The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is challenging an appeal and a motion to stay on its decision to revoke a permit for a controversial wood biomass power plant in Springfield.

The state rescinded its initial approval of Palmer Renewable Energy’s facility earlier this month, citing delays in construction as the main reason for revoking the permit.

Under Massachusetts air quality laws, construction for the facility had to begin at least two years after state approval. The original permit for the facility in Springfield was issued nine years ago, but the owner claims a drawn-out battle in state court from opponents of the facility, including members of the Springfield City Council and other residents, delayed the project until 2017.

Palmer promptly appealed the DEP’s decision and requested an emergency stay on the permit revocation.

The company claims in documents submitted to the DEP Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution that the Permit Extension Act, a law that was in existence at the time of project approval, should still apply. The law extends projects “in effect or in existence” between Aug. 15, 2008, and Aug. 15, 2012, for four years, giving Palmer Renewable Energy six years total to start construction at the site after approval for the project was finalized in 2017, according to the company’s appeal documents.

But the letter from the DEP explaining its decision to revoke the permit also lays out major public health and environmental justice concerns, including harmful air pollution from burning wood for electricity.

Palmer can resubmit a proposal, but the company would need to “demonstrate the proper air controls are in place and consider air quality impacts on the surrounding environmental justice community,” according to Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Secretary Kathleen Theoharides.

The decision from the DEP comes on the heels of a new comprehensive state climate law that creates stronger protections for environmental justice communities and allows state agencies to consider existing pollution burdens as factors in siting energy infrastructure.

Palmer’s argument will be heard at the DEP appeals office, but a date for the hearing has not yet been set.

Location of Palmer Renewable Energy’s Proposed Biomass Plant in Springfield, Mass.



GHG Emissions and Biomass

As Palmer was facing appeals to the permit for its proposed biomass facility, EEA issued a new environmental justice policy in 2017 that required the DEP to “address environmental and health risks associated with existing and potential new sources of pollutions.”

Burning wood for electricity produces more GHG emissions than fossil fuels, according to a state-commissioned study. Biomass facilities like the one proposed for Springfield also emit soot and pollutants such as mercury and lead.

“This is not a clean energy solution,” Sami Yassa, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told NetZero Insider.

Springfield, a state-designated environmental justice community, already has many sources of air pollution. The DEP also re-reviewed the permit for the biomass power plant after multiple studies established that low-income and minority communities with high air pollution rates are more likely to contract severe or fatal COVID-19 cases.

Despite Palmer’s updated air pollution mitigation technology, the state should not approve a wood-burning biomass plant “near any population, especially an environmental justice population with historically high rates of asthma,” Yassa said.

The 35-MW facility would burn about 1,200 tons of wood per day in a city with the highest rate of asthma-related emergency room visits in the U.S.

“We know air pollution is connected to the development of asthma,” but air quality is “critical in the case of Springfield,” said Jan Hanson, president of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America in New England.

The foundation rated Springfield the “Asthma Capital” of the country, as well as the most challenging city for people with asthma to live in. One in five children in Springfield have asthma.

“Creating healthier environments will provide the best living conditions for people with asthma,” Hanson told NetZero Insider, because there are “higher levels of asthma in polluted areas.”

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources plans to loosen restrictions on burning wood for electricity in 2021 by allowing biomass plants to qualify for renewable energy subsidies. But mounting public pressure for environmental justice and community input on energy infrastructure that could be dangerous for public health is inspiring a change in the administration’s narrative.

In the Palmer plant case, the DEP decided to “exercise this authority due to the amount of time that has elapsed since issuance of the final plan approval, more recent health-related information and the heightened focus on environmental and health impacts on environmental justice populations,” according to a spokesperson from the agency.

Is Biomass Energy Renewable?

Palmer Renewable Energy did not respond to several requests for comment, but other proponents of the biomass industry argue burning wood for electricity is renewable and carbon neutral because new trees can be planted to absorb the carbon released when forest materials are burned.

Yassa of NRDC said that the theory of carbon-neutrality for biomass is “highly misleading.”

Forests sequester 13% of the world’s carbon emissions annually. If those trees are cut, they cannot absorb those billions of tons of carbon.

For comparison, existing carbon capture technology can only trap hundreds of tons of carbon, according to Frank Lowenstein, COO of the New England Forestry Foundation.

Constructing buildings out of forest products sequesters carbon and avoids the carbon emissions it takes to form steel and concrete structures, Lowenstein said. In that way, wood is a renewable material.

But that does not mean burning wood for electricity — even waste wood — is a climate-smart solution, he added.

Saplings do not absorb as much carbon as the fully grown trees they were planted to replace, and the lifecycle of trees is longer than the timeline for a net-zero by 2050 target.

Most seedlings that are planted to replace large trees will not live because they must compete for space.

When Massachusetts first approved the biomass plant in 2012, the argument that growing trees would absorb the carbon emitted by a wood-burning facility was a more viable option, Lowenstein said.

Now, Massachusetts must cut its emissions by 50% below 1990 levels within the next decade.

“The timeframe to solve the climate crisis gets shorter every year,” Lowenstein said, “and if current emission levels continue, it will close down some options,” such as the biomass facility.

However, waste wood, like construction debris, rots slowly over time in landfills. Burying the wood waste is better than burning it for electricity because the carbon from the trees is released in smaller amounts over a longer period, Lowenstein said.

New discoveries about the harmful amounts of GHGs that burning wood for electricity releases should not hinder other markets using waste wood in ways that will store carbon, such as wood fiber insulation for people’s homes.

“We can’t afford to ignore what our forests can offer us,” Lowenstein said.