Elected officials from Fairfield County want the Connecticut Siting Council to throw out United Illuminating’s request for major construction in the community and start the process over.
The saga is years in the making. It intensified last week when the Siting Council changed course and signaled they were leaning toward approving the project.
The dispute centers around a UI plan to install taller monopoles and take property easements in Fairfield, Bridgeport, and Southport. This is part of a years-long utility upgrade project along the Connecticut coast.
Residents and elected officials have said they weren’t consulted about the construction. They got a judge to agree with them — and the Siting Council had to reconsider the project.
The council informally rejected the plan earlier this summer, but last week, reversed their decision.
State Representative Jennifer Leeper (D-Fairfield) said she was bewildered by the change.
“There has been no new information, no new finding of facts, and yet two commissioners flipped their vote,” Leeper said. “So of course, it leaves us with a lot of suspicion on sort of the pressure campaign UI has taken under to get that result.”
Leeper, State Senator Tony Hwang (R-Fairfield), State Rep. Steve Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport), State Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (D-Fairfield), and Fairfield First Selectwoman Christine Vitale were joined by community members on Monday at the Pequot Library.
They were all quick to add that this wasn’t a NIMBY (not in my backyard) issue, but rather, a concern about the loss of property.
Stephen Ozyck and his wife, Andrea, founded the Sasco Creek Neighbors Environmental Trust, Inc., to oppose the construction. Ozyck pointed out that UI is owned by Iberdrola and is based in Spain.
“American property and property rights, the properties of our churches, the property of our libraries, the property of our municipalities, get given to a foreign-owned entity, and we are made to pay for that,” Stephen Ozyck said. “We, the ratepayers, are made to pay for that. That is unconscionable and should be stopped.”
On Monday, the group asked the Siting Council to throw out the case and start over.
“We're not saying no to the project,” Hwang said. “We're saying create a new docket, create a process in which all the people have an opportunity to voice their concerns and have a day in a non-partisan, objective, and transparent process.”
Newly-filed dockets are now subject to more stringent rules. That’s because of a new law championed by the area’s elected officials and advocates inspired by the situation.
The law aimed to improve public notice of construction, increase fiscal analysis during the proposal process, and allow municipalities to recoup legal fees if they win their appeal with the council.
UI has maintained that the construction is needed to upgrade the area’s power system. They’ve already completed the first three phases of construction.
After the Siting Council’s Thursday decision, UI spokesperson Sarah Wall Fliotsos said the company appreciated the decision.
“Over two years ago, UI submitted our application for this project with the same design criteria as the first four phases across seven municipalities, all of which were approved,” Wall Flitosis said. “That is because our proposed overhead design best achieves all the necessary objectives: protecting the environment and reining in costs that are borne by all Connecticut customers, while ensuring UI can serve the present and future electric capacity needed for the New England region and the customers we have proudly served for more than 125 years.”
The Siting Council’s final decision is expected on Sept. 18.
