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 The Springfield City Council and the state rescinded their approvals for the project, saying Palmer had waited too long to begin construction.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.”
