Biomass Plant Permit Yanked by Springfield City Council

SPRINGFIELD — Despite a written legal opinion from City Solicitor Edward Pikula — who warned the 13-member City Council here that it doesn’t have “just cause” to revoke a special permit issued in 2008 for a proposed 35-megawatt biomass power plant — the City Council voted 10-2 on Monday to do just that.

Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) hopes to build the $150 million plant, which would burn wood to generate electricity, at 1000 Page Boulevard on an industrially zoned parcel owned by Palmer Paving.

The project has cleared most state-level environmental review, needing only a final air quality permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. And until Monday’s vote, it had all of its local permitting as well, needing only a simple building permit to proceed.

The size of Monday night’s crowd was substantially smaller than at last week’s raucous public hearing, but the room was still filled to capacity, mostly with plant opponents. When the vote was tallied, the crowd broke into a wild and sustained cheer.

Video of City Council vote and aftermath courtesy of Joe Oliviero

At-large councilors Timothy Rooke and Kateri Walsh cast the two dissenting votes, both arguing that the standard under state and local law for revoking a special permit had not been met. Both councilors were in office in 2008, and voted then to approve the project.

“This is a dangerous and reckless path that many are choosing tonight, based upon political fear,” said Rooke. “This is a safe project that will benefit the city. We are putting the city in a precarious position — we are going to get sued, and have not met the threshold of just cause — which will come back to haunt each and every one of us.”

Walsh called the motion to revoke, introduced by Councilor Tim Allen, “quite an unusual step to take.” She said that in 1992 the council revoked a special permit for a boarding house, and that decision was overturned in court. She said that since last week’s public hearing on the revocation issue, she “reached out to state agencies” to get advice.

“I can’t quite get over the fact that if the project was so hurtful, that it would get state environmental approval,” said Walsh.

Ward 6 councilor Amaad Rivera, one of the leaders of the motion to revoke the permit, had strong words for Walsh.

“While I appreciate the diligence in consulting with state agencies, and seeking external advice, we do have the authority and ability to decide what’s best for the City of Springfield,” he said. “Our job is to act as a judicial body to figure out if this project is different or the same as that proposed in 2008. State regulators might argue that the change is actually better, but the truth is we are here to decide if it’s the same or different project.”

Since the 2008 vote, PRE submitted a Notice of Project Change (NPC) to state regulators asking for a change in the power plant’s fuel source — from construction and demolition debris to green wood chips. Changes in truck traffic were also part of the NPC.

Another outspoken proponent of revoking the permit was Ward 8 councilor John Lysak, who described himself as a pro-jobs fiscal conservative.

“Sufficient evidence has been presented by the opponents to show that the project has substantially changed,” he said. “The only dangerous and reckless path is if we voted in favor of the project.”

The proposed plant would be in Lysack’s ward.

Pikula has told the Council that under the city’s zoning ordinance, just cause for revoking a special permit may include, but need not be limited to “failure to comply with any conditions attached to the Special Permit, substantial deviation from the Site Plan, false or misleading testimony at a public hearing, [or] failure to comply with applicable city ordinances and regulations.”

“It’s Not Over Yet”

After the vote, the second story lobby of Springfield City Hall was filled with reporters interviewing jubilant project opponents. Proponents, including PRE lawyer Frank P. Fitzgerald, had cleared out quickly.

“It’s not over yet,” said Michaelann Bewsee, a longtime social justice activist and a founder of Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield. “But I think it adds a brick in the road to the end of biomass in Massachusetts.”

Claudia Hurley, who served on the state’s Forest Futures Visioning Process and has been outspoken in her opposition to wood-burning biomass plants, said that just because state regulators didn’t red-flag the project doesn’t mean it’s not harmful. “They are woefully understaffed and underfunded,” she said. “A full environmental impact report (EIR) should have been required; but it wasn’t.”

Conservation Law Foundation lawyer Sue Reid maintained that the City Council would prevail in any legal challenge.

“This is a fundamentally different project than the one originally approved by the city back in 2008, and the developer was looking for a do-over without any review whatsoever by the city,” she said. “The concerns that have been expressed about air pollution here are going to carry the day.”

But PRE lawyer Fitzgerald told the Republican’s Peter Goonan that the issue is now a “litigation matter.”

“I can guarantee you the city is going to get sued,” said Councilor Rooke after the vote. “And it’s going to be a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and it’s money that the city does not have.”

© 2011 Northampton Media

Mary Serreze can be reached at mserreze@northamptonmedia.com