A new amendment approved by the state Senate could chop down the future of woody biomass energy in the commonwealth — a step forward for climate activists across the region, including in Hampshire County, who have fought for years against a proposed biomass plant in Springfield.
Under the legislation, biomass — burning wood for electric power — would no longer be classified alongside solar, wind and geothermal energy under the state Greenhouse Gas Emission Standard. The standard caps the amount of “non-carbon emitting” energy each municipal light plant can sell to customers. Sen. Adam Gomez, D-Springfield, who proposed the change, said this “closes the loophole” for biomass.
The amendment also eliminates public subsidies for wood combustion energy, a key funding source for the Springfield plant proposed by Palmer Renewable Energy, said James McCaffrey, New England legislative director for Pelham-based Partnership for Policy Integrity.
The change passed last month in a 35-4 roll call vote and is one line within a sweeping energy bill aimed at improving energy affordability and advancing clean energy development statewide.
But for residents pushing back against the proposed biomass plant in Springfield, it marks a victory 15 years in the making.
“Closing this loophole acknowledges the urgency of this moment that ties climate, environment and public health within the same intersections,” said Teniel Rhiney, environmental justice organizer at Arise for Social Justice in Springfield. “It’s all these things combined that we’re working for collaboratively.”
While the Senate vote is a positive step, Rhiney said she remains cautiously optimistic and won’t celebrate fully until the bill is signed into law with the amendment. The bill, “An Act Relative to Energy Affordability, Clean Power and Economic Competitiveness” (H.5175), moved into conference committee on July 16.
Controversy around classifying biomass as a clean energy source has existed in climate discussions for decades.
Johanna Neumann, an Amherst resident and senior director of Environment America’s Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said burning wood is technically a renewable energy because trees regenerate after several decades. However, it still releases pollutants upon burning, so it is not a clean source of energy, she said.
According to Partnership for Policy Integrity, biomass power releases 50% to 60% more carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour than modern coal plants.
“When I look at where we are coming from and where we are going, truly clean renewable energy sources should be where we set our sights on,” Neumann said. “That includes wind, solar and geothermal, and not sources we have to burn to get energy from.”
In addition to its environmental impact, opponents of biomass energy raise concerns about the particulate matter released into the air by combustion. This is especially critical in Springfield, where the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America named the city the asthma capital of the nation in 2018 and 2019.
Lawyers representing Palmer Renewable Energy could not be reached for comment.
The Palmer Renewable biomass power plant was first proposed in 2008 and continues to resurface despite public opposition, city action and litigation attempting to shut down the project.
In 2025, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled against Springfield City Council and the Zoning Board of Appeals, upholding the Palmer Renewable permits issued in 2011. When the state Supreme Judicial Court declined to hear the case in 2026, the ZBA was forced to follow the court order and reinstate the permits.
However, McCaffrey said the new amendment could squeeze the project in a different way. Palmer Renewable had several municipal light plants sign contracts to receive energy from the plant, providing financial backing for the project. As each of those publicly owned electricity companies pulled its support over time, Palmer Renewable still had the subsidies to fall back on. Now, those are gone too.
“Those subsidies are extremely important for financing the plants,” McCaffrey said. “That’s why it was so important to the community and to everybody who’s working on this to remove one of these potential financial incentives.”
Gomez, with his colleague Rep. Orlando Ramos, D-Springfield, already spearheaded the deletion of biomass from the Clean Energy Standard and Renewable Portfolio Standard, both of which require utilities to provide a certain percentage of clean energy in their electricity sales. Gomez called this amendment the “final nail in the coffin” for biomass.
“This will shut that [Springfield] plant down and even the idea of creating that plant not only in Springfield but across the commonwealth,” Gomez said.
However, McCaffrey, Rhiney and Climate Action Now-Western Mass Co-founder Susan Theberge said the legislation does not guarantee an end to the project. Palmer Renewable could still find funding somewhere else, and the building permits for the biomass facility remain intact.
“Given the situation at the federal level, we need to do everything we can at the state and local level. This biomass plant is what we can do at the local level,” Theberge said.
