Palmer Renewable Energy has filed a lawsuit against the city of Springfield following last month's decision by the City Council to revoke the energy development firm's permit to build a wood-burning biomass plant in East Springfield.
Protesters for and against a proposed biomass plant in East Springfield rally on the steps of Springfield City Hall before last month's vote to revoke the permit needed to build the plant. SPRINGFIELD -- Palmer Renewable Energy has filed a lawsuit against Springfield after the City Council last month voted to revoke the energy development firm's permit to build a wood-burning biomass plant in East Springfield.
Although details of the civil complaint were not immediately available, 22news reported on its website Friday night that a multimillion-dollar suit has been filed. Springfield City Councilor Timothy J. Rooke confirmed that the city has received notice of the suit, 22news reported.
On May 23, the City Council voted to revoke the Palmer-based developer's special permit to build a $150 million biomass plant near the intersection of Page Boulevard and Cadwell Drive. The council's decision triggered cheers from project opponents and an expected legal challenge from the developer.
Rooke and fellow City Councilor Kateri B. Walsh were the only two council members to vote against revocation.
Rooke said he didn't know the exact amount of damages being sought by the project developer, but speculated it may cost the city tens of millions of dollars in legal damages and fees.
The 13-member council voted 10-2 -- one member was absent for the May vote -- to revoke the special permit, which required nine votes to pass, according to council rules.
The City Council initially granted a permit to Palmer Renewable Energy in 2008. After further review, however, councilors claimed the project had changed significantly since its proposal. A majority of councilors felt the project might have a deleterious affect on the health and well-being of East Springfield residents.
Lawyers for the developer made it clear that revocation likely would spur a potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the city.
Rooke, in a past interview with The Republican, said revocation was a “dangerous and reckless path” toward litigation and largely based on “political fear" in an election year.