UNC drops controversial plan to burn paper, plastic pellets in Chapel Hill power plant
UNC-Chapel Hill has withdrawn its application to burn pellets made of paper and plastic scraps instead of coal in its power plant on Cameron Avenue.
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Air Quality announced the university’s decision in a news release Monday afternoon. The university had sought a Title V air quality permit, but faced intense public criticism of the plan.
State DAQ officials asked for more information about UNC emissions estimates after a heavily attended Jan. 16 public hearing, the release said. The university had not yet responded to those questions, DAQ officials said.
In a March 7 letter to the state office, UNC Chief of Staff Christi Hurt said project officials had determined the “engineered pelletized fuel” would not meet the university’s fuel requirements, including key transportation, availability and consistency needs.
The letter did not say what the university’s next steps could be, but the co-generation power plant on Cameron Avenue will continue to operate under its existing air quality permit issued last year. The facility now burns coal and natural gas to provide steam and electricity to campus and UNC Hospitals buildings.
UNC officials had positioned the switch to engineered pellets, manufactured by Wisconsin company Convergen Energy, as the next step toward “a more modern, sustainable fuel portfolio,” in an Aug. 14 press release. The pellets are made using materials that normally would be sent to the landfill, including sludge from paper mills, packaging materials and corrugated containers.
The university had planned to burn the pellets for 12 months and then seek an updated air quality permit.
Kym Meyer, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, noted there were a lot of concerns about the pellets in the beginning, and the concerns grew as SELC and others looked into the technology and how it had been used in other places.
Safer alternatives, she said, could include geothermal energy, electricity from wind and solar, and other modern technologies.
“Certainly, we’re delighted that they made this decision and listened to the community,” Meyer said about UNC’s decision. “It’s very heartening, especially in this moment, to kind of see them being responsive in this way and listening to concerns.”
Yearslong transition to sustainable fuel
UNC has been the focus of a years-long campaign to end the use of coal and other fossil fuels at the Cameron Avenue plant. Last year, UNC officials started talking with Carrboro and Chapel Hill about a plan to transform the rail line that delivers coal into a greenway.
The Southern Environmental Law Center has been part of those discussions and a leading voice against UNC’s use of fossil fuels.
Meyer said the group working on the rail-to-trail project could get an update about UNC’s work to move from coal Friday.
“We’re feeling really positive that there’s a lot of different partners working really collaboratively, both to think kind of big picture about the energy transition, and also what that could mean for the rail line and opening up new rail-trail access and access to potential new housing and recreation opportunities,” Meyer said.
The university began talking about weaning the plant off coal in 2010, when then-UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp announced at target date of 2020. The plant experimented with wood pellets, but later changed the date for being “greenhouse gas neutral” to 2050.
A 2021 update to UNC’s Climate Action Plan moved the target date for net neutrality up to 2040.
UNC has said the steam plant plays a critical role for UNC Medical Center and for research on campus. That means the fuel source needs to be reliable, there need to be backup options and fuel must be stored on-site, the school said in the 2021 update.
In its DAQ application, UNC provided models that estimated burning nearly 45,000 tons of pellets a year could reduce emissions of several pollutants, including particulate matter, fluorides, sulfuric acid mist, sulfur dioxide, and greenhouse gases. However, the modeling also showed an increase in nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds.
UNC also would have had to monitor regularly for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — commonly known as PFAS — if the plan to burn plastic pellets had been approved. A submitted analysis showed the plan could have emitted up to 1.2 pounds of PFAS each year.
Staff writer Adam Wagner contributed to this report.
This story was originally published March 10, 2025 at 5:19 PM.
