Rodney biomass plant seeks one-year extension, cites equipment delays and new plan to dry wood on-site

Owners of the Rodney biomass power plant asked the Natural Resources & Energy committee on May 13 for a one-year extension of statutory deadlines tied to the plant’s power‑purchase framework and efficiency milestones.

The plant’s new owners said last‑minute equipment and international trade complications forced a change from previously specified European high‑efficiency parts to other available equipment and a revised plan that will dry wood chips on site rather than sell dried chips to a Canadian customer. "That's what we're asking for today is by a 1 year extension so we can make sure we do this correctly," the presenter said.

Why it matters: the plant is covered by statutory timelines that trigger termination of utilities’ obligation to buy its power if certain engineering, construction and efficiency certification steps are not completed. Those deadlines influence an existing purchase obligation that runs through 2032 unless earlier triggers occur, and a change could shift when the Public Utility Commission (PUC) must re‑set rates.

Key facts presented

- Ownership and financing: Libby Carter identified herself as a managing partner of Mason Capital and said her firm took over the plant two weeks earlier; she said the Small Business Investment Company program of the Small Business Administration had been a financing source for prior investments. - Jobs and local economic numbers: the speaker said the plant historically supported about 21 jobs (currently 19), roughly $2,000,000 in annual payroll and had paid about $500,000 in taxes; she said the plant generated about $5,000,000 in renewable energy credits in a recent year and had purchased about $9,000,000 of wood chips from regional suppliers. - Technical changes and delays: the prior owner specified high‑efficiency heat‑transfer and drying systems from Europe; tariffs and the unavailability of export‑finance tools increased costs about 35%, and the intended dried‑chip customer withdrew. The new plan calls for using lower‑risk, more conventional equipment and to dry wood chips on site using plant waste heat and a water‑loop dryer, then test operations for roughly six months before certifying efficiency. - Efficiency target and statutory timeline: the owners reaffirmed a goal to meet the statute’s specified 50% efficiency improvement. They requested additional time to source U.S. equipment and complete site work and testing.

Discussion and committee response

Committee members raised skepticism based on repeated past extensions for the same facility. A committee member asked, "So why should we believe you now?" The owners’ representatives acknowledged the history and said, as lender and new owner, they have stronger incentives and more direct control to complete the work.

Committee staff and members also discussed statutory dates in the enabling law: committee counsel noted a typographical error in the statute’s dates and walked through multiple deadlines that were pushed by a prior act (Act 142). The counsel summarized the timeline that the PUC would use to determine rates and the dates that could trigger termination of the utilities’ purchase obligation if required filings and certifications were not submitted.

Next steps and formal action

The request as presented was a proposal to seek draft statutory language that would move several deadlines forward by roughly one year and to consider a separate permit/plan resubmission to the Department of Public Service. The committee did not take a formal vote during this hearing; staff said they would circulate corrected draft language and coordinate with the Department of Public Service and the PUC for follow‑up.

Community and regulatory context

Speakers emphasized regional supply chains for fuel chips (New England sources), the plant’s role as a base‑load renewable resource in the state power mix, and interactions with federal air permits that previously delayed upgrades. The presenters said their current plan is likely covered by the plant’s existing air permit and that an engineer will certify how much moisture reduction and efficiency the revised system can achieve.

Ending

Presenters asked the committee to include revised language in the committee’s draft for consideration, and they said they would resubmit updated engineering plans to the Department of Public Service and maintain frequent communication with agency staff. The committee signaled it would seek input from the PUC and Department of Public Service before deciding whether to advance statutory changes.