Ward 7 City Councilor Gerry Martin leads the Public Safety Subcommittee’s discussion on a proposed biomass energy facility.
Reminder Publishing photo by Sarah Heinonen
SPRINGFIELD — The City Council Public Health Committee met to discuss what actions the city’s legislative body can take to oppose a long-proposed biomass energy facility at 1000 Page Blvd. In the short term, the answer is to wait.
“This project is like Frankenstein’s monster — It’s alive and it won’t die,” At Large City Councilor Brian Santaniello said.
Springfield first issued building permits to Palmer Renewable Energy in 2008, but amid community outrage and a change in the roster of the City Council, the permits were rescinded. Palmer Renewable Energy took the issue to Land Court, but lawyers for the City Council argued that construction had not adhered to the 180-deadline required by state law. Since the permit was first issued during the Great Recession, the developer claimed deadline extensions from that era were still in effect.
Land Court ruled in the City Council’s favor, but in 2025, an appeals court reversed that decision. At the beginning of this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court refused to hear the case, leaving the appeals court ruling in place. Springfield’s Zoning Board of Appeals was forced to reinstate the building permits.
All is not lost for opponents of the project, however. On Nov. 9, the court will take up a case regarding air quality permits for the project, and on Dec. 8, an air-quality hearing will be held. Additionally, a pair of bills are making their way through the Massachusetts Legislature that would make woody biomass ineligible for clean energy tax credits. This may make the project less fiscally attractive for the developer.
Finally, the Springfield City Council may have another chance to weigh in on the project. Ward 2 City Councilor Michael Fenton said changes to zoning ordinances in 2013 should require Palmer Renewable Energy to seek a special permit for the project.
At Large City Councilor Kateri Walsh said that while it seemed a majority of the council shared the concerns of community members who oppose the project, she was not sure what steps it could take in the immediate term. While Health and Human Services Commissioner Helen Caulton-Harris and Ward 8 City Councilor Zaida Govan considered the council passing a resolution, Fenton advised against it. If the developer does come to the council for a special permit, the body needs to remain impartial.
Large portions of Springfield have been designated environmental justice communities by the state. In 2018 and 2019, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America ranked Springfield as the asthma capital of America. The city fell to number four in the 2024 ranking.
Jeffery Scavron, a member of the Public Health Council and a physician at Brightwood Health Center, commented, “It is an absurdity to build a wood-burning plant in a high-risk asthma community … If anything there was to go wrong, it would be a catastrophe for Springfield. “ Ward 7 City Councilor Gerry Martin, the Public Safety Subcommittee chair, agreed. He described the attempt as, “entirely tone-deaf” and “totally insensitive to the city.”
Referring to the city’s contract with Palmer Paving, Scavron said Springfield should not do business with the company, but Fenton explained that Palmer Paving, which used to be an owner of Palmer Renewable Energy, divested from the biomass company and is no longer connected.
The councilors may hold a Committee of the Whole executive session to discuss the matter further.
