TRUCKEE, Calif. – Golden State Natural Resources (GSNR) is initiating a project aimed at enhancing the resilience of California’s forestlands by acquiring and processing surplus biomass into pelletized fuel. GSNR is optimistic that this fuel source will play a role in advancing renewable energy generation overseas as an alternative to coal. The project entails establishing two processing facilities—one in Tuolumne County, situated in the foothills of the Central Sierra Nevada Mountain range, and another in Lassen County on the Modoc Plateau in Northern California. Upon completion, the pellets will be transported via rail or truck to the Port of Stockton for international shipment to countries such as Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, where they will be used in power plants.

However, GSNR’s proposed wood pellet project has generated substantial controversy and apprehension, with many questioning the project’s true intentions. And the project could have direct impacts on the Truckee/Tahoe region. 

“What Truckee could face is really in regards to how close Truckee will be to GSNR’s proposed Tuolumne facility. In fact, Truckee is just a stone’s throw away from the sourcing radius of the proposed facility. It’s about five miles from the outer edge of where they will be sourcing their material from. Which means that Truckee will face the impacts of increased industrial logging activities as well as the impact of having heavy trucks on the roads,” Rita Vaughan Frost, Forest Advocate at the National Resources Defense Council, said.

---

---

“An industrial-scale wood pellet production scheme is underway to sell California forests to overseas energy markets,” Vaughan Frost said. In a recent NRDC blog, https://www.nrdc.org/bio/rita-frost/why-wood-pellets-wont-solve-californias-wildfire-problem, Vaughan Frost warns that GSNR’s project, aiming to produce one million tons of wood pellets annually, could disrupt forest management practices and increase logging rates, leading to pollution and harm to nearby communities. She emphasizes that wood pellet production relies heavily on international subsidies, which are diminishing, making the project unsustainable and a false solution distracting from genuine wildfire prevention efforts.

Vaughan Frost suggests that achieving genuine wildfire prevention requires relearning how to coexist with fire and viewing it as a natural and healthy phenomenon for the forest ecosystem. “The National Resources Defense Council is finding that fires are inevitable. Forests do need fire. In fact, a lot of these trees coevolved with wildfire,” Vaughan Frost continues, “Problems lie when fires get out of their containment.” 

---

---

To minimize destruction when fires leave their containment, Vaughan Frost argues prioritizing home hardening over forest thinning. She believes that investing in home protection measures is more effective. 

“We need to be making sure that communities can protect themselves as well as wildland. Putting out all fires is impossible. Preventing community destruction is possible,” Vaughan Frost said.  

According to Dr. Shaye Wolf, Climate Science Director at California’s Center for Biological Diversity, “A lot of the fires aren’t happening in forests, they are happening in shrublands and grasslands. So, the best way to protect communities from wildfire is doing home fire safety retrofits right in the community rather than in the forest.”  

Additionally, Vaughan Frost criticizes the practice of cutting down trees for electricity production, as it not only degrades vital forest carbon sinks but also releases carbon emissions comparable to fossil fuels. Moreover, she highlights the harmful air pollution emitted by wood pellet production facilities, which disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income areas, compounding existing environmental injustices.

“The economics of trying to reduce fires by thinning forests doesn’t add up. California spent a billion dollars on fire prevention. But only a drop of it went to home hardening. We should be putting a lot more money into the hands of local governments,” Vaughan Frost said. 

Dr. Wolf agrees that “the state should be investing in the things most helpful to communities. Most of the budget is going to logging and thinning projects. But logging can actually make fires burn hotter and faster.”  

Vaughan Frost and Dr. Wolf are not alone in their concerns. On June 30, 2023, a coalition comprising 109 organizations, including the California Center for Biological Diversity, Biofuelwatch, Natural Resources Defense Council, Partnership for Policy Integrity, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Doctors and Scientists Against Wood Smoke Pollution, Friends of the Earth Japan, Global Forest Coalition, Non-Toxic Neighborhoods, Society of Native Nations, Trend Asia (Indonesia), and the Clean Air Committee (Netherlands), has submitted comments to the Golden State Finance Authority vehemently opposing the Golden State Natural Resources (GSNR) wood pellet project. They raise concerns about its adverse effects on climate, communities, and forests.

The coalition emphasizes the potential health and safety risks associated with wood pellet storage and handling operations, especially in Stockton, a port community. They argue that relying on wood pellets as an energy source is both carbon-intensive and inefficient, exacerbating the climate crisis and contributing to air pollution. Furthermore, the coalition expresses worries regarding the project’s impact on biodiversity, wildfire risk, and water quality, calling for a comprehensive assessment of its lifecycle emissions and exploration of alternatives.

Many rural California grassroots organizations are critical of the wood pellet export proposal. “Our rural communities need sustainable jobs in watershed restoration and climate resiliency, not another biomass boom and bust that creates wealth only for corporate interests,” Nick Joslin, Forest and Watershed Watch Program Manager with the Northern California organization Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, said.

They urge decision-makers to prioritize the well-being of affected communities and ecosystems, advocating for alternatives that promote sustainability and environmental justice.

“I simply want to express my opposition to this project. It is unacceptable that our environmental justice community has been overlooked during the scoping process simply under the pretense of achieving ‘efficiency,'” Gloria Alonso Cruz, Environmental Justice Advocacy Coordinator with Little Manila Rising in Stockton, continues, “This is particularly critical due to the air pollution threats this project poses, given the already existing air pollution conditions impacting Stockton on a daily basis.”

According to the coalition, GSNR’s plan involves building two of the nation’s largest wood pellet mills in Tuolumne and Lassen Counties, with an annual production capacity of one million metric tons of wood pellets. These pellets would then be transported to the Port of Stockton via rail or truck and shipped overseas for use in converted coal plants. The sourcing of much of the wood from national forests within a 100-mile radius of each pellet mill, including some of California’s most iconic landscapes, raises further concerns.

“Increased fire risks associated with stockpiled pellets directly puts Stockton residents at risk,” Mary Elizabeth, Stockton resident and Conservation Chair of the Delta-Sierra Group of the Sierra Club, said. “The proposed project will erase the Port’s positive actions and further degrade our air with increased pollutant emissions from more truck, rail and marine trips.”

“Port communities like Richmond and Stockton are already overburdened with severe health risks from toxic air pollution,” Janet Scoll Johnson, Co-Coordinator at Sunflower Alliance, said. “That’s why Richmond said ‘no’ to wood pellet handling and storage at our port. We need sustainable economic development that will preserve the quality of the environment for future generations, not a dirty wood pellet scheme.”

The groups challenge GSNR’s assertions about the climate benefits of wood pellets, arguing that they are highly carbon-intensive and polluting, contradicting claims of being part of a clean energy future. They emphasize the lengthy timescales required for cut forests to re-sequester carbon and the harmful air pollution emitted by wood pellet manufacturing facilities. Despite GSNR’s claim of using only salvage wood and unmerchantable trees, the groups doubt its feasibility given the ambitious production goals of the new facilities. Upon reviewing GSNR’s marketing materials and project notice, it appears that the company intends to cut and remove trees of any type and size within a 100-mile radius of each pellet facility, all categorized as “roundwood.”

“We strongly oppose the GSNR project since it will worsen the climate and biodiversity crisis,” Kanna Mitsuta, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth Japan, said. “It is utterly unacceptable to turn more forests into wood pellets, burn pellets under the guise of being “carbon neutral” and help extend the lifetime of coal power plants by providing wood pellets.”

Patrick Blacklock, the Executive Director of GSNR, argues that the wood pellet project is in line with key strategies outlined in California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan and “Roadmap for Wildfire Resilience: Solutions for a Paradigm Shift” by The Nature Conservancy and Aspen Institute. The Action Plan, available at https://wildfiretaskforce.org/action-plan, aims to address various aspects of forest management, community fire safety, and economic support for rural areas. It emphasizes the importance of enhancing forest health through practices like prescribed burning and increasing community resilience to wildfires while integrating these efforts into broader climate change strategies. 

Similarly, “Roadmap for Wildfire Resilience,” accessible at https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Wildfire-Resilience-Roadmap_DIGITAL-1-1.pdf, underscores the need for resilient landscapes, fire-ready communities, and effective response strategies. It emphasizes collaboration, policy coherence, and sustained funding as crucial elements in building resilience against wildfires. 

Furthermore, research from the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Climate Justice, as outlined in their publication available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362903299_High_Roads_to_Resilience_Building_equitable_forest_restoration_economies_in_California_and_beyond, advocates for forest restoration practices such as thinning and controlled burning to enhance resilience in the face of the climate crisis. 

In addition, an article from Plumas News titled “Where We Stand: Forest management needs to happen at much larger scales,” available at https://www.plumasnews.com/where-we-stand-forest-management-needs-to-happen-at-much-larger-scales/, stresses the importance of broader-scale forest management initiatives. It discusses the necessity of actions like home hardening and creating defensible space while addressing misinformation about forest health and acknowledging the impact of climate change-induced factors like drought and bark beetle epidemics. 

The Sierra Business Council strongly advocates for the conversion of debris resulting from forest management activities into energy, a process commonly known as biomass utilization. 

“Our stance is that it’s better to get the woody materials out of the forest to combust in a controlled facility, rather than burn in a catastrophic wildfire and release significantly more carbon,” Jill Sanford, Communications Director at Sierra Business Council, continues, “The state of California has a massive wildfire problem and we need to remove excess woody materials from our forests in order to begin to address our wildfire crisis. Biomass utilization is just one tool in our toolbelt that can help us do this.” 

The Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation is in agreement that “Forested communities throughout the West need to think creatively about how to remove and manage the surplus of biomass that endangers our people and places,” Stacy Caldwell, CEO of Tahoe Truckee Community Foundation, said. “While we cannot speak to this exact project, we believe that successful biomass solutions will be localized, sustainable, and provide ways for rural communities to become more economically stable and, in our case, less dependent on snowpack.”

Placer County, in fact, is moving ahead with plans for a biomass facility near North Lake Tahoe. The County Board of Supervisors has authorized staff to prepare a request for proposals for the Cabin Creek biomass project, to be situated at the Eastern Regional Landfill. This facility aims to tackle environmental challenges by converting wood scraps from forestry and defensible space clearing into renewable energy and biochar.

Initially approved in 2013, the Cabin Creek project faced economic viability concerns but has received renewed attention in 2022. Placer County has been exploring partnerships and grants to support the project’s development.

GSNR is currently in the process of preparing a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and conducting a Full Air and Life Cycle Analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These documents are scheduled to be made available to the public in the coming months. “We are prioritizing a high quality document over the timeline,” Blacklock said.

CSAA Insurance Group’s $25M investment in the California Wildfire Innovation Fund, now a year old, recently launched two initiatives working to drive sustainable forestry solutions: Heartwood Biomass and Tahoe Forest Products.

Managed by Blue Forest Asset Management, the fund targets investments in forest restoration, wood utilization, and wildfire mitigation, aiming to enhance resilience while generating positive financial and environmental impacts.

“We are pleased that our investment in the California Wildfire Innovation Fund is significantly advancing our commitment to forest resiliency,” Jeff Huebner, Chief Risk Officer of CSAA Insurance Group, said. “This sustainable business approach to tackling important environmental, social and economic challenges helps communities and the environment while delivering a positive financial impact on our business.”