Residents of Springfield, Massachusetts, have spent more than a decade fighting a proposal to build a dirty wood-burning plant in the already-polluted city. Several times they thought they had killed it, only to have it rise from the dead. Now, the “zombie project” could soon perish for real.
That’s because language in energy bills working their way through the state Legislature is set to strike what supporters hope is a fatal blow to the project.
“This is a really big victory,” said James McCaffrey, New England legislative director for the Partnership for Policy Integrity, a nonprofit that advocates against burning wood for power generation. “We just hope it’s enough to stop this plant from being built.”
The goal is to make the project financially unviable. Both the House and Senate have passed sprawling energy bills including provisions that would prevent electricity generated by wood-burning power plants from counting toward the clean energy standard the state’s 41 municipal utilities must meet. This change would make it unlikely for these utilities to buy power from the Springfield plant, eliminating a pool of possible customers the developer has previously pursued.
“It cuts off a significant financial incentive for them to want to purchase this dirty energy,” said Alexandra St. Pierre, vice president for environmental justice at the Conservation Law Foundation, which has been involved in one of the legal challenges against the plant. “This would’ve been a big funding source for them.”
Biomass — which includes wood — was removed from the renewable energy standards for the major utilities that serve most of the state in 2022. The latest bills aim to bring the regulations for municipal plants in line.
However, even in the face of what seem like formidable financial and legal obstacles, the developer behind the proposal, Palmer Renewable Energy, has not wavered in its efforts to bring the project to fruition. This persistence leaves some wondering whether the developer has another, unrevealed customer base or financial model in mind. Palmer did not reply to requests for comment.
“We still do not know why they are pushing forward with the plant and if they have another customer,” McCaffrey said.
A dirty plan, resurrected
Palmer first proposed the project in 2008. The company plugged it as a sustainable way to generate electricity by burning the woody waste left behind from the trimming of vegetation along power lines. The company’s initial estimates had the plant burning more than 1.2 million pounds of wood fuel per day.
Springfield, a city with a long industrial history, is no stranger to air pollution and its effects. For years, the city was home to a coal-burning power plant and neighbor to an oil- and gas-fired plant. In 2018 and 2019, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America named Springfield the asthma capital of the country. The census tract where the plant would be built is one of the most environmentally burdened communities in Massachusetts, according to a tool built by the state.
Burning biomass is one of the dirtiest ways to generate electricity. The process releases 50% more carbon dioxide than coal and three to four times as much as natural gas. Its supporters argue that wood is a renewable resource, and the carbon released during combustion is recaptured by new trees. Young trees, however, must grow for decades before they can sequester equivalent amounts of carbon, while the original emissions persist in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Regardless of greenhouse gas emissions, the particulate matter released by the process can cause and exacerbate respiratory and cardiac conditions.
Few in the community noticed when the Springfield City Council in September 2008 approved the initial permits allowing Palmer to grade the lot for stormwater management and pour the foundation. Soon, though, word of the plan got out, kicking off years of debate, litigation, and lobbying.
In 2021, the plan appeared to be dead. The Springfield City Council and the state rescinded their approvals for the project, saying Palmer had waited too long to begin construction. Then, last year, courts decided the permits should still be valid because the state mandated extensions for such permits during the Great Recession and the Covid-19 pandemic, rules that applied to the Palmer project. The developer, the court ruled, should have been given more time to start work before the approvals were revoked.
What now?
Opponents of the proposed plant are optimistic that the provisions closing the municipal clean energy loophole will remain in the energy legislation. The language is identical in both the House and Senate versions, which makes it much more likely to survive when the two chambers get together to hammer out the differences in their bills, McCaffrey said. And Democratic Gov. Maura Healey has been supportive of the fight all along, said state Sen. Adam Gómez, a Democrat whose district includes the proposed power plant site.
“I can’t see her not wanting this to happen, because she’s been there every step of the way,” he said. “This is a good way to make sure that Massachusetts is ensuring that their people can breathe clean air.”
The possibility remains, however, that Palmer has figured out a financial model that does not depend on clean energy programs, and will push ahead anyway if legal and regulatory decisions allow it to do so.
Springfield leaders asked the Supreme Judicial Court to review the decision reinstating the city permits, but the court declined, so the Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals was forced to reinstate the approvals. A case challenging the extension of the state approval is scheduled for a hearing in December.
There is also the question of whether the developer will need further authorization from Springfield to begin construction of the plant itself. In 2013, the city passed a zoning ordinance that could require a special permit, but it is not yet clear whether the rule would apply to the Palmer project, given the many legal twists and turns the case has already taken.
If the project does need to apply for an additional permit, the approval process could be challenging in the face of community opposition that has only solidified in the past 18 years, St. Pierre said.
“It wouldn’t automatically be denied, but it wouldn’t have a smooth path forward,” she said. “They would really have to show that it is not harming the community in which it is proposed, which is a tough sell.”
