Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority advances REF1 replacement planning amid public debate over incineration and landfill impacts

The Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority on Wednesday continued a workshop on replacing its REF1 waste‑to‑energy facility, presenting site alternatives, cost and debt scenarios and operational impacts of a REF1 replacement project (REF1R) while hearing both environmental opposition and neighborhood and industry support.

The presentation summarized earlier board directions, operational capacity, landfill impacts and financing options. SWA staff said the authority had analyzed three potential locations, removed a southern option from consideration and evaluated extending REF1’s operating life while preparing for a replacement facility. Staff and industry speakers emphasized that modern waste‑to‑energy technology reduces waste volume and recovers energy; environmental groups and some residents warned against investing in incineration and urged stronger waste‑reduction measures.

Why it matters: staff said county landfill capacity and future costs depend heavily on whether the county renews and replaces waste‑to‑energy capacity. The board’s planning choices affect where waste will go while REF1 is offline, projected rate impacts for single‑family households and how long county landfill capacity will last under different scenarios.

Public comment: environmental groups

Linda Smith, representing Sierra Club National and the Sierra Club Loxahatchee Group, told the authority “they are against incineration” while urging stronger recycling, composting and waste reduction. Smith said an incinerator can remove the urgency of waste reduction because of contractual “put or pay” terms and noted landfilling remains a long‑term constraint. “I think you guys are solving for the wrong problem. The problem is we have too much waste,” she said.

Gail Ladd of the Sierra Club Loxahatchee Group asked commissioners to consider environmental justice and alternative programs to reduce waste. “Burning anything, especially garbage, is damaging our environment,” she said, and urged pursuit of “refusing, reducing and reusing” policy options.

Resident perspectives and neighborhood group support

Alex Larson (listed on the public comment card as a speaker) urged creative, community‑based solutions and engagement with schools to solicit new ideas about waste reduction.

Alan Weston, president of the Iron Horse Property Owners Association, and Harry Lewin, Iron Horse board director and secretary, said the Iron Horse community met with SWA staff and supports building a modern replacement at the existing REF1 site, subject to mitigation and regular updates. Weston said installing the new facility at the existing location would “minimize disruption, maintain continuity, and ensure the continued use of proven infrastructure for our community.” Lewin said the authority agreed to provide weekly updates and to mitigate visual, traffic and odor impacts where possible.

Industry and technical perspectives

Mike Duff, senior director of business development for Reworld Corporation (formerly Covanta), called waste‑to‑energy a “proven safe and, reliable technology” and noted recovery of energy during emergencies. John McBurnie, representing Canade Via Nova and speaking for waste‑to‑energy interests, said modern facilities have substantially lower emissions than older plants: “we've reduced emissions by about 99% compared to where we were 30, 35 years ago.” Ashley Cork, vice president, waste to energy for FCC Environmental Services, said without REF1 replacement about 800,000 tons would go to landfill and argued waste‑to‑energy supports a circular economy.

Staff presentation and board discussion

SWA staff member Dan Pelowitz opened the staff segment by saying “there is absolutely 0 evidence that these waste energy plants or any other plants have had any negative impact on public health.” Romana (Ramona) Carey and other staff recapped prior board direction: the board had asked staff to analyze three sites, remove the southern option from consideration, evaluate extending REF1’s life and smooth future assessment rates.

Staff presented the authority’s capacity and financial modeling: REF1 currently processes about 800,000 tons of incoming material in the authority’s modeling; some fraction of processed material (presented in the workshop as roughly 250,000 tons of residues plus about 120,000 tons of ash) would continue to be landfilled; staff’s model shows a portion of annual tonnage would need to be shipped off‑site temporarily while REF1 is offline. Staff reported the county landfill was permitted for about 53,000,000 cubic yards and that roughly 28,000,000 cubic yards have been consumed, leaving approximately 25,000,000 cubic yards remaining. Staff cautioned that site choice and timing affect the long‑term landfill depletion projections.

On siting, staff described two principal options: a northern site and rebuilding at the existing REF1 location. The northern site would require substantial fill—staff estimated about 850,000 cubic yards of fill for a lake on that property—and a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with an uncertain multi‑year permitting timeline. Commissioner Woodward said the Corps permitting timeline and other schedule risks made the existing REF1 site the more reliable path.

On finance, staff presented capital cost estimates and illustrative annual debt service: the presentation showed a capital estimate of about $1.54 billion for the northern site scenario and about $1.46 billion for rebuilding at the existing REF1 site (the presentation assumed a 3.5% interest rate for tax‑exempt debt). Staff showed an illustrative single‑family assessment rate rising from about $205 to about $263 under the replacement scenario and discussed using reserves and bond structuring to smooth rate impacts. Staff emphasized several rate‑management tools used previously, including early payoff of existing principal and structured refunding.

Board comments

Mayor Marino, Commissioner Flores and others said they are inclined to retain the replacement at the existing REF1 location, noting the facility predates surrounding development and that the authority should work with neighbors to mitigate impacts. Commissioner Flores said she favored REF1R at the current site and expressed reluctance to permanently export county waste outside Palm Beach County.

Outcome and next steps

No formal vote on REF1 replacement was recorded during this workshop. Staff closed by noting the presentation was a continuation of prior workshops and that additional planning, permitting and financial steps remain before the board would consider a final action.