Fairfield Ramps Up Opposition Against UI's Monopole Proposal

FAIRFIELD, CT — Fairfield is ramping up its opposition to United Illuminating's controversial, proposed monopole power project, vowing to keep fighting the plan in the courts and the state legislature.

During an informational meeting Tuesday night at Roger Ludlowe Middle School, attorney David Ball, with law firm Cohen & Wolf, spelled out the reasoning for the project from UI's perspective. Ball is one of the lawyers fighting against the UI proposal on behalf of the town and others.

"There is a profit in this for UI," Ball said, emphasizing that the utility company, which is owned by foreign interests, is essentially incentivized to build new projects than simply refurbishing existing ones.

The town recently filed an appeal in Superior Court against the Connecticut Siting Council's approval of UI's Hannon-Morrissette Alternative proposal, which would place dozens of tall monopoles, many possibly over 100 feet tall, to the north of the railroad tracks and the Post Road. The monopoles would carry high-voltage power lines through parts of Fairfield and Bridgeport.

Local grassroots groups and others have also filed an appeal against the proposal, and so has Bridgeport.

Initially, UI planned to install the tall monopoles to the south of the train tracks along the Post Road corridor, which would have meant massive disruption by the utility company seizing permanent easements.

"Most of us understand that there are times when the needs of society outweigh personal property rights, and that (on rare occasion) this can lead to eminent domain," said Fairfield First Selectman Bill Gerber during Tuesday's meeting. "However, United Illuminating’s planned construction of massive monopoles along the south side of the railroad tracks, though Southport’s historic district, along commercial stretches of the Post Road, the Grasmere area, and into historic sections of Bridgeport has made the following clear: just because a utility company claims a project plan is for the greater good doesn’t make it so."

Added Steve Ozyck, a co-founder of the Sasco Creek Neighbors Environmental Trust, UI is looking to grab land.

"This is a property rights issue," he said. Ozyck and others recommended that residents not allow UI's contractors on to their property, which is a property owner's right, when the company wants to take soil samples or begin clear-cutting trees or foliage.

Fairfield wants UI to bury the transmission lines instead of draping them along tall monopoles above ground, but UI claims such a move would cost more than $1 billion.

Ball cries foul, saying that UI is massively inflating the cost, and he added that UI has not provided backup breaking down its estimate. Additionally, UI received approval for the Hannon-Morrissette Alternative without a fully fleshed out plan; the company has said it is in the midst of the

"If we don't win the appeal in Superior Court, we will keep appealing," Ball said.

Gerber, Ball and Ozyck all urged the 150 people in attendance Tuesday night to get involved in the fight, spread the word to friends and neighbors, and contact state legislators (a QR code is listed in the flyer below to simplify the process of reaching out to state legislators).

Fairfield's state legislative delegation is backing bills in the General Assembly to reform the Siting Council's decision-making process, which could be voted on as early as next week.

Those local legislators will be a part of a similar informational meeting on May 30 to continue discussions on the proposed project.

— Flyer from Empowering Fairfield