NEW BRITAIN – The attorney representing the Town of Fairfield in its appeal of the Connecticut Siting Council’s decision last year to allow United Illuminating to go ahead with the power transmission monopole project in Fairfield and Bridgeport said that decision “violated the due process rights of northern abutters who had no notice that UI’s project could impact their properties.”
During a hearing on Jan. 13 in New Britain Superior Court attorney David Ball of Cohen & Wolf argued that UI failed to submit sufficient evidence of potential impacts to the north, which prevented the Siting Council from engaging in its statutory obligation to balance the need for the project against environmental impact.
Fairfield’s First Selectman Bill Gerber instructed the law firm to file an administrative appeal of the Connecticut Siting Council decision which approved the rebuilding of two transmission lines to the north of the Metro-North Railroad tracks in Fairfield. Judge Matthew Budzik presided over the hearing, which lasted for the entire day.
After the Siting Council approved the UI monopole plan last winter, Gerber pointed out that UI had never submitted a design of the so-called Hannon-Morissette Alternative to the north of the tracks. Thus, the town had no information as to what the pole heights will be, where they would be located, and what the potential impact would be to property owners on the north side of the tracks, including whether UI would require permanent easements over private and town-owned property, he said.
“We believe that the Siting Council has failed to meet its obligation to satisfy the requirement to balance the alleged public need with the environmental impact, and has done a disservice to our residents,” Gerber said.
Ball, who was lead counsel for the town in the hearing, argued a multitude of appellate issues, including that the Siting Council committed an error of law by issuing a permit to rebuild two transmission lines, when UI only applied to modify one of the lines.
In its application, UI ruled out a project to the north and continually represented to the public that any new construction would be to the south, Ball argued. The town also challenged the alleged public need for this project.
“While UI claimed the need was solely to relocate the 1430 line because it was affixed to aged catenary structures, the Siting Council went much farther, instead approving a massive upgrade in transmission capacity even though UI witnesses admitted that there was no projected load growth in Connecticut for the next decade,” Ball said.
Judge Budzik will now have 120 days to issue a ruling.
“The town is also grateful to the many concerned residents in Fairfield who attended the hearing,” Gerber said after the hearing.
