Good. It appears that Seneca got away with avoiding restrictions they should have been forced to follow. And it appears, EWEB has hidden the discussions with Seneca about this.
I also heard that Skov was for the incinerator. So I think that is your issue. He is for an incinerator that produces pollution but claims to be for protecting the environment.
So I did some research. It seems Brian Weaver (do you know who he is?) had issues with Skov. In response, supporters of Skov wrote: "Note that forest slash, by law, must be burned in the field, which contributes substantially more air pollution than a biomass facility." Translation: Such forest waste is going to get burned regardless, releasing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution. So compared to burning and not generating any electricity, burning and also generating electricity, "under the right conditions," makes sense."
So in short, I agree. And Seneca was no worse or maybe better than slash burning. Both are bad..