Local elected officials in Fairfield County are calling on Gov. Ned Lamont to fill a vacant seat on the state’s siting council, as a long-running fight over the placement of electrical poles shows no signs of letting up.
Residents and businesses opposing the plan say the poles would lead to environmental damage and affect the aesthetics of the town. They want the lines to be buried.
United Illuminating officials say burying the transmission lines would cost over $800 million and the excess expense would be passed along to ratepayers statewide.
Although community groups dispute the company’s $800 million figure, executives at its parent company say the state, which already suffers from some of the highest electric rates in the country, will suffer because of Fairfield and Bridgeport’s stubbornness.
“With Connecticut’s high electricity rates continually in the news, it is frankly surprising to see so many elected officials and their constituents continue to push for a project design that would add half a billion dollars to Connecticut electric rates,” Avangrid Vice President of Projects Jim Cole said.
Delays on top of delays
The Connecticut Siting Council was supposed to vote on a transmission line replacement plan by United Illuminating in late June. The vote was postponed after UI asked for a delay and because of a state law requiring the council to be fully staffed.
Now, opponents, including several local and state elected officials in southwest Connecticut, are calling on Lamont to staff the council with an ecological expert, who they say should be sensitive to town concerns.
Lamont’s spokesperson, David Bednarz, did not offer a concrete timeline on the decision.
“The governor is actively working to fill the vacancy recently created on the siting council and plans to make an appointment soon, to ensure they can continue their work without further disruption,” Bednarz said.
The council’s delay disappointed elected officials in the region.
Democratic State Rep. Jennifer Leeper from Fairfield said the fight has been stressful for residents.
“I am hopeful that adding an ecologist to the council will be a voice to fully represent the environmental impacts of this proposal on our communities,” Leeper said. “I look forward to working with the governor to ensure a strong candidate is selected to fill this important decision.”
UI’s plan to install the poles has been widely opposed throughout town over a variety of concerns, from aforementioned environmental worries, to anger over UI potentially using private property to install the poles. The town of Fairfield, city of Bridgeport and businesses including BJ’s Wholesale Club, which has a location right next to the Metro-North line in Fairfield, sued to prevent the installation of above-ground poles.
Republican State Sen. Tony Hwang from Fairfield also opposes the plan. He also asked Lamont to quickly fill the seat.
“I urge Gov. Lamont to move swiftly and thoughtfully to appoint a qualified, impartial replacement to the Council,” Hwang said. “Our communities deserve a fully seated siting council that can make a timely, informed, and accountable decision.”
How did we get here?
In 2023, United Illuminating originally proposed to install monopoles, which are more sleek compared to transmission towers, along the south side of the Metro-North line in Fairfield and Bridgeport.
Town residents opposed it, and the company decided to place them on the other side of the tracks, which also angered residents who claim they did not have a say in the decision making process.
In April, Fairfield and Bridgeport residents won a legal victory when a court ordered the state to come up with an alternate plan. The plan itself is part of a 25 mile long improvement project from West Haven to Fairfield, which UI said would enhance the structural integrity and reliability of the transmission lines.
Fairfield First Selectman Bill Gerber said in a statement the town stands by its desire to see the transmission lines buried. While UI claims Fairfield and Bridgeport are only concerned about their own towns, Gerber doesn’t see it that way.
“This decision will affect utility projects and expectations for sustainable solutions for decades to come, and will have a lasting influence on Connecticut’s ecological and environmental integrity,” Gerber said. “Today, the threat is focused on Fairfield and Bridgeport and our coastal and inland ecosystems. Tomorrow it will be another town at risk.”
