Where it stands
Where the Proposal Stands
The Plainfield trash plant remains a proposal under active review by state agencies; no final permit decision has been issued. As of the most recent reporting, dated April 2026, SMART Technology Systems had filed air and solid-waste applications with the state environmental agency, but no case was before the Connecticut Siting Council and no public comment window had opened.18
This page separates what has been filed from what has not, sets out the two separate state approvals the project needs and the legal test for each, and records the votes and legislation to date. Every date is tied to the public record or the reporting it comes from, not to when this page was edited. Where a fact rests on reporting rather than a primary document, it is dated and labeled as such.
The status board
Filed and Not Yet Filed
The distinction below is the practical one: it tells a resident whether the formal chance to comment has arrived. As of April 2026 reporting, it had not.8
Filed / on the record
Per April 2026 reporting, the company said the DEEP air permit and solid waste plan were already filed, the town building, stormwater and wastewater permits would be filed with Plainfield later in 2026, and a project development permit would go to the Siting Council “in the near future,” with no date set as of April 7, 2026.8 A direct check of the Siting Council’s own pending-matters list confirms no SMART, O&G Industries, or Plainfield gasification docket; the only Plainfield-area case listed is Docket 550, an unrelated 50-megawatt solar facility spanning Sterling and Plainfield.1
The regulatory roadmap
Two Separate Approval Tracks
A project of this kind must clear two different state bodies under two different statutes. Neither has issued a decision, and a resident may weigh in on both. The table states each track’s governing law, the legal test, and its current status.
| Track | Governing statute | The legal test | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEEP permits | CGS 22a-208a; 22a-208d3 | Air and solid-waste standards, plus a written determination that the facility is “necessary to meet the solid waste disposal needs of the state” and “will not result in substantial excess capacity”3 | Applications filed; no tentative determination posted8 |
| Siting Council Certificate | CGS 16-50i; 16-50p2 | A Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need; the Council may not grant it without finding “a public need for the facility and the basis of the need”2 | No application filed1 |
Why the Siting Council has jurisdiction
Under CGS 16-50i, a privately owned electric generating facility using cogeneration technology is exempt from needing a Siting Council Certificate only if its generating capacity is “twenty-five megawatts of electricity or less.”2 The Plainfield plant’s generating capacity is 45 megawatts — the developer’s own stated figure. SMART’s waste-to-energy project is on the state regulatory record through its filings with CT DEEP,76 and the 45-megawatt capacity is the figure the developer has stated in reporting to residents.810 Because 45 megawatts is above the 25-megawatt threshold, the small-facility exemption does not apply and a Certificate is required.2 When an application is filed, CGS 16-50n lets the owner of any property abutting the proposed facility petition for intervenor status in the proceeding.2
Why DEEP must weigh in on need
Under CGS 22a-208d, the DEEP commissioner may not issue a permit to construct or expand a resources recovery facility unless the commissioner first makes a written determination that the facility “is necessary to meet the solid waste disposal needs of the state and will not result in substantial excess capacity of resources recovery facilities or disposal areas.”3 That “is it even needed” question is a statutory precondition, not merely an argument opponents can raise. The underlying authority to permit or deny a solid waste facility rests with DEEP under CGS 22a-208a.3
The environmental justice step
Because the site is treated as being in an environmental justice community, an environmental justice public participation plan is on file with DEEP for the Norwich Road and Black Hill Road project. Under Connecticut’s environmental justice law, that community-engagement step comes before a permit application is acted on, not after.6 In his July 2025 veto message, the Governor noted that CGS 22a-20a already “requires applicants seeking to construct and operate certain types of facilities in environmental justice areas to do additional, robust community engagement before submitting an application.”5
Timeline
What Has Happened So Far
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 2025 | Plainfield holds a non-binding referendum on the plant; residents vote 1,148 to 125 against, on about 12% turnout.9 |
| June 2025 | House Bill 7004, which would have let small towns challenge DEEP environmental-justice permits by referendum, passes the House 104–43 and the Senate 25–11.411 |
| July 8, 2025 | Governor Lamont vetoes HB 7004 (Public Act 25-169); no override follows, so it does not become law.54 |
| April 2026 | Reporting confirms DEEP air and solid-waste applications are filed; town permits and the Siting Council application are not yet filed.8 |
By the company’s own April 2026 estimate the schedule runs roughly a year or more for permits, assuming no delays, then a couple of years to build, which would put the earliest operation no sooner than 2028.8
Votes and legislation
The Referendum and the Vetoed Bill
Two events residents often assume settled the question did not. The town vote and the referendum bill both ran against the plant, and neither changed the state’s authority to permit it.
The June 2025 referendum
Plainfield voted 1,148 to 125 against the plant in a June 2025 referendum, with only about 12% of the town turning out. The referendum was non-binding.9 Permitting authority sits with the state under the statutes above, so the vote records local opposition but does not decide the outcome.23
Plainfield voted 1,148 to 125 against the plant. The vote was non-binding: under Connecticut law the state, not the town, decides whether the facility is permitted.92
HB 7004 and the veto
HB 7004 would have let towns of up to 16,000 residents overturn DEEP permit decisions for facilities in environmental justice communities through a local referendum. Its sponsors, Sen. Heather Somers and Rep. Aundre Bumgardner, both of Groton, described the Plainfield proposal as the primary impetus for the bill.12 It passed the House 104–43 and the Senate 25–11,411 but Governor Lamont vetoed it on July 8, 2025, and no override took place.54
In his veto message the Governor wrote that “allowing permitting decisions to be overturned by referenda undermines the principles of objectivity embedded in our state permitting processes, will discourage important investments in infrastructure, and ultimately will drive up cost of living for residents.”5 The practical effect is that the town’s referendum route to challenge a state permit remains closed.
Questions and answers
Status Questions
Has the Plainfield trash plant been approved?
It remains a proposal under active review by state agencies, and no final permit decision has been issued. DEEP air and solid-waste applications are filed, but there is no application before the Connecticut Siting Council and no public comment window has opened.18
Has SMART filed with the Connecticut Siting Council?
No. As of April 2026 reporting, no application had been filed, and the company said it would file “in the near future.” The Council’s own pending-matters list shows no SMART or Plainfield gasification docket.18
Why does the plant need both DEEP permits and a Siting Council certificate?
They apply different legal tests. DEEP must make a written determination that the facility is necessary for the state’s disposal needs under CGS 22a-208d, while the Siting Council must separately find a public need and issue a Certificate under CGS 16-50i, which is required because the developer’s stated 45-megawatt output exceeds the 25-megawatt exemption.238
Was the June 2025 referendum binding?
No. Plainfield voted 1,148 to 125 against, but the referendum was non-binding. Permitting authority rests with the state.92
What happened with HB 7004?
It would have let towns up to 16,000 residents challenge DEEP environmental-justice permits by referendum. It passed the House 104–43 and the Senate 25–11, but Governor Lamont vetoed it on July 8, 2025, and no override occurred, so it did not become law.4115
When could a public comment window open?
When DEEP issues a Notice of Tentative Determination it opens a 30-day comment period. As of April 2026 reporting, no such notice had been posted for this project, so the comment window has not opened.8