Plainfield Trash Facts

The facts on the proposed trash plant
Plainfield, Connecticut

What is proposed

What Is Actually Proposed

SMART Technology Systems, LLC has told the State of Connecticut it intends to build a 45-megawatt waste processing and conversion (gasification) facility in Plainfield. In a June 6, 2025 filing to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the company confirmed the 45-megawatt output and that the site lies in a designated environmental justice community.1

This is the fully sourced explainer of the proposal. The load-bearing facts below are tied to state statutes, DEEP filings and Siting Council records; news reporting is used only to corroborate dates, quotes and the developer’s own stated figures. Where the developer’s numbers and the public record differ, both are shown.

Who is behind it

The Developer

  • The applicant of record is SMART Technology Systems, LLC. Its June 2025 public-participation filing to DEEP was submitted by attorney Lee D. Hoffman of Pullman & Comley, Hartford.1
  • SMART is described in reporting as a partnership of O&G Industries and Advanced Waste Technologies International. The project is spoken for publicly by William (Bill) Corvo.1920
  • The company filed a formal Public Response to DEEP’s Materials Management Infrastructure Request for Information, laying out its proposed approach in the state’s own record.2

The technology

How It Would Work

In its filing to DEEP, the company describes a system built on “gasification technology in place of burn technology,” not a conventional mass-burn incinerator. As reported, the equipment is Valmet gasification, arranged in three stages:220

  • Stage one — sorting. Incoming waste is separated to recover materials and prepare a “refuse-derived fuel.” The company claims recycling of “99% of metals” and “98% of glass.”2
  • Stage two — gasification. The refuse-derived fuel is converted to a synthesis gas (“syngas”), which is then combusted to raise steam and drive a turbine for electricity.220
  • Stage three — digestion. Organic material is routed to an anaerobic digester, producing biogas; the company also describes carbon-dioxide capture and conversion to “food grade” CO2.2

Gasification is a distinct process from old-style incineration, but its combustion step is not exempt from incineration rules. Because the syngas is ultimately burned, in the United States and the European Union waste gasification and pyrolysis are regulated as waste incinerators.15 Connecticut’s own existing wood-gasification plant works the same way: state records describe a gasifier that produces syngas which “is combusted” to generate steam.9

The process is also not carbon-neutral. By the U.S. EPA’s own accounting, roughly 47% of the energy from municipal-waste combustion is fossil-derived (about 53% biogenic), so a plant of this kind produces fossil carbon dioxide.12 That runs against Connecticut’s statutory Global Warming Solutions Act mandate of zero greenhouse-gas emissions from electricity supplied to Connecticut customers by 2040.13

Where and how big

The Site and the Numbers

  • The facility would be located in Plainfield, on Norwich Road near Black Hill Road, between Routes 12 and 14. DEEP’s record confirms the location and that SMART posted the required notice sign “visible from Norwich Road.”1 Reporting puts the parcel at about 81 acres and describes the surrounding area as residential.1921
    View the site location on a map →
  • The facility’s electrical output is 45 megawatts — the developer’s own figure, stated in its June 2025 filing with CT DEEP.1
  • The developer’s stated throughput is more than 1,800 tons of solid waste per day, five days a week, which the company also expresses as up to 468,000 tons a year (about 9,000 tons a week). This is the developer’s own figure for the waste-processing project it has formally placed on the state regulatory record with CT DEEP.22021
Stated size of the proposed facility and where each figure comes from
MeasureFigureSource tier
Electrical output45 megawattsDEEP filing — official record1
Throughput, per dayMore than 1,800 tons, 5 days a weekDeveloper’s figure for its CT DEEP-filed project220
Throughput, per yearUp to 468,000 tonsDeveloper’s figure for its CT DEEP-filed project220
ParcelAbout 81 acres, Norwich Rd near Rte 12/14Reporting; location confirmed by DEEP119

The regulatory thresholds

Why the Size Matters, in Law

Two of the numbers above are not just descriptive. Under Connecticut statute, they determine which agencies must review the plant and what those agencies must find before any permit can issue.

  • 45 MW triggers Siting Council review. Under CGS § 16-50i, an electric generating facility is exempt from Connecticut Siting Council jurisdiction only if it uses cogeneration and has a capacity of 25 megawatts or less. At 45 megawatts, this facility exceeds that exemption and requires a Siting Council Certificate.31
  • A Certificate requires a finding of public need. Under CGS § 16-50p, the Council may not issue a Certificate without finding “a public need for the facility and the basis of the need,” and must weigh the probable environmental impact “alone and cumulatively with other existing facilities.”4
  • DEEP must find the plant is needed. Under CGS § 22a-208d, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may not permit a resources-recovery facility processing mixed municipal solid waste without a written determination that it “is necessary to meet the solid waste disposal needs of the state and will not result in substantial excess capacity.”6
  • Environmental-justice rules apply before any permit is filed. Because Plainfield is a designated environmental justice community under CGS § 22a-20a, SMART had to file a public-participation plan and hold a public meeting before applying for a permit — steps DEEP’s record confirms took place in spring 2025.71
  • Abutters and the town get a seat at the table. Under CGS § 16-50n, owners of property abutting the site and the host municipality are entitled to party or intervenor status in a Siting Council proceeding.5

Is there a public need?

The State’s Own Numbers on “Need”

Both DEEP and the Siting Council must find the plant is actually needed before any permit can issue. Connecticut’s own waste policy and data are the benchmark for that finding.

  • Connecticut’s adopted materials-management strategy puts disposal last. Under the statutory waste hierarchy (CGS § 22a-228(b)), the state ranks source reduction and reuse first, then recycling and composting, then energy recovery, with landfilling and incineration “as a last resort.” The same strategy set a binding target to divert at least 60% of municipal solid waste by 2024.10
  • DEEP’s own 2023 data show the state fell far short. Connecticut generated 3.48 million tons of MSW and diverted only 35%; DEEP states plainly that it “did not meet its statutory goal of 60% diversion by January 1, 2024.” After the MIRA plant closed, 940,667 tons of the state’s trash were exported out of state.11

Whether a 468,000-ton-a-year mixed-trash plant answers a genuine shortage, or locks in oversized last-resort capacity ahead of the diversion-first sequence the state committed to, is exactly the question statute puts to DEEP and the Council — not to the applicant.64

Connecticut is far below its own recycling goal — yet the plant’s premise is a disposal shortage

State law set a target to divert at least 60% of municipal solid waste from disposal by January 1, 2024. CT DEEP’s own data show what was actually achieved:

60% GOAL (2024) 35% diverted 0% 100%

Source: CT DEEP, 2023 Solid Waste Disposal and Diversion Report — DEEP states it “did not meet its statutory goal of 60% diversion by January 1, 2024.” portal.ct.gov/deep

Data
Connecticut MSW, 2023 (CT DEEP)
MeasureValue
MSW generated3.48 million tons
Diverted (recycled/composted)1.2 million tons (35%)
Statutory diversion goal by 202460%
MSW exported out of state after MIRA closed940,667 tons

Traffic

The Trucks

Because all of that waste would arrive by road, truck traffic is one of the most concrete effects on record.

  • In a joint statement, Plainfield’s Republican and Democratic town committees described “over 100 garbage trucks traveling daily between 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. through peaceful neighborhoods.” This is a resident and town-committee estimate, not an engineering figure — no traffic study has been filed.19
  • At the May 7, 2025 public meeting logged by DEEP, several hundred residents attended and roughly fifty spoke; noise and traffic mitigation are among the items the company says it has discussed with the town.1

Heavy trucks also wear pavement out of all proportion to their number. Federal highway-cost analysis applies a “fourth-power law,” under which road damage rises with roughly the fourth power of axle load, so a single loaded garbage truck inflicts the pavement wear of thousands of cars.14 For the full traffic, noise and road-wear picture, see Local Impacts.

Property values

What It Could Mean for Home Values

The peer-reviewed research on home prices near waste facilities points to a range, not a single figure. The size of any effect depends on the plant’s scale, its type, and how close a home is.

  • Studies matched to operating waste incinerators found local house-price reductions of roughly 0.4% to 1.3% once the plant was running, varying with distance.17
  • At the upper end, high-volume disposal sites in SMART’s size class (500 or more tons a day) have depressed adjacent values by about 13.7% on average, an effect that fades with distance.16
  • The honest caveat: the largest synthesis of this literature (83 studies) finds that non-hazardous, well-regulated sites can show no measurable average effect once publication bias is corrected.18

In plain terms, the plausible range runs from no measurable effect to a low-double-digit percentage, driven by scale, distance and local housing stock — not a single guaranteed number in either direction.

Timeline

When It Would Happen

  • By the developer’s own account the plant would not go operational before 2028. Project manager Bill Corvo said, “We don’t anticipate going operational much before 2028.”2022
  • The developer estimated roughly “a year plus” to obtain permits, then “a couple of years to build it,” assuming no delays.22

Developer claim vs the record

What the Developer Promises

Developer claim

The figures in this section are the developer’s own promises and marketing statements — several drawn directly from SMART’s filing in the state record. They are presented here as claims, not as verified outcomes, alongside what statute and independent reporting establish.

Developer claim compared with the public record
SubjectWhat the developer saysWhat the record shows
Emissions Gasification “in place of burn technology,” with “best-in-class emission performance.”2 In the U.S. and E.U., gasification and pyrolysis are regulated as waste incinerators, because the syngas is combusted.159
Recycling Recovery of “99% of metals” and “98% of glass.”2 A company performance target stated to DEEP; not independently verified or permitted.
Carbon dioxide Carbon-capture technology converting CO2 to “food grade” product; a capacity factor “>90%.”2 A description of intended process; actual performance would be a matter for the permit review.
Need / Class I status The project “should qualify” as a Class I renewable energy source and is “necessary” capacity.2 Whether public need exists is a finding DEEP and the Siting Council must make by statute, not the applicant.64
Tax & jobs “Several million dollars per year in new tax revenue” and “a minimum of 160 long-term jobs.”19 Developer projections; no independent fiscal analysis is on the public record.

The bigger picture

Plainfield Already Has a Gasification Plant

The SMART proposal would not be the town’s first plant of this general kind. The cumulative context is a matter of federal record.

  • According to a U.S. EPA discharge permit, Plainfield Renewable Energy, LLC is a 37.5-megawatt wood-gasification biomass power plant already operating at 12 Mill Brook Road, at the intersection of Mill Brook Road and Norwich Road — the same road named in the SMART filing.9
  • That plant runs a fluidized-bed gasifier that produces syngas which is combusted to make steam, and it discharges up to 173,571 gallons per day of cooling-water blowdown to the Quinebaug River.9
  • The existing plant burns clean wood. The SMART proposal would add a second, larger gasification facility — this one processing mixed municipal trash — to the same town.920

One town. One gasification plant already running on wood. A second, far larger one proposed for mixed household trash.

Where it stands

Current Status, in Brief

The plant is a live proposal. As of mid-2026 it remains under active review by state agencies; no final permit decision has been issued.822

Filed / underway

  • DEEP air permit application22
  • DEEP solid waste management plan22
  • Environmental justice public-participation report on file with DEEP1

Not yet filed

  • No application before the Connecticut Siting Council8
  • No DEEP public comment window has opened yet22
  • Town building, stormwater and wastewater permits22

In a June 2025 non-binding referendum, Plainfield voted 1,148 to 125 against the plant, on about 12% turnout. That vote does not bind the state, which holds permitting authority under the statutes above.19 For the full, dated status board, see Where It Stands.

Questions and answers

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Plainfield trash plant?

A proposed 45-megawatt waste gasification (waste-to-energy) facility that SMART Technology Systems, LLC wants to build in Plainfield, Connecticut, to process municipal solid waste. The 45-megawatt figure is stated in the company’s June 2025 filing to CT DEEP.1

How big is it, and how much trash would it handle?

Its stated electrical output is 45 megawatts. As reported, the developer’s figures are more than 1,800 tons of solid waste per day, five days a week, or up to 468,000 tons a year.120

Is gasification the same as incineration?

It is a distinct process, but because the synthesis gas it produces is combusted, waste gasification and pyrolysis are regulated as waste incinerators in both the United States and the European Union.15

Does it need approval from more than one agency?

Yes. At 45 megawatts it exceeds the 25-megawatt cogeneration exemption, so it needs a Connecticut Siting Council Certificate under CGS § 16-50i, in addition to DEEP permits. DEEP must also make a written determination that the facility is needed under CGS § 22a-208d.36

When would it open?

Not before 2028, by the developer’s own timeline.20

Does Plainfield already have a plant like this?

Yes. Federal records describe Plainfield Renewable Energy as a 37.5-megawatt wood-gasification biomass plant already operating in town, on Norwich Road. The SMART proposal would be a second, larger gasification plant, this one taking in mixed household trash.9

Sources

Where These Facts Come From

Official & regulatory sources

  1. CT DEEP, SMART Technology Systems, LLC — Environmental Justice Public Participation Report, filed June 6, 2025 by Lee D. Hoffman, Pullman & Comley. Establishes: SMART proposes a 45 MW waste processing and conversion facility in Plainfield; Plainfield is an “environmental justice community” under CGS § 22a-20a(a)(1); notice sign visible from Norwich Road; May 7, 2025 public meeting at Plainfield Town Hall (several hundred attendees, ~50 residents spoke, opposition voiced); First Selectman Kevin Cunningham. portal.ct.gov (PDF)
  2. SMART Technology Systems, LLC, Public Response to CT DEEP Materials Management Infrastructure Request for Information (state record). Establishes the developer’s own claims: gasification “in place of burn technology”; recovery of “99% of metals, 98% of glass”; refuse-derived fuel; anaerobic digestion; carbon-capture and conversion of CO2 to “food grade” product; a capacity factor “>90%”; a claim to Class I renewable status. portal.ct.gov (PDF)
  3. Connecticut General Statutes § 16-50i (Chapter 277a). Establishes the definition of a “facility” subject to Siting Council jurisdiction and the cogeneration exemption for generating capacity of 25 megawatts or less. cga.ct.gov
  4. Connecticut General Statutes § 16-50p (Chapter 277a). Requires the Siting Council to find “a public need for the facility and the basis of the need,” and to assess environmental impact “alone and cumulatively with other existing facilities,” before issuing a Certificate. cga.ct.gov
  5. Connecticut General Statutes § 16-50n (Chapter 277a). Grants party or intervenor status to owners of property abutting a proposed facility and to the host municipality. cga.ct.gov
  6. Connecticut General Statutes § 22a-208d (Chapter 446d). Bars DEEP from permitting a resources-recovery facility processing mixed municipal solid waste absent a written determination that it “is necessary to meet the solid waste disposal needs of the state and will not result in substantial excess capacity.” cga.ct.gov
  7. Connecticut General Statutes § 22a-20a (Chapter 439). Defines “environmental justice community” and “affecting facility” and requires a meaningful public-participation plan and an informal public meeting before a permit application for such a facility. cga.ct.gov
  8. Connecticut Siting Council, Applications and Other Pending Matters. Establishes that no SMART / O&G / Plainfield gasification docket is pending; the only Plainfield-area matter is Docket 550 (Brookfield Husky Solar d/b/a Verogy, a 50 MW solar facility). portal.ct.gov/CSC
  9. U.S. EPA, Draft NPDES Permit CT0030473, Plainfield Renewable Energy, LLC (2025). Establishes that PRE is “a 37.5 MW wood gasification biomass power plant” at 12 Mill Brook Road (intersection of Mill Brook Road and Norwich Road), Plainfield; that its fluidized-bed gasifier produces syngas that “is combusted” to raise steam; and that it discharges up to 173,571 gpd of cooling-water blowdown to the Quinebaug River. epa.gov (PDF)
  10. CT DEEP, Comprehensive Materials Management Strategy (adopted 2016). Establishes Connecticut’s statutory waste hierarchy (CGS § 22a-228(b)) ranking source reduction and reuse first, then recycling and composting, then energy recovery, with landfill disposal “as a last resort”; and the binding target to divert at least 60% of MSW (about 2.3 million tons a year) by 2024. portal.ct.gov/deep
  11. CT DEEP, 2023 Solid Waste Disposal and Diversion Report. Establishes that Connecticut generated 3.48 million tons of MSW in 2023 and diverted only 1.2 million tons (35%); that DEEP “did not meet its statutory goal of 60% diversion by January 1, 2024”; and that 940,667 tons of MSW were exported out of state after the MIRA facility closed. portal.ct.gov/deep
  12. U.S. EPA, Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Facilities (archived). Establishes, via EPA eGRID accounting, that roughly 47% of the energy from MSW combustion is fossil-derived (about 53% biogenic), with a fossil fraction of about 1,016 lb CO2 per MWh. Cited only for the fossil/biogenic split. archive.epa.gov
  13. Connecticut General Statutes § 22a-200a (Chapter 446c), as amended by Public Act 22-5. Establishes the Global Warming Solutions Act targets, including zero greenhouse-gas emissions from electricity supplied to Connecticut customers by 2040, and 80% below 2001 levels by 2050. cga.ct.gov
  14. U.S. Federal Highway Administration, The Heavy Vehicle Use Tax (Highway Cost Allocation). Establishes the “fourth-power law”: pavement damage rises with roughly the fourth power of axle load, so a single heavy-axle pass is orders of magnitude more damaging than a passenger car, and the heaviest combinations pay well below their true road-cost share. fhwa.dot.gov

Scientific & technical studies

  1. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Waste Gasification & Pyrolysis: High Risk, Low Yield Processes for Waste Management (2017). Establishes that gasification and pyrolysis are “regulated as waste incinerators” in the U.S. and the E.U. because the resulting gas is combusted, and documents numerous plants forced to shut down for technical and financial failure. no-burn.org
  2. Ready, R. C., “Do Landfills Always Depress Nearby Property Values?” Journal of Real Estate Research (2010). Meta-analysis: high-volume landfills (500+ tons/day, SMART’s scale class) depress adjacent values about 13.7% on average, declining ~5.9 points per mile; low-volume sites about 2.7%, and 20–26% show no measurable effect. doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2010.12091279
  3. Rivas Casado, M., et al., “Monetising impacts of waste incinerators on brownfield land,” Waste Management (2017). Facility-type-matched: three English incinerators reduced local house prices about 0.4% to 1.3% once operational, varying by distance and prior brownfield status. doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.036
  4. Schutt, R., “Systematic Variation in Waste Site Effects on Residential Property Values,” Environmental and Resource Economics (2021). Largest synthesis (83 studies, 727 estimates): hazardous/contaminated sites are strongly negative, non-hazardous sites show no average effect; correcting publication bias cuts older effect sizes by up to 38%. Supplies the calibrating, non-overstated range. doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00536-2

News coverage

  1. Hartford Courant via Government Technology, “Connecticut Residents Object to Plans for High-Tech Trash Plant.” Corroborates: referendum 1,148–125 on ~12% turnout; joint Republican/Democratic town-committee statement on “over 100 garbage trucks…6 a.m. to 5 p.m.”; Bill Corvo’s “several million dollars per year” and “minimum of 160 long-term jobs”; ~81 acres near Routes 12/14; the O&G / Advanced Waste Technologies partnership. govtech.com
  2. Norwich Bulletin via Yahoo News, “Plant to convert trash to gas, electricity to be pitched in Plainfield.” Corroborates: Valmet gasification of refuse-derived fuel; “more than 1,800 tons per day, five days a week” and “468,000 tons of trash per year – 9,000 tons per week”; Corvo, “We don’t anticipate going operational much before 2028.” yahoo.com
  3. Foundation for Fair Contracting of Connecticut, “Plainfield opposing plans for a trash-to-energy plant in a residential zone.” Corroborates the ~81-acre parcel near Norwich/Black Hill Road, the residential-area description, and the 1,800-tons-per-day figure. ffcct.org
  4. Norwich Bulletin via AOL, “Here’s the status of the proposed trash-to-energy plant in Plainfield.” Corroborates: DEEP air permit and solid waste plan filed; town building/stormwater/wastewater permits and the Siting Council permit still to come; “a year plus” to permit, then “a couple of years to build it.” aol.com

See the full evidence library →