Plainfield Trash Facts

The facts on the proposed trash plant
Plainfield, Connecticut

Status State permit applications filed. No public comment window has opened yet. How to be heard →

Frequently asked questions

Plainfield Trash Plant: Frequently Asked Questions

Short, self-contained answers to the questions people actually ask about the proposed Plainfield trash plant. Factual and technical answers are footnoted to official and scientific sources; news is cited only as support. Where the evidence is genuinely mixed, this page says so.

The Plainfield trash plant is a proposed waste-to-energy gasification facility from SMART Technology Systems, on about 81 acres in a residential zone off Routes 12 and 14.38 The developer’s own filing with CT DEEP describes gasification of refuse-derived fuel into a synthesis gas;11 independent reporting puts the throughput at roughly 1,800 tons of trash a day.35 State permit applications have been filed; it remains a proposal under active review by state agencies, no final permit decision has been issued, and no public comment window has opened yet.36

The basics

What is proposed, and who is behind it

What is the Plainfield trash plant?

It is a proposed waste-to-energy gasification facility that would take in municipal trash, convert it to a synthetic gas to generate electricity, and produce ash and other residues — the technology described in the developer’s own filing on the state regulatory record.11 The site is about 81 acres at Norwich Road and Black Hill Road, in a residential zone;38 the throughput is the developer’s stated figure of roughly 1,800 tons of trash a day, reported in press coverage.35

Who is behind it?

The developer is SMART Technology Systems LLC, whose own response is on file with CT DEEP,11 and which press coverage describes as a partnership of the Connecticut construction and materials company O&G Industries and Advanced Waste Technologies International, using gasification equipment from the manufacturer Valmet.3537

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

These are the developer’s own stated figures on the state regulatory record, where its filing sets out the gasification project and its scale:11 up to about 468,000 tons of trash a year, roughly 1,800 tons a day, and about 45 megawatts of electricity. Those daily-tonnage, annual-tonnage, and megawatt figures are corroborated in independent press coverage.3538

Where would it be built?

On an approximately 81-acre parcel at the intersection of Norwich Road and Black Hill Road, between Routes 12 and 14, in a part of Plainfield zoned residential. The location is documented both in the developer’s environmental-justice filing with CT DEEP and in independent reporting.338

The plant and the trucks

How it would work day to day

Is gasification the same as incineration?

Gasification is a distinct process: rather than mass-burning trash, it heats waste with limited oxygen to produce a synthetic gas that is then combusted. The developer characterizes its process as gasification of refuse-derived fuel into synthesis gas.11 A technical review by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives reports that when the feedstock includes mixed plastics, emissions from the combustion stage can resemble those of a conventional incinerator.25

What is in the residues and process water?

Gasification of carbonaceous waste produces fly ash, bottom ash or slag, and process wastewater. Peer-reviewed research on gasification wastewater has documented ammonia, cyanides, trace metals (including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, lead, and mercury), phenolics, benzene and other BTEX compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; a technical review of waste gasification reaches similar conclusions about the toxicity of process residues.2425

How many trucks a day would it bring?

More than 100 heavy garbage-truck trips a day, roughly 6 a.m. to 5 p.m., is the estimate in a joint statement issued by Plainfield’s Republican and Democratic town committees.37 It is a resident-and-reporter estimate, not an engineering figure: no traffic study has been filed, because no application is before the Connecticut Siting Council.6 We present it as the estimate it is.

How much electricity would it produce?

About 45 megawatts, which the developer states would be sold onto the regional electric grid — the developer’s own figure on the state regulatory record,11 corroborated in press coverage.3538

Health, pollution, and your home

Health, pollution, and property values

Does living near it cause cancer?

The honest answer is that no study can promise a cancer outcome for any one household, and the epidemiology of people living near modern incinerators is genuinely mixed and mostly null. What is not in dispute is the hazard of the specific pollutants already documented in this kind of ash and wastewater. The dioxin class found in the residues is classified by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 (known) human carcinogen;19 so are arsenic and cadmium, two of the metals documented in the ash.20 The U.S. EPA assigns dioxin (TCDD) an oral reference dose of 7×10−10 mg/kg-day, one of the lowest (most potent) values in its IRIS database,21 and the CDC states there is no known safe blood-lead level in children.22 Separately, the long-term fine-particle (PM2.5) evidence is consistent: the 35-year Harvard Six Cities follow-up found each 10 µg/m³ of PM2.5 associated with about 14% higher all-cause and 37% higher lung-cancer mortality, with no safe floor identified.26 On the near-plant epidemiology specifically, the most recent 2025 systematic review found a small but significant asthma association and isolated dioxin-linked cancer signals,27 while a 2022 meta-analysis found no significant pooled cancer excess for most sites.28 The UK Health Security Agency’s position is that modern regulated incinerators add little to local air pollution and show no clear evidence of cancer, respiratory, or birth-outcome effects — a view that rests largely on older-generation plants.23 We present both so the picture is complete: the pollutants are established hazards, and the near-plant disease evidence is real but unsettled.

Does gasification destroy PFAS (the “forever chemicals”)?

No. PFAS are built around carbon–fluorine bonds among the strongest in chemistry, and peer-reviewed work shows they are not reliably destroyed at the temperatures municipal-waste plants actually run. A 2022 critical review found that PFOA and PFOS begin breaking down at 350–450 °C but require sustained temperatures of at least about 1,000 °C for full mineralization; below that, products of incomplete combustion form, and typical municipal waste-to-energy combustors operate below that threshold.29 A 2023 study was the first to confirm PFAS in the flue gas of an operating waste-to-energy plant, as well as in its bottom ash, air-pollution-control residue, and treated process water — meaning PFAS leaves such plants by the stack and in the residues, not simply destroyed.30 A broader 2020 review concluded that none of the three disposal routes (landfill, wastewater, incineration) eliminates PFAS; each returns it or its breakdown products to another medium, a cyclical problem rather than a destruction solution.31

Will it hurt my property value?

Possibly, but the honest answer is a range, not a single number, because the effect depends heavily on the facility’s scale and type, the distance, and the local housing stock. The largest current synthesis of waste-site hedonic studies (83 studies, 727 estimates) found that hazardous or contaminated sites are strongly negative while non-hazardous sites show no average effect once publication bias is corrected — so “no measurable effect” is a real possibility for a lower-impact site.32 At the other end, a meta-analysis of landfills found high-volume sites (500+ tons/day, the scale class of this proposal) depress adjacent values by roughly 13.7% on average, declining with distance.33 Facility-type-matched work on three English incinerators found smaller reductions of about 0.4% to 1.3% of mean value once operational.34 Taken together, the defensible range is roughly 0.4% to 13.7% depending on scale, type, and distance, with the genuine caveat that some comparable sites show no measurable effect at all.

Water and the land

What it could mean for water and the land

Could it affect the water?

Plainfield’s water comes from the ground. CT DEEP identifies stratified-drift deposits, like those in the Quinebaug River valley, as the state’s most productive aquifers. The state’s own Quinebaug Valley trout hatchery in Plainfield draws 1,290,816,000 gallons of groundwater a year from 12 wells, and the joint town-committee statement warned the area “faces significant risks of pollution to valuable underground water sources.”4137

Is the site on a protected aquifer?

No — and this is a point where the record needs to be stated precisely. CT DEEP’s official Aquifer Protection Area program maps four regulated APAs in Plainfield (Gallup, Hopeville Road, Plainfield, and Brooklyn), and none of them covers the Norwich Road / Black Hill Road site.13 A live point-in-polygon query against DEEP’s own GIS returns zero regulated Aquifer Protection Area at the site, with the nearest (Gallup) roughly 500 to 1,000 meters away.14 So the parcel is not inside a designated, state-protected aquifer, and we do not claim otherwise. The real water concern is different and still substantial: Plainfield relies on groundwater — public supply wells and private household wells — drawn from the productive Quinebaug-valley stratified-drift aquifer system that DEEP identifies as the state’s most productive,4 and the state’s Quinebaug Valley trout hatchery in Plainfield draws about 1.29 billion gallons of groundwater a year from that system.1 The risk is to the groundwater the community depends on, not to a formally designated protection area on the parcel.

Does Plainfield already have a groundwater contamination site?

Yes. Gallup’s Quarry, a 29-acre former gravel pit in Plainfield where chemical wastes were dumped without a permit in the 1970s, is a federal Superfund site. The EPA lists contaminants there including volatile organic compounds, PCBs, heavy metals, 1,4-dioxane, arsenic, and PFAS, with institutional controls restricting groundwater use and monitoring continuing today.2

Is there a bald eagle on the site?

We can’t say, and neither can anyone relying only on public records. What the official record does show is that the site falls within a state-mapped listed-species area: a live query against CT DEEP’s current Natural Diversity Data Base returns an active NDDB Area polygon at the site (mapped June 2026), meaning a listed species or a significant natural community is known to occur there.15 But DEEP deliberately masks the identity of the species on all of its public products — exact locations and species names are hidden, and only a formal DEEP Environmental Review Request can reveal what is present.16 So the accurate statement is this: the site is within a state-mapped listed-species area; the species is not publicly disclosed, and no official record confirms bald eagle specifically. We neither assert nor debunk the bald-eagle claim.

Is the site in an environmental-justice area?

Yes, on two levels. First, the whole town qualifies: a live query of CT DEEP’s Environmental Justice 2025 data set shows Plainfield is one of only 37 Connecticut municipalities on the 2025 distressed-municipality list with no grace period, which makes the entire town an environmental-justice community under Connecticut’s EJ statute (CGS 22a-20a).17 Second, the census tracts and block groups encompassing the project area carry elevated pollution and low-income burdens: three block groups exceed the 30% low-income threshold (up to 44.5% of residents below 200% of the federal poverty level in one),17 and CDC/ATSDR’s Environmental Justice Index places the surrounding tracts around the 58th to 75th percentile nationally for environmental burden.18 Consistent with this, CT DEEP already requires an Environmental Justice Public Participation Plan for the SMART project, meaning the developer must carry out a meaningful public-participation process before any permit can issue.312 Because no public parcel-boundary service exists to pin the exact 81-acre boundary, the tract and block-group figures are for the census areas encompassing the project location.

Approvals and votes

Permits, votes, and timeline

What approvals would it actually need?

At roughly 45 megawatts the plant exceeds the 25-megawatt cogeneration threshold in the state siting statute, so it would require a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need from the Connecticut Siting Council in addition to DEEP air and solid-waste permits. Separately, DEEP may not permit a facility processing mixed municipal solid waste unless it first makes a written determination that the facility is necessary for the state’s disposal needs and will not create substantial excess capacity.91035

What stage is it at in the permit process?

SMART has filed a DEEP air permit application and a solid waste management plan, but no application appears before the Connecticut Siting Council and no public comment window has opened. It remains a proposal under active review by state agencies; no final permit decision has been issued.366

Did the town vote on it?

Yes. In a June 2025 non-binding referendum, Plainfield voted 1,148 to 125 against the plant. The vote does not bind the state, which holds permitting authority.37

If the town voted no, why can it still move forward?

Because state agencies, not towns, decide these permits. In 2025 the legislature passed House Bill 7004, which would have let towns of up to 16,000 residents challenge certain DEEP permit approvals by referendum. Governor Lamont vetoed it on July 8, 2025.839

When would it open?

Not before 2028, by the developer’s own timeline. Manager Bill Corvo said the company does not “anticipate going operational much before 2028,” estimating roughly a year to obtain permits and a couple of years to build.35

Taking action

What residents can do

How can I oppose it?

When DEEP issues a notice of tentative determination, it opens a public comment window. Under Public Act 25-84, a petition signed by at least 25 persons, showing that a signatory’s legal rights may be affected, can ask DEEP to hold a hearing. Any person may also intervene in the administrative proceeding on environmental grounds under state law, and if SMART later files a Siting Council application, residents can apply for party or intervenor status. See Take Action for the current steps and addresses.5712

Has a plant like this ever been stopped?

Yes. The Killingly gas power plant in eastern Connecticut was never built after it was dropped from ISO New England’s capacity auction over missed federal deadlines. And the MIRA trash-burning plant in Hartford ceased combustion in July 2022 as its economics collapsed. Neither was stopped by a town referendum.4041

Sources

Where These Answers Come From

Official & regulatory sources

  1. Connecticut DAS and DEEP, “DAS and DEEP Announce Improvement to Quinebaug Trout Hatchery” — the Plainfield hatchery draws 1,290,816,000 gallons of groundwater a year from 12 high-volume wells, and the state project will “significantly reduc[e] the stress on the aquifer.” portal.ct.gov/das
  2. U.S. EPA, Superfund site profile: Gallup’s Quarry, Plainfield, CT — a 29-acre National Priorities List site from 1970s unpermitted chemical dumping; contaminants include VOCs, PCBs, heavy metals, 1,4-dioxane, arsenic, and PFAS, with institutional controls and ongoing monitoring. cumulis.epa.gov
  3. CT DEEP, Environmental Justice Public Participation Plan on file for SMART Technology Systems LLC, Norwich Road / Black Hill Road, Plainfield — official DEEP-hosted filing establishing the project location and that the state is handling the site as an environmental-justice community under CGS 22a-20a. portal.ct.gov (PDF)
  4. CT DEEP, “Connecticut’s Aquifers” — stratified-drift deposits are the state’s “most productive aquifers” capable of large public-supply yields, while bedrock formations typically yield only enough for individual domestic wells. portal.ct.gov/deep
  5. CT DEEP Office of Adjudications, “Public Act 25-84 and Initiating the Hearing Process” — a hearing petition must be signed by at least 25 persons and show that a signatory’s legal rights, duties, or privileges may be affected. portal.ct.gov/deep
  6. Connecticut Siting Council, Applications and Other Pending Matters — no SMART / O&G / Plainfield gasification docket is listed; the only Plainfield matter is an unrelated solar project, Docket 550. portal.ct.gov/CSC
  7. Connecticut Siting Council, “Public Hearing Participation” — how residents apply for party or intervenor status and take part in evidentiary and public-comment hearings. portal.ct.gov/CSC
  8. Connecticut General Assembly, House Bill 7004 (2025), “An Act Authorizing Municipal Referenda to Challenge Certain Permit Approvals” — bill status and history show passage of both chambers and a gubernatorial veto on July 8, 2025. cga.ct.gov
  9. Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 277a (Public Utility Environmental Standards Act), sections 16-50i and 16-50k — an electric generating facility requires a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need; the cogeneration exemption applies only at 25 megawatts or less. cga.ct.gov
  10. Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 446d, sections 22a-208a and 22a-208d — section 22a-208a bars establishing, constructing, or operating a solid waste facility without a permit from the DEEP commissioner; section 22a-208d bars DEEP from permitting a resources-recovery facility processing mixed municipal solid waste without a written determination that it is necessary for the state’s disposal needs and will not result in substantial excess capacity. cga.ct.gov
  11. SMART Technology Systems, LLC, “Public Response” to the CT DEEP Materials Management Infrastructure Request for Information (official DEEP-hosted PDF) — the developer’s own filing on the state regulatory record. It states that its facility would use gasification of refuse-derived fuel to produce a synthesis gas and Class I baseload electricity, with carbon-capture and beneficial reuse of ash residues; it establishes SMART Technology Systems as the project developer and describes the technology it proposes. The public copy has confidential material (including detailed capacity figures) redacted; the daily/annual tonnage and megawatt figures are corroborated in press coverage (sources 35 and 38). portal.ct.gov (PDF)
  12. Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 439, sections 22a-20a and 22a-19 — section 22a-20a requires a meaningful public-participation process for a facility that would affect an environmental-justice community and authorizes DEEP to withhold a permit under specified conditions; section 22a-19 allows any person to intervene in an administrative proceeding on environmental grounds. cga.ct.gov
  13. CT DEEP / CT ECO, Aquifer Protection Areas map, Plainfield — the town’s four regulated APAs are Gallup (No. 78), Hopeville Road (No. 84), Plainfield (No. 71), and Brooklyn (No. 68); none covers the Norwich Road / Black Hill Road site. Official map dated April 2026. cteco.uconn.edu (PDF)
  14. CT DEEP, Aquifer Protection Areas ArcGIS feature service — a live point-in-polygon query at the geocoded site (41.7084, −71.9396) returns zero intersecting Aquifer Protection Area; a 500 m buffer returns zero; a 1,000 m buffer returns exactly one (Gallup No. 78). The nearest regulated APA is ~500–1,000 m away, not on the site. services1.arcgis.com
  15. CT DEEP, Natural Diversity Data Base Areas map, Plainfield — the site falls within a DEEP-mapped NDDB Area (a known listed-species or significant-natural-community location); confirmed by live query (OBJECTID 21875, map date June 2026). Species identity is not disclosed. portal.ct.gov (PDF)
  16. CT DEEP / CT ECO, Natural Diversity Data Base Areas Resource Guide — states DEEP policy verbatim that “exact locations and species names have been masked” on public products; a site-specific species determination requires a formal Environmental Review Request, the only mechanism that could confirm or deny bald eagle. cteco.uconn.edu
  17. CT DEEP, Environmental Justice 2025 Set (block groups + distressed municipalities), ArcGIS — live query: Plainfield is one of only 37 Connecticut municipalities on the 2025 distressed list with no grace period, making the whole town an EJ community under CGS 22a-20a(a); three block groups exceed the 30% low-income threshold (BG1 Tract 9073 at 43.1% below 200% FPL, BG3 Tract 9071 at 44.5%, BG3 Tract 9073 at 37.0%). geodata.ct.gov (CTDEEP Environmental-Justice-2025-Set)
  18. CDC/ATSDR, Environmental Justice Index (EJI), 2024 update — live query: the census tracts encompassing the project area rank about the 58th to 75th percentile nationally for environmental burden (Tract 9072 environmental-burden 75.4th pct; Tract 9073 64.5th; Tract 9071 57th). First national-percentile comparison and a live substitute for the removed EPA EJScreen. atsdr.cdc.gov
  19. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Monographs Vol. 69 — classifies 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (the dioxin class documented in the ash and wastewater) as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. publications.iarc.who.int (Vol 69)
  20. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), Monographs Vol. 100C: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts — classifies arsenic and cadmium (and their compounds) as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. publications.iarc.who.int (Vol 100C)
  21. U.S. EPA, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), TCDD (CASRN 1746-01-6) — EPA oral reference dose for TCDD is 7×10−10 mg/kg-day, one of the lowest (most potent) RfDs in IRIS, based on sperm and neonatal thyroid effects. iris.epa.gov
  22. CDC, “Update of the Blood Lead Reference Value — United States, 2021” (MMWR) — CDC lowered the blood-lead reference value from 5.0 to 3.5 µg/dL in children and states there is no known safe blood-lead level. DOI 10.15585/mmwr.mm7043a4. cdc.gov/mmwr
  23. UK Health Security Agency, “Municipal waste incinerators: emissions impact on health” — countervailing official position that modern, well-run, regulated incinerators add little to local air pollution and that there is no clear evidence of associations with cancer, respiratory disease, or adverse birth outcomes; the evidence base is largely older-generation plants. gov.uk

Scientific & technical studies

  1. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution (peer-reviewed), study of gasification wastewater via U.S. National Library of Medicine (PMC) — gasification process water contains ammonia, cyanides, sulfates, trace metals (As, Cr, Cd, Pb, Hg and others), phenolics, benzene and other BTEX compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that pose a long-term threat to underground water. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  2. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), “Waste Gasification and Pyrolysis: High Risk, Low Yield Processes for Waste Management” — technical review finding that with mixed plastic feedstock the combustion stage of gasification can produce an emissions profile similar to incineration, and that process residues carry comparable toxicity concerns. no-burn.org (PDF)
  3. Lepeule, Laden, Dockery, Schwartz, “Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: an Extended Follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study” (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012) — each 10 µg/m³ increase in PM2.5 was associated with +14% all-cause, +26% cardiovascular, and +37% lung-cancer mortality, with the association holding below 18 µg/m³ and no safe floor found. DOI 10.1289/ehp.1104660. doi.org
  4. Bottini et al., “Residential exposure to municipal solid waste incinerators and health effects: a systematic review with meta-analysis” (BMC Public Health, 2025) — the most current synthesis: a significant asthma association (HR 1.02 per 1 ng/m³ PM10) plus isolated dioxin-linked signals (one French study 2.3× non-Hodgkin lymphoma at higher dioxin exposure; one Italian study leukemia OR 4.12 at high PCDD/F); birth and reproductive evidence inconsistent. DOI 10.1186/s12889-025-23150-z. doi.org
  5. Baek, Park, Kwak, “A meta-analysis of the relationship between waste incinerator emissions and cancer risk” (Epidemiology and Health, 2022) — across 11 studies, no significant pooled excess for breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphohematopoietic, stomach, bladder, CNS, or all cancers (pooled RR 1.00, CI 0.94–1.06); the one exception was female laryngeal cancer (RR 1.82). Cited for honest balance. DOI 10.4178/epih.e2022070. doi.org
  6. “A Critical Review of Thermal Decomposition of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances” (Environmental Science & Technology, 2022) — PFOA/PFOS begin decomposing at 350–450 °C but full mineralization requires at least about 1,000 °C; below that, products of incomplete combustion (of unknown toxicity) form, and typical MSW waste-to-energy combustors run below 1,000 °C. DOI 10.1021/acs.est.2c02251. doi.org
  7. “Emission of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances from a Waste-to-Energy Plant” (Environmental Science & Technology, 2023) — first confirmed observation of PFAS in WTE flue gas (4.0–5.6 ng/m³ normal, up to 27 with sludge co-firing), and also in bottom ash, air-pollution-control residue, and treated process water; total release 7–20 g/yr. PFAS is emitted via the stack, not only in ash and water. DOI 10.1021/acs.est.2c08960. doi.org
  8. Stoiber, Evans, Naidenko, “Disposal of products and materials containing PFAS: A cyclical problem” (Chemosphere, 2020) — none of the three disposal routes (landfill, wastewater treatment, incineration) eliminates PFAS; each returns it or its breakdown products to another medium, a cyclical problem rather than a destruction solution. DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127659. doi.org
  9. Schutt, “Systematic Variation in Waste Site Effects on Residential Property Values” (Environmental and Resource Economics, 2021) — largest synthesis (83 studies, 727 estimates): hazardous/contaminated sites strongly negative, non-hazardous sites no average effect; correcting for publication bias cuts older effect sizes by up to 38%. Supplies the calibrating, non-overstated range. DOI 10.1007/s10640-021-00536-2. doi.org
  10. Ready, “Do Landfills Always Depress Nearby Property Values?” (Journal of Real Estate Research, 2010) — meta-analysis: high-volume landfills (500+ tons/day, the scale class of this proposal) depress adjacent values by ~13.7% on average, declining 5.9 points per mile; low-volume landfills ~2.7%, and 20–26% of studies show no measurable effect. DOI 10.1080/10835547.2010.12091279. doi.org
  11. Rivas Casado et al., “Monetising the impacts of waste incinerators sited on brownfield land using the hedonic pricing method” (Waste Management, 2017) — facility-type-matched: three English incinerators reduced local house prices by about 0.4% to 1.3% of mean value once operational, varying by distance and prior brownfield status. DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.036. doi.org

News coverage

  1. Norwich Bulletin via Yahoo News, “Plant to convert trash to gas, electricity to be pitched in Plainfield” — Valmet gasification, up to 468,000 tons/year, roughly 1,800 tons/day, ~45 MW, earliest operation about 2028; Bill Corvo quote. yahoo.com
  2. Norwich Bulletin via AOL, “Here’s the status of the proposed trash-to-energy plant in Plainfield” — DEEP air permit and solid waste plan filed; Siting Council application not yet filed; town permits planned later in 2026. aol.com
  3. Hartford Courant via Government Technology, “Connecticut Residents Object to Plans for High-Tech Trash Plant” — referendum 1,148–125 (non-binding); developer partnership; joint town-committee statement estimating 100+ trucks 6 a.m.–5 p.m. and risks to underground water sources. govtech.com
  4. Foundation for Fair Contracting of CT, “Plainfield opposing plans for a trash to energy plant in a residential zone” — 81-acre parcel at Norwich Road and Black Hill Road in a residential zone, ~45 MW. ffcct.org
  5. CT Mirror, “Lamont finishes review of 2025 bills with a veto” — HB 7004 vetoed July 8, 2025; the bill was tied to the Plainfield proposal. ctmirror.org
  6. CT Mirror, “Killingly gas power plant … ISO-New England auction … FERC” — the Killingly plant was never built after being removed from the ISO-NE capacity auction over missed federal deadlines. ctmirror.org
  7. Connecticut Public, “After months of debate, Hartford trash-burning plant now officially closed” — the MIRA incinerator ceased combustion on July 19, 2022. ctpublic.org

See the full evidence library →