, about our shared future. I urge you not to purchase Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill's biomass plant in Scotia. Biomass burning is NOT clean energy, and Humboldt Sawmill repeatedly pollutes our air and water. The plant is inefficient and obsolete, and the health of our community, and of our planet, demand better. To quote your mission statement:

RCEA’s mission is to develop and implement sustainable energy initiatives that reduce energy demand, increase energy efficiency, and advance the use of clean, efficient and renewable resources available in the region for the benefit of the member agencies and their constituents.

Humboldt Sawmill's plant is neither clean or efficient, and its function does not benefit its member agencies or their constituents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Diane Korsower M.D.

From: Cathy ChandlerKlein
To: Public Comment
Subject: biomass
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 8:31:54 PM
To RCEA:

Please do NOT buy Renewable Energy Certificates from the Sawmill. Climate catastrophes are increasing in frequency and intensity (think Maui wildfire, So Cal hurricane, killing heat domes). We do not have time to mess around. Please commit to truly clean electricity sources as soon as possible.

Cathy Chandler-Klein, MFT
From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: public comment on biomass burning
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 9:49:43 PM
As I contemplate what I might say to attempt to persuade you to discontinue purchasing energy from biomass burning, I am wheezing from all the smoke in the air from fires currently burning. Pay close attention to Wendy Ring's comments.

They echo what I would say. Burning things makes smoke with particulate matter which is not good to breathe. One does not even need to be a doctor to know that. Happily, I do not live in Scotia or Rio Dell where my lungs might always feel like they have felt today. Please reconsider!
Carol Mone
Trinidad, CA
From: Sue Y. Lee
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 8.2
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 2:59:12 AM
Dear Members of the RCEA Board,
We have a moral obligation to protect the health of our planet's life support systems and the health of everyone in our community.

Our household is an RCEA customer, and I strongly oppose RCEA's purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Co because the purchase of biomass energy by RCEA is inconsistent with its stated goal of supporting a clean energy transition.

HSC's biomass plant is on record as emitting about 300,000 metric tons of CO2e a year. It will take many years of tree regrowth to remove one year's worth of this CO2 from the atmosphere, and many many more years for the warming oceans, glaciers, and permafrost to cool. We are in the hottest summer in recorded history with over 600 fires burning in Canada, and numerous others in Europe and elsewhere.

Humboldt Sawmill is also a habitual polluter with multiple violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. They have been cited for over 700 violations including 12 air violations while under contract with RCEA, and at least 37 water violations for polluting the Eel River.

HSC's biomass plant emits close to 300,000 metric tons of CO2e a year. It will take many years of tree regrowth to remove one year's worth of this CO2 from the atmosphere, and many many more years for the oceans, glaciers, and permafrost heated in the meantime to cool. Producing biomass energy with carbon emissions that lead to global warming, does not make sense when we are in the midst of the hottest summer in recorded history.

Humboldt Sawmill is a habitual polluter with multiple violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. The company has committed over 700 violations, including 12 Clean Air violations while under contract with RCEA. In addition there are more than 37 Clean Water violations for polluting the Eel River.

Buying energy or RECs from HSC is a threat to human health and the health of our forests. The argument that if HSC does not burn the mill waste, the waste would be openburned or dumped in landfills does not hold water because both of those actions are illegal. Additionally there is no evidence, or a direct unequivocal statement, from HSC that the plant burns significant amounts of wood thinned from fuel overloaded forests.

The threat to global warming, and the risks to the health of our local citizens and the health of our forests are the reasons I am in strong opposition to RCEA's purchase of REC's from Humboldt Sawmill Co.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Sue Y. Lee Mossman
Arcata, CA 95518
From: Caephren McKenna
To: Public Comment
Subject: Humboldt Sawmill Company
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 2:05:38 PM
Please do NOT buy Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill Company. That money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, battery storage, and geothermal.

From: sue
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item 8.2
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 1:11:32 PM
Please don't buy energy credits from the Scotia biomass plant. We need to develop other means of using sawmill waste that doesn't immediately release the carbon, and buying credits from the biomass plant (which regularly violates the clean air act) allows and encourages them to continue polluting our air and releasing carbon into the atmosphere.
thank you
Sue Hilton
Arcata
From: Ann Dorsey
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment for RCEA meeting on Thursday, August 24 at 3:30 Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:45:50 PM
Redwood Coast Energy Authority,
I urge you to stop buying Renewable Energy Certificates from the Humboldt Sawmill Company.

Incinerated biomass electricity
produces a lot of heat, smoke, air pollution and carbon. The biomass plant repeatedly violates the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and it emits more carbon than coal. This is not clean energy.

Instead, that money should go for real Renewable Energy—solar, wind, battery storage and geothermal.

Thank you,
Ann Dorsey
From: Colin Fiske
To: Public Comment
Cc: Arroyo, Natalie; Sarah Schaefer
Subject: Comments on Agenda Items 7.1 and 8.2
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 12:56:02 PM
RCEA Board Members,
Please accept the following comments on agenda items for your 8/24/23 Board meeting. To be clear, I am submitting these comments as an individual, and not as a representative of the Community Advisory Committee.

Item 7.1: (Solar) Net Billing Tariff Implementation
The recent end of net metering (NEM) for rooftop solar by investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in California is resulting in a crash in the rooftop solar industry - or as your staff report puts it, "a major slowdown in sales of new solar projects" - as was widely predicted. The IOUs and the CPUCs offered justifications for ending NEM related to customer equity, but the decision should be seen in the context of a decades-long campaign by IOUs across the country to undermine distributed generation that disrupts their business model.

In contrast, RCEA has specific adopted goals to increase rooftop solar and other distributed generation resources and to provide a NEM program. Yet staff are recommending that RCEA end its NEM program and instead "mirror" PG&E's new rate structure for solar - the exact approach that is killing the statewide rooftop solar industry. This is contrary to our adopted and widely popular goal of supporting local rooftop solar, and I urge you to reconsider. Please retain the existing NEM program.

If RCEA has concerns about the equity implications of its own NEM program, these concerns can and should be addressed without undermining the local rooftop solar industry. For example, RCEA could partner with organizations providing free or reduced-cost solar installations for income-qualified customers and/or provide pathways for multifamily/multimeter community solar projects to benefit renter households.

Item 8.2: Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase from Humboldt Sawmill Company Please do not purchase Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from Humboldt Sawmill Company. This action would be contrary to the purpose of the RECs and undermine RCEA's goals.

The purchase of RECs is part of complying with the state's renewable energy standards, intended to support and subsidize the production of more renewable energy. But the staff report states clearly that HSC's RECs are "associated with energy production already taking place." In other words, HSC has been and would continue to burn this biomass for electricity regardless. Thus, even if you believe that biomass is a legitimate form of renewable energy, these RECs would not serve the intended purpose of incentivizing more renewables. Nor would their purchase support any additional local jobs or economic activity, because it would not result in any operational changes. It would merely fatten the profits of HSC's out-of-town owners.

Furthermore, the staff report argues in support of these RECs that HSC is a "trustworthy and cooperative" business partner. This is a somewhat surprising assertion, given recent revelations that HSC's plant has experienced numerous unreported air quality violations in recent years, and HSC's recent failure to produce required information about fuel sources and alternate uses for its mill waste, despite an MOU with RCEA requiring it do so.

If RCEA must purchase unbundled RECs, they should be associated with clean renewables that actually need the support, not with HSC.

Thank you.

Colin Fiske
From: Jerry Martien
To: Public Comment
Cc: jerry martien; [email protected]
Subject: Do Not Buy Humboldt Sawmill Biomass Energy
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 2:07:47 PM
Dear RCEA Board of Directors:

Sorry I can’t attend your 24 August Meeting in person. Please accept this online comment re your proposal to continue and expand the purchase of electric power from Humboldt Sawmill.

I have opposed this false solution to your over-promise of renewable energy since its inception. I feel like you have made your customers hostage to the blatantly untruthful claim that burning trees to generate electricity is ecologically sound, scientifically true, or even morally justifiable.

You are forcing your customers to swallow a lie that is not only distasteful, but places you on the same low level as PG&E when it was promising clean and safe atomic power. It degrades not only your image but the entire promise of sustainable energy and the green movement.
"Look what desperate lies those environmentalists will tell to make themselves look good and stay profitable." Ashamed to be doing busiiness with you,
Jerry Martien
Eureka, CA 95503
From: Judith Rieger
To: Public Comment
Subject: Humboldt Sawmill"s biomass
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:48:15 AM
Please do not allow the purchase of renewable energy certificates from Humboldt Sawmill's biomass plant. Many very knowledgeable people have explained why this is a bad idea. As an RCEA customer, I also see it as a bad idea, and would question dealing with RCEA in the future.

Judith Rieger
Retired educator
From: Lee Dedini
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 8.2
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:41:51 AM
Dear RCEA Board,
For Agenda item 8.2-
I strongly oppose the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates from the Humboldt Sawmill biomass plant.

HSC’s biomass plant emits close to 300,000 metric tons of CO2e a year. The planet cannot remove CO2 fast enough and we already have the hottest summer in recorded history.

Humboldt Sawmill continues to pollute with multiple violations of the Clean Air and Water Acts. These are not the actions of a company that cares about the community. EPA modeling estimates current health costs from HSC’s particulates at $3-7 million a year.

RCEA should not enter into new contracts or expand existing contracts with HSC.

On Thursday afternoon, make the decision to stop buying Renewable Energy Certificates (REC ‘s) from the biomass plant in Scotia which emits more carbon than coal.

Thank you for your understanding,
Lee Dedini, retired Engineering Technician
Bayside
From: Lynda McDevitt
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 8.2
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 2:05:03 PM
To RCEA Board Members
I oppose the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits from the Scotia Biomass Plant.

Although the energy produced is renewable it is not at all clean. The use of biomass is polluting and produces massive amount of CO2. Humanity has a very limited time before climate change creates even more unthinkable crises than the world is already experiencing.

The funds should be spent on creating a clean way for the Scotia lumber mill to transition in dealing with its use of waste.

Sincerely,
Lynda McDevitt, Trinidad
TO: [email protected]
FROM: Leslie Zondervan-Droz
DATE: 23 August 23, 2023
SUBJECT: Agenda Item 8.2
As a longtime subscriber to RCEA’s services I object to the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates from Humboldt Sawmill's biomass plant. Burning biomass is not a clean way to produce energy especially when done by a regular polluter like Humboldt Sawmill.

Humboldt Sawmill is a habitual polluter with multiple violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. It has not told the truth about its hundreds of violations to get the contract.

We need the best possible choice for our plant now, not the better of two evils. My sole income is Social Security and, if I am willing to pay a bit more for the best choice, then RCEA should also.
lSincerely,
Leslie Zondervan-Droz
From: Rebecca Stauffer
To: Public Comment
Subject: Meeting 8-24-23 3:30 pm Agenda Item 8.2
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 7:07:17 AM
Re: Agenda item 8.2
To the Board of RCEA,
I strongly oppose the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates from the Humboldt Sawmill biomass plant, which currently emits close to 300,000 metric tons of CO2 per year. We know that the planet cannot remove CO2 fast enough and we are already emitting far more carbon than is liveable for humans and other creatures.

Humboldt Sawmill continues to pollute with multiple violations of the Clean Air and Water Acts which are not the actions of a company that cares about the community. EPA modeling estimates current health costs from HSC’s particulates at $3-7 million a year.

I implore RCEA to no longer enter into new contracts with HSC.

On Thursday afternoon, please make the decision to stop buying Renewable Energy Certificates from the biomass plant in Scotia which emits more carbon than coal.

We look to RCEA to be a steward of clean energy on the north coast and hope that you will make the decision that is healthy for people and planet.

Thank you,
Rebecca Stauffer
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I’ll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.

Ideas, language, even the phrase ‘each other’
doesn’t make any sense. - Rumi
From: Caroline Griffith
To: Public Comment
Subject: comment on agenda item 8.2
Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023 10:32:53 AM
RCEA Board of Directors,
On behalf of the Northcoast Environmental Center, I urge you to vote against staff recommendations and not purchase Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from Humboldt Sawmill Company (HSC). This purchase is being justified by the need for compliance, however purchasing RECs associated with energy that is already being produced (by a company with a track record of air quality violations) runs counter to the purpose of RECs, which is to support and subsidize the production of more renewable energy. It also undermines RCEA’s goal of supporting clean renewable energy.

The staff report states, “RECs offered by HSC are a newly available compliance resource associated with energy production already taking place, so procuring them will not result in any new pollutant or greenhouse gas emissions.” Likewise, this purchase will not result in any new energy being produced and is equivalent to ratepayer subsidization of dirty power produced for the benefit of HSC's operations. If credits must be purchased, we urge you to purchase credits associated with clean renewables and to find sources that align with RCEA’s and the community’s values of clean air and reduced emissions.

Thank you,
--
Caroline Griffith (she/they)
Executive Director and EcoNews Editor
The Northcoast Environmental Center sits in Goudi’ni, part of the unceded ancestral land of the Wiyot peoples.

We strive to follow the example of the Indigenous peoples of the north coast who continue to steward this land as they have done since time immemorial. We pledge to listen to, learn from, respect, and include the voices of Indigenous peoples in our work advocating for the wellbeing of this land and the people who call it home. Join us in acknowledging and respecting the sovereignty of the Wiyot Tribe by participating in the Wiyot Honor Tax, or supporting the tribe upon whose land you reside.

Northcoast Environmental Center
PO Box 4259
Arcata, CA 95518
www.yournec.org
[email protected]
August 24, 2023
RE: Agenda Item 8.2: Purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates Dear RCEA Board Members,
As a RCEA ratepayer for the cleanest greenest option offered, I vehemently oppose the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) from Humboldt Sawmill Company’s (HSC) biomass plant.

Electricity electrons don’t differentiate; they come from the most momentarily available source regardless of what I pay for. Biomass burning is dirtier than burning coal. HSC’s biomass plant emits almost 300,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, as well as other toxic pollutants and

2.5 micron particulates which are a major health hazard. HSC’s biomass plant emissions are a significant proportion of our county’s annual GHG emissions.

Thanks to Dr. Wendy Ring’s research, we have evidence of HSC’s many violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, including water violations for polluting the Eel River. HSC’s continuous violations show us the company puts profit over the health and safety of our community. In addition to NOT purchasing RECs from HSC, I strongly urge RCEA to NOT enter into new contracts or expand existing contracts for biomass energy, and investigate and implement the option of canceling the existing contract with HSC that applies into 2031. I prefer to have my ratepayer dollars go toward solar, wind, energy storage, geothermal, and wave energy conversion instead of welfare for the wealthy owners of HSC.

The HSC Scotia plant has ample area for utility scale rooftop and above ground solar, energy storage and microgrid installation to provide energy to run the mill and dry the wood plus act as backup energy for the towns of Scotia and Rio Dell. I urge you to investigate options to subsidize HSC to get them to move in this direction.

Thank you for having the courage to stand up to private for-profit corporations in order to serve the ratepayers in our County.

Diane Ryerson
Arcata, CA 95521
From: Michael Winkler
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 8.2 - Biomass Electricity Contract Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023 11:41:02 AM
RCEA Board Members
I strongly support continuing the electricity purchase contracts with the Scotia biomass power plant.

I have studied this issue for more than 35 years and my conclusions are that biomass electricity production can play a pivotal role complementing the variability of solar and wind. Currently, biomass electricity operates as steady baseload power. In the future, advanced biomass generation will be able to offset the variability of solar and wind in real time, minute to minute.

Biomass electricity, both long-term and short-term, is not a net greenhouse gas source. In fact, for more than 50 years, the number and volume of trees in U.S. forests has been increasing so that these forests, collectively, are a net absorber rather than a net emitter of greenhouse gases.

Rather than look at net greenhouse gas emissions from biomass consumption by looking at each individual tree, as does Dr. Wendy Ring, a more valid greenhouse gas perspective is to look at the current balance between the volume of trees being cut and volume of new tree growth. This balance shows that local and U.S. forests, overall, and biomass waste specifically as both current and long-term net greenhouse absorbers rather than emitters.

One of the most important uses of wood, new home construction, typically sequesters carbon for more than 100 years. Selling electricity generated by timber industry waste is the highest and best economically viable use for this waste and contributes to the economic health of this still-important local industry.

When RCEA started its community choice energy program a number of years ago, a critical reason why it had strong, wide-spread community support was that it balanced the perspectives of a wide range of community members. These perspectives included those who primarily supported solar and wind and those who primarily supported the timber industry. Canceling or refusing to continue contracts with the biomass plant would unfairly prioritize the interests and values of one part of the community over the other.

In my more than 25 years as a renewable energy professional, a former member and Chair of the RCEA Board and a former city council member and Mayor of Arcata, I have always supported a wide variety of sustainable renewable energy sources, including solar, wind and biomass electricity.

I have no personal or professional connection to the timber industry.

I ask you to continue and extend the biomass electricity contract as part of a balanced renewable energy portfolio and to support economic development in our community.

Michael Winkler
Arcata
Current Professional Positions (for identification only) Energy Analyst and Partner, Redwood Energy
Chair, City of Arcata Energy Committee
From: Walter Paniak
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 8.2
Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023 10:28:19 AM
HSC and unbundled credits
I do not support purchasing unbundled RECs from HSC. IF these were purchased, RCEA rate payers would be paying a portion of HSC behind the meter cost. Those costs should be allocated to the price of lumber and not shifted to rate payers to provide additional income to a billion dollar plus privately held company.

Behind the meter RECs from HSC reward inefficiency; that is, the more power that they use the more unbundled credits that they can justify . The EPA defines the ability to monetize RECs but only when the power goes to the grid. CPUC rules are apparently more liberal.

My rhetorical question rhetorical questions:

Where have these RECs a been applied in the past?
Has paying more than the market price for local power caused us to be in the situation where reserves are at risk in 2024?
Who is responsible for the REC arbitrage challenge where rate payers could pay more to a privately held company for power used by that same company for it’s own private benefit? Can HSC gift RCEA these unbundled RECSs just to be a good neighbor? Finally, the Federal Energy Information Agency Report 923 shows all power plant data by date and by energy source. HSC plant ID is 50049. HSC cogenerates with Diesel oil when needed.

In 2022 HSC reported that 5901 barrels or 247,842 gallons of diesel were used for power.

January to May 2023 HSC reported 1160 barrels or 48,720 gallons of diesel fuel used. Are these quantities of fossil fuel reported and priced adjusted and exempt from RECs? This is likely the coolest summer for the next millennium unless we do our utmost to save our youth from catastrophe.

Walt Paniak
Arcata resident
From: Caroline Isaacs
To: Public Comment
Subject: No biomass
Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023 12:17:44 PM
I understand you are meeting today to discuss a biomass contract, and would like to register my objection to furthering this highly polluting/carbon emitting source of electricity. The money should be going into increasing the amount of solar and wind energy households can generate for themselves and others.

Thank you,
Caroline Isaacs
From: Emelia Berol
To: Public Comment
Subject: RCEA AND HUMBOLDT BIOMASS PLANT
Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023 3:46:41 PM
TO THE RCEA BOARD:

As a longtime resident of Humboldt County, and one who pays clean energy dollars every month to RCEA on my electricity bill, I would like to say that I find it disappointing that RCEA is considering buying RECs from Humboldt Biomass. Considering their socially irresponsible record of violations and broken commitments regarding Clean Air and Clean Water violations, I do not find them to be the sort of clean energy source that I am willing to support.

Biomass seems like a good idea in our area because of the availability of materials, but on closer examination, the negative side, the carbon impacts and particulate matter emissions, and the associated violations, have caused other biomass plants to be shut down in our area, ie the plant in Blue Lake. Childhood asthma is just one of the side effects that are concerning. Investing in RECs in a plant that has the potential to be shut down due to violations seems like a risky path.

Please find cleaner energy sources to invest my dollars in.

Thank you,
Emelia Berol
McKinleyville, CA
From: Patty Harvey
To: Public Comment
Subject: REC purchase from Scotia biomass
Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023 3:41:17 PM
Please buy no renewable energy certificates from the Scotia Biomass plant. They emit more carbon than burning coal, plus their repeated violations of air and pollution laws shows they are willing to produce very dirty energy! Sent from my iPhone
View this email in your browser

WOODY FEEDSTOCK AGGREGATION PILOT

PROJECT
PROPOSALS DUE AUGUST 15, 2023!
Request for Proposals

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WEBPAGE
The North Coast Resource Partnership (NCRP) and the Watershed Research and Training Center (WRTC) are partnering on a multi-faceted initiative to increase the collection, aggregation, and utilization of the woody biomass produced from hazardous fuel management projects across the North Coast Region. The North Coast Forest Biomass Strategy will help drive community and landscape-scale fire hazard reduction, watershed health, and resilience. This phase of the Strategy, the Woody Feedstock Aggregation Pilot Project, is funded by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

The NCRP and the WRTC are pleased to announce a request for proposals from project sponsors and partnerships to develop a preliminary business plan that includes foundational elements of a successful organizational model for feedstock aggregation. Up to three pilot partnerships will be selected, representing Tribal lands or Tribal communities, counties, and/or sub-regions within the North Coast Region.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
Eligible applicants include Federally and/or California State recognized Tribes, public agencies, counties, local or state agencies/special districts, Resource Conservation Districts, non-profit organizations, and public utilities.

AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE
Pilot project sponsors can apply for up to $60,000 in grant funds.

DELIVERY OF PROPOSALS & DEADLINES
Proposals are due August 15, 2023. To apply, please submit a proposal via the NCRP Project Tracker.

PROPOSAL MATERIALS
Woody Feedstock Aggregation Pilot Project Request for Proposal NCRP Project Tracker Proposal Instructions
From: Ellen E Taylor
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: North Coast Woody Feedstock Aggregation Pilot Project Request for Proposal Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 11:05:16 AM
Dear Redwood Coast Energy Directors,
I am forwarding this appeal from NCRP for projects to aggregate feedstock from the forests of Humboldt County. It looks like an effort to involve Humboldt County into a fullscale woody biomass for energy project for jobs, profit, etc
...which is bad news for climate.

Yours
Ellen Taylor
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Michael Evenson <[email protected]>
To: Ellen ; Gary Hughes
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023, 8:32:49 PM PDT
Subject: Fwd: North Coast Woody Feedstock Aggregation Pilot Project Request for Proposal Begin forwarded message:

From: North Coast Resource Partnership <[email protected]> Subject: North Coast Woody Feedstock Aggregation Pilot Project Request for Proposal Date: July 3, 2023 at 8:29:32 AM PDT
To:

Reply-To: North Coast Resource Partnership <[email protected]> More Information
Project Application Supplemental Information

PROPOSAL OR PROJECT TRACKER SUPPORT
For assistance with proposal development, contact Clarke Stevenson at [email protected]
For assistance with uploading a proposal to Project Tracker, contact Rose Roberts at [email protected]
Copyright © 2023. North Coast Resource Partnership. All rights reserved.

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

From: Ellen E Taylor
To: Public Comment
Subject: pub lic comment
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 11:10:39 AM
Attachments: LetterEIRwoodpelletsGSNR6262023-1.docx
tsbiomasseditedM82023.docx
Dear RCEA Directors,
I'm sending these two items which I mentioned at the RCEA meeting earlier this month. One is the Times-Standard MyWord article which appeared on Wednesday August 23rd regarding woody biomass. The other is a comment letter I wrote to Golden State Natural Resources, a corporation which is developing the giant pellet mills in the Sierra foorhills. The letter was solicited by GSRS to help them design the EIR application.

Yours
Ellen Taylor
Golden State Finance Authority
Attn: GSNR Scoping Comment
1215 K Street, Suite 1650
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear GSNR Environmental Impact Report Experts and Evaluators,, The Lost Coast League is an organization which originated in the 1970’s in order to defend the King Range from logging. It expanded its interests over the decades to address other challenges to the Public Trust Values of California.

We are concerned about the proposed plan of Golden State Natural Resources to build pellet manufacturing plants in Tuolumne and Lassen Counties and to ship their product through a coastal city to other countries for sale.

As you may know, wood pellet factories are materializing all over the world, and feed stock, from brushwood in Africa to conifers and hardwoods in the Baltic states and tropical rainforests in South America are being decimated to capitalize on the pellet market. Cutting down trees is cheap and easy compared with other energy forms classified as renewable, and help nations reach their targets.

World history records ominous consequences to this pattern of human behavior. Civilizations and empires, from Africa, Mesopotamia, to Greece, Rome, Europe, and to the conquest of the western hemisphere, have fallen, or been conquered, after the exhaustion of their forest resources, whether it be for building, smelting metal or war. The decline of its forests have caused the fall of every empire in history. John Perlin in his famous book “A Forest Journey” has documented the decline, and resultant impoverishment.

In the modern era with multinational corporations and intertwined economic systems, the planet’s different empires are indistinguishable from the viewpoint of resource extraction.

However, organizations such as Biofuelwatch, are beginning to recognize the danger, and are reaching large swathes of earth’s population, terrified into giving up their forests by threats of fires and prospects of cold winters, and they are raising protests.

Although the EU still recognizes forest biomass as “renewable”, the IPCC does not. Wood pellets are beginning to lose their advantage in the Nationally Determined Contributions to GG reduction pledged by various countries.

No wonder Humboldt County Supervisor Rex Bohn urged haste in approval of the GSNR projects remarking “in fifteen years they will catch on to us and we won’t be able to burn wood pellets anymore”.

We are therefore writing to address the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report regarding this project, which will be produced in the coming months.

In a recent seminar introducing the project to the public, CEO Greg Norton described GSNR’s Mission as enhancing forest resiliency.

In your EIR, we would be grateful if you would supply a definition of forest resiliency. Do you mean resiliency to fire?
In “Ecological Applications an Oregon State University publications, a definitive study reported that “ daily fire weather was the most important predictor of fire severity, followed by stand age and ownership, followed by topographical features. Estimates of pre-forest-fire biomass were not an important predictor of fire severity.”
Another study stated that “intense forest management increased fire severity in a multi-ownership landscape.” As the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project reported, together with the US Forest Service, “timber harvest through its effects on forest structure local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased fire intensity more than any other recent human activity”.

Although The GSNR project does not purport to produce timber, it is a logging project. It is end-stage logging which, together with products like fiberboards and glued products, characterize end-stage logging. And, just like old-fashioned logging which occurred when there were abundant trees, end-stage logging increases fire risk.

Please describe in your EIR why the removal of trees, snags, branches, And other forest materials which are not destined for a lumber mill will not increase fire danger in the same way that logging does. How much will it reduce moisture, and dry out the forest, increase fire-spreading wind velocity, and heat up the forest floor? As you may know trees produce at least 40% of the world’s rainfall.(Fred Pearce, WeatherMakers, Science 268, no. 6497 (June 18th 2020: 1306) How much will the GSNR project reduce rainfall in the forests it uses for feedstock? How much will roads, thinning and harvest activity, increase temperature and create wind corridors? Will the more fire- resistant trees, such as hardwoods, be part of the feedstock? If not, how will the project affect their ability to provide food for surviving wildlife? The GSNR mission statement states that the project will increase biodiversity. Please provide details in regard to this benefit. The feed stock which was described included “unmarketable” timber. Does this include down logs, snags, and branches, material normally considered to be wildlife habitat?
In the principal wood pellet production region in our country, the south east, the industry now uses 50% trunks and whole logs for pellet production. Do you anticipate having to do the same?
Please describe the anticipated effect of the removal of this carboniferous biomass on the fertility and sequestered carbon content of the underlying soil.

Is greenhouse gas production of this project included in your calculation of total pollution effect, including dust at the factory sites, in transportation and at the export facilities? Please define what you mean by renewable energy. How do you calculate the rate of sequestration renewal of a tree which has been harvested, by a seedling? I the new tree as dense as the harvested one? Is it as old?
Does the EU continue to regard woody biomass from forests as renewable energy and therefore not calculate the total tonnage of greenhouse gases produced in European carbon footprints? If so, does this mean that the carbon footprint of the burning of these wood pellets is never calculated at all?
Given the immediacy of our climate crises, with the yearly steep increase in world temperatures and CO2 ppm, how do you justify the categorization of these forest products as renewable, given that it takes years for woody biomass to be replaced? What percentage of the landbase for feedstock used at the the factory sites is in public lands? Is GSNR receiving any government or agency subsidies for the project? Would the project be economically feasible without these subsidies? Does GSNR have a plan for the dissolution of their economic venture if wood pellet production ceases to be profitable, or the negative consequences of “raking the forest” as our previous President described it, affect policy?
Some analysts state that removing feed stock from forests more than 30 miles distant is uneconomical. How are you justifying the collection of feed stock from more distant areas, Especially if the project is being subsidized by the public? Earlier this month GSNR conducted a zoom in order to assess public opinion of this project.

It was uniformly negative. How much weight will the EIR give to this negative public opinion? Do you think, regarding the segment of the population which did not attend the zoom, that, if they were properly informed concerning the cumulative effects of the project, instead of being goaded in their fear of catastrophic fire by the timber lobby, that they would agree with the zoom participants?
As you may know in terms of EROI (energy return on investment) biomass is far less efficient than coal, and well as being dirtier. Pellets require far more energy input per unit of electricity produced than an equivalent mass of coal (wood pellets are now being used in municipal and industrial generators). They produce 2-3 x more C02.Also unlike other sources of energy classified as renewable, burning wood pellets causes the destruction of the world’s most powerful carbon sequesterer, trees. They capture abut 29% of the greenhouse gases produced by humans each year. Setting aside your economic interests, do you believe it would be beneficial to generations yet to come if the wood pellet industry were to be abandoned, and the future cease to be regarded as a “ distant colonial outpost where we dump environmental degradation, nuclear waste, public debt and technological risk,” as expressed by the public philosopher Roman Krznarik in his book “ The Good Ancestor”? Wood pellet processing plants have a history of starting fires. There were fires in the Roseburg and the Reed wood pellet plants, and explosion occurred in multiple other facilities.

What caused these fires and explosions/ As California continues to become drier and hotter, is causing a fire a concern? What measures is GSNR taking to make sure it does not cause fires? One organization commenting on the GSNR project at the recent zoom stated that asthma rates have skyrocketed among the residents of cities and communities producing wood pellets.

Everybody has asthma. The statistics for lung diseases in pellet areas are also high, as reported.

Please describe GSNR’s plan for exacerbating health problems in the areas of enterprise.

The Lost Coast League is based in Humboldt County California, and many of its projects are developed here. In that context, we observed that one of our County Supervisors, Rex Bohn, sits on the Board of Golden State Financial Authority, the organization which will review the EIR.

Is Humboldt County involved in any way, with the current or projected activities of GSNR? In view of the above concerns, and others not described, we would like to discourage you from going ahead with this wood pellet project. Although GSNR’s aspirations to forest resilience, biodiversity enhancement, fire reduction and forest and human health are admirable, work toward these ends cannot be governed by a commercial objective. It is too distracting and too powerful a driver.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Lost Coast League looks forward to receiving the EIR in the coming weeks.

Very Truly Yours
Ellen Taylor,
Lost Coast League Chairperson
Petrolia California 95558
Recently, AI (Artificial Intelligence), with its access to the entire web library, was asked to make a short film creating a probable encounter between humans and the first aliens to cross the universe to visit. In the resulting plot, as humans prepare to receive them, the US and Russia go to war over which will be the first to greet the aliens. Missiles fly. The aliens, disgusted, turn on their heel and depart, with the remark that Earth is not ready for cosmic engagement, they’ll try again in a few thousand years when a new civilization appears. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dtSqhYhcrs)
Clearly AI was not hopeful about our chances of avoiding suicide by war. And, if its alien visitors had waited a minute longer, their conclusions would have been reconfirmed. Global ecocide too is on target to take us out and, to the aliens, we would be looking even less fit for an introduction to the advanced civilizations of the universe.

What is wrong with humans? AI has not yet answered that question. But the advancing climate catastrophe has freaked out scientists. At the world’s largest scientific gathering, the American Geophysical Union, last December, the cry was “Out of the lab and Into the streets!” Frustrated scientists proposed a strike, claiming that the science-society contract is broken, and they were simply “throwing indisputable facts and studies into the bottomless pit of public inertia and apathy.” They proposed declaring
“We therefore call for a halt to further IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] assessments. We call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments are willing to fulfill their responsibilities in good faith and urgently mobilize coordinated action from local to global levels”.

Governments pay no attention. The Biden administration continues to block the lawsuit (Juliana vs. US) of another terrified contingent, children, whose future is being destroyed, with the assertion that there is “no Constitutional guarantee to a stable climate system”.

The relentless removal of the planet’s forests is one of the issues which keep scientists up at night. As the author John Perlin (“A Forest Journey”) demonstrated, ”the scientific world now sees the entire tree: leaves, trunk, roots and the understory-as a mighty geochemical agent, that has drastically changed the landscape and the atmosphere for the betterment of all living things.” These tree systems made the planet livable. Forest fixation of carbon made the atmosphere breathable. Tree roots controlled erosion and created soils, which not only fed animal life, but sequestered an additional 25% of our C02 production. Trees generate 40% of the planet’s rainfall. (https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.368.6497.1302 Timber companies employ fear of fire to frighten people into giving up their trees. Now, armed with that argument, plus the attraction of a cheap subsidized alternative to meet their carbon-neutrality commitments, governments are engaging the biomass industry to assault the world’s forests.

It is incomprehensibly self-destructive behaviors like this which so appall our putative alien visitors, not to mention the scientific community. Unique among “clean energy” alternatives forest biomass combustion actually increases global warming, since it shrinks its own generator.

Biomass is not “renewable” in a realistic timeframe. It takes many years for a sapling to sequester the carbon required for machinery to chop down a mature tree. As fuel, biomass releases 1 ½ times more greenhouse gas than coal per unit energy, and many times greater particulate pollution.

Removing biomass doesn’t decrease fire danger. In “Ecological Applications”, an Oregon State University publication, a definitive study reported that “daily fire weather is the most important predictor of fire severity followed by….topography. Estimates of pre-forest-fire biomass were not an important predictor of fire severity.”
On the other hand, trees slow deadly wind speeds, cool the ground, and retain moisture. In catastrophic fires, the role of litter is negligible.

The woody-biomass industry is driven by profit. This turns the hunt for “feedstock” into another extractive industry, and once the infrastructure in place, demand will become unstoppable.

It is end-stage logging.

Addressing fire danger has nothing to do with profit. As an existential risk for our communities, fire danger must be seriously addressed by science, with attention to successful techniques developed long ago by first nations. As Bill Moomaw of Yale University suggests: “The most effective thing that we can do is to allow trees that are already planted, that are already growing, to continue growing to reach their full ecological potential, to store carbon, and develop a forest that has its full complement of environmental services. Cutting trees to burn them is not a way to get there.”
August 21, 2023
Sheri Woo, Chair
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
Michelle Fuller, Alternate
Sarah Schaefer, Vice-Chair
City of Arcata
Stacy Atkins-Salazar, Alternate
Elise Scafani
City of Blue Lake
Angela Shull, Alternate
Natalie Arroyo
County of Humboldt
Rex Bohn, Alternate
Scott Bauer
City of Eureka
Renee Contreras-Deloach, Alternate
Cc: Matthew Marshall, Richard Engel
Dear RCEA Board Members,
Grassroots Climate Action
Skip Jorgensen
City of Ferndale
Leonard Lund, Alternate
Kris Mobley
City of Fortuna
Mike Losey, Alternate
Frank Wilson
City of Rio Dell
Debra Garnes, Alternate
Jack Tuttle
City of Trinidad
Jack West, Alternate
Frankie Myers
Yurek Tribe
The three undersigned members of the Biomass Technical Advisory Group submitted a slightly revised version of the attached analysis of the Humboldt Sawmill contract to RCEA staff and other BTAG members and to the CAC.

We are concerned that RCEA staff are pressing you to move ahead with actions which further lock in commitments to continued greenhouse gas emissions of 295,000 metric tons a year and many times more pollutants and toxic contaminants than produced by the Humboldt Bay Generating Station. You have two advisory bodies that you need to hear from before making decisions that go contrary to your Board's desire to learn about alternative uses of the biomass currently combusted by this antiquated biomass power plant. First the BTAG and second the CAC. The BTAG has not yet met. You have received requests from the CAC to be provided much more information, especially about the air pollution the plant produces and past and present violations of air quality standards. [The documents Humboldt Sawmill submitted in June noted over twice the allowable emission of particulate matter in one boiler a year ago and a second also exceeded the standard.]
The RCEA staff is continuing to try to get the Humboldt Sawmill plant locked in to the RCEA power procurement portfolio while brushing aside climate and health concerns. We request that you deny the staff recommendation 8.2 on the agenda for August 24th or table it until you have final reports from the CAC and the BTAG. In the meantime, we hope you will consider the attached comments. At the least, they will help you formulate questions we hope you will ask the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District, Humboldt Sawmill Company, and RCEA staff. And we recommend that RCEA contract with a nationally recognized air quality expert to explain the hazards of the Humboldt Sawmill's emissions, both those which are permitted and the effects of the multiple violations of existing standards.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present this information to you.

Sincerely,
Caroline Griffith
Executive Director, Northcoast Environmental Center
[email protected]
Tom Wheeler
Executive Director, Environmental Protection Information Center [email protected]
Daniel Chandler
Steering Committee, 350 Humboldt
[email protected]
2 Technical Advisory Group Report from 350 Humboldt, NEC and EPIC A betrayal of public trust
The Redwood Coast Energy Authority has taken many actions to make Humboldt County a leader in the transition to clean renewable energy. The prize-winning micro-grid at the airport, the two large long-term solar contracts, and the new 17MW battery storage at the old Fairhaven plant are clear examples. RCEA has also led the effort to get floating offshore wind.

At the same time, it has foisted onto the public biomass power, an inefficient, polluting and greenhouse gas-intensive anomaly - the flaw in the diamond.

In 2019 the Arcata City Council, the Eureka City Council, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, and the Redwood Coast Energy Authority each passed a resolution - proposed by 350 Humboldt - committing to use only "clean, renewable" energy starting in 2025. All of those public officials believed that this would be possible. It would have meant eliminating biomass power when the current contract expired. Instead, in 2021 RCEA proposed to the RCEA Board that a ten-year contract with Humboldt Sawmill Company (HSC)1 provide biomass electricity through 2031. Not only did RCEA go back on its commitment to clean, renewable energy by 2025, but by doing so they violated their trust with customers and voters.

There are several key facts that support this view. They are stated here and documented in the body of our comments.
• The ten-year contract was not required. Richard Engel stated in the RCEA Board meeting that the state's requirement for long-term renewable energy could have been achieved by adding more solar power.
• The HSC electricity thus replaced energy that is actually clean and renewable. • The reason the state allows biomass power to be called "renewable" is that if the wood burned is replaced from sustainable forests the carbon cycle will sequester the CO2 that is released by burning the biomass. However, it is not renewable in a way that will help mitigate the climate crisis in the timeframe needed. Reductions in emissions are most critical between now and 2030 according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have to be at net zero by 2050. Emissions from burning biomass to make electricity will not be paid back by CO2 uptake for many years after those dates, if at all.

In essence, burning biomass creates a carbon debt that cannot be repaid within the time limits the climate crisis requires. There are lucrative alternative uses for biomass that the Humboldt Sawmill Company (HSC) can adopt that have far lower greenhouse gas emissions and far less air pollution.
• In the context of the energy revolution, "clean" energy means both a) it produces only very small amounts of greenhouse gases, and b) it does not produce the air pollution associated with fossil fuels, which cause seven million premature deaths a year around the world. 2 It seems very clear that the government entities that signed the resolution committing to clean, renewable energy by 2025 could not have intended it to mean emitting annually as much greenhouse gases as 75% of our passenger vehicles3 and 3 emitting more particulate matter and other "criteria pollutants" than coal would for an equivalent amount of electricity produced.
• Not only does HSC produce massive amounts of air pollution in the normal course of its operation, but it has also violated the Clean Air Act and other public health regulations multiple times. Again, HSC biopower cannot be considered "clean" renewable energy.

As a response to this betrayal of public trust we propose the RCEA Board take three actions:

Recommendation 1: No other biomass shall be contracted for beyond the HSC contract.

Recommendation 2: The HSC contract shall not be extended.

Table of Contents
Technical Advisory Group Report from 350 Humboldt, NEC and EPIC ___________ 3 A betrayal of public trust 3
The greenhouse gas emissions from Humboldt Sawmill must be eliminated before 2030 because the next seven years are the most crucial humanity has ever faced. ____________ 5 Why is 1.5°C the IPCC's standard? ______________________ 5 How do RCEA's resource procurement plans align with the need to drastically (at least 43%) reduce emissions by 2030? ___________________________ 8
Does it matter that biomass power is "locaI?" ___________________ 9 Does Humboldt Sawmill burn mill waste or forest residues? Answer: Both ________ 10 Why burning biomass for electricity is not carbon-free and being "renewable" will not help us by 2030 or 2045 ____________________________ 11
A number of political entities have reversed their policies on biomass recently _______ 13 Humboldt Sawmill emits large amounts of CO2e and much more per kilowatt hour than gas __ 13 Air pollution and public health consequences of local biomass power __________ 15 Can the Humboldt Sawmill biopower plant be made cleaner? 18 Alternative uses of biomass 20
Recommendations ___________________________ 21
4 The greenhouse gas emissions from Humboldt Sawmill must be eliminated before 2030 because the next seven years are the most crucial humanity and other living things have ever faced .

Climate scientists have calculated how much more CO2e (CO2 or its equivalent in warming potential from another gas like methane or nitrous oxide) can be emitted without committing the earth to more than 1.5°C (2.7°F) warming. That is to say, they have calculated a carbon "budget" that is compatible with 1.5°C. If we exceed this emissions budget, warming will exceed 1.5°C.

The graph below from the 2022 IPCC AR6 report shows different warming trajectories depending on how much we cut emissions. The red line at the top indicates an increase of emissions of 5%, which is where we are with current implementation of the pledges all countries have made. The possible trajectories on the left are translated into how large a reduction there would have to be to achieve 2°c or 1.5°C. If we only reduce 4% by 2030, we will have a very steep reduction after 2030 and still only be able to limit warming to 2°C (unless we pull huge amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere). To limit warming to 1.5°C the world must cut emissions by 43% before 2030. Climate scientists have found that every one year of delay before the world reverses the growth of emissions reduces by two years the time we have to Figure 1: Projected global GHG emissions from NDCs announced prior to COP26 would make it likely that warming will exceed l.S°C and also make it harder after 2030 to limit warming to below 2°C. a) Global GHG emissions
' I i
t
f . /'I
6 V
§
Trend from implemented policies
limit wanning lo 2''C (>67%) or 1.5 (>50%) afl~r high
ovoohool with NDCs until 2030
I imil \'JiHllli:11 to
1 S'C (>50%) with no or limited ovr.•r5h'.)::tt
th /1{_
reach net zero at or below 1.5°C.4
Why is 1.5°C the IPCC's standard?
b) 2030
IL.: __ :: .... ~~--"' 1 j)[,IS -4%
:,, 2(> '~-1
. . 43•·
J
- f',1st GHG emis~1on~ ,md
• uoce1tainty for 201) ,111:.i 2019
_ (d:.,t 111t!1c,Ht·, th<· mc<.li.:rni
The IPCC has determined we must meet 1.5°C in order avoid potentially disastrous consequences. 5 What are these consequences?
5 • We lose our island nations.6
Figure 2.
. ......... ,.., .... ....... .......... ......,,
~4~,u•~~
II\:' ........ ''!'' .... ~
ThrN,...,.als,naltltlMMi
~ ........
'""'
• If we continue on our current trajectory to 2.7°C, the number of people who will be living outside of the human-survivable climate niche of average temperatures of 12.7° to 27.2°C. (55° to 81 °F.) will almost quadruple over a 1.5°C. increase: from 419 million.to two billion people. That is, a billion and a half more people in an additional 55 countries will be living at average temperatures over 81 °F. Please see the graph below. 7 Dark bars are the increase over 1.5°C.

Figure 3.

Thalland
Saudi Arabia
Burkina Faso
h
Mali
Gana
Vietnam
Chad
Malaysia
Myanmar Benin
Yemeo
Colomt>ia
Brazil g~~bd_.1/:b Emirates
Senegal
Sri l)nka
Veneiµel11
corcnvoire
Soma ,a --Ethiopia Togo ..__ Cameroon
Guinea
Kuwait
MexJco Sletr,:i Leone
Mauritania
Singapore -.. Kenva
Oman
Iran
Guatemala
•aritreij amo,a
11tar
Bahr!lin Honour,!~
Guinea Bissau
Nic~ragua
Madagascar
Panama
Tanzanta
0 20 40
Exposure

1.5 °C warming
fi7 co.un(ffes
419mllllon
people
6m1Ulonkm2
area
·112 cnuntrlf-'S
1,997 1111111011
people>
:U 1111111011 krn_.
drC~3

2.7 °C warming
60 80 100 500 800
Exposed population (million)
6 • We increase the likelihood of passing "tipping points." Melting of the permafrost is already irreversible and two other tipping points may have already occurred. Such events are increasingly likely when warming over preindustrial times exceeds 1.5°C.8 o Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
o Melting of Arctic Sea Ice
o Melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet
o Melting and thawing of East Antarctic sub-glacial basins o Melting East Antarctic ice sheet
o Shifting of the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre / Labrador Sea convection o Changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation o Death of boreal forests
o Extinction of low-latitude coral reefs
o The end of the Amazon rainforest's ability to sequester carbon o Massive CO2 and methane releases from melting permafrost - already passed the tipping point
• Climate models show damage from global warming increases at a much faster rate than warming; some climate models show a near exponential rate.9 Figure 4.
14 ·•··• Model - ......... -, •. ,. .... _H ..... _ ............. -............. • .. - DICE 2010
12 ...... • FUND 3.8
• PAGE09'
- CRED 1.4*
fi:' 10····· • ENVISAGE
0 C,
6 -
Mou,J< pr ci:I ct
r"1 ·,Ir 1[, ( 1; 11) l \/~I• .)
lrO! "r'\ ",', (Hl'l ! I };.
2 -··•• •·--··· -·--·
0 -2 ...---.......----....---...... -----.----...-----, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Global mean temperature rise C°C above pre-industrial levels) This disproportionality has at least two consequences:
a) We must frontload our major efforts for climate mitigation, not push them off past 2030; and,
b) If we don't act rapidly, paying for adaptation and reconstruction after climate disasters is going to take up more and more of our resources leaving far too little for mitigation. The Bezos 10 billion dollar Earth Fund CEO, Andrew Steer, warned in a May interview: "This is the decisive decade .... if we don't get it right this 7 decade, actually next decade it will be impossibly expensive to do anything and will quite frankly be too late."10
How do RCEA's resource procurement plans align with the need to drastically (at least 43%11 ) reduce emissions by 2030?
RCEA recently held two community workshops on their projections of sources of energy for 2030 and later. From the report used for the workshops12 we find this illustration of how RCEA plans to provide adequate resources (we have added the likely source of the peculiar cloud running up the side of the graph).

Figure 5. RCEA Resource Adequacy Timeline
100%
[
--;:-ure Long-Term & Short-Tllrm Procuremen~ 1
(Offshore wind, ere..) ,
- - -- _____ J
202s I
1024
CC Power Loni Duration 8otto,V $toran (Goal Line & Tun,111/lwttdl I l_~04_1 _ J cma--~
% of RCEA's
Resource
Adequacy
Obligation
50%
2024 1:=========--=======-;-p-=-~==--
OG Fairhaven I I Humboldt S11wmlll Co. Humboldt S1wmlll Co. (Local Biomass) ZOJl f O% -1---IL_o,~•'=~io=m=•"=l==========UI-=-~-=-~=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-~-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-==~ 2017 Program Launch
Short-Term
Contract
M1d•Term
Contract
Sca \e Approxim ate
Long-Term
Contract C:., Future Need
The text says: "RCEA has set out to provide our customers with 100% renewable and carbon-free energy by 2025 and 100% local renewable energy by 2030. Specifically, our Strategic Plan states that 'By 2030 Humboldt County will be a net exporter of renewable electricity and RCEA's power mix will consist of 100% local, net-zero-carbon- emission renewable sources."' That is, RCEA uses some misleading phrasing to avoid saying that they will continue to use the highly polluting Humboldt sawmill through at least 2030. They do this by relying on the word "renewable" and putting it in the same sentence as "carbon free." While some forms of renewable energy, like solar, are almost carbon free, "renewable" itself has no implications for carbon intensity, certainly not in the timeframe of 2030 or even 2050. See page 10 below.

When RCEA staff asked the RCEA Board to approve a new ten-year contract, this is the rationale they gave:
8 If RCEA does not extend its contract with HSC, we will need to seek other means of ensuring SB 350 compliance. This will likely involve issuing a new solicitation for long-term renewable energy that can begin delivering within the next few years. Given our strategic goal of procuring 100% of our energy from local, renewable resources by 2030, and the long lead times for developing new renewable energy projects, it is unlikely that a solicitation issued by RCEA this year would lead to a new local project coming online in time to ensure SB 350 compliance by at least a 10% margin. The most likely outcome would be a contract for an existing renewable energy project outside of Humboldt County, constituting a missed opportunity for RCEA to pursue its strategic local energy development goal.13 [Our italics.]
In short, the staff admit that compliance with the state's requirement for a source of long-term renewable energy could be met with clean renewable energy from outside Humboldt, which means the biomass plant is supplanting solar in the supply of long-term renewable energy.

The answer to the question of how RCEA's plans line up with the need to reduce emissions drastically by 2030, is that despite being able to meet long-term procurement standards with solar, RCEA plans to continue to put 295,000 metric tons of CO2e into the environment annually from biomass power. That is approximately two million metric tons of warming emissions, before 2031.

Does it matter that biomass power is "local?"
RCEA staff have always made a point of saying the Board wanted our power to be local.

Strikingly, in the new 2023 report the staff have backed off this notion of local procurement.

They point out that procuring local renewable energy is often incompatible with other state requirements. Only when floating offshore wind comes on-line would the predominance of "local" actually be achievable. 14 The graph below is from a 2017 RCEA presentation and shows that the commitment to "local" procurement cost us a lot of money when the preference for local power was adopted. The preference for "local" was a political choice that made limited sense in 2017 and that RCEA administrators have found not to be workable in any case.

Figure 6.

Current or projected wholesale power
$140 00
costs ($/MWh,
s120,oo lo_cal/community•
s100.oo scale power comes
sao.oo at-a premium
9 In 2020 biomass accounted for roughly $15 million a year, by far the biggest among local RCEA expenditures. In fact, in 2020, 96% of local payments went to biomass. Please see the table of local expenditures below. It almost looks as if the purpose of RCEA is to keep biomass power afloat.

Figure 7.

Expense Category
Power Purchase - Biomass
Professional Services
Net Energy Metering customer payouts
RCEA facility costs
Electric Bike incentives
Electric Vehicle Charging Network
Supplies
Outreach
Grand Total
Sum of 2020 Spend
$ 14,941,751.87
$ 369,124.40
$ 115,442.80
$ 86,972.05
$ 41,350.00
$ 31,222.24
$ 31,050.55
$ 7,861.87
$ 15,624,775.78
Although RCEA staff say the price paid Humboldt Sawmill is now competitive, the base price actually has only been reduced from $83 per MWh in 2017 to $63 in the 2021 Power Purchase Agreement and if demand increases, there is an $11 per MWh bonus. We don't know what RCEA is paying for the Sandrini utility-scale solar because it is redacted from the Power Purchase Agreement available to the public, but it is likely about $20 per MWhour.15 So replacing biomass with solar would have given RCEA roughly $10 million more to spend on local incentives and assistance in meeting the goals of our Climate Action Plan.16 Does Humboldt Sawmill burn mill waste or forest residues? Answer: Both Since 2019 we have heard that Humboldt Sawmill burns "mill waste." This is potentially important because some of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to forest residues may not accrue to mill waste. In general, about half of a sawlog becomes residue at a sawmill, some of which is made into useful products; about 15% to 20% is waste that must be disposed of.17 Here is a graph that was supplied to the Technical Advisory Group in June 2023 by Humboldt Sawmill. It shows that a combination of forest residues ("timberlands") and mill waste make up 95% of the feedstock in 2022.

Figure 8.

Source of Feedstock (M;ty-21 lhfoush Apr-U)
Almond Hulls
& Shells
Landscaping 1%
Materlafs
1%
PG&E Line
Clearing
3%
10 Although no proportions between forest residues and mill waste have been supplied by Humboldt Sawmill, a presentation to the RCEA Board at the time the 2017 Power Purchase Agreement was signed makes it very clear that both mill waste and forest residues (slash) plus fuel load reduction make up the feedstock for the biomass power plant. 18 The amount of biomass used for biopower in April 2022 - May 2023 was 191,624 tons. 19 However, we need HSC to specify the current proportions of mill waste, forest residues and fuel load reduction.

Figure 9.

Saw Logs - Sent
Dimensional
Lumber
Paper-quality
Chips
(exported)
Timber Lands
Fuels-reduction
& Restoration
Thinning, Slash
J L
Why burning biomass for electricity is not carbon-free and being "renewable" will not help us by 2030 or 2045
California classifies biomass power as "renewable" and the CPUC echoes the outdated idea that it is not carbon intensive - although perhaps not for long.2° California policymakers lag the science on this issue because, although renewable in theory, scientists find that biomass power is carbon intensive in a 50 to 100-year time frame, and much more intensive in the IPCC's 2030 - 2050 time frame.

Mary S. Booth wrote in 2018:
[O]n one aspect of bioenergy carbon accounting there is wide agreement: that when biomass is sourced from residues from forestry, wood products manufacturing, or agriculture, net carbon emissions are properly assessed as the difference between emissions from their use as fuel (which can include emissions from fuel manufacturing and transport), and emissions from an alternative fate, such as leaving material on-site to decompose or burning it without energy recovery. Studies using this approach generally conclude net bioenergy emissions are not zero over varying periods of time.

Nonetheless, many policies still treat bioenergy as having zero or negligible emissions. 21 Kevin Fingerman's research at Cal Poly Humboldt on the greenhouse gas emissions of California biopower is an excellent example of the approach which compares biopower to alternative uses of forest residues or fuel load reduction. This information is from the peer-reviewed 2023 overview article presenting his research. 22
11 "[Recent) literature has called this assumption [biomass carbon neutrality) into question, pointing out that near-term emissions lead to increased climate forcing over policy-relevant time frames even if it is assumed that the CO2 emitted is eventually re-sequestered in forest regrowth or, as in the case of residues, would have been emitted later by decay or wildfire." [Specifically,] "We find that the life cycle 'carbon footprint' of biopower from woody residues generated by recent forest treatments in California ranges widely-from comparable with solar photovoltaic on the low end to comparable with natural gas on the high end."
This research focuses on forest treatments for fuel load reduction and shows that burning woody biomass for power is carbon intensive, not carbon neutral or negative over a 100 year period. In the aggregate, the only alternative that produces more greenhouse gases in the 100 years than biopower in Fingerman's and other models is burning the forest residues on site. 23 An analysis of bioenergy in Oregon found:

Wood bioenergy production is interpreted as being carbon-neutral by assuming that trees regrow to replace those that burned. However, this does not account for reduced forest carbon stocks that took decades to centuries to sequester, degraded productive capacity, emissions from transportation and the production process, and biogenic/direct emissions at the facility .... [ln this study] utilizing harvest residues for bioenergy production instead of leaving them in forests to decompose increased emissions in the short-term (SO y). 24 Fingerman's model is designed to consider multiple variables, including those specific to local sites all over California. Other models are more general. John D. Sterman, a MIT professor, says:
"A molecule of CO2 emitted today has the same impact on radiative forcing whether it comes from coal or biomass .... Assuming biofuels are carbon neutral may worsen irreversible impacts of climate change before benefits accrue." For forest thinning, he calculates that after 100 years 62% of the carbon debt caused by burning the biomass for electricity is unrecovered. "Because combustion and processing efficiencies for wood are less than coal, the immediate impact of substituting wood for coal is an increase in atmospheric CO2 relative to coal. The payback time for this carbon debt ranges from 44 -104 years after clearcut, depending on forest type-assuming the land remains forest." 25
And Laganiere finds, looking only at the emissions from biomass power that exceed those from natural gas, that the carbon debt for burning forest waste for electricity is not made up within 100 years.26 In contrast the early, less sophisticated, Manomet study found it only took 35 years for the excess emissions over natural gas to be made up.27 These sources, and there are many others, 28 indicate that burning biomass is not carbon neutral within a climate-policy relevant time frame. Yet in Humboldt we are talking about a "carbon debt" of 2 million metric tons from burning biomass in the next eight years of the Humboldt Sawmill contract that, impossibly, would have to be paid back by 2030 or at latest 2045. 29 Exactly how carbon intensive the Humboldt Sawmill plant is can only be determined by a Life Cycle Assessment of this particular plant. There are numerous variables that affect such an analysis including those relating to harvest of the timber or thinning of fuel load, transportation, storage of materials, sustainability of the forestry, and the efficiency of the 12 plant. A potentially large, but unmeasured, factor is the amount of methane produced during storage of the wood chips and sawdust. 30 350 Humboldt first asked RCEA to conduct such a study in 2019 and 350 Humboldt members have requested it at other points in time, to no avail.

A number of political entities have reversed their policies on biomass recently.

Biomass power in California is subsidized and supported by the government in multiple ways:
by requiring investor-owned utilities to buy 125 megawatts of biopower; by the bioMAT program for small biopower facilities; by the CPUC exempting biopower from greenhouse gas requirements; and by including biomass power in the Renewable Portfolio Standard. All of these policies are holdovers from when it was assumed bioenergy to be carbon neutral. In other places, these government supports have started to be challenged and eliminated. • In 2022 Massachusetts passed An Act Driving Clean Energy and Offshore Wind, which will expand clean energy development and end renewable energy subsidies for wood-burning power plants. The new law also makes Massachusetts the first state in the nation to remove woody biomass from its Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard.31 • The Australian Government has acted to exclude electricity generated from burning native forest wood waste from eligibility under the Renewable Energy Target. 32 • In 2021 five hundred environmental scientists from around the world wrote an open letter to President Biden, the European Council, and Japan and South Korea opposing the use of biomass electricity generation. The letter said, "Regrowing trees and displacement of fossil fuels may eventually pay off this carbon debt, but regrowth takes time the world does not have to solve climate change. As numerous studies have shown, this burning of wood will increase warming for decades to centuries. That is true even when the wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas." It called for governments, including the United States, to "end subsidies and other incentives that today exist for the burning of wood whether from their forests or others." 33 • In March of 2023 the Hawaiian Supreme Court unanimously turned down an appeal from a biomass power plant owner whose application for a license had been denied by the Hawaiian public utilities commission. The grounds for the denial were the high CO2 emissions (8 million tons over 30 years) and the added costs to electricity consumers.

Humboldt Sawmill emits large amounts of C02e and much more per kilowatt hour than natural gas.

We have been considering whether emissions from biomass electricity can be considered to be carbon neutral or negative. Since that is not the case in any time frame that is relevant to the climate crisis, we need to compare the biomass emissions with those of other sources of electricity. Figure 10 shows that using the IPCC carbon intensity values, burning biomass for power is far less efficient and far more carbon intensive than either coal or natural gas. 13 Figure 10. CO2 emissions for biopower, coal and gas34 Wood%
IPCC data on Power plant mmbtu/ kg lb greater than
Fuel CO2 per mmbtu efficiency MWh CO2/MWh CO2/MWh fossil fuels Wood and Wood Residuals at 22. 7% effic. 93.8 0.227 3.143 1,299 2,863 Anthracite coal at 34% effic. 103.69 0.341 3.143 956 2,107 36% Bituminous coal at 34% effic. 93.28 0.341 3.143 860 1,895 51% Natural gas at 45.5% effic. 52.07 0.455 3.143 360 793 261% Natural gas at 63% effic. 52.07 0.63 3.143 260 573 400% Both biomass power and natural gas power have far more greenhouse gas emissions than the other renewable and carbon free sources in RCEA's resource plan (Figure 5). However, when compared to the natural gas-fired Humboldt Bay Generating Station, HSC 2020 greenhouse gas emissions are 30% greater for the biomass plant despite the fact that Humboldt Sawmill produced only 27% as much power (130,427 vs 484,333 megawatt hours).35 That translates to

2.27 tons of CO2e for Humboldt Sawmill per megawatt hour vs. 0.47 for the Humboldt Bay Generating station. It is true these local figures omit upstream emissions for both natural gas and biopower, but they are a small proportion of the total emissions locally.36 The local data accurately represent the contributions specific to Humboldt County. As Sterman noted, biomass power creates more CO2 in the present than even coal and "payback" times go well beyond 2050.

How do biomass power plants get away with emitting so much CO2? In a 2007 rulemaking, the California Public Utilities Commission set an Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) for all Load Serving Entities (LSEs) at 1,100 pounds (lbs) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt hour (MWh) but exempted many biomass power plants. 37 However, biomass plants were exempted on an "interim" basis.

Here are the pounds per MWh for Humboldt Sawmill Company in Scotia, which has existed since 1989 and uses the oldest least efficient technology (Stoker)38 • MWh for HSC in 2021: 125,537
• C02e for HSC in 2020: 295,562
• Emissions per megawatt hour= 5,182 per pound.
• Statewide average is 375 lbs CO2e per MWh for in-state electricity.

HSC emits almost 5 times the EPS standard, and 13 times the average of powerplants in this state. The Center for Biological Diversity has filed an official petition asking the CPUC to eliminate this exception to the EPS. 39
Whether and how much closing the Humboldt Sawmill biopower plant (or cuttings its emissions significantly) would help the climate over the crucial next 7 to 32 years depends in part on what the RCEA Board would do instead. We have suggested that the biopower should be replaced by the purchase of new wind or solar, even if it is necessary to wait a couple of years for additional resources to come online. That would be a net reduction in emissions of about 2 million metric tons of CO2e by 2030. But if RCEA chooses to use more natural gas as dispatchable power to 14 replace the biopower, it would reduce the climate benefits in the long-term (40 to 100+ years} though minimally in the crucial years until 2030 (and 2045).

Air pollution and public health consequences of local biomass power "Criteria pollutants" consist of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and reactive organic gases. They are regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Although there is some variability among the health effects of the six NAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing.40 The figure below, from the New England Journal of Medicine, shows some of the ways critical pollutants harms health and are related to climate change in a feedback loop.41 Figure 11

EMISSION SOURCES

AIR POLLUTION PUBLIC HEALTH CLIMATE CHANGE
• Carbon • Birth outcomes • Air pollution
monoxide (CO) • Cardiovascular • Extreme heat • Lead disease • Environmental • Nitrogen dioxide • Cognitive decline degradation (NOi) _., • Diabt'tes _., • Increasing
• Ozone (03) • Lung cancer allergens
• Particulate • Severe weather
matter (PM) • Mental health • Vector ecology
• Sulfur dioxide • Premature • Water/food
(502) mortality suppl1 • Respiralo'1 • Water quality disease The graph below shows how the HBGS compares to the HSC in particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic gases. (Lead is not part of CARB's data.42) Recall that although all the pollutants are emitted at far higher rates by HSC, HSC produces only 26% as much power.
15 Figure 12.

PM2.5
2020 Air Pollutants Compared (Tons)
PM10
sax
NOx
voe
0 50 100 150 200 250
■ PG&E Humboldt Bay Generating Station ■ Humboldt Sawmill Company Another category of pollutants is Toxic Air Contaminants. The three chief ones emitted by HBGS and HSC are benzene, formaldehyde and acrolein. Toxic Air Contaminants are defined by CARB as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health."43 HSC emits thousands of metric tons of each per year: 5.8 times the formaldehyde,15 .6 times the benzene and 55 times the acrolein emitted by HBGS, despite producing far less electricity.44 Figure 13. Metric Tons of Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Contaminants
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Benzene
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
■ PG&E Humboldt Bay Generating Station ■ Humboldt Sawmill Company 16 It is no wonder biomass power is considered a public health threat. Locally the Humboldt Del Norte Medical Society has called on RCEA to drop biomass from its energy mix. In 2016 a number of health organizations sent a letter to every member of Congress opposing the burning of biomass.45 These included the Allergy & Asthma Network, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the National Association of County & City Health Officials, the National Environmental Health Association, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Although these criteria pollutants and toxic contaminants are the main public health threat from HSC, a pattern of violations of Clean Air Act and other public health and safety regulations by HSC call into question the capacity of the plant to meet even the minimal regulatory standards that apply to it. A 2022 investigation by Wendy Ring, MD, MPH, found the following.

When the biomass plant bid for its original contract with RCEA in 2016, it reported only 1 air quality violation. From November 2015 through November 2016 the plant failed to submit monthly monitoring reports to the air district. When submitted, these reports subsequently showed over 700 violations of emissions limits.46 While the plant has been under contract with RCEA, it has received 10 notices of violation of the Clean Air Act,47 one settlement order for multi-year violations of the Clean Water Act,48 and three serious OSHA violations resulting in worker injury.49 Reviewing public documents obtained from the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District, I found multiple longstanding failures to enforce state and federal pollution laws at the biomass plant,50 including more instances of emissions above federal limits and a multi-year failure to ensure proper performance of particulate monitors, which may have caused excess emissions for as long as 2 years and several million dollars in health damages.51 Humboldt Sawmill Company continues to display its disregard for community health by rejecting state guidelines for Toxic Emissions Inventories, proposing instead a non-science based alternative which was recently rejected by the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District.52 This failed attempt to make its toxic emissions appear less so has delayed a long overdue risk assessment of the impact of these emissions on community health.

Through a public records request, Dr. Ring obtained an April 14, 2017 letter from NCUAQMD Director Brian Wilson to Matthew Marshall, Director of RCEA, explaining the Humboldt Sawmill violations.53 [See Appendix,] This letter was received just about a month after the approval of the Power Purchase Agreement contract between RCEA and HSC. The contract included an appendix in which HSC reported only one emissions violation and two others going back to 2013. Here are a number of quotations from Brian Wilson's letter:
• "To date, HRC has over 1,044 violations since its restart which are available to the public through a Public Records Request.. ..
• "The District has many concerns about the nature and pattern of these multiple violations and the ability of HRC to continue to operate the biomass boilers in compliance with District permits and applicable air quality regulations, as these violations span an entire year for both boilers. In addition, the District has received over 60 complaints of ash and soot fallout from citizens in the towns of Scotia and Rio Dell just 17 since December 2016.
• "In accordance with EPA policy, the EPA has been notified of HRC's High Priority Violations of numerous federally enforceable regulations authorized by the Clean Air Act. In order to resolve the various violations, the District has provided a Settlement Agreement to HRC to settle and provide a path to ensure compliance. If HRC cannot come to agreement with the District that will bring them into compliance, the District will be forced to pursue alternate enforcement remedies.

These may include action to suspend HRC's permits, obtain injunctive relief, obtain an abatement order and/or civil penalty recoveries."
The 1,043 violations included 897 emissions violations by HSC in the previous two years as well as another 147 violations having to do with equipment and monitoring.

In addition to the recent violations noted by Dr. Ring, Humboldt Sawmill Company submitted to the Technical Advisory Group two environmental engineering reports from the fall of 2022. The first showed that particulate matter was being released by two of the three boilers at a rate that exceeded the standard. For one boiler, it was more than double the rate allowed. 54
RCEA's power purchase agreement with HSC allows RCEA to terminate the contract if "any representation or warranty made by such Party is false or misleading" and for "failure to operate the Project in compliance with all applicable Laws." 55 Should RCEA be persuaded that continuing the contract with HSC is not in the public's interest, the fact that the contract was obtained by concealing multiple serious violations should allow a default without penalty.

In 2020 RCEA contracted with Michael Furniss, from Cal Poly Humboldt, for a report to the Board on biomass power. It concludes with this statement:56 Ideally, the biomass plants would use the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to limit air pollution effects. This is not currently the case as the plants were built and permitted long ago. Implementing state-of-the-art control of air pollution is a reasonable goal for any power purchased by RCEA, as the emissions are directly connected to the purchases, and public health is an agency responsibility. RCEA could consider adding financial incentives and contract language to provide air quality protection beyond what the State requires and be able to cancel contracts if emissions performance is substandard.

To the best of our knowledge this advice was not followed then but should be now.

Can the Humboldt Sawmill biopower plant be made cleaner? First, how does HSC compare to other California biomass plants in terms of pounds of CO2 per net megawatt hour?57 In Figure 14, there are two outliers with very high emissions per MWh.

Of the other facilities, HSC is the third highest. Thus, there is reason to think HSC could improve its emissions performance.
18 Figure 14.
9iomass power plant emissions in 2018 Capacity Total C02e (MW) (pounds) per
net MWh
Amoersand Chowchilla Biomass Power 12.5 2,996
Burney Forest Products (BioRAMl (coaenl 31 3,768
Collins Pine Biomass Power (cogen) 12 19,120
0G Fairhaven 15 3,8n
DTE Stockton Biomass Power (coaenl so 3,298
HLPowerlBioRAM) 35.5 2,980
Humboldt Sawmill Company (coaenl 32.5 5,016
Merced Power 12.5 3,220
Mt. Poso C011.eneration (coaen) 63.6 2,507
Pacific Ultraoower Chinese Station (BioRAMI 25.7 4.418
Rio Bravo Fresno Biomass Power (Bio RAM) 27.8 3,150
Rio Bravo Rocklin Biomass Power (BioRAMI 27.8 3,43S
Roseburg Forest Products (cogen) 13.4 4,967
SPI Anderson Biomass Power II (cogen) 30.1 4,480
SPI Bumey Biomass Power (co11enl 20 4,736
SPI Lincoln Biomass Power (coaen) 19.2 5, 314
SPI Quincv Biomass Power (coaen) 35.3 6,215
SPI Sonora Standard Biomass Power (cogen) 7.5 11,540
Wheelabrator Shasta Enerl!V IBioRAM) 62.8 3,900
Woodland Biomass Power 28 3,464
Average for non-cogeneratlon plants 3,515
SB 1109 (Caballero) of 2022 required electrical corporations, including community choice aggregators like RCEA, to contract for electrical power from biomass plants. RCEA says the law does not apply to the RCEA/HSC contract. If it did the following provision would be applicable:
"For purposes of this section, any incremental procurement of electricity products from bioenergy resources by a new contract or contract extension of five years or longer in duration shall be from a resource that meets emission limits equivalent to, or more stringent than, the applicable best available retrofit control technology, as determined by the local air pollution control district or air quality management district."58 This is an attempt to at modestly clean-up emissions from the generally ancient fleet of biomass plants. But RCEA dodged the bullet.

It is not clear what such a retrofit control technology would look like. HSC uses the oldest of biopower technologies to create electricity from com busting woody biomass, called Riley Stoker travelling grate stoker boilers. 59 One step up is a technology called "fluidized bed technology." A much higher degree of emissions control is possible with gasification, as gasification heats at a very high temperatures without combustion to create syngas, which can be converted to vehicle fuel or combusted to make electricity. 60 In Dr. Fingerman's model, the biopower technology includes three options: a) current generation combustion plant, b) current generation integrated gasification and combustion plant, and c) next generation thermochemical plant. 61
Figure 15 provides detailed data on different technology options. 62 "Just switching from a direct fired boiler to an integrated gasification combustion unit, criteria pollutant emissions are reduced by an order of magnitude."63
19 Figure 15.

Characteristic Current- Current- Next- Next-Generation Generation Generation Generation Biomass Integrated Thermochemical Thermochemical
Combustion Gasification/ Conversion Conversion
Power Combustion Power Plant Bioalcohol and
Plant Power Plant Power Plant
Plant size {BDT/day) 450 450 450 450
Electricity (kWhr/BDT) 1000 1200 1400 550
Alcohol fuel (gallons/BOT) - - - 80
Diesel fuel - - - 50
Average net energy efficiency 20% 22% 28% 50%
Emissions (lb/MMBTU output)
NOx 0.329 0.067 0.008 0.005
SOx 0.125 0.01 0.002 0.001
PM 0.269 0.03 0.032 0.018
co 0.897 0.07 0.042 0.023
voe 0.085 0.018 0.003 0.002
CO2 972 884 694 389
Alternative uses for biomass.

In 2021 the RCEA Board, clearly uncomfortable with a ten-year contract extension for biomass power, voted to create an MOU between RCEA and HSC that would ensure HSC considered alternatives to burning biomass that would emit fewer pollutants and be less warming.

In 2022 HSC said:64
Biofuels Opportunity
• In July 2021 consultant ICF provided HSC's sister company Humboldt Redwood Company with a proposal to perform a study on using forest biomass to make energy products as a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) business opportunity and issue a follow-up request for information (RFI) to identify interested developers • HSC's sister company Mendocino Forest Products issued an RFI in February 2022 seeking interest in development of a biofuels facility using feedstock from the company's Mendocino and/or Humboldt County operations
• They received several responses but consider most of them to require too much capital investment to be viable
• They are in discussions with the companies with the most attractive offers In 2023 no written report was given but an oral statement to Richard Engel indicated that the company has continued to explore hydrogen fuel as a potential alternative biomass feedstock use.

Because RCEA has offered such a sweet deal over ten years, HSC has little incentive to consider alternatives. The MOU has no requirements specifying when HSC would need to choose an 20 alternative. It doesn't even contain a list of alternatives to be evaluated each year, such as the one in the Michael Furness report to the Board.

We have compiled a list of references to projects or processes which provide alternative uses for woody biomass. The endnotes contain several links to existing projects for each alternative.

1. Grant incentivized alternatives: The US Department of Agriculture has made a number of grants under the Inflation Reduction Act for bioenergy projects. Projects, some in California, include biochar, a gasification plan in Placer County, hydrogen from biomass, a kiln and boiler system upgrade.65 California is investing $3 million in awards for projects in the Sierra Nevada that will create a Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage system that creates hydrogen, produce biofuels from forest waste using thermochemical conversion, a gasification plant on tribal land that produces carbon-negative liquid hydrogen fuel, and other biomass to hydrogen projects. 66

2. Woody biomass for compost67

3. Bio-Char in conjunction with existing biopower plants. 68

4. Biofuels. These are heavily incentivized by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Inflation Reduction Act. 69

5. Biomass to hydrogen.70

6. Durable wood products like Glulam and Oriented Strand Board.71

7. Nano-cellulose72

8. Biomass to plastics73
Recommendations
In order not to have RCEA, and all of us who are its customers, allowing HSC to continue to put 300,000 metric tons of C02e into the atmosphere each year the RCEA Board needs to act.

Recommendation 1: No other biomass shall be contracted for beyond the HSC contract.

Recommendation 2: The HSC contract shall not be extended.

Recommendation 3: Due to the numerous air quality violations of HSC, the HSC contract should be cancelled as soon as the long-term renewable energy that it provides in the RCEA portfolio can be replaced by additive solar or wind. 21 APPENDIX: Humboldt Sawmill Violations Described in 2017 Letter by the NCUAQMD North Coast Unified
Air Quality Management District
707 L Street, Eureka, CA 95501
Telephone (707) 443-3093 FAX (707) 443-3099
bttn·{twww ncuagmg oro
April 14, 2017
Mr -Matthew Marshall E)(ecutive
Director
Redwood Coast EnergyAuthority (RCEA) 633
3'" Street
Eureka, CA 95501
Re: Status ofHRC Non-Compliance and Notice of Violations Dear Mr. Marshall:

This oorrespondence is in response to your inquiry as to the compliance status of the Humboldt Redwood Company (HRC) Title V Operating Permit #NCU 060-12 for the Scotia Sawmill (SSM) facility.

To date, the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District {District) has issued numerous Notices of Violations (NOVs) to HRC for violations of its federally enforceable rrtle V Operating Permit at the SSM facility and additionally for its Hot Mix Asphalt Plant {#00974-1 ). To date, HRC has over 1.044 violations since its restart which are available to the public through a Public Records Request and are summarized as follows:
• 54 violations for exceeding Carbon Monoxide (CO) emission limitations from Boiler A (November 2015 through November 2016)
• 7 violations for exceeding CO emission limitations from Boiler A (December 2016 through February 20 17)
• 45 violations for exceeding CO emission limitations from Boiler B (November 2015 through November 2016)
• 9 violalions for exceeding CO emission limitations from Boiler A (December 2016 through February 2017)
• 407 violations for exceeding opacity limitations from Boiler A (April 2016 through December 2016}
• 57 violations for exc&eding opacity limitations from Boiler A (January 2017 through February 2017)
• 318 violations for exceeding opacity limitations from Boiler B (April 2016 through December 2016)
88 violations for exceeding opacity limitations from Boiler B (January 2017 through February 2017)
• Violations for failure to maintain an operation COMS for both Boiler A and Boiler 8 (from November 2015 through February 2016)
22 Violations for failure to provide semi-annual compliance certification for both Boiler A and Boiler B (tor January 2016 to June 2016 period) Violations for failure to provide monthly monitoring reports (November 2015 through November 2016)
Violation for failure to conduct a source test of the package-type natural gas-fueled boiler Violation for failure to maintain an hourly log of the pressure drop across the bag house of the HMA plant (Apri I 5, 2016)
Violation tor failure to continuously record the temperature at the outlet of HMA plant mixing drum ((April 5, 2016 through Jun-a 15. 2016)
Violation for failure to Jog and maintain the finished HMA temperature (June 10, 20·16)
Violations for threti separate failures to maintain the finished HMA temperature (June 14, 2016)
Vio1ations for beginning construction of the Dry Kilns #4 & #5 without an ATC permit (September 1, 2016 through October 12, 2016)
The District has many concerns about the nature and pattern of these multiple violations and the ability of HRC to continue to operate the biomass boilers in compliance wlth Distnct pe.rmits and applicable air quality regulations, as these violations span an entire year for both boilers. In addition. the District has received over 60 complaints of ash and soot fallout from citizens in the towns of Scotia and Rio Dell just since Decernber 2016.

In accordance with EPA policy, the EPA has been notified of HRC's High Priority VIOiations of numerous federally enforceable regulations authorized by the Clean Air Act. 'In order to resolve the various violations, the District has provided a Settlement Agreement to HRG to setUe and provide a path to ensure compliance. If HRC cannot come to agreement with the District that will bring them into compliance. the District will be forced to pursue alternate enforcement remedies. These may include action to suspend HRC's permits, obtain injunctive relief. obtain an abatement order andlor civil penalty recoveries .

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel frEM:l to contact me.

Sincore~.

Brian Wilson
Air Pollution Control Officer
23 Endnotes:
1 The relationships between Humboldt Sawmill Company, Humboldt Redwood Company, and Mendocino Redwood Company are explained at: https://www.getredwood.com/our-story#:~:text=Humboldt%20Redwood%20Company%2C%20LLC%20(HRC,timberlands%20in%20Humboldt%20Coun ty%2C%20California. And: https://www.hrcllc.com/palco-press-articles/scotia-back-lumber-business-former-paciflc-lumber-sawmil l-returns-work 2 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 3 Humboldt County 2015 Emissions Inventory data show 819,212 metric tons of mobile transportation emissions, of which 48.1% is emitted by passenger vehicles, which equals: 394,041 metric tons. The 2020 Humboldt Sawmill emissions of 295,562 is 75% of all passenger vehicle emissions. Fun fact: all 34 Los Angeles police helicopters, which fly 365 days 24 hours a day "burned more than 1.2 million gallons of fuel, thereby releasing approximately 11,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide [in a year]." Humboldt Sawmill released 27 times more CO2 than the helicopters. https://heated.world/p/the-climate-cost-of-las-pollce-choppers 4 Nicholas J. Leach, et al. "Current level and rate of warming determine emissions budgets under ambitious mitigation." Nature Geoscience 11, no. 8 {2018): 574-579. 5 Allen, Myles, Mustafa Babiker, Yang Chen, and Heleen C. de Coninck. "IPCC SR15: Summary for policymakers." In IPCC Special Report Global Warming of 1.5 !!C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018. 6 Thomas, Adelle, April Baptiste, Rosanne Martyr-Koller, Patrick Pringle, and Kevon Rhiney. "Climate change and small island developing states." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45 (2020): 1-27. https ://www. an n ua I reviews. o rg/ do i/pdf/10.1146/ an nu rev-envi ron-012320-083355 7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01132-6/figu res/5 8 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1l26/science.abn7950 A full-text preprint is available at:
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/reposltory/bitstream/handle/10871/131584/Tipping%20points.pdf?seguence=1 Note that to have avoided tipping points the authors say we would have had to limit warming to 1.0°C. 9 Revesz, Richard L., Peter H. Howard, Kenneth Arrow, Lawrence H. Gou Ider, Robert E. Kopp, Michael A. Livermore, Michael Oppenheimer, and Thomas Sterner. "Global warming: Improve economic models of climate change." Nature 508, no. 7495 {2014): 173-175. https://www.nature.com/articles/508173a 10 https ://www.bloomberg.com/ news/ a rticles/2023-05-04/transcript-zero-e pisode-3 7-how-the-bezos-earth-fu nd-spends-its-bi I I ions#xj4y7vzkg 11 43% is the figure the world must reduce emissions. The US is the second largest emitter and California the second largest state emitter of greenhouse gases. The Paris Accord agreed that developing countries would not be held to the same standard as the developed countries that have caused global warming through fossil fuel use. So countries like the US have to reduce more than the average. 12 Humboldt's Electric Future: How the Redwood Coast Energy Authority is Buying and Building Local Renewable Power Resources ... and How You Can Participate. RCEA. April 2023 13 Staff Report. Agenda Item# 5.2, February 25, 2021, to RCEA Board of Directors from Richard Engel, Director of Power Resources, Biomass Power Purchase Agreement with Humboldt Sawmill Company. 14 See page 9 of Humboldt's Electric Future: How the Redwood Coast Energy Authority is Buying and Building Local Renewable Power Resources ... and How You Can Participate. RCEA. April 2023. 15 "Prices from a sample of recent contracts average around $20/MWh (levelized) in the West and $30-40/MWh elsewhere in the continental US." Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2022 Utility Scale Solar. https://emp.lbl.gov/utility-scale-solar#:~:text=Prices%20from%20a%20sample%20of.elsewhere%20in%20the%20continental%20US. 16 Some additional dispatchable electricity from the gas-powered Humboldt Generating Station would also need to be purchased. However, as the 2023 RCEA report notes, it doesn't matter where the electrons come from in our electricity, it only matters what is in the grid. Buying new solar instead of biomass electricity puts that amount into the grid. See below for why even natural gas is preferable to biomass. 24 17 Morris, G., 2000. Biomass Energy Production in California: The Case for a Biomass Policy Initiative; Final Report (No. NREL/SR-570-28805). National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/2880S.pdf
18 https://redwoodenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017 /08/RCEA-Boa rd-Meeting-Slides-3-20-17 .pdf 19 HSC RCEA MOU Data Reporting Template Feedstock, Reporting Period: May 1, 2022-April 30, 2023 20 The CPUC's 15 year old "interim" provision of a waiver of greenhouse gas emissions for biomass power has recently been challenged by a legal petition requesting a rule-making on this issue. It argues that the exemption was based on erroneous data and cites multiple current sources that show no waiver is justified because biomass power is not carbon neutral. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate law institute/pdfs/23-06-20- Ctr-Biol-Div-Emission-Performance-Standard-Petition.pdf? gl=l *ldg2y01 * gel au*MjA3MjQwNTg1My4xNjg4MDg4OTk0 21 Mary S. Booth, Not carbon neutral: Assessing the net emissions impact of residues burned for bioenergy, 13 Env't Rsch. Letters 035001 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac88 22 Fingerman, K. R., et al. (2023). "Climate and air pollution impacts of generating biopower from forest management residues in California." Environmental Research Letters 18(3). 23 Fingerman. Ibid. Also see Jerome Laganiere et al., Range and uncertainties in estimating delays in greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy sourced from Canadian forests, 9 GCB Bioenergy 358 (2017), https:// doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12327.
24 Law, Beverly E., Tara W. Hudiburg, Logan T. Berner, Jeffrey J. Kent, Polly C. Buotte, and Mark E. Harmon. "Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 14 (2018): 3663-3668. https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1720064115 25 John Sterman et al., Does wood bioenergy help or harm the climate?, 78 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 128 (2022). Manomet Ctr. for Conservation Scis., Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study: Report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (2010) at 103, https:ljwww.mass.gov/doc/manometbiomassreportfullhirezpdt/download 26 Laganiere, op cit.
27 Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2010. Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study: Report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. Walker, T. (Ed.).

Contributors: Cardellichio, P., Colnes, A., Gunn, J., Kittler, B., Perschel, R., Recchia, C., Saah, D., and Walker, T.

Natural Capital Initiative Report NCl-2010- 03. Brunswick, Maine. 28 A small sampling: IPCC, Frequently Asked Questions, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, http://www.lpcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/fag/fag.html.; Giuntoli, J., S.

Searle, R. Jonsson, A. Agostini, N. Robert, Stefano Amaducci, L. Marelli, and A. Camia. "Carbon accounting of bioenergy and forest management nexus. A reality-check of modeling assumptions and expectations." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020): 110368. Giuntoli, J., et al. (2021). "A systems perspective analysis of an increased use of forest bioenergy in Canada: Potential carbon impacts and policy recommendations." Journal of Cleaner Production 321. Morris, Gregory. "Bioenergy and greenhouse gases." Green Power Institute, The Renewable Energy Program of the Pacific Institute (2008). https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Bioenergy and Greenhouse Gases.pdf . Composting is a better alternative tan biopower: Silver, Whendee, Sintana Vergara, Allegra Mayer. (University of California, Berkeley). 2018. Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Composting and Soil Amendments on California's Rangelands. California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California Natural Resources Agency. Publication number: CCCA4-CNRA- 2018-002.
29 A different metric than GWPlO0 would be necessary for these purposes. GWP20, which is in wide use for short-lived climate pollutants like methane, would be a possibility. See: Cooper, S. J. G., et al. (2020). "Exploring temporal aspects of climate-change effects due to bioenergy." Biomass and Bioenergy 142. 30 Geronimo, Carisse, Sintana E. Vergara, Charles Chamberlin, and Kevin Fingerman. "Overlooked Emissions:

Methane Generation from Woody Biomass Storage." Available at SSRN 3988712. 25 31 https ://www.masslive.com/ news/2022/08/wood-bu rn i ng-power-p la nts-i n-mass-wo nt-g ua I ify-fo r-re n ewa bl e-e nergy-cred its-loca I-activists-a re-celebrating. htm I 32 https ://minister. d cceew .gov. au/bowen/ media-re I eases/native-forest-wood-waste-re moved-ren ewa ble-e n e rgy-ta rget 33 https://www.wwf.eu/?2128466/500-scientists-tel 1-E U-to-e n d-tree-bu rn i ng-for-energy 34 https://forestdefenders.eu/biomass-plant-co2-emissions-an-explanation/ 35 The total GHG emissions are from California Air Resource Board Pollution Mapping Tool https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center/data-portal/carb-pollution-mapping-tool. 2020 production of energy is from https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/guarterly-fuel-and-energy-report-gfer-1 These are direct annual smokestack emissions not the life cycle emissions relevant to carbon neutrality over years.
36 "[T]he proportion of GHG emissions from each lifecycle stage differs by technology. For fossil-fueled technologies, fuel combustion during operation of the facility emits the vast majority of GHGs." Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: Update. Life 800: 1-000. https:ljwww.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf The 2015 Humboldt County Emissions Inventory data show "upstream" emissions for natural gas as 11,162 metric tons, only 5 percent of the HBGS 227,214 emissions in 2020.

Upstream emissions for 2020 could not be found.
37 "The Emissions Performance Standard is a facility-based emissions standard requiring that all new long-term commitments for baseload generation to serve California consumers be with power plants that have emissions no greater than a combined cycle gas turbine plant. That level is established at 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour." https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov /published/News release/63997 .h tmll :~:text= The%20E missions%20Performance% 20Standard%20is,combined%20cycle%20gas%20turbin.e%20plant. 38 https:ljwww.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/quarterly-fuel-and-energy-report-gfer-1 39 Op cit. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate law institute/pdfs/23-06-20-Ctr-Biol-Div-Emission-Performance-Standard-Petition.pdf? gl=l *ldg2y01 * gel au*MiA3MjQwNTg1My4xNjg4MDg4OTk0 4° From https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/criteria-pollutant-emission-inventory-data 41 Keswani, Anjeni, Hana Akselrod, and Susan C. Anenberg. "Health and clinical impacts of air pollution and linkages with climate change." NEJM Evidence 1, no. 7 (2022): EVIDra2200068. https:// evi de nee. nej m .o rg/ doi/pd f/10 .105 6/EVI Dra 2 200068 ?down load=true 42 A more complete list of CARB toxics does show 147 lbs of lead emitted in 2020 for HSC; HBGS is not listed. https://www.arb.ca .gov/ ca rba pps/po 11 ution-ma p/? ga=2. 63 244207 .14248823.1687630012- 431780188.1682796728
43 https ://ww2. a rb.ca .gov/ resources/documents/ ca rb-identified-toxic-a i r-conta mi na nts 44 Data from: California Air Resource Board Pollution Mapping Tool https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center / data-portal/carb-poll ution-ma pping-tool. 45 https ://www. n a echo. o rg/ uploads/down I oa dab I e-reso u rces/Pol icy-and-Advocacy/He a lth-o rga n i zat ion a 1-1 etter - health-impacts-of-blomass.pdf
46 In the application for the initial contract with RCEA, HSC included a "Permit and notice of violation summary." It shows only one violation of emissions limits. In 2016 monthly reports of emissions were required by the NCUAQMD and were not submitted until the contract was signed. After submission the air quality district cited HSC for 700 emissions violations and many others. See the Appendix. 47 NCUAQMD multiple Notices of Violation obtained via public record request by Wendy Ring MD, MPH 48 North Coast Regional Water Board Settlement Agreement with Humboldt Sawmill Company https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ northcoast/board _decisions/tentative_ orders/ pdf /2022/220712%20Fin al%20Stipulated%20Agreement%20HSC.pdf November 2022
49 US Department of Labor https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establishment.inspection_detail7 id==1520807.015
50 Multiple documents obtained by public record request and absence of requested documents (because they didn't exist but should have) from the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District. 26 51 NCUAQMD 2017-2023 Source Tests and emissions inventories submitted to NCUAQMD by HSC and Notices of Violation issued to HSC by NCUAQMD, HSC's Proposed Toxic Inventory Plan. All documents obtained via public record requests.
52 NCUAQMD Director Brian Wilson email exchange with Dr. Wendy Ring June 30 and July 7, 2023. 53 Available at: https:// acrobat. adobe.com/id/urn: a aid : sc: US :4b82 b9c6-8 bbd-40b5-b826-ac560a ea 223f 54 Source Test Report 2022 Compliance and RATA Testing Humboldt Redwood Company, LLC Scotia Facility Boilers A, B & C. Montrose Air Quality Service, Antioch CA. November 7 2022. A follow-up report dated January 2023 showed the boilers to be emitting only the allowed amounts of particulates. 55 POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT Between Redwood Coast Energy Authority (as "Buyer'') and Humboldt Redwood Company, LLC (as "Seller"), 2017.
56 Biomass Power in Humboldt County. Summary of Workshops, Consultations, and Research, Prepared by Michael J. Furniss, Climate and Forests Consultant to Redwood Coast Energy Authority, January 2020; updated October 2021.
57 Overall average GHG Intensity of electricity generation in California comes from Cal. Air Res. Bd., 2000- 2018 Emissions Trends Report Data (2020 Edition),
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ 2000 2018/ 2000 2018 ghg inventory trends figures.xlsx. 58 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill ld=202120220SB1109 September 16, 2022 (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2022)
59 https://www.calbiomass.org/facilities/greenleaf-eel-river-power/ 60 The process goes back at least to 1807 when syngas was used in London street lamps. 61 https://cbrec.schatzcenter.org/forest/forestry.html
62 Carreras-Sospedra, M., et al. (2016). "Assessment of the emissions and air quality impacts of biomass and biogas use in California." J Air Waste Ma nag Assoc 66(2): 134-150. https ://www. tan dfon Ii ne. com/ doi/fu 11/ 10.1080/10962247.2015. 1087892 ?scrol l=top&needAccess=tru e&role=ta b 63 Ibid.
64 First Annual Report on Consultations with Humboldt Sawmill Company Regarding Alternative Biomass Uses.

Presentation to RCEA Board of Directors June 23, 2022
65 https://biomassrnagazine.com/ a rticles/20117 /usda-fund s-wood-en ergy-projects 66 https://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Pages/News/State-I nvests-3-M i 11 ion-Convert-Fa rest-Waste-into-Ca rbo n-Negative-F uel .aspx 67 https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Agriculture CCCA4-CNRA-2018-002 ADA.pdf, https :ljww 2 .arb.ca. gov /sites/ d eta u lt/fi I es/2023-04/2022-sp. pdf, https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/erosion/firedamage/, https:ljwww.kelowna.ca/clty-services/garbage-recycling-yard-waste/okanagan-compost/ogogrow/how-ogogrow-made, http://www.sawdustsupply.com/groco-soil-conditioner-mu lch, https://nwbiosolids.org/whats-happening/member-spotlight/2015/ianuary/city-arlington-wa, www.olyfish.com
68 https://pacificbiochar.com/how-we-produce-biochar/
69 https://www.canadianbiomassmagazine.ca/california-selects-8-projects-for-forest-biomass-to-biofuels-pilot-program/, https://velocys.com/projects/bayou-fuels/ 70 https ://www .sgh 2e n ergy. com/technology/ #tee h head er, https ://www.yosemiteclean.com/, https://www.enr.com/articles/53219-california-plant-would·convert-wood-waste-into-hydrogen-fuel 71 Cabiyo, B., et al. (2021). "Innovative wood use can enable carbon-beneficial forest management in California." Proc Natl Acad Sci US A 118(49). And https://www.apawood.org/osb. And https://www.natural lywood.com/projects/?projects type=mass-timber-demonstration-prograrn&projects structural=all&projects material=all&projects location=all&tax=true. And https://www.millwoodinc.com/Wood-Products-Pallets-New-Pallets-Pressed-Wood 72 https ://www. fpl. fs. usd a .gov /resea rch/faci I ities/ na nocel I u lose pilot-plant. ph p 73 https://bio p lasticsnews. com/tecna ro/, https://wood ly.com/prod u cts/1 https://www.upmformi.com/biocomposite-products/upm-formi-ecoace/, https://www.treston ."us/news/product-27 launch-treston-biox-first-sustainable-wood-based-bioplastic-storage-option-induslry,https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325190243.htm#:~:text"'Summary%3A,world's%20m ost%20pressing%20environmental%20issues.
28

Redwood Coast Energy Authority Board of DirectorsAugust 24, 2023

Redwood Coast Energy Authority Board of Directors
August 24, 2023