CT Siting Council Reaffirms Denial Of UI Monopole Project In Fairfield & Bridgeport

FAIRFIELD, CT — The Connecticut Siting Council Thursday reaffirmed its recent denial of United Illuminating’s monopole application for parts of Fairfield and Bridgeport.

Council members voted six to one to approve a written opinion rejecting the proposal. The decision reaffirms an earlier denial of the utility company's project, concluding the review process for the utility company’s proposed monopole project.

The project involved constructing monopoles along the southern route of the Metro North railroad tracks. The Siting Council's vote marks the latest chapter in a lengthy review concerning these plans.

"We appreciate the Connecticut Siting Council’s thorough review and its decision to deny UI’s application in Docket 516R," said Fairfield First Selectperson Christine Vitale in a statement. "Throughout this process, our community has consistently expressed strong concerns, and we are grateful that the voices of residents, local leaders, religious institutions, businesses and preservationists were heard. We remain committed to protecting our neighborhoods, small businesses, environment, and quality of life while continuing to work collaboratively with state partners and United Illuminating on responsible, community-centered solutions."

With this latest decision, UI now has three options moving forward: abandoning the project altogether; appeal the decision to Connecticut Superior Court, which could take a year or more to adjudicate; or, file a new project application with the Siting Council.

In a statement to Patch, UI spokesperson Sarah Wall Fliotsos did not directly address what the utility company will do next, but expressed UI's disappointment at the Siting Council's decision.

"As long as the Siting Council continues to deny the Fairfield to Congress Project, a critical portion of the transmission system between Bridgeport and Fairfield will be vulnerable to both safety and reliability risks," Fliotsos said.

"Three years ago, UI proposed a project route that would protect the environment, minimize impacts to local businesses and communities, and ensure Connecticut ratepayers do not foot an unnecessary half-a-billion-dollar bill to fund an underground alternative that some select residents and politicians in Fairfield County are insistent on. In their findings, the Siting Council never disputed those facts. But after years of delays and recent interference from state politicians, UI is no closer to making these critical upgrades than we were three years ago.

"This serves no one: not Bridgeport and Fairfield, which are at greatest risk for outage risk and safety hazards; not Metro North or I-95, whose commuters travel under and nearby 60-plus-year-old electric infrastructure every day; and certainly not the state of Connecticut, whose important goals and objectives all fundamentally rely on a safe, reliable electric grid.

"As UI evaluates all options going forward, it’s time for the Council to put politics aside and do the right thing for all Connecticut communities."

The Siting Council’s decision recognizes that UI’s proposed project was not appropriate for the communities of Fairfield and Bridgeport, according to Vitale.

She added that the decision demonstrates the need for reconsideration of alternatives that would not cause lasting harm to sensitive neighborhoods. The focus now shifts to working on alternative solutions that meet the region’s needs for reliable energy transmission.

State Sen. Tony Hwang, who was part of the delegation of state legislators to oppose UI's plan, cheered Thursday's decision.

"Thank you. Thank you to the members and staff of the Connecticut Siting Council for their diligent work and thoughtful consideration, and for arriving at this decision," Hwang said. "Today’s outcome reflects the will of our residents, municipalities, environmental stewards, and community advocates who have engaged deeply in this process.

"It is time to revisit this project from the beginning; to reset the record and ensure all possible avenues are explored moving forward in a transparent, fair, and inclusive manner. I encourage UI to come to the table with all stakeholders, so that we can do what is in the best interest of all parties involved. Allow us to have a full and transparent discussion. Our communities will thank you."

Vitale said that the aim is to avoid sacrificing the economic well-being and cultural treasures of the municipalities, and that Fairfield remains steadfast in its commitment to fight for the protection of all its residents, businesses, and places of worship.

She hopes that UI will meaningfully examine underground alternatives, including providing the true costs of burying the transmission lines, rather than building overhead lines.