From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments- Open Session prior to closed session Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 4:49:15 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello Mayor Martinez, Council members and Staff,
I Think That Pamela Christian Has done a Wonderful Job as the City Clerk Sincerely
Cordell
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments- open forum
Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 5:02:21 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello Mayor Martinez, Council Members and Staff
I Have some Comments for the Record
1. for the April 18th Meeting, The Council Should Consider Reinstating the Agenda & Rules Standing Committees in Lined with How the City of Berkeley
2. Also to Have Lesa Mcintosh to Provide a Presentation on the Proposed Water Rates Sincerely
Cordell
From: Anna Henry
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments Agenda Item AF3
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 1:18:31 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Greetings,
I am reaching out to provide public comment on agenda item AF3. The proposed
wood pellet project
poses threats to public health and safety, environmental justice, the climate, and our forests.
Wood pellets are fire-and-explosion prone. Storing wood pellets at ports poses substantial fire and explosion hazards to workers and neighboring communities.
The proposed deep-water port in Richmond, Levin Richmond Terminal, is located next to a disadvantaged community with some of the highest pollution burdens in the state, according to CalEnviroScreen. It is in the 93rd percentile overall.
This community already has high exposure to particulate matter, especially diesel pollution and refinery emissions; high rates of asthma (98%), low birth weight (98%), cardiovascular disease, a high poverty rate, and has a majority Hispanic population.
The long-term operation of the project will emit significant daily greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions from storage and loading operations at the port, where stored pellets will release methane and dust.
Burning wood to generate electricity produces more carbon emissions at the smokestack than coal per unit of electricity produced.
Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution would be emitted at every step of the project—from cutting forests, trucking cut trees long distances, chipping wood and producing pellets, transporting pellets by rail hundreds of miles to ports, and shipping pellets to be burned overseas.
The project would trigger a massive expansion of logging in California’s forests, releasing their stored carbon at a time when the climate crisis calls for increased forest protection and stored carbon.
The project would remove trees of any type and size within a 100-mile radius of each pellet facility to manufacture more than one million US tons of pellets every year, damaging habitat for sensitive and endangered species and harming forest ecosystems.
Sincerely,
Anna
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public comments Agenda Item AF3
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 1:58:22 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Isn't it completely obvious that mature trees should be left standing as a way to sequester carbon as opposed to being cut down, turned into pellets, & burned which PRODUCES carbon dioxide? Does anything more really need to be said to make the case for the complete foolishness of this project? I think not.
Thank you very much.
/David F. Gassman/
From: Diana
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Please ask the Richmond City Council to vote against the dirty wood pellet plan.
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 1:15:18 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
The wood pellet scheme would pose massive threats to public health and safety, the climate, environmental justice, and our forests.
I certainly hope this idea is quashed!!
Thank you.
Sincerely
Diana Bohn
Berkeley
From: Elizabeth D.
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments Agenda Item AF3
Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 8:48:29 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello Richmond City Council Members,
As a Richmond resident of Marina Bay, I object to the Golden State Natural Resources Wood Pellet program.
I see it as a threat to public safety
and health, the environment
and CA forests.
There may be a great risk of fire at the port, causing toxic air
pollution for a long
period of time. Richmond residents are already subjected to enough toxins,
historically from the port, and refinery.
I would like to see the port stay in business, of course, but please ship something safe like canned foods, clothing, etc.
Thank you for your consideration on this project.
And all the work you do for
Richmond!
Elizabeth Dortch
2511 Baywood Way
Richmond CA 94804
From: Jean-Luc Szpakowski
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Jean-Luc Szpakowski
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item AF.3 March 28, 2023 Date: Sunday, March 26, 2023 1:10:51 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Wood pellets are formed from compressed sawdust and wood shaviongs that are dried, formed into particles and compressed. Although they are renewable biomass, they constitute dangers to both the local and global environment. They give off toxic fumes, cause unexpected fires, and are a contributor to global warming.
Wood pellets can undergo oxidation with the atmosphere, giving off a toxic combination of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other volatile carbon compounds. In unventilated spaces the atmosphere can then become oxygen depleted and can contain lethal amounts of odorless carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. This is a hazard in storage containers including truck bodies and ship holds, where a number of deaths have been recorded in people who entered these containers unprotected. For example, a United Kingdom official warning refers to 9 deaths among port workers in the last two decades along with a number of near deaths.
((https://www.hse.gov.uk/confinedspace/updates/wood-pellet-fuels.htm ).
Wood pellets can spontaneously combust and the dust associated with them is also combustible, with a risk of explosion. Pellets decompose over time and undergo biological metabolic reactions (microbiological growth), chemical oxidation which produces heat, and heat-producing physical processes such as moisture absorption. It can occur for both wet and dry biofuels and is a problem when the pile is so large that it cannot easily dissipate heat to the surroundings. (see https://www.irclass.org/technical-circulars/fire-safety-hazards-associated- with-wood-pellets/ ). ;
https://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featurebiomass-experience- and-the-dangers-of-dust-7961580/ ). The environmental Integrity project has documented numerous cases of fires and pollutant levels that exceed regulatory standards associated with storage of pellets in plants across the United Startes (https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Biomass- Report.pdf )
Off-gassing (the production of these gases from wood pellets) produces a number of volatile compounds that can be irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory systems. The unloading of pellets has also been shown to cause levels of gas and fine respiratory particles that are far above the legal limit. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Health-and-Safety- Aspects-of-Solid-Biomass-Storage-Transportation-and-Feeding.pdf Finally, wood pellets are a danger to the environment from their pernicious effects on global warming. Wood pellets are destructive for the goal of decreasing atmospheric carbon. A research report notes that biomasss burning emits more carbon than emissions from most fossil fuels (which after all, are derived for ancient wood). (https://www.chathamhouse.org/2017/02/impacts- demand-woody-biomass-power-and-heat-climate-and-forests) . (Some may say that biomass is carbon neutral, but that notion is due to a quirk of IPCC greenhouse gas rules, which count burning of wood pellets not as coming from energy use but from land use!).
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2017- 02-23-impacts-demand-woody-biomass-climate-forests-brack-final.pdf Wood pellets derive from trees, often mature trees that have stored carbon over decades. If replacement trees are planted –something which has been documented to be far less effective than claimed
(https://www.sciencenews.org/article/planting-trees-climate-change-carbon- capture-deforestation) — it takes decades for them to store equivalent amounts of carbon. There is also the effect on global warming from the emissions from maritime transport.
For all these reasons, the storage and transport of wood pellets within Richmond would cause unacceptable risks to local and global health.
Jean-Luc Szpakowski MD
Highland Hospital
From: Jeannette Kortz
To: Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; claudia jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Doria Robinson; Soheila Bana; [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item AF3
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 12:48:38 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am pleased to be informed that Biofuel Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity will be presenting to the City Council about the dangers and health effects of possibly allowing a wood pellet corporation to establish a storage facility at the Port of Richmond, and then ship the pellets overseas to be burned in converted coal-fired power plants.
As you are aware, the deep-water port in Richmond, Levin Terminal, is adjacent to a disadvantaged community with some of the highest pollution burdens in the State of California.
This operation will emit significant daily greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions from storage and loading operations at the port. The pellets will release methane and dust.
The project would trigger a massive explosion of logging in California's forests, releasing stored carbon at a time when the climate crisis calls for increased forest protection and stored carbon.
I urge you to vote against this project at the time this comes up for approval by the City of Richmond.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Jeanne Kortz
Richmond Resident
From: Lisa Park
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Lisa Park
Subject: Public comments Agenda Item AF3
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 7:00:41 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
To the Richmond City Council,
I am against
the Golden State Natural Resources' wood pellet export scheme,
a
proposal to build two of the largest wood pellet manufacturing facilities in the country and ship the pellets overseas to be burned in converted coal-fired power plants.
I am against using the Levin Terminal
to ship wood pellets — a new climate-
destroying product that would also emit health-harming pollution into Richmond air.
This plan poses massive threats it poses to public health and safety, the climate, environmental justice, and our forests.
Sincerely,
Lisa Park
5626 Bayview Avenue
Richmond 94804
From: Martha Walden
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments agenda item AF3
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 7:53:47 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I’ll be frank and brief. The fire dangers entailed by silos of flammable wood pellets is only one reason why I oppose the proposition to ship wood pellets from two proposed pellet manufacturers through Richmond. The significant air particulates emitted by storing and handling that huge amount of wood pellets is another. But the biggest reason for opposing this plan is that its justification is the worst possible idea ever.
The destination of these wood pellets would be to replace coal in electricity plants all over the world. There’s only one fuel that is dirtier and emits as much or more greenhouse gases than coal, and that’s wood. Burning wood instead of coal may be a small step for an electricity plant but a giant leap in the wrong direction for mankind.
The earth cannot sequester enough carbon in the next fifty years to absorb the atmospheric glut caused by burning wood. We can’t afford fifty years of increased carbon emissions when we need to do everything possible to decrease emissions.
Please don’t be fooled by the contention that only woody debris and trees that need cutting will supply a million tons of pellets every year. It’s impossible. Healthy carbon- sequestering trees would be cut in order to provide the worst fuel we could possibly burn, and they would be transported up to a hundred miles from forest to manufacturing plant and then shipped through Richmond. It’s a Lose, Lose, Lose proposition.
Please vote against this project. Thank you.
Martha Walden
From: shirley shelangoski
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments Agenda Item AF3
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 9:57:48 AM
Attachments: Richmond City Council.docx
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Richmond City Council
460 Civic Plaza
Richmond, CA
Dear Mayor Eduardo Martinez, Vice Mayor Gayle Mclaughlin and Honorable Members of the City Council,
I am writing on behalf of the Golden State Natural Resources wooden pellet project and I am opposed to Richmond’s role in that. The storage of wood pellets present a fire and explosion risk to workers and the neighboring community. The silos that hold several thousand tons of pellets are an extreme hazard because water does not effectively quell fires of these wood pellets. Have we learned nothing from the Port Arthur, Texas fire of a wood pellet storage silo in 2017 that burned and polluted over 100 days? As is the case with many environmental health hazards, this deep-water port is located in an economically disadvantaged community with many other environmental hazards. Many residents are suffering other health ailments such as asthma already.
Would you live in this neighborhood knowing the
risks?
This is a public health risk to the residents and a significant greenhouse gas emission pollutant. It is worse than coal.
The forests should be preserved, not cut down to cause more pollution in their release of stored carbon, delivery and storage. I am asking for you to be environmentally responsible and not move forward with this proposed storage silo of wood pellets.
Profit over environment is not a winning proposition. Thank you for your attention to this very sensitive matter.
Sincerely,
Shirley Shelangoski
Contra Costa Move On Leader
925-917-4855
From: Will Brieger
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item AF.3 March 28, 2023 Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 9:15:25 AM
Attachments: One-Pager on woody biomass.docx
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
After retiring from the California Air Resources Board, I continue to advocate in support of climate solutions.
The Golden State Natural Resources wood pellet project is a danger to the climate.
Richmond
should not in any way facilitate the handling and transport of a fuel that is less efficient and more polluting than coal.
The UN has issued a number of clear warnings in recent years that we have less than a decade to significantly reduce emissions if we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the worst effects of heating our planet.
I have attached a one-page summary regarding the strengths and weaknesses of burning wood to make electricity. If greenhouse gas emissions are at all a factor, the answer is clear that we have cleaner ways to make power, including coal, natural gas, geothermal, solar and wind.
Given the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2, we need to stick to those last three.
We
can do much better than burning wood.
Every person and every jurisdiction needs to do its part to dramatically change our energy economy.
Richmond should not take a step backwards that puts our collective goals out of reach.
Sincerely,
Will Brieger
Electricity from Woody Biomass is not Carbon Neutral
The Renewable Portfolio Standard requires California electricity providers to supply growing percentages of renewable electricity, including 60 percent by 2030, 90% by 2035 and 100% by 2045.1 “Renewable” includes power from the western grid that is solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric, or derived from “combustible residues or gasses from logging, forest products manufacturing, agricultural and orchard crops.”2 Biomass electricity gets an extra competitive boost because it is deemed emission free for Cap & Trade purposes.
Three percent of California’s net generation comes from a fleet of aging, wood‐burning biomass facilities built to take advantage of generous power contracts offered in the early 1980s.
California also has two plants making wood pellets for heating or electricity3 and two more plants being developed to create pellets for export.
Burning wood to make electricity is quite different from the other forms of renewable energy – it yields significant GHG and criteria pollutant emissions. In fact, burning wood emits more GHG per kW of electricity than burning natural gas or even coal,4 as well as particulate matter and NOx. The storage piles of woody fuel also emit significant methane.5 Researchers have recently modeled how much more carbon is emitted in any area of California by burning wood for electricity as opposed to other ways of dealing with forest residues.6 Biomass electricity proponents assert that the carbon dioxide is recaptured as forests regrow in the following 44‐104 years. But the scientific consensus tells us we don’t have that long to reduce GHG emissions. In any event, if the biomass power plant continues in operation, the “carbon debt” from burning wood in year one simply increases each year; the hoped‐for regrowth falls further and further behind the pace of emissions.7
1 Pub. Util. Code §454.53, subd. (a)/
2 Tit. 20, Cal.Reg. Code §1391(c)(1)
3 US Energy Information Agency profile of CA energy
4 John D Sterman et al 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 015007DOI 10.1088/1748‐9326/aaa512 5 C. Geronimo et al., Overlooked emissions: Influence of environmental variables on greenhouse gas generation from woody biomass storage. Fuel 319: 123839 (2022)
6 Fingerman, Kevin R., Jerome Qiriazi, Cassidy L. Barrientos, Max Blasdel, Jeffrey M. Comnick, Andrew Harris, Carisse Geronimo et al. "Climate and air pollution impacts of generating biopower from forest management residues in California." Environmental Research Letters (2023). 7 Ibid. “Consequently, wood‐fired power plants generate more CO2 per kWh than coal … [creating] a carbon debt— an immediate increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to fossil energy—that can be repaid over time only as—and if— [net regrowth and absorption] rises above the flux of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere on the harvested lands.” Renee Cho presents a good overview in Columbia Climate School News.
There is value in thinning our forests to reduce wildfire risk, but state policy should support the many non‐combustion uses for forestry waste.8 Continuing to pretend that burning wood is “renewable” could prevent us from meeting our climate goals.
8 See UC Berkeley Center for Law Environment and Energy “Branching Out, Waste Biomass Policies to Promote Wildfire Resilience and Emission Reduction.”