Montgomery County votes to keep Dickerson incinerator open

The Montgomery County Council voted 6-5 on November 10 to keep the aging Dickerson incinerator operating and refurbish it. The decision closes years of debate over whether to shut the facility and send the county’s waste to landfills elsewhere; the council’s resolution does not set a timeline for the upgrades, and further decisions will be needed.

Council President Natali Fani-González backed keeping the facility, along with Kate Stewart, Dawn Luedtke, Sidney Katz, Evan Glass and Shebra Evans. Vice President Marilyn Balcombe and members Laurie-Anne Sayles, Kristin Mink, Will Jawando and Andrew Friedson opposed the plan.

The county’s contract with Reworld, the incinerator’s operator, ends in 2031. Previous county reviews put the potential cost of maintaining and upgrading the facility at more than $356 million. Projections indicate residents could face about $50 in additional costs under either the modernization plan or the landfill alternative.

County Executive Marc Elrich, who has advocated closing the plant, criticized the council for deciding before costs for both options were clear. Environmental advocates have cited toxic-emissions violations and concerns about pollution and health. Supporters of keeping the facility say it allows the county to manage its own waste and recover energy; some residents have warned that relying more on landfills could mean additional truck traffic, noise and odors.

Both resolutions considered by the council expressed support for a facility within the county to compost food scraps. Council members also said composting and other waste-disposal approaches would remain priorities. The vote did not identify a timeline for the incinerator’s modernization.

Council keeps pollution concerns alive with incinerator vote

Montgomery County has chosen to keep its aging Dickerson incinerator running, even as environmental advocates point to toxic-emissions violations and concerns about pollution and residents’ health. The council’s 6-5 vote on November 10 backs refurbishment, but sets no timeline for the work.

County Executive Marc Elrich, who has long pushed to close the facility, warned that modernization could commit hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to a system reliant on continuing to produce waste. Previous county reviews estimated that maintaining and upgrading the plant could cost more than $356 million. County projections indicate residents could face about $50 in added costs whichever option is chosen.

Six council members, including President Natali Fani-González, supported keeping the incinerator; five opposed it. Elrich had urged the council to close the plant or delay its decision until it had assessed the costs. The vote instead settles the immediate question in favor of the facility, while leaving key implementation choices for later.

Closing the incinerator would mean trucking waste to an out-of-county landfill, and the council’s alternatives included that option. But the county has faced scrutiny over ash disposal at a Virginia landfill serving a predominantly low-income community of color. Both resolutions supported an in-county food-waste composting facility, and council members said composting and other disposal methods would be priorities. Those commitments do not change the decision to keep the incinerator operating.

Council keeps waste under local control with incinerator vote

Montgomery County’s council chose to retain control of its trash rather than shift the burden to another community. On November 10, members voted 6-5 to refurbish the Dickerson incinerator, which converts waste to ash and recovers energy. The resolution does not yet specify when modernization will occur.

Supporters argued that keeping the facility lets the county manage its waste and avoid depending more heavily on landfills elsewhere. Council member Kate Stewart said she could not shift the county’s trash burden to other communities, where oversight would rest with another state’s regulations. Some residents also raised concerns that a move away from the incinerator could bring more truck traffic, noise and odors.

The opposing choice would close the facility and truck waste to an out-of-county landfill. That option carries its own costs and raises questions about where the waste would go. The county has faced scrutiny for shipping incinerator residue to a Virginia dump serving a predominantly low-income community of color.

The vote was not a rejection of waste reduction: both resolutions backed an in-county food-waste composting facility, and council members said composting and alternative disposal methods would be prioritized. Still, the council rejected closure for now. The county’s contract with operator Reworld expires in 2031, and the council will need to make further decisions about the modernization timeline.