A contentious plan to erect a new high-voltage transmission line through sections of Bridgeport and Fairfield was rejected by state regulators on Thursday, an unexpected victory for critics who argued the project would be a towering blight over homes, businesses and churches.
The 黑料吃瓜网 Siting Council 鈥� which has the authority over the placement of power plants, transmission lines and other critical infrastructure 鈥� voted 5-3 to reject United Illuminating鈥檚 application to build its proposed .
The decision marked the latest twist in the years-long saga over the project, which has been subject to a lawsuit and unsuccessful efforts to get UI to agree to a costlier design that would bury the transmission line underground.
In September, the Siting Council held in which a majority of members signaled their intent to support UI鈥檚 application. That was a reversal of the council鈥檚 previous stance in June, when a majority of members .
There was little public discussion among council members on Thursday to shed light on why several members changed their minds.
The only member who spoke, Brian Golembiewski, said he supported an alternative route previously developed by the Siting Council which has been .
鈥淭his 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,鈥� Fairfield First Selectman Christine Vitale said in a statement. 鈥淭he Siting Council listened to the people of our communities, and was convinced by the irrefutable facts that this was a flawed design.鈥�
Gov. Ned Lamont, who last month by urging the two sides to work out a compromise, also voiced support for the council鈥檚 decision to reject UI鈥檚 proposal for an overhead line.
鈥淥ur hope is an alternative plan will be presented that minimizes the impacts to these communities while strengthening the reliability of our grid and protects rate payers,鈥� Lamont spokesman Rob Blanchard said in a statement.
A spokesperson for United Illuminating was not immediately available to comment on the decision.
Prior to the vote on Thursday, local opponents of the project in Fairfield and Bridgeport filed with the Siting Council seeking a 6-month delay in order to allow for more time to attempt to negotiate with the utility over an alternative route. Those talks began last month at Lamont鈥檚 urging.
In their letter, however, representatives from the two towns accused UI of being unwilling to negotiate during meetings to discuss potential alternatives.
Bruce L. McDermott, an attorney for UI, rejected that characterization in his own letter to the Siting Council, saying it was was the towns that had failed to put forward their own ideas. That letter asked the Siting Council to reject the proposed delay and proceed with a final vote.
鈥淚t is UI鈥檚 position that in the more than two years since the application was filed with the Council that the Town and City have failed to present a design alternative that achieves one of the main purposes of the : to balance the need for adequate and reliable public utility company services, including electric transmission, at the lowest reasonable cost, with the protection of environmental resources and to minimize damage to scenic, historic and recreational values,鈥� McDermott said in the letter.
Much of the criticism of the project focused on the visual impact of the proposed transmission line, which would have been suspended from steel monopoles up to 195 ft. high. UI鈥檚 existing transmission lines in the area are attached to support structures above the Metro-North railroad tracks that officials say are in need of replacement.
The company鈥檚 proposed for the Fairfield-Congress project would shift the line south of the railroad tracks before crossing parts of Bridgeport鈥檚 South End, where it would pass by several churches and historic buildings, including the city鈥檚 .
鈥淭hese are very dense communities,鈥� said David Scott Parker, an architect whose office in Fairfield鈥檚 Southport neighborhood is situated directly in the path of the proposed wires.
鈥淭his line is not going through, you know, a field somewhere where it had no impact,鈥� he added. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to imagine anything that would be more impactful than this.鈥�
Burying the transmission lines would add up to $500 million to the project鈥檚 existing $300 million price tag, according to estimates provided by UI. Critics argued that the utility鈥檚 figures were significantly inflated compared to similar projects.
Under rules established by the regional electric grid, ISO New England, costs associated with building overhead transmission lines can be spread across the nearly 14 million electric customers in the six-state region. If a decision by a state鈥檚 siting agencies forces those lines to be buried, however, the additional costs are borne by electric customers in that state alone.
UI did not immediately say Thursday whether it would appeal the Siting Council鈥檚 decision, seek some alternative route or abandon the project altogether.