Recent Updates

Legislation

HB5507 AN ACT CONCERNING STATE AGENCY AND COURT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES - passed in both the House and the Senate! This bill is aimed at addressing some of the many deficiencies and unfair practices we  encountered during the Docket #516 proceedings.  On to the Governor's desk - with overwhelming support in both chambers, it looks promising that this bill will be signed into law, but we will keep pushing until we have a final result.

This bill will be beneficial to our entire state, but it will be particularly impactful to Fairfield and Bridgeport in the event of a favorable outcome from our Superior Court appeal - if UI is mandated to restart the process with a fresh application to the Siting Council, any legislative reforms enacted will be applicable.

Project Status

On 2/16/24, The Siting Council released their FINAL Decision and Order and the Council voted to approve the application but split the proposal in UI's application such that the segment from Ash Creek through Bridgeport will be submitted as a separate petition while the segment from Sasco Creek to Ash Creek will involve an alternative route loosely defined by the Siting Council as being situated on the north side of the railroad tracks.  Until UI is able to create an engineered design for this new alternative route, the impacts to our community will remain unclear, but it is likely that this route will involve easements affecting some Fairfield property owners on the north side of the railroad tracks.

During the last week of March, the Town of Fairfield, the City of Bridgeport, BJ's Wholesale Club and SCNETI all filed appeals in Superior Court against the Siting Council's decision. SCNETI and the Town of Fairfield primarily assert the following two arguments:

1. The Siting Council violated its statutory obligation to balance the need for reliable, cost-effective utility services with the need to protect the ecology and environment of the state. Since the northbound route has not yet been designed, it is unclear what the impacts of that plan will be and therefore, it impossible for the council to engage in this required balancing.

2. The Siting Council violated due process as none of the affected parties (including neighbors on the north side of the railroad tracks) had any notice of the approved plan, and therefore were deprived of the ability to exercise their right to contest this potential route.