Critics of the proposed wood-burning power plant in East Springfield continue to press the City Council to revoke a special permit allowing the project, despite warnings that the company would sue.
In 2008, the Council granted a special permit to Palmer Renewable Energy to build the $150 million facility on Page Boulevard. The plant would burn more than 1,100 tons of “green” wood chips a day; developers recently dropped an earlier plan to also burn construction and demolition waste at the site, in apparent response to concerns that burning those materials posed a particular public risk.
Not that the new plan is winning over many fans. Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield—a broad coalition of community and public health groups—warns that the project would worsen the region’s already abysmal air quality (the American Lung Association gives the air quality in Hampden County a grade of “F”) and add to its high rate of asthma, which exceeds the state average. And while the battle is focused most closely in Springfield, where public approval was granted, critics say the plant’s environmental and health effects would be felt throughout the Valley.
Palmer Renewable Energy has said it has worked to reduce health risks—for instance, by dropping the plans to burn construction waste—and will install necessary environmental safeguards. In addition, Palmer Renewable’s attorney, Frank Fitzgerald, has warned the company might sue the city if the City Council votes to revoke the 2008 permit, as opponents are calling for them to do.
Earlier this month, the presidents of Springfield, Western New England and American International colleges sent a joint letter to Council President Jose Tosado calling for the Council to revoke that permit and start a new permitting process in light of changes made to the original plans. At the time, the letter noted, the project was pitched—and approved—as a recycling center, based on the now-dropped plans to burn construction waste. During a public speak-out period at the Dec. 13 Council meeting, former Councilor Pat Markey, who sat on the body in 2008, also commented on the significant changes made to the project since that vote, saying that the public had been “sold a bill of goods.” (Markey and then-Councilor Rosemarie Mazza Moriarty were the only two councilors to vote against the permit in 2008.)
The college presidents also added their voices to those of many unhappy with a recent decision by the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to allow the project to move forward without an environmental impact report.
Fitzgerald’s warnings aside, Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield (which counts Councilors Mike Fenton, Tim Allen, Zaida Luna, Mel Edwards, Henry Twiggs, Clodo Concepcion and John Lysak as supportive of its efforts) is still calling for the Council to revoke the earlier permit. Meanwhile, both sides await a decision by the state Department of Environmental Protection on whether to grant the project an air-quality permit. According to a recent Springfield Republican article by reporter Pete Goonan, the DEP will first issue a draft permit, including conditions on the project. Once that’s issued, a 30-day public comment period will commence.
