BRIDGEPORT- United Illuminating Co. wants to know what the governor and local officials were texting behind the power company’s back just before the state Siting Council reversed its vote and turned down UI’s plan to put giant monopoles through Bridgeport and Fairfield.
UI said it was “stunned” when the Siting Council voted 5 to 3 on Oct. 16 to reject the company’s application to build high-power transmission lines along the south side of the railroad tracks which local officials complained would affect homes, churches and historic buildings.
In expectation of requesting the siting council to reconsider its vote, UI late last week filed a flurry of Freedom of Information requests to the Governor’s Office as well State Rep. Cristin McCarthy-Vahey, Rep. State Steve Stafstrom, State Rep. Jennifer Leeper, State Rep. Sarah Keitt, State Sen. Tony Hwang, Fairfield First Selectwoman Christine Vitale, Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim; Fairfield officials Timothy Bishop, the conservation director, Emmeline Harrigan, the planning and zoning director, and Christine Brown, the Fairfield chief of staff; Bridgeport officials William “Bill” Coleman, deputy director of planning and economic development, Tom Gill, director of planning and economic development, Thomas Gaudett, chief administrative officer, and Constance Vickers, deputy chief of staff.
All members of the Siting Council were also served with an FOI request.
The requests seek “all communications, texts and emails,” between the governor’s office, state and local officials and the siting council members prior to the siting council vote.
“We are deeply concerned that the Siting Council has failed to provide any justification or explanation for their vote to deny the Fairfield to Congress project, despite it being the least expensive and least environmentally intrusive option before them,” Sarah Wall Fliotsos, UI spokesperson, told CT Examiner. “By submitting these FOIA requests, we hope to gather more information on what drove the siting council’s inexplicable decision so that we can pursue the most appropriate path forward to ensure the reliability and resiliency of the transmission grid in Fairfield and Bridgeport.”
UI has until Friday to ask the Siting Council to reconsider its decision. If the council refuses, UI can then file a lawsuit seeking an appeal in state Superior Court.
All those who have been served with the FOI request have indicated they will comply.
“The town will comply with all FOIA requests from United Illuminating in accordance with state law. We remain open to working collaboratively with UI to meet the region’s energy needs while also protecting our community’s economic, ecological, and historical resources,” Vitale told CT Examiner.
In a letter to UI, a lawyer for the Siting Council said they would also comply with the request with the exception of any anything privileged by attorney-client relationship.
In September the Siting Council voted 6 to 2 in a non-binding or straw vote to allow UI to install a series of monopoles, up to 195 feet high, along the south side of the Metro-North Railroad tracks through Bridgeport and Fairfield.
The decision caused outrage among residents and officials of the two communities who strongly favor a plan not supported by the utility to put the power lines underground.
Gov. Ned Lamont stepped into the issue first urging UI to sit down with municipal officials and negotiate, which UI refused, and then publicly supported the siting council rejecting UI’s plan.
Although UI had not released specific details of all their plan, residents of the two communities claimed the installation of the monopoles would involve the taking of private land resulting in the destruction of homes, businesses and at least one church.
UI has maintained that its proposal serves “the public interest” by protecting the environment and controlling customers’ expenses.
The company claims that burying the lines, which is favored by residents and local officials, would increase the project’s estimated budget from $300 million to $800 million, a cost they say would be borne by Connecticut rate-payers.
“We are stunned by the change in the Siting Council’s decision today with no explanation,” said UI’s Fliotsos said after the siting council’s vote. “In fact, before voting to reject the application, the Siting Council reviewed without criticism a draft order to approve the project. To be clear, the siting council has already confirmed the public need for this project. The public deserves to know what caused three members to change their votes and if they were improperly pressured, and UI will continue to work to ensure that critical reliability and resiliency projects are completed at the lowest cost possible for our customers.”