Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Biochar Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Linden biochar project seeks permits as PUC weighs feedstock classification and technology
Summary
Synergy Biocroducts told a legislative committee that its planned biochar and energy facility in Linden has several DEC permits but that its Section 248 application at the Public Utility Commission is on hold while the PUC examines whether the technology and feedstock classification fit existing rules.
Evan Zololio, owner of Synergy Biocroducts, told a legislative committee the company is developing a biochar and energy production facility in Linden and is navigating a multi-agency permitting process that the company says could take from six months to two years more.
"We're developing a facility in Linden," Zololio said, describing a pyrolysis process that converts biomass — woody residuals, manure or other organic feedstocks — into biochar and a combustible gas used to run generators. He told the committee the operation would recover engine heat for drying feedstock and could produce biochar for agricultural soil amendment, water filtration and as a source of long-lived carbon.
Zololio said Synergy has obtained an air emissions construction permit and a stormwater construction general permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and it has filed for stormwater operations and sewage/water approvals for employee facilities. The company filed a Section 248 application with the Public Utility Commission (PUC) last August; Zololio said the PUC decided in October to route the application into a longer review and has since put the Section 248 application on hold while the commission studies two questions: whether the technology is comparable to prior permitted technologies and how the feedstock should be classified for standard-offer or other power-purchase treatment.
"Number 1, is the technology appropriate?" Zololio said. "Number 2, how should the feedstock be classified?" He told the committee the PUC had historically permitted anaerobic digesters and was taking additional time to assess pyrolysis systems and whether timber-derived feedstocks should be treated the same as farm-based methane projects.
Zololio said the PUC review has created financing and scheduling uncertainty. "Timing for permitting is really important," he said. "We could begin another six months of permitting. We could begin another two years of permitting." He told the committee that an absence of firm timelines makes it difficult to negotiate with lenders, investors and equipment suppliers.
Supporters at the hearing framed the project as a potential new market for low-grade woody material and as part of a diversified rural economy. Zololio said the company pursues a closed-loop approach where biochar can be used to sequester carbon in soils and the produced energy offsets fossil-fuel use; he described the operation as an example of a carbon-removal opportunity if the biochar is sequestered or used in long-lived products.
Committee members asked for clarity on permitting timelines and process. Zololio recommended clearer, time-bound permit responses and urged the PUC and state agencies to resolve feedstock classification to reduce uncertainty for projects that repurpose low-value forest residuals.
As of the hearing, the project had not received a certificate of public good (CPG) from the PUC; the Section 248 application was on hold pending the PUC study and any subsequent public information sessions or technical hearings.
No formal action was taken by the committee during the session about the Synergy project.
