Talking trash in Minnesota: Is it better to burn or bury garbage that can’t be recycled?

Red Wing and Minneapolis are just 60 miles apart, but they have very different attitudes about whether it’s better to burn or bury trash that can’t be recycled.

In Minneapolis, residents and activists fought for years to shutter the Hennepin County Energy Recovery Center (HERC), a trash incinerator on the edge of downtown Minneapolis. They argue it contributes to the high rate of respiratory diseases and air pollution in nearby communities that are primarily home to low-income residents of color — and last year, state leaders and local officials agreed they need a timeline to shut it down.

However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) current policy says it’s better to burn garbage that can’t be recycled or composted rather than send it to one of the state’s 21 open landfills.

And in Red Wing, Mayor Mike Wilson thinks the Xcel Energy incinerator just outside of town is an asset. It takes processed trash from Ramsey and Washington counties and burns it to create electricity.

“I think we’re fortunate, because ... I look at the Burnsville [Sanitary Landfill] and these other facilities that have got these piles and piles and piles of garbage there. Explain to me what they’re going to do with that,” Wilson said. “You’ve got to get rid of it.”

Outside of the HERC, none of the state’s six other waste-to-energy incinerators, which are not in such densely populated areas, face immediate pressure to close down. But at least one operator acknowledged they’ve been told to find alternative ways to handle garbage once their next contract runs out. And as Minnesota reckons with its growing garbage problem and 2040 carbon-free energy goal, the question remains: Is it better to burn or bury the trash?

It’s complicated, depending on how people weigh immediate impacts and future risks.

Kirk Koudelka, an assistant commissioner at the MPCA, said state law and agency policy follow the Environmental Protection Agency’s waste hierarchy, which says burning trash to create energy is preferable to burying it in a landfill.

Both disposal methods release greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, but incinerators have less of a long-term impact on the environment. Long after they’re closed, landfills produce methane gas and leachate — a liquid containing forever chemicals.

“Landfilling not only has an environmental impact today, but even after it closes and stops accepting waste, it still has an environmental impact,” Koudelka said.

In contrast, incinerator operators say they dramatically reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills by burning it to create electricity. They work to remove metals and other recyclables before combustion and can recover precious metals from the ash.

Dave McNary, assistant director of the HERC, said more pollutants come from vehicle tailpipes than the HERC, which sends emissions through complex environmental controls before releasing them from a 200-foot smokestack.

“The state has spent hundreds of millions of dollars cleaning up old landfills. They haven’t spent a dime cleaning up waste to energy,” McNary said.

State officials note that most of the roughly $400 million spent on landfill clean-up is for older facilities without the latest liners and leachate controls.

Opponents of incineration, like the local Zero Burn Coalition, argue the MPCA and EPA don’t account for the full impacts on health and the environment of burning garbage. They say modern landfills are a safer option as communities work to reduce the trash they generate.

Mike Ewall, of the Energy Justice Network, said waste-to-energy is a misnomer and that incinerators are the most costly and polluting way to dispose of trash and create energy.

Incinerators release greenhouse gases and other pollutants immediately rather than over time. Burning garbage also creates toxic chemicals like dioxins and furans.

Questions remain about incinerator ash, which burn opponents contend is toxic but supporters argue is harmless.

Plus, the incinerator effectively puts the growing garbage problem out of sight rather than encouraging people to create less waste, the opponents say.

“Stop the incinerator,” said Gary Liss, of Zero Waste USA. “It’s time to focus our energy on the zero waste initiatives that everyone says they want to pursue.”

Meanwhile, trash continues to pile up. Metro counties expect to see a 19% increase in waste by 2042.

The MPCA determined in 2021 that the Twin Cities was running out of landfill space for household garbage and recommended several metro-area landfills expand. So far, the Burnsville Sanitary Landfill owned by Waste Management has a permit for expansion; Pine Bend Landfill in Inver Grove Heights and Dem-Con in Shakopee are going through the process to obtain permits.

Minnesota and the country as a whole want to move away from landfills, but as long as we keep consuming and creating waste, it has to go somewhere, said Paige Novak, a University of Minnesota environmental engineering professor.

Still, the leachate from landfills can be problematic and tough to manage, Novak said: “[It] has a lot of organic compounds in it, it can be really acidic, it can have heavy metals in it.”

Landfills must be monitored in perpetuity for leaks and other issues, she said.

Bloomington was among the loudest opponents of the Burnsville landfill’s expansion, noting it is partially unlined and sits within a 100-year flood plain, said Glen Markegard, Bloomington’s planning manager.

The south metro suburb sends its trash to the HERC, and favors incineration over landfilling, Markegard said, because officials worry about landfills’ production of methane and the potential to contaminate ground and surface water.

Dakota County is home to three landfills, including Pine Bend, the state’s largest open landfill, said County Commissioner Joe Atkins, who lives in Inver Grove Heights, and that isn’t always pleasant.

“There’s stigma that comes with being home to a landfill ... whether you smell it or see it or experience the size of it,” he said

But Atkins noted there are upsides, including the fees host cities and counties receive. Inver Grove Heights, for instance, got about $2.3 million in 2023 from Pine Bend, said Kris Wilson, city administrator.

Melissa Quillard, a spokesperson from Republic Services, which operates Pine Bend, said, “Modern landfills are highly engineered with several environmental programs in place, including extensive liner, gas and liquid collection systems that are frequently monitored and inspected.”

The methane landfills create can be used as fuel, Quillard said. The state’s first renewable natural gas plant was built recently at Pine Bend, collecting biogas and producing natural gas that goes into the Xcel pipeline.

Activists, state experts and local leaders agree Minnesotans need to generate a lot less trash to reduce their reliance on landfills and incinerators.

State and local officials are pushing to improve the metro’s 45% recycling rate and boost access to composting. They’re also advocating for new laws, like legislation passed this year requiring that all packaging be recyclable by 2032.

There are bright spots on the horizon. The Legislature gave $5 million in 2024 to help create an anaerobic digester to turn food waste into renewable natural gas and biochar, which can be used for filtration or added to soil. That facility is in the MPCA permitting process.

The future of waste-to-energy incinerators, however, is unclear. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will decide how other incinerators will fit into the state’s goal of carbon-free energy by 2040.

That worries Trista Martinson, executive director of Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy, which shreds garbage that’s burned by Xcel in Red Wing and Mankato to generate electricity. She fears the trash will end up in a landfill.

“It will eventually leak, if not now in our generation, in the future generations, plus there’s not enough space,” she said. “If we take away that really important tool [of incineration] without something in its place, we’ve got a different, bigger problem.”