The Fiery Paradox: Wood Pellet Mills Proposed Near California's Wildfire-Prone Forests
California's forests, particularly those in the Sierra Nevada foothills, are increasingly vulnerable to devastating wildfires. Decades of fire suppression, coupled with climate change-fueled drought and heat, have created a landscape ripe for large, intense blazes. In this tinderbox environment, a controversial proposal has emerged: the construction of large-scale wood pellet manufacturing facilities. These mills, designed to process woody biomass into dense pellets for export, are themselves known for a troubling history of fires and explosions. The juxtaposition of building fire-prone industrial sites in areas already on the front lines of the wildfire crisis has ignited fierce opposition and raised profound questions about risk, environmental claims, and community safety.
At the heart of this debate is Drax, the world's largest biomass company, and its partner organization, Golden State Natural Resources (GSNR). Drax's business model involves sourcing wood fiber, often from North American forests, processing it into pellets, and shipping it primarily to Europe and Asia, where it is burned in power plants, often subsidized as a renewable energy source. GSNR, described as a "nonprofit public benefit corporation," has partnered with Drax with a stated vision that links wood pellet production to wildfire risk mitigation in California.
A History of Incidents: The Fire Risk of Wood Pellet Mills
Wood pellets, while seemingly innocuous, are inherently flammable. The manufacturing process involves drying and compressing wood fibers, creating a product that is both energy-dense and susceptible to combustion. This flammability is not merely a theoretical risk; it is a documented reality for the industry.
According to a database compiled by the Southern Environmental Law Center, at least 52 fires have occurred at wood pellet facilities across the United States since 2010. This pattern of incidents highlights systemic challenges within the industry related to handling combustible dust, managing drying processes, and storing large volumes of flammable material.
A report by the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit founded by a former EPA director, further underscores this risk, finding that at least eight of the 15 largest wood pellet facilities in the U.S. experienced fires or explosions between 2014 and the time of their report. These incidents can range from small smoldering fires to large, destructive blazes that pose significant dangers to workers and surrounding communities.
Even Drax, the industry leader, has not been immune to such events. In South Shields, UK, a fire erupted at the Port of Tyne when wood pellets destined for a Drax plant spontaneously combusted in storage. This incident required the efforts of 40 firefighters over 12 hours to bring under control, demonstrating the intensity and persistence of these fires. Closer to the proposed California sites, a Drax wood-pellet facility in Port Allen, Louisiana, experienced a fire in November 2021.
These incidents raise critical questions about the safety protocols and design features of wood pellet mills, particularly when considering their placement in areas already grappling with extreme fire risk. While GSNR's executive director, Patrick Blacklock, stated that the company sought to learn from past incidents and that design features could mitigate risk, the inherent nature of the material and the industry's track record remain a significant concern for residents and safety officials.
The California Proposal: Mills Near the Tinderbox
Drax's expansion plans in California involve purchasing land for two proposed pellet mills: one in Tuolumne County and another in Lassen County. Both locations are situated in or near heavily forested areas known for high wildfire risk, including proximity to the Stanislaus National Forest and the iconic Yosemite National Park.
The proposal, advanced through the partnership with GSNR, frames the wood pellet operation as a solution to the wildfire crisis. The plan involves sourcing "dead or dying trees" and "woody biomass" from within a 100-mile radius of the proposed mills. This material, which might otherwise contribute to fuel loads in the forest, would be processed into pellets. GSNR and its proponents argue that this commercial use provides an economic incentive for forest thinning, a practice widely accepted as a tool to reduce fire severity.
However, the details of the sourcing and thinning process have drawn scrutiny. Megan Fiske, who works with rural workers at a local community college, expressed concern about the practical implementation of thinning projects. She noted instances, unrelated to Drax, where proper training and oversight were lacking, leading to more wood being taken than intended under wildfire resilience schemes. Fiske highlighted potential barriers such as inexperienced workers, low pay, and language differences that could impact the effectiveness and adherence to guidelines in logging operations.
Residents living near the proposed mill sites have voiced strong opposition, arguing that introducing fire-prone industrial facilities into their communities, while simultaneously increasing logging activity, would compound rather than mitigate fire risk. Renee Orth, a resident of Tuolumne County actively opposing the plans, stated that the scale of the project is being downplayed and that the risks are significant.
Community Resistance: Voices from Tuolumne, Lassen, and Stockton
The proposal has faced significant pushback from communities across the Golden State, from the forested foothills where the mills would be located to the port city where the pellets would be shipped. Residents in Tuolumne and Lassen counties are concerned about the direct fire risk posed by the mills themselves, as well as potential impacts on air quality, traffic, and the environment.
The need for the mills to be built in clearings within or near forests to facilitate the delivery of woody fuel further exacerbates these concerns. While GSNR has stated it will follow strict fire protocols, the proximity to dense, dry forests in a high-fire-risk zone makes residents nervous. The industry's history of fires only adds to this anxiety.
The opposition extends downstream to Stockton, California, where GSNR intends to build a facility at the Port of Stockton, approximately 100 miles west of the proposed mill sites. This facility would serve as a hub for transporting the finished wood pellets overseas, primarily to markets in Europe and Asia.
Little Manila Rising, a community-led environmental justice group representing residents in south Stockton, has taken a strong stance against the proposed transport facility. Gloria Alonso Cruz, the environmental justice coordinator for the group, emphasized that the community has the right to decide whether to accept an industry with a documented history of fires, explosions, and fugitive wood dust emissions at their port. Cruz expressed concern that GSNR might be relying on the voices of a marginalized community going unheard, vowing that they would not let that happen.
The Port of Stockton's director, Kirk DeJesus, has indicated that the port is awaiting the completion of the environmental impact report before making any decision on an agreement with GSNR. This highlights the critical role of the environmental review process and local decision-making in the fate of the project.
The Wildfire Mitigation Debate: Thinning for Safety or Pellets?
A central pillar of GSNR's argument for the California project is its contribution to wildfire mitigation. The organization states that the project is based on research, specifically referencing the Tamm Review, which they interpret as supporting the idea that thinning combined with prescribed burns can significantly reduce wildfire severity.
GSNR's draft environmental impact report anticipates that the project, once fully operational, would treat approximately 85,779 acres of forested land annually through "Biomass Only Thinning Projects." Over a 20-year period, this could amount to logging an area equivalent to 2,640 square miles, a vast swathe of forest.
The U.S. Forest Service already engages in forest thinning and prescribed burns to reduce hazardous fuel loads. Often, the material removed in these operations, such as smaller trees, brush, and logging debris (slash piles), is burned in controlled settings. GSNR and its supporters argue that utilizing this material for wood pellets is a "win-win," providing an economic use for wood that would otherwise be burned or left to decompose.
However, the scientific community is divided on the effectiveness and potential negative consequences of commercial logging for biomass as a wildfire mitigation strategy, particularly when compared to targeted ecological thinning. Climate scientist Dominick DellaSala has criticized GSNR's interpretation of the Tamm Review, arguing that the authors mis-cited their own work and ignored numerous studies that contradict their findings regarding the benefits of thinning.
DellaSala contends that the focus on fuel reduction in some studies overlooks the broader ecological impacts. He argues that removing large trees, which act as wind buffers, can actually make forests more susceptible to fast-moving, wind-driven fires by increasing ventilation and drying out the understory. "If a fire occurs it can spread rapidly through the forest due to higher wind speeds and drying out of the understory by tree canopy removals," DellaSala stated. "Hence the forest is over-ventilated and more prone to fast-moving, wind-spread fires."
Kim Davis, a research ecologist with the USDA Forest Service and lead author of the 2014 Tamm Review study, defended her research, stating that it underwent rigorous review and that she stands by the findings that mechanical treatments combined with prescribed fires can reduce future fire severity. She disagreed with the assertion that their work improperly cited or misrepresented studies.
Beyond the scientific debate on thinning effectiveness, campaigners express concern that commercial operations like Drax often extend beyond utilizing only logging residues or small-diameter trees. Reports from other markets where Drax operates suggest that healthy, larger trees are sometimes harvested for pellet production. A 2022 BBC investigation found that wood used in Drax facilities had come from clear-cut primary forests in Canada. A year later, Environment Ministry employees in British Columbia told The Tyee that tens of thousands of trees from healthy forests were being turned into wood pellets by a company linked to Drax, despite residents asking for help clearing slash piles.
This history fuels fears that the California operation, if approved, could lead to more extensive logging than what is strictly necessary for wildfire fuel reduction, potentially impacting forest ecosystems and carbon storage.
The Climate Impact Debate: Is Biomass Truly Renewable?
Another major point of contention is the claim that burning wood pellets is a carbon-neutral or renewable energy source. This classification is crucial because it allows biomass to receive subsidies in markets like the EU, Japan, and South Korea, making the export business viable for companies like Drax.
The carbon accounting framework that supports this view assumes that the carbon released when wood is burned is reabsorbed by new trees growing in place of those harvested, creating a closed carbon cycle. However, this assumption has been increasingly challenged by scientists and environmental groups.
Burning wood releases carbon dioxide immediately into the atmosphere, just like burning fossil fuels. The key difference lies in the regrowth assumption. Critics argue that this assumption fails to account for the time lag between burning the wood and the new trees growing large enough to reabsorb the emitted carbon. This process can take decades, or even a century or more, depending on the type of forest and management practices.
During this time lag, the carbon remains in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Furthermore, harvesting trees, especially through clear-cutting, can release stored carbon from the soil and remaining biomass, and the processes of logging, chipping, drying, pelletizing, and transporting the wood all require energy, often from fossil fuels, adding further emissions.
Evidence has mounted suggesting that burning US-sourced wood for energy in the EU and UK is currently releasing significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. A Chatham House report estimated these annual emissions to be equivalent to those from between 6 and 7 million passenger vehicles.
One study published in IOPscience suggested that it could take between 44 and 104 years for new trees to reabsorb the carbon emitted from clear-cutting for wood pellets, depending on the forest type and location. This timeframe is critical, as climate action is needed urgently to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change in the coming decades.
In a powerful statement in 2018, a group of 772 scientists sent a letter to members of the European Parliament, concluding that "Overall, replacing fossil fuels with wood [for biomass] will likely result in 2-3X more carbon in the atmosphere in 2050 per gigajoule of final energy." This stark assessment directly contradicts the notion of biomass as a climate solution in the near to medium term.
Critics argue that classifying biomass as carbon neutral is a form of "greenwashing," allowing companies to profit from burning forests under the guise of renewable energy, while potentially worsening the climate crisis and harming forest ecosystems.
Regulatory Scrutiny and Environmental Justice Concerns
Drax's operations have also faced scrutiny from regulators and environmental watchdogs. In August 2024, the UK energy regulator Ofgem fined Drax $25 million for misreporting sustainability data, highlighting issues with the accuracy of information provided by the company regarding its sourcing practices.
Furthermore, a report by Land and Climate Review in November 2024 alleged that Drax has broken U.S. environmental rules more than 11,000 times, according to public records. These alleged breaches reportedly occurred at six wood pellet facilities and involved issues such as failing to install proper emission-control technologies and releasing contaminants into waterways.
This regulatory track record adds another layer of concern for communities in California, particularly those in Stockton, where environmental justice is a significant issue. Historically, marginalized communities have disproportionately borne the burden of pollution from industrial facilities. The prospect of a new transport facility handling large volumes of wood pellets, with the associated risks of dust emissions and potential fires, is viewed through this lens of environmental justice.
The opposition to the project has galvanized a broad coalition. As of the time of the original reporting, 185 organizations had formally asked California to reject the wood-pellet proposal, demonstrating the widespread concern across environmental, community, and public health groups.
The Approval Process: Hurdles and Next Steps
Before Drax and GSNR can move forward with building the pellet mills and the Stockton transport facility, they must navigate a complex regulatory and permitting process in California. A critical step is the environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
GSNR released its draft environmental impact report (DEIR) on October 22, 2024. This report is intended to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project, including impacts related to air quality, water resources, biological resources, traffic, noise, and fire risk. The release of the DEIR triggered a 90-day public review period, during which interested parties could submit comments, concerns, and questions about the project and the adequacy of the environmental analysis.
Comments received during this period are then reviewed by GSNR, and responses are prepared. The DEIR is typically amended to incorporate responses to comments and potentially revise the analysis based on the feedback received. The amended version is then sent to the Golden State Finance Authority, the nonprofit that owns GSNR, for approval, expected later in the year.
However, approval of the environmental report is just one step. GSNR will also need to obtain local permits from Tuolumne and Lassen counties for the mill sites and potentially from the City of Stockton and the Port of Stockton for the transport facility. Each of these steps provides opportunities for public input and requires demonstrating compliance with local land use regulations and environmental standards.
The strong community opposition and the documented risks associated with wood pellet production suggest that these approval processes will be closely watched and potentially contested. The outcome will depend on how local and state authorities weigh the potential economic benefits and claimed wildfire mitigation advantages against the documented environmental risks, fire hazards, and community concerns.
As of the time of reporting, Drax stated that "no decision has been made on any potential end market or on any future arrangement with GSNR," despite the memorandum of understanding between the two entities. GSNR, however, indicated it had not signed an MOU with any other company, and the draft environmental impact report clearly identifies Europe and Asia as the intended end markets.
The conflict in California over these proposed wood pellet mills encapsulates broader debates about the role of biomass in a renewable energy future, the effectiveness of commercial logging as a wildfire prevention tool, and the importance of environmental justice in siting industrial facilities. For residents near Yosemite's forests and in Stockton, the proposal is not just about energy policy or forest management; it's about the safety and health of their communities and the future of their local environment.
The path forward for Drax and GSNR's California project remains uncertain, contingent on navigating regulatory hurdles, addressing community concerns, and convincing authorities that the project's benefits outweigh its significant, well-documented risks. The debate continues, highlighting the complex challenges of balancing economic development, energy policy, and environmental protection in an era of increasing climate vulnerability.