The Connecticut Siting Council’s decision is in, but the controversy surrounding the power line upgrade in southwestern Connecticut is far from over.

The Siting Council last week voted unanimously to approve a 69-mile-long power line upgrade between Middletown and Norwalk. The upgrade is needed because the antiquated transmission system currently there can’t handle today’s demand for electricity.

Most agree that the upgrade is necessary to avoid any future power interruptions, but residents and lawmakers in some of the cities and towns where the power line is slated to be aboveground are concerned about possible health risks associated with high-voltage power lines.

So some lawmakers in that part of the state have decided to continue fighting the ruling. At press time, several lawmakers were planning to write a letter to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to ask him to file an administrative appeal with the Connecticut Superior Court.

“Then it’s just a matter of how he will respond to that,” said Chuck Burnham, an aide to Sen. Len Fasano, R-East Haven, one of the lawmakers leading the fight.

Any of the parties or interveners involved in the hearings held to discuss the proposed upgrade could appeal, including townspeople affected by the power line. But the lawmakers are pushing for the state to intervene on their behalf. The cost and time involved in appealing could be substantial, and the townspeople involved may not have the funds or the time to appeal themselves, Burnham said.

Blumenthal has expressed his disappointment with a draft opinion issued by the council late last month. The opinion – a precursor to last week’s formal decision – “raises as many questions as it answers,” Blumenthal said in a statement last week.

Blumenthal said he would decide whether to file an appeal sometime this week, but had not done so at press time.

“My office will determine what additional actions are warranted after the report is issued sometime [during the week of April 11], and we will scrutinize it in detail and depth,” Blumenthal said in a prepared statement.

‘Extremely Disappointed’

The Siting Council’s practices also fell under scrutiny during the hearings on the issue. Fasano and a group of fellow legislators asked Blumenthal to delay the decision on the power line. The lawmakers had concerns that the Siting Council communicated outside of meetings with Connecticut Light & Power Co. and United Illuminating Co., the power companies that proposed the upgrade.

That led to Blumenthal ordering the council to rescind its best management practices that pertained to how to handle the output of electric and magnetic fields, or EMFs, which some studies say are harmful. The council adopted an older version of its best management practices – the guidelines that will govern how the new power line is implemented.

Fasano mentioned the council’s practices in his latest statement on the matter.

“Obviously, we’re extremely disappointed with the Siting Council’s decision,” Fasano said in a prepared statement. “How they could depend on the findings of an organization recommended by the power companies is simply beyond me. Their impartiality has certainly been called into question with [the April 7] ruling. More seriously, though, the council acted with complete and total disregard for both the law and the health and safety of Connecticut residents … All we were asking for was a lawful and impartial judgment on the dangers of EMFs, but for whatever reason the Siting Council sought every opportunity to avoid obtaining one. They had an obligation to the public health of the people of Connecticut and it is unfortunate that they shirked this responsibility.”

Rep. Mary Fritz, D-Wallingford, echoed Fasano’s statements.

“There are legitimate questions about the health effects of these lines,” she said. “Until those questions are answered, it is irresponsible to allow this project to move forward. The lines should be buried or the project should be shelved … The Siting Council abandoned the people of Connecticut. I do not understand how a public agency can turn its back on the most recent data on EMFs. Connecticut residents should be outraged.”

The section of the power line the council approved was the second phase in a larger project. The council previously approved a 20-mile upgrade from Bethel to Norwalk.

The second phase calls for the line to cross 18 cities and towns in Middlesex, New Haven and Fairfield counties. The transmission line will be overhead for the 45 easternmost miles of the project, then will be buried for the remaining stretch.

In a statement released after the decision, the council highlighted some of the reasons behind it.

Because of the controversy surrounding the aboveground parts of the line, the council consulted an “international expert” about burying the line. The group – KEMA of Alexandra, Va. – said that 24 miles, or 35 percent of the line, could be buried without losing any reliability, according to an April 7 press release from the Siting Council.

The council also considered the line’s proximity to the B’Nai Jacob Congregation/Ezra Academy and the Jewish Community Center in Woodbridge and the Royal Oaks neighborhood in Durham. Both are sites where children are often present, and some studies have shown that EMFs might be harmful to children. But the council determined that burying the line near those sites was “technologically infeasible.”

The council also sought the most recent information about the possible health concerns of EMFs.

“Indeed, beyond simply looking to the evidence related to EMFs brought into the record by participants in the proceeding, the council proactively sought the advice of the state Department of Public Health,” according to the release.

Those findings led to the council making decisions about pole placement and height and the placement conductors to reduce EMFs. The council “wishes to err on the side of caution with regard to public health and safety,” despite the fact that evidence about the effects of EMFs on health are inconclusive.

So the council ordered minimal levels of EMF readings where people congregate and where homes are located.

“Through the innovative and cutting-edge measures contained in our decision today, the council has clearly ordered several actions that serve to protect public health and safety,” said Pam Katz, the council chairwoman, in a prepared statement.

The council’s decision also calls for minimal taking of privately owned land, and does not call for any taking of houses or restrictions on land use.

The council described the project as “the most challenging application to ever come before the council,” with more than 40 parties and interveners involved and 35 days of public hearings.