When Bill Gerber became Fairfield’s First Selectman he anticipated that one of his biggest priorities would be fighting the proposed construction of powerlines strung from structures known as monopoles by United Illuminating (UI) in Fairfield alongside the Metro North Railway.
“We believe we’re very justified,” Gerber told Westfair in January. “I think there’s a misconception by some people that this is just another ‘not in my backyard’ thing, but this is much more than that. These monopoles are going to really hurt, all across the town. They’re huge, and they’re going to be quite invasive on commercial, private, and residential property.”
As originally proposed, the monopoles, which United Illuminating characterizes as an important part of their regional power transmission infrastructure, would have lined the south side of the rail line with overhead wires stretched across 102 monopoles covering a 7.2-mile stretch.
The original plan was rejected, but the Connecticut Siting Council issued a certificate to UI for the implementation of what is called the Hannon-Morissette Alternative. The Alternative moves the proposed overhead lines to the north side of the tracks and calls for the construction of monopoles, to implement it.
This move prompted an appeal from the Town of Fairfield filed in Superior Court on March 26, disputing the ability of the siting council to grant a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for the construction.
“They already approved something, but there’s no plan in place. People don’t know the impact on their properties. There’s no opportunity to file as an intervener or to bring in expert witnesses,” Gerber said of what prompted the escalation to Superior Court.
Gerber also noted that the lines will pass through Fairfield but will most likely not directly serve it.
“There might theoretically be a need far out into the future, but it appears that the real purpose of this project is to carry lines that will transmit electricity to other states where UI will get the benefit but not Connecticut,” Gerber added.
The opposition also extends into neighboring Bridgeport, where the transmission lines will connect with other pieces of infrastructure.
“I am supportive of the lawsuits by Bridgeport, Fairfield and dozens of area neighborhood, environmental, historical and church groups challenging the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) over its decision to allow United Illuminating to put up large monopoles to carry electric transmission lines across sections of these two communities,” said State Representative Steve Stafstrom, a Democrat of Bridgeport, in a prepared statement.
Stafstrom also noted that he has put forward House Bill 5507, a piece of legislation which would amend statutes to expand the right to intervene in proceedings before the Siting Council.
“This bill was a legislative priority for me this session because it will help environmental justice communities like Bridgeport by ensuring that when utility companies like United Illuminating (UI) or Eversource submit applications to the CSC, they must not only consult city or town leaders where the project is located in, but also notify affected landowners, as well as the members of the Connecticut General Assembly who represent the location of the project,” Stafstrom explained.
Manager of Transmission Lines at United Illuminating Shawn Crosbie described the project as both necessary, and the result of balancing multiple factors, including environmental impacts, resiliency, and the impact of the project on ratepayers as considerations alongside the town’s opposition to the construction and potential easements.
Crosbie noted that much of the existing transmission infrastructure runs directly above the railroad tracks on the same structures as the overhead catenaries which transmit power to Metro North trains. According to him those structures date to the early 1900s and are unable to support modern conductors.
“We have to install to meet the design requirements of the [National Electric Safet Code] and our Avangrid design requirements to account for certain climate change considerations and wind and load capacities,” said Crosbie. “Those catenaries could not withstand that. And we worked with Connecticut DOT, and they would not allow [using the catenaries] as an alternative performed by United Illuminating.”
Crosbie disputed the reports presented in Fairfield’s filings which made the case for building underground transmission infrastructure. While the math used by the experts hired by the town indicated that underground construction would not be significantly more expensive, Crosbie said there were issues that had not been considered.
“When we went through the estimates by the experts from the Town of Fairfield some of those estimates were missing a lot of information,” said Crosbie They were missing management of soil and groundwater, the size and capacity of their [hypothetical] lines and capabilities could not meet what we are held to as a transmission operator. The size of the conductor was much smaller as they were sizing things for a distribution circuit, but we’re on transmission, it’s a different world.”
Crosbie allowed that UI could improve its communications with people who have potentially affected properties, but asserted that real efforts had been made, and will continue to be made as the project moves forward. Even if the process is not delayed by the appeal made by the town, Crosbie said that concrete plans for the project will likely take until early 2025 before they can be submitted and reviewed by all parties.
“We anticipate to start in 2028 maybe, and then be completed in 2030,” Crosbie said. “So, still within the original timeframe of 2025 to 2030.”
