This story is updated to reflect the Connecticut Siting Council’s vote earlier today.
NEW BRITAIN — It took all of 20 minutes for the Connecticut Siting Council to vote down United Illuminating’s application earlier today to install 195-foot monopoles in Fairfield and Bridgeport.
In a 5-3 vote, the council denied UI’s application after first denying a request by Fairfield, Bridgeport and state lawmakers to delay the decision for another six months. It was the third vote, including two straw votes, the council took regarding the project to renovate and relocate about 7.3 miles of its 115kV electric transmission lines along the Metro-North Railroad corridor from Sasco Creek in Southport to the Congress Street substation in Bridgeport.
Fairfield First Selectman Christine Vitale was ecstatic with the decision.
“This is a tremendous win for Fairfield and Bridgeport, and for every resident who showed up, spoke up, and worked tirelessly in opposition to a project that was damaging to the very foundations of our community,” Vitale said. “The Siting Council listened to the people of our communities, and was convinced by the irrefutable facts that this was a flawed design.
“Their decision today affirms that our voices matter and that by standing together we can make a difference. We are deeply grateful to our residents, our partners in Bridgeport including Mayor Joe Ganim, our dedicated elected officials in the legislature, and Governor Ned Lamont for hearing our concerns and responding to them.”
Fairfield, Bridgeport, residents and advocacy groups have waged a months-long campaign urging UI to work collaboratively on a less destructive solution. The Town of Fairfield has argued that the proposed route would have inflicted irreparable harm on the Town’s economic and business corridors, religious organizations and historic neighborhoods. Despite these adverse impacts, UI refused to negotiate with the Town, instead insisting that today’s vote go forward.
The council had taken two straw votes over the past several months: one approving the application and one denying it. Today’s vote was the first time a final vote was taken after a Superior Court judge ruled that the 2024 decision be remanded back to the council for changes and another vote.
On Wednesday the Town of Fairfield, City of Bridgeport, members of their state legislative delegations and a Southport neighborhood group had formally called on the Connecticut Siting Council to delay or deny United Illuminating’s application to install 190-foot monopoles in those municipalities. The council, in a 4-3, vote voted down that request prior to the final vote on the application.
It is not known what actions UI will take now that it can erect the monopoles. One alternative that neighbors and local elected officials called for was burying the lines instead.
A UI spokesperson issued the following statement late today.
“We are stunned by the change in the Siting Council’s decision today with no explanation,” said Sarah Wall Fliotsos of UI. “In fact, before voting to reject the application, the Siting Council reviewed without criticism a draft order to approve the project.
“To be clear, the Siting Council has already confirmed the public need for this project. The public deserves to know what caused three members to change their votes and if they were improperly pressured, and we are exploring all legal options that can be taken in response to this arbitrary and capricious vote. UI will continue to work to ensure that critical reliability and resiliency projects are completed at the lowest cost possible for our customers.”
In a letter to the Siting Council dated Oct. 15, the concerned parties requested the council table any vote on the application for six months in order to allow for a meaningful negotiation between the parties. After the council delayed a final decision on the application Sept. 17 following a request from the same parties, the decision was put off until today at 1 p.m. (Click here to see the Zoom meeting. The meeting ID is 881 7692 6763 and Passcode is P39c1p)
They cited significant adverse impacts that would result from the proposed overhead transmission line project, and identified serious procedural concerns with the way the Siting Council handled two previous straw votes.
Last month Gov. Ned Lamont joined a gathering of nearly 100 rally-goers to give them the news that he asked and UI agreed to request a delay in the vote to consider other alternatives. The Siting Council did just that, but just until today’s vote.
“The Siting Council process has been marred by several concerning issues,” Vitale said before today’s vote. “After rejecting the proposed overhead route on three prior occasions, the Council took a straw vote in September and inexplicably reversed itself by suddenly indicating support for this unacceptable route.
“The reversal from its prior positions, when nothing has changed and there have been no new hearings, has raised serious questions about transparency and what may have happened behind closed doors to cause this reversal.”
Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim is upset over the lack of cooperation from the utility on negotiating a compromise.
“First Selectman Vitale and I have repeatedly tried to engage with UI to negotiate a more equitable solution for the residents of Bridgeport and Fairfield,” Ganim said. “Unfortunately, UI has refused to participate in any constructive conversation, despite the clear and loud dissent from our residents.”
Both he and Vitale believe the proposed project will cause irreparable harm to their neighborhoods, especially religious and historic institutions, while preventing economic development and furthering negative environmental impacts
Fairfield and Bridgeport leaders, advocacy groups, residents and state lawmakers have voiced concerns for months over UI’s plan to install massive monopoles along the Metro-North corridor through Fairfield and Bridgeport. The process, first approved by the Siting Council for a north side design which was later overturned by the Superior Court, has been marked by procedural flaws due to insufficient notice to property owners, and violations of Connecticut statutes. Throughout the process the town has argued that there has been an unacceptable lack of consideration of alternative designs that would minimize negative impacts and protect sensitive areas of historic, cultural and religious significance.
