Bridgeport & Fairfield State Legislators Write To CT Siting Council About UI Project

BRIDGEPORT, CT — Twelve state legislators from Bridgeport and Fairfield have written an open letter to the Connecticut Siting Council to express their opposition to United Illuminating's proposed monopole transmission line project slated for installation in parts of the two communities.

The legislators join a chorus of opponents against the project, which would place dozens of tall, steel monopoles along a stretch of Bridgeport and Fairfield; those poles would carry high voltage power lines high above ground.

UI claims the project is needed to harden its electrical system and upgrade the service to meet the future power demands of the region.

Opponents, while acknowledging future power needs, claim the monopoles would be destructive to the communities, and they implore UI to bury the power lines instead.

Read More:

• Court Overturns Controversial Decision; Ruling Is A Victory For Fairfield And Bridgeport
• Huge Price Tag For Underground Transmission Line Project In Fairfield & Bridgeport: UI
• Setting the Record Straight on UI’s Misinformation Campaign
• UI Responds To Statements By Fairfield Advocates In Monopole Dispute
• CT Siting Council Recommends A New UI Monopole Proposal In Fairfield
• UI's Monopole Project In Fairfield Inches Ahead With Siting Council OK
• Residents Urged To Speak Out Against UI Monopole Proposal In Fairfield
• Fairfield Leaders Blast CT Siting Council Over New UI Straw Vote
• State Council's 'Straw Vote' On Important Fairfield Issue Goes In Town's Favor
• UI Responds To Mounting Opposition In Fairfield To Monopole Proposal

The Siting Council is scheduled to vote on the project on Thursday, but the group has held two straw votes on the matter, with opposite results.

Below is the open letter to the Siting Council:

Dear Members of the Connecticut Siting Council,

We write together with deep concern and true confusion about the Council’s recent straw vote to approve United Illuminating’s Docket 516 application. As a council, you have twice determined this south of the tracks proposal is insufficient and voted accordingly. This vote change without the addition of any new finding of facts seems arbitrary and capricious. As a body, you have twice determined that if allowed to proceed in its current form, this project will permanently and profoundly damage the communities we represent. Our constituents will be left to bear the economic, cultural, and social burdens long after the last pole is installed. We urge you to reaffirm your votes from the June meeting, where you recognized that “the impacts on wetlands, the impacts on cultural resources, and the impacts on nearby residents are significant, and that there could be alternative approaches that would lessen those impacts.” We have always recognized the need and infrastructure upgrade, but we continue to insist, as a majority of you did just this June, that a reasonable alternative exists, one that minimizes the devastating impacts this project would impose on Bridgeport and Fairfield.

The Council’s initial approval of an alternative route showcases that the Council had concerns about UI’s preferred solution. Several council members expressed doubts during the 9/4 straw vote, indicating you would prefer to be able to choose one of the other options considered, but not recommended by UI in their application. Well, you could have done so by denying UI’s application. In fact, the logical conclusion, given such uncertainty and acknowledgment of severe damage, should have been to deny the application and require UI to develop an alternative that meaningfully reduces these harms.

The Siting Council’s charge is not simply to count the trees that will be cleared or the species displaced; nor is it to rubber-stamp the cheapest or most convenient route for the utility. It is to safeguard the public interest by weighing the full scope of consequences: the seizure of property rights, the economic harm, the loss of historic and cultural resources, the erosion of recreational spaces, and the risks to health and safety.

Yet based on deliberations during the September 4 meeting, the Council’s decision appears to be driven largely by upfront project costs. That narrow focus overlooks broader, more enduring harms.

So we must ask:

Was the true project cost considered?
The real question is: what is the true cost of the project? One of UI’s central defenses of their proposed overhead route and much of the Council’s focus has been on the lowest up-front project cost. But that ignores the larger ledger: lost property values, lost business revenue, lost tax base, lost opportunities for economic growth. To frame “cost” so narrowly is to force the citizens of Bridgeport and Fairfield to subsidize UI’s project — not just for years, but into perpetuity. It is difficult for our community to swallow these devastating impacts under the guise of costs, when on the very same agenda that commissioners flipped their votes, they voted in support of undergrounding a transmission line project through Stamford and Greenwich. For that project, Eversource estimated the cost at $23.5M per circuit mile. This cost estimate aligns with the estimates provided by our community’s expert witness. We can't help but feel that UI has inflated the cost estimate to force this project and rule out the alternatives, denying both the Council and our communities accurate information to inform a meaningful choice.

What about the impact on property rights?
This project will seize 19.25 acres of land from homeowners, small businesses, churches, preschools, community organizations, and the municipalities themselves. Families will lose rights to their own properties. Recreational spaces will vanish. Other organizations and businesses will face operational interruptions and non-conformities that threaten their survival. Investors are frozen, neighborhoods destabilized, and economic development opportunities lost. These impacts will continue into perpetuity for our communities. Already, Mongers Market in Bridgeport has announced its closure, a direct casualty of the uncertainty and fear surrounding this project. Similarly, in Fairfield, a mixed-use development that would help realize housing goals and bring economic opportunity was turned into a car dealership in large part because of the proposed impacts of this plan. Is this an acceptable sacrifice when reasonable alternatives exist?

What about the impact on fairness and equity?
Bridgeport is an environmental justice community. That designation exists for a reason: to ensure that the most economically disadvantaged residents — who have too often been forced to shoulder the burdens of industrialization — are not once again asked to sacrifice their health, their homes, their history, and their future for the convenience of large corporations. This project, as proposed, is a stark example of the very abuse those protections were designed to prevent.

The Freeman Houses, miraculously saved after being named to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s “11 Most Endangered Places” in 2018- and now under restoration after having received significant federal funding in 2023- would see a 125-foot pole intruding into their historic viewshed. The Pequot Library, on the National Historic Registry and currently under consideration for National Historic Landmark status, will be subject to an easement and will lose all the vegetation that shields it from the industrial infrastructure that is its backdrop and a large portion of its parking lot. The Barnum Museum in Bridgeport, designated a National Historic Landmark in 2023, will face a 195-foot pole just a few hundred feet away. Would we allow a new right of way and monopoles in front of the state capitol? Why are our historic treasures less worthy of protection, particularly when alternative proposals can avoid this loss and achieve our energy goals?

These scars will not just be economic. They will be cultural. They will be social. They will be generational.

We respectfully urge you to DENY United Illuminating’s current proposal when the final vote is taken and require the company to return with a solution that reflects modern standards, protects CT communities, and respects the very people you are entrusted to serve.

Respectfully,

Representative Andre Baker, 124th House District

Representative Steve Stafstrom, 129th House District

Representative Fred Gee, 126th House District

Representative Marcus Brown, 127th House District

Representative Christopher Rosario, 128th House District

Representative Antonio Felipe, 130th House District

Representative Jennifer Leeper, 132nd House District

Representative Cristin McCarthy Vahey, 133rd House District

Representative Sarah Keitt, 134th House District

Senator Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox, 22nd Senate District

Senator Herron Gaston, 23rd Senate District

Senator Tony Hwang, 28th Senate District