Massachusetts wood-burning plant revival plan resurfaces

The small city of Springfield, Massachusetts, has been embroiled in a long-standing dispute over a proposed wood-burning power plant. The project, which was initially proposed in 2008, has faced years of debate and litigation, with many public health advocates, environmental activists, community leaders, and average citizens opposed to its construction.

The United Kingdom's largest single emitter is a wood-fired power station, releasing over 12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This has raised concerns about the environmental impact of wood-burning power plants, and the proposed plant in Springfield is no exception.

In 2015, Palmer Renewable Energy won a legal victory in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, challenging its permits for the power plant project. However, in the spring of 2021, the Springfield Zoning Board of Appeals ruled the project's permits invalid, and the state rescinded its environmental approval.

The city of Springfield, situated at the intersection of two interstate highways, has a long industrial history, including a coal-burning power plant and an oil and gas-fired plant. This history has contributed to poor air quality and high asthma rates in the city. In 2018 and 2019, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America dubbed Springfield the country's asthma capital due to the prevalence of the disease and high numbers of emergency room visits.

Despite these concerns, the Springfield City Council initially approved the project with little public attention. Palmer appealed both of the decisions made in 2021, and in January 2022, the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that Palmer's state air permit is still in effect.

More recently, Smithfield Renewables, another company, has revived the woody biomass power plant project in Springfield and was recently granted court approval for project permits in 2024. However, the company's building permits have been the subject of controversy, with the state Appeals Court finding them still valid, creating a "Franken-permit."

Wood-burning facilities also emit other air pollutants and particulate matter that can cause or aggravate respiratory conditions. Burning woody biomass releases 50% more carbon dioxide than coal and three to four times as much as natural gas. This has led many to question the environmental benefits of the proposed power plant.

The production of wood pellets to fuel power plants is a significant business in European Union countries. However, the emissions created by burning wood have years to do climate damage before regrowth is adequate to absorb the added carbon dioxide. This raises concerns about the long-term environmental impact of the power plant project in Springfield.

As the project moves forward, it remains a contentious issue in the city and beyond. Many continue to advocate for cleaner, more sustainable energy solutions, while others argue for the economic benefits of the power plant. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of Springfield and the environment.