United Illuminating, our charmingly incompetent electric utility, has been struggling to modernize its creaky infrastructure. Old, obsolete transmission lines have become increasingly costly to maintain and are often the source of occasional power outages. Hulking, rusty high-voltage towers are getting harder to repair.
So, after years of neglect, the company has finally put together a plan to replace some of its most inefficient, wasteful, and costly infrastructure in our state alongside the shoreline. The plan is to take down some outdated structures and replace them with newer, more reliable monopoles alongside the Metro-North Line.
Fewer transmission issues, a more reliable grid, and lower electricity rates in the long term. What is not to like?
Well, nothing at all, according to quite a few voices in the region. The monopole saga has haunted large portions of Fairfield County for the past three years, leading to a protracted permitting battle, several design changes, and endless delays.
As is common in this kind of battle, opponents of the project have lawyered up while producing a long list of grievances. The 100 monopoles would require taking 20 acres of land and about 6.5 acres of vegetation. This might sound like a lot, except it is along a 7-mile stretch – meaning that each pole is more than a football field apart from the next. The land required falls right by the rail line, which is already flanked by tall structures covered with wires.
They have suggested installing the power lines underground, both to minimize takings and reduce their visual impact. Leaving aside the fact that digging would cost a fortune (at least half a billion dollars, probably more) and still require similar takings (because the company would need to dig somewhere), the alternative would leave all the current wiring serving the railroad exactly where it is now. Considering the monopoles would reduce some of the existing clutter, it is hard to call this a realistic alternative.
The opposition to this project represents a clear example of how Connecticut’s attitude toward building any kind of project drives up costs in our state. For years, regulators and lawmakers have complained about our inefficient utilities and their outdated infrastructure. For years, the utilities have seen how every single project they put together to upgrade that infrastructure ends up stuck in endless permitting fights and litigation, with a small platoon of random regulators making demands and requiring mountains of paperwork before starting construction. The infamous monopoles required approval by seven different agencies and seven municipalities before anything could be built.
And this was before lawmakers and the Governor stepped in, asking for more changes.
In any construction project, every delay costs money. Every single design change adds to the budget. Every round of paperwork is another potential additional requirement. Every year that older infrastructure is not replaced means sinking more capital into a costly, obsolete system. Every single one of these costs ends up making its way onto our electric bills. Those 20 acres of land and 6.5 acres of trees might be precious, and the pristine sightlines of some Fairfield storage facility by the train tracks seem irreplaceable, but the costs of not building the new infrastructure are real, ever-growing, and fall on everyone else in the state.
I am not an electrical engineer, and I cannot give a technical, informed answer about what the best solution to the monopole saga is. What I can say, however, as someone who pays a bill to United Illuminating every month, is that Connecticut needs to find a better balance between holding endless hearings that make the approval of any new project something only a lawyer could love and actually getting projects built. It makes no sense whatsoever that a project to replace a transmission line should require eleven years, with politicians waltzing in at the very last minute to toss all the work aside and demand more changes.
We keep hearing from pundits, legislators, and editorial boards that Connecticut is so unaffordable, our electric rates are terrible, and that nothing gets done. Well, maybe it is time, when building things, to also consider the costs of standing still.
One final, unrelated note: For the past few years I have advocated, from these pages, that the best way to lower housing costs is to build more housing. Last month, Stamford, New Haven, and Hartford saw rent index declines, as new buildings hit the market and landlords suddenly face tenants who might have a choice instead of fighting for a few vacant units. We are certainly not building enough, but it is a clear signal of what needs to be done.