Biomass Incinerator Proposal for Klamath Falls, Oregon Withdrawn

Project with­drawn after fed­er­al fund­ing source issues

June 14, 2013. Source: Andrew Creasey, Her­ald and News

A pro­posed and con­tro­ver­sial bio­mass plant off High­way 66 will not be built due to com­pli­ca­tions with its fed­er­al fund­ing source.

Kla­math Falls Bioen­er­gy with­drew its appli­ca­tion for a site cer­ti­fi­ca­tion Tues­day. The cer­ti­fi­ca­tion process had been mired in delays with the Ener­gy Facil­i­ty Sit­ing Coun­cil, the state body that over­sees the reg­u­la­tion of large elec­tric gen­er­at­ing plants.

In the notice of with­draw­al to the sit­ing coun­cil, the com­pa­ny men­tioned delays in the sit­ing process play­ing a role in its inabil­i­ty to meet a Dec. 31, 2013 con­struc­tion dead­line required to qual­i­fy for fed­er­al fund­ing under the Amer­i­can Recov­ery and Rein­vest­ment Act. With­out that fund­ing — amount­ing to $40 mil­lion, or 30 per­cent of the total project cost — and with Con­gress’ fail­ure to extend the dead­line to qual­i­fy for the fund­ing past the end of 2013, the com­pa­ny deter­mined it could not finance the project.

The appli­ca­tion with­draw­al marks the end of a frus­trat­ing expe­ri­ence with the Ener­gy Facil­i­ty Sit­ing Coun­cil process for the com­pa­ny. In pre­vi­ous inter­views, Kla­math Falls Bioen­er­gy Vice Pres­i­dent Bruce Thomp­son was out­spo­ken about his dis­ap­point­ment with the process, say­ing that if he knew how long it would take, the com­pa­ny would have gone to a dif­fer­ent state to con­struct the plant. Thomp­son also said the lengthy process was a hin­drance for devel­op­ers look­ing to build in Oregon.

The com­pa­ny start­ed the appli­ca­tion process, which cost about $1 mil­lion, in 2009, Thomp­son said. Thomp­son could not be reached for fur­ther comment.

Pro­po­nents of the project point­ed to its pos­i­tive eco­nom­ic impact on Kla­math Coun­ty. Apart from the prop­er­ty tax rev­enue the $125 mil­lion project would gen­er­ate, it was esti­mat­ed that it would cre­ate 106 per­ma­nent local jobs and about 300 tem­po­rary con­struc­tion jobs.

The pro­posed plant was fierce­ly opposed by a local group, Save Our Rur­al Ore­gon, who con­tends the plant would have endan­gered local wildlife, decreased adja­cent prop­er­ty val­ues, harmed local ground­wa­ter and increased the pro­lif­er­a­tion of dam­ag­ing air pol­lu­tants in near­by neighborhoods.

SORO’s tes­ti­mo­ny against the project dur­ing the Ener­gy Facil­i­tySit­ing Coun­cil con­test­ed case pro­ceed­ings played a role in pro­long­ing that process, but oth­er, larg­er fac­tors were more like­ly relat­ed to the company’s deci­sion to aban­don the project, said Trey Senn, who sits on the coun­cil and is exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Kla­math Coun­ty Eco­nom­ic Devel­op­ment Asso­ci­a­tion. Senn point­ed to a recent Cal­i­for­nia law that stip­u­lates the state’s required renew­able ener­gy quo­tient must be gen­er­at­ed by plants in the state, effec­tive­ly elim­i­nat­ing a large mar­ket of pow­er for any Kla­math Coun­ty pow­er plant.