To the Editor:
We appreciate United Illuminating’s recognition of the power of grassroots organizing—but Mr. Cole’s recent opinion piece entitled Should all of Conn. fund the Bridgeport/Fairfield project? misrepresents the facts and insults the intelligence of Connecticut residents.
Our opposition to UI’s transmission line project through Fairfield and Bridgeport isn’t about “aesthetics.” It’s about respecting property rights, pure and simple.
Let’s set the record straight.
UI’s overhead proposal would seize 19.25 acres of property via permanent easements—from our neighbors, our churches, our businesses, our parks, and many irreplaceable sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. And worse yet, those easements would be controlled by a foreign-owned company in Spain. Should we trust a company 3,500 miles away in another country to protect Connecticut’s neighborhoods, businesses, economic vitality, and heritage?
We applaud UI for finally obtaining an independent undergrounding estimate for the Fairfield/Bridgeport project—but without any accompanying details, it’s just a number. There’s no clarity on whether it matches the scope and capacity of their overhead plan, what timeline it assumes (which significantly affects cost), or whether it reflects the most efficient, cost-effective route.
But here’s what we do know:
- UI has framed this project as a “necessary replacement” of aging infrastructure, yet their proposed design nearly doubles the current capacity—despite their own 10-year forecasts showing no significant increase in Connecticut’s power demand.
- This project is not for Connecticut. UI admitted on the record that the increased transmission capacity is designed to sell power to New York. Why should Fairfield and Bridgeport sacrifice land, property values, business development opportunities, and historic resources so UI can line their pockets selling power to another state?
- UI’s cost estimates don’t hold up.
- An independent property valuation expert found UI underestimated land acquisition costs by 3-5x, adding $90 – 150 million to the overhead project total.
- A 2022 CT Siting Council-commissioned study found the cost of undergrounding in CT averages $23 million/mile—less than one quarter of UI’s $100+ million/mile claim.
- UI padded its original $1B underground cost with $280 million in interest paid to themselves—largely because it assumed a 10-year construction timeline. Two independent experts–each with over 50 years of undergrounding experience–testified that the project should take no longer than 3 years, which would decrease the interest and total project cost by over $200 million.
- UI declined to seek federal funding that could have lowered costs for CT residents. Why? Federal dollars come with oversight—and transparency.
- UI misled the public about the need for the new giant monopoles, implying that the CT Department of Transportation asked them to move the existing lines off the Metro-North infrastructure. CTDOT has confirmed in writing that they made no such request.
- Under new federal rules (FERC Order 1920), transmission project costs must be allocated to those who benefit. If New York stands to benefit from this project, New York should share in the cost.
- Other utilities have figured out how to deliver underground transmission in a cost-effective manner – why hasn’t UI?
- A 339-mile underground line from Canada to New York began in 2022 and is on track for completion in 2026, averaging $14 million per mile.
- Eversource’s Greenwich CT substation line project (2017–2019) installed 2.3 miles of double-circuit underground lines at $33 million per mile.
- Con Edison’s Queens project buried 6 miles of transmission lines in just 17 months (Jan 2022–May 2023) at a cost of $21 million per mile.
- UI hasn’t completed a high-voltage underground transmission project since 2008 and has limited undergrounding experience overall—likely the real reason behind their wildly inflated cost estimates and resistance to seriously considering it.
The Bottom Line: Once you account for even a few of these key factors, the supposed $500 million gap between overhead and underground narrows significantly. Connecticut deserves a reliable, transparent estimate and a future-focused solution—not a profit-driven workaround that seizes land from the very ratepayers UI is meant to serve.
Jim Cole calls this “gold-plating” and “special treatment.” We call it basic accountability.
We fully support strengthening the grid and modernizing our infrastructure—but not at the expense of Connecticut communities, property owners, and historic resources.
Fairfield and Bridgeport deserve better. Connecticut deserves better.
Our sincere hope is that UI invites us to the table to develop a solution that works for both the company and the state. United Illuminating has the chance to be a true community partner. We hope they choose to take it.
—
Andrea and Steve Ozyck are Co-Founders of Sasco Creek Neighbors Environmental Trust, Inc.