Letter: UMass Decarbonization Claims Are Misleading

On May 8, the Indy published a UMass press release titled “UMass Amherst Launches Phase Two of Campus Decarbonization Plan.”  I find it imperative to ask: what exactly was Phase 1? And how does hiring a consultant count as “launching Phase 2”?

Phase 1 was never started, let alone completed. In 2021, the Carbon Mitigation Task Force assembled by the previous Chancellor presented its report, which embodied the much-lauded and widely-reported goal to “power the Commonwealth’s 1,500-acre flagship campus with 100% renewable energy by approximately 2032.” The report included specific recommendations for how to accomplish that goal, as well as specific approaches that were deemed problematic for the environment.

The recommendations, which centered around the establishment of a low temperature hot water geothermal network to replace the fossil-fuel generated steam heat on campus, were never implemented, and a 2023 phase 1 and phase 2 proof-of-concept report, by the same consultants now hired to construct a new plan, was buried.

Instead, in late 2024, the administration announced a new plan, one that would use an approach that was dismissed as problematic in the 2021 Carbon Mitigation task Force report. That plan involved transitioning the main combustion turbine of the campus power plant from burning methane, to “dual fuel,” allowing it to also burn diesel.

The diesel to be used in the plan would have been so-called “renewable diesel,” imported from a major oil producer in Singapore, which the administration insisted on calling “carbon neutral.”  These fuels not only make the air in our valley dirtier, creating problems for anyone with asthma, but depending on the source, they can be more carbon-intensive than simply burning petroleum diesel. They are never carbon neutral.  At best, produced locally from local waste oil, they might be 25% the carbon intensity of petroleum.  But local supplies are very limited, and internationally sourced “renewable” fuels, used widely for transportation, are already driving deforestation worldwide.

Local opposition paused this plan but has not yet stopped it: the power plant was converted in the winter of ’24-’25 and UMass has recently been in talks with the State, looking for clarity on the use of these fuels.

The new consultant group was hired as a result of faculty and student pressure, not as any sort of “phase 2” implementation.  Calling this “phase 2” is simply deceptive in that it gives the administration credit for a phase 1 that was never started, let alone completed.  Or perhaps, by “phase 1,” they mean the replacement of our coal-fired power plant that happened more than 15 years ago now?  What exactly is meant by “phase 1” in the UMass press release?

The press release also refers to an online survey, which it encourages readers to fill out. This survey was hastily assembled in response to complaints that the new plan was being formulated without engaging the public early enough. Unfortunately, many of the questions present Hobson’s choices. For example, one question makes the respondent choose between calling decarbonization “one of many priorities” or “a central priority” when in fact most other campus priorities, like deferred maintenance or academic needs, can and must – by law – be addressed while simultaneously decarbonizing.  Or choosing between “reduce our campus’s measurable emissions” and “educate and involve students” when it would seem absurd, and should be nearly impossible, to do one without doing the other at a University.

The claim that the survey is anonymous is also undermined by the shear volume of demographic data that is collected; the number of demographic questions far exceeds the number of decarbonization-related survey questions.

It is unfortunate that the University continues to offer proclamations and misleading press releases, when what we need are honesty, transparency, democratic engagement, and action based on scientific truth.  

Lori Goldner

Lori Goldner is a resident of Amherst.