Public Comment
June 25, 2026
RCEA Board of Directors
Regular Meeting
Agenda Item 10.3:
2026 California Public Utilities Commission
Integrated Resource Plan Portfolio Options
This page
intentionally
left blank.
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item 10.1
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 3:07:53 PM
Nobody likes biomass (except the people making money from it, and they probably only like the money, not the pollution). We don't need any additional air pollution in Humboldt County.Biomass does not belong in RCEA's future energy mix. Nix it!
Carol Moné
Trinidad, CA
10.3 - 2026 California Public Utilities Commission
Integrated Resource Plan Portfolio Options
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item 10.1
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 3:53:47 PM
In 2023 RCEA asked the community what kind of energy to put in its next IRP and the majority chose a portfolio with zero biomass.
RCEA's 2019 strategic plan included a longterm transition away from mill waste combustion and no long term biomass contracts. 15 years is long term. 6 months ago HSC was required to assess community health risk due to its levels of toxic emissions. No HSC biomass should be considered until the state reviews that report and decides that no toxic harm exists.
Move AWAY from biomass!
Diane Korsower MD
Arcata
10.3 - 2026 California Public Utilities Commission
Integrated Resource Plan Portfolio Options
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: Integrated Resource Plan
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 6:04:36 PM
Dear RCEA,
I am writing you again to say biomass—in particular the off-waste of forest removal—does not belong in your energy mix. Especially when we consumers end up payiing for it.
Please change course now.
Thank you,
Jerry Martien
Elk River
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: HSC IRC 10.3
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 10:01:19 PM
I strongly oppose the staff recommendation to continue the HSC contract to 2045 for the following reasons.
Cost:
It is far too costly for what we receive. On shore wind and large solar are more financially reasonable and they will become more efficient.
If you choose to use (RCEA) to fund a private corporation the public should have a choice in subsidizing a privately held company with exorbitant payments because of bad choices made in the past, in my view. Years ago you can find a comment where a staff member at RCEA reported that HSC received 2 million dollars more then the market rate. It was buttressed by the story of baseline power locally resourced . The baseline power provided by the PG&E plant is not considered because of the allocation of Renewable Energy Credits .
Do rate payers want 20 more years of ancient technology which is both dirty and inefficient ? The contract is cost plus a bit more. However, the calculation does not include the increase in price of the commodity that HSC produces. The wholesale price of lumber should have been included in the calculation.
Their fuel is essentially free. Remember back in the day the Fairhaven biomass plant had to pay for wood to burn ; yet they accepted about the same price as HSC.
Finally in terms of finance: Consider that the board has a fiduciary responsibility; would you invest your own money in old equipment and technology that is maintenance intensive and inefficient ? (Check the California Energy Commission data: biomass output as an industry has been static for decades. Only government and private subsidies keep it going)
example: There is an IRS schedule T where timber harvest data can calculate a depletion allowance.
Air Quality:
The mere fact that HSC had to submit a Toxic Hotspot Assessment for review this past May is proof that it is not clean.
Pollution measured in tons may be in regulatory compliance ; however, with an elementary school a thousand feet away that standard is a very low bar, indeed.
Climate change and renewable resources:
Several years ago I submitted a comment that the CAlifornia air resources board reported that California forests are a net carbon source. The EPA under a former administration reported the same. The Country of Australia recently reported that their forests were a carbon source.
My question is where specifically are the forests in Humboldt county re-sequestering carbon. How do you keep fossil carbon from being part of the equation. We are probably past the tipping point of catastrophic climate change.
I’m saddened that burning wood scraps at an industrial level is being considered by leaders who may have children and grandchildren or even know young people.
I believe that we cut on a 40 years cycle. You can get a time lapse view of the “cut “ over time by using the Google Earth app , click on Basemap setting, historical images and then click on the time lapse setting.(The attached images will help find these setting). This feature has about 40 years of data and when you see the time lapse from the National Park to Scotia you can decide for yourself if carbon is sequestered in the time frame that we need.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Walt Paniak
Arcata resident
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item 10.1
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 4:05:05 AM
Dear Board Members,
I am an RCEA customer, and I oppose the inclusion of biomass in RCEA’s future energy mix.
In your consideration of power sources to include in RCEA's twenty-year Integrated Resource Plan, please remember that:
1-In 2023, the majority of the RCEA community chose a portfolio that contains no biomass
2- RCEA's 2019 strategic plan included a fifteen-year long term transition away from mill waste combustion and no long term biomass contracts. 3-Six months ago Humboldt Sawmill Co was required to assess community health risk due to its levels of toxic emissions. No HSC biomass should be considered until the state reviews that report and decides that no toxic harm exists. 4- Biomass is very expensive, costing three time higher than utility scale solar.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sue Lee Mossman
Trinidad, CA 95570
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda #10.1
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 7:12:22 AM
Dear RCEA ,
I've been informed that RCEA is meeting today to discuss an Integrated Resource Plan for next 20 years. The possibility of RCEA including biomass as a continuing energy source is a major concern. The polluting Scotia Sawmill is a more expensive source of energy than non-polluting solar. Do not extend its contract for another 20 years.
Biomass should not be included in RCEA's future plans. Thanks for your attention.
Sincerely,
Lynda McDevitt
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: agenda item 10.3
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 11:16:08 AM
Attachments: letter to rcea board.odt
Please post the attached letter to your public comments. Thank you.
The reference to re-contracting with Humboldt Sawmill Company after 2030 may be purely speculative but still occasions this reminder to the board that biomass electricity has a serious pollution problem. It is not the clean energy that RCEA can pride itself on.
The biomass plant in Scotia has equity impacts since it’s located literally next door to an elementary school. HSC recently renewed its permit many years after it lapsed, which has finally required it to fill out for the state a community health risk assessment. The results of that test are not yet known.
A majority of participants in the Electric Futures workshop held in 2023 indicated a clear preference for portfolios that did not contain biomass, and members of RCEA’s Community Advisory Committee have advocated for dropping biomass after the current contract with Humboldt Sawmill Company expires in 2030.
Environmentally sound methods of utilizing waste wood will never be widely developed as long as LSEs and utilities are willing to buy electricity which is the product of incineration. The only reason it conforms to the state’s GHG emissions benchmark is that those emissions are not counted. Climate scientists have been begging governments to reconsider this protocol for more than a decade now. It is certainly no bargain at $110/MWh
Thank you for your attention.
350 Humboldt steering committee
Martha Walden
Dan Chandler
Nancy Ihara
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: No Biomass in the energy portfolio
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 2:59:12 PM
Dear Friends,
As a long-time user of Renewables + energy through you, I object to continuing to include biomass in that mix. It has a big carbon footprint. The money is better spent supporting more solar.
Thank you,
Caroline Isaacs
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: Biomass mtg agenda 10.1
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 3:37:35 PM
Please note: THis community does NOT want biomass in RCEA's future energy mix.
The cost of $110/MWh is 3X higher than utility scale solar. -- Thank you
Patty Harvey
Corinne Frugoni
Co-chairs, Humboldt Chapters of HCA-CA and PNHP
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: agenda item 10.1
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 1:03:25 PM
I'm an Arcata resident, and I'm opposed to extending the contract for biomass energy with Humboldt Sawmills. Biomass energy from wood waste isn't really green, it contributes to air pollution and isn't renewable in the time frame we need--young trees are carbon sources not carbon sinks.
thank you
Sue Hilton
From:
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item 10.1
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 8:54:20 PM
We the consumers of power in Humboldt County do not want biomass to be in the mix.
Please do not extend Humboldt Sawmills contract.
Thank you,
Paula Rhude, Eureka CA