Last week’s decision by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to not file an appeal of the Siting Council’s decision to allow a 69-mile-long power line upgrade in the southeastern part of the state was not a surprise, but legislators are nonetheless working to approve a law that would change the way decisions on similar issues are made.
“When the Siting Council made its final decision, that was kind of our signal the ship had sailed,” said Chuck Burnham, an aide to state Sen. Len Fasano, R-East Haven.
Fasano, along with other state and local leaders, fought to prevent the approval of the line. The upgrade is needed because the antiquated transmission system between Middletown and Norwalk can’t handle today’s demand for electricity. While most agree that the upgrade is necessary to avoid any future power interruptions, 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. About two-thirds of the approved upgrade will be aboveground.
After the Siting Council’s decision to approve the upgrade in April, several state legislators asked the attorney general to file a court appeal protesting the Siting Council’s ruling.
But an appeal would likely generate the same outcome, since the appealer would carry the burden of proof.
Still, Blumenthal went further in his announcement last Friday, saying that he is working on legislation that would require yearly review of how much of the transmission line can be undergrounded and would disband the current Siting Council – the board that makes decisions on transmission lines, power facilities and hazardous waste facilities – by including local representatives to make decisions.
“The Siting Council – in its current form – fails to protect environmental health and economic interests,” Blumenthal said in a prepared statement. “We must scrap the present system and create a new body that heeds the interests of municipalities and residents, and reduces the dominant influence of utility companies. We must have annual review of new transmission technology to determine whether additional miles of undergrounding can be added to this project, while maintaining system reliability.”
The council respects and understands the attorney general’s decision not to appeal, said S. Derek Phelps, the council’s executive director, but is ready to work toward changing its decision-making process for the better.
“We stand ready to work with the attorney general,” he said.
A ‘Flawed Decision’
Blumenthal said working through the Legislature would provide measures to protect municipalities and residents in the siting of major utility projects, including the transmission upgrade between Middletown and Norwalk. A legislative solution would protect state residents more effectively than would a court appeal, a process that could threaten efforts to eliminate transmission congestion, which is critical in fighting unfair federal electric charges, he said.
The legislation would require the Siting Council – in whatever its form may be – to review the power line upgrade, and other projects, every year to determine whether underground transmission technology could allow for more lines to be undergrounded, while still maintaining reliability.
Some experts who testified before the Siting Council said that only one-third of the transmission line could be underground without affecting reliability.
Blumenthal said he has been working with legislators, but did not specify who they are.
“The Legislature affords a surer, swifter, safer route to continue our fight and remedy this flawed decision,” Blumenthal said in a prepared statement. “Court review is staggeringly stacked against real relief. The courts must presume the agency decision to be correct. An appeal can delay, but not fundamentally alter, the outcome – at huge potential costs. I will continue the fight against the Siting Council decision through legislative action requiring review and revision of the project every year, and scrapping the Siting Council in its present form.
“A court appeal poses more risks than rewards – both environmentally and economically. It offers no realistic prospect of more undergrounding or other health and environmental benefits. And it would mean higher costs and delay in a project necessary for more reliable and affordable electric power throughout the state.
“There are loopholes in the current law that make a successful appeal extremely unlikely and potentially damaging. We must change the current system and law – scrapping the Siting Council in its present form. I will continue to assist and work closely with towns and cities in continuing the struggle to improve this project, but fight to reform the law as well. I forcefully fought to underground as much of this line as possible and to mitigate environmental damage and minimize electric and magnetic fields.”
