CTDOT has $15B plan for hundreds of transportation projects through 2030. A look at what’s coming
Bridge repairs, roadway redesigns, public transit
improvements and facility upgrades are among the transportation infrastructure
improvements included in the Connecticut Department of
Transportation‘s vast five-year Capital Plan.
The plan outlines $15 billion in transportation projects
planned across Connecticut during the federal fiscal years 2026-30.
CTDOT spokesperson Josh Morgan said the Capital Plan, funded
by federal and state investments, is the “roadmap” for the CTDOT for the next
five years, and work will be done on all four corners of the state.
“The Capital Plan programs $15.70 billion in planned funding
to improve safety and mobility throughout the state,” Morgan said. “It’s a
document that outlays and outlines the priorities as we look to improve
transportation infrastructure. It’s billions of dollars that’s touching
everything from train stations to railroads, bridges, paving, simple bridge
maintenance. It’s really an all-encompassing document and something is really
impactful.”
For the fiscal year of 2026, the department is anticipating
approximately $3.78 billion in federal and state capital funding for all
transportation modes. The 2026 Capital Program is highlighted by $2.16 billion
for bus and rail. This includes improvements to the MOVE New
Haven Bus Rapid Transit System and upgrading train stations along
the Waterbury
Branch Line and Hartford Line and replacing the Devon
Railroad Bridge between Milford and Stratford.
According to the CTDOT, the Devon Bridge serves as a
critical transportation link between Stamford and New Haven on Metro-North
Railroad’s New Haven Line, but more so, between New York and Boston on Amtrak’s
Northeast Corridor. The bridge carries the Metro-North Railroad mainline over
the Housatonic River between Stratford and Milford.
There are also plans to replace the Naugatuck Avenue Bridge
over the Metro-North Railroad in Milford and the Metro-North Railroad Bridge
over East Main Street in Stratford, which will be at the same time as the Devon
Bridge.
The present schedule indicates that the design will be
completed in December 2029, with construction anticipated to start in the
spring of 2030.
“The MOVE New Haven Bus Rapid Transit System project
includes dedicated bus lanes, as well as transit signal priority, upgraded
signal equipment and enhanced pedestrian safety measures,” according to the
CTDOT. “Improvements will also include BRT-branded stops with amenities,
multimodal accessibility upgrades and mobility hubs designed to facilitate
transfers and accommodate electric bus charging at the end of each BRT line.
These elements aim to deliver shorter travel times, improve schedule reliability
and create a safer, more accessible environment for all road users.”
On the Waterbury Branch Line, work is planned for Union
Station, located at 389 Meadow St. in Waterbury.
“The renovations will create a useable indoor waiting space
with seating and bathrooms for the traveling public and private workstations
and offices for station employees to meet the current needs and future demands
of ridership on the Waterbury Branch Line,” the CTDOT said.
Also along the Waterbury Branch Line, work is planned at the
Derby station on Main Street “to improve the station to ADA standard
requirements and the latest station amenities.”
Other work on the Waterbury Branch Line includes replacing
existing platforms at the Ansonia, Seymour, Beacon Falls and Waterbury
stations. At Water Street in Naugatuck, there will be improvements for the
station to reach ADA and standard requirements and add station amenities.
Work on the Hartford Line in Windsor Locks includes the
“demolition of an abandoned building and the construction of a new train
station as well as realignment of Route 159, construction of cul-de-sac at
Church Street, traffic signalizations on Route 159 at Church Street and Spring
Street, and installation of a multi-use trail,” according to the CTDOT.
“We should be wrapping up the Windsor Locks station this
year and we will be starting the Enfield station at the same time,” Morgan
said.
As far as roadway and bridge infrastructure, $1.60 billion
is planned this fiscal year for multi-year projects including the I-91/I-691/Route 15 Interchange
improvements in Meriden and Middletown, I-95
Gold Star Memorial Bridge rehabilitation and multimodal improvements in
Groton and New London and rehabilitation of the Putnam
Bridge in Glastonbury and Wethersfield.
The I-91/I-691/Route 15 Interchange work is in the second of
three phases. The multi-year project is expected to be completed in 2030. The
projects’ goal is to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety.
There is also $23.4 million slated to support renovations of
transportation facilities in the state. Those include a new CTDOT maintenance
facility in Simsbury and expanded
truck parking in Southington. Twenty-nine additional spaces are
expected for trucks, buses and RVs-trailers-campers at the rest area on
Interstate 84 East in Southington.
“This was a top priority when we heard directly from the
trucking industry during COVID that there is just not enough parking. There is
not enough safe place to pull over, take their rest breaks, relax and then get
back on the road. That created a safety concern. This will give drivers
comfortable space to be off the road until they get back on their travels,”
Morgan said.
Morgan said all of the CTDOT’s planned work and maintenance
this fiscal year will save the state money down the road.
“Making these repairs, being proactive and spending money
now will help us save money in the long run in terms of keeping up with
maintenance and keeping up with repairs,” Morgan said.
“Think about what you need to do around your home and around
your property to keep up with the maintenance. You mow the lawn and don’t let
it get overgrown. Every year you do those routine improvements or routine
maintenance and that way you’ll avoid that sticker shock when something major
needs to get replaced because you didn’t maintain it properly.”
In Brookfield, opposition to natural gas project crosses party lines
Expanding natural gas infrastructure is a centerpiece of
President Donald Trump’s agenda to lower energy costs and boost the fossil fuel
industry. He has referred to Democrats opposed to such projects as “anti-energy zealots.”
But political support for gas pipelines has run into
powerful local opposition in a relatively conservative community in
Connecticut, where residents are leading a campaign
to block a $272 million buildout of the Iroquois Gas Transmission
System.
The epicenter of the debate is Brookfield, on the far edge
of suburban Fairfield County, where Iroquois’ owners are seeking approval to
add two new compressors to an existing station in order to push an additional
125 million cubic feet of gas through the pipeline each day, without having to
lay new pipes. The project has received tentative
support from the administration of Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, and is
awaiting final approval on air quality permits from the state.
But beyond typical opposition from climate-focused
organizations such as the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters,
the Iroquois project has also faced pushback from a bipartisan group of local
officials, including members of the town’s Board of Selectmen and the town’s
all-Republican statehouse delegation.
During a public meeting on the project — which company
representatives attended — in January, state Senate Minority Leader Stephen
Harding, who represents Brookfield, said he lives just a few miles away from
the compressor station. Harding echoed
the concerns of many of his constituents regarding the compressor
station’s proximity to nearby homes and a middle school.
“These are health risks for our kids, for our families,
these are environmental risks for everyone in our community,” Harding said.
“This is being put up literally yards away from a school, a middle school,
which my children are going to be attending. This needs a full, transparent
process where every single one of my constituents, every single one of my
neighbors have an ability to object to this.”
And Harding made his own position clear. “This should not be
approved in any circumstance,” he said.
Similar sentiments can be seen in signs protesting the
expansion that dot lawns around Brookfield, a mixture of rural and suburban
neighborhoods adjacent to Candlewood Lake. The town narrowly voted for Trump in
2024 and has backed the Republican candidate in four of the last five
presidential elections. Now, the town’s opposition to Iroquois’ plans have put
local Republicans at odds with a key part of the national
party’s energy agenda.
The Iroquois project predates the current Trump
administration and its efforts
to ease the path for new gas infrastructure. But Connecticut Republicans —
along with some Democrats — have for a long time blamed the lack of ample gas
supply for the region’s high energy costs. Because New England is positioned at
the tail end of the national pipeline network, its residents pay
a premium for the gas needed to heat their homes and produce
electricity.
The latest backlash in Brookfield follows a similar pattern
of strong local resistance to energy infrastructure upgrades throughout
Connecticut. Community opposition has delayed, threatened or led to the
cancellation of projects to build new transmission lines, solar
arrays, windmills, and battery storage facilities.
While political leaders on both sides of the aisle often
tout the benefits of energy expansion, their support tends to fade when local
considerations come into play.
“The opposition to this runs across all party lines —
unaffiliated, Democrat, Republican — and there are some good reasons for that,”
said Brookfield First Selectman Steve Dunn, a Democrat.
The reasons in this case, Dunn said, include the emissions
released by the new compressors — which would be powered by burning gas from
the pipeline — as well the noise and vibrations produced by the facility. Many
residents also fear the risk of a catastrophic explosion that could damage
nearby homes and endanger students at the Whisconier Middle School.
“Our residents are only concerned with our town, our
children in the school 1,800 feet away, and the safety of this particular
facility,” he said.
State Rep. Martin Foncello, R-Brookfield, said the
opposition to Iroquois’ compressor station dates back more than two decades to
when he served as the town’s first selectman. In 2002, the Connecticut Siting
Council approved the construction of the existing two compressors in Brookfield
over local objections. At the time, in the aftermath of 9/11, residents were
focused on the safety of the facility, Foncello said.
“There were concerns that, you know, terrorists or other
individuals were going to blow up the pipeline,” he said. “Fortunately, nothing
like that happened.”
Last month, Foncello submitted testimony to DEEP urging the agency to deny
Iroquois its remaining permits. He cited safety concerns, as well air
pollution and other quality-of-life issues.
Samantha Dynowski, the president of the state chapter of the
Sierra Club and a steadfast opponent of adding new sources of gas, said she
welcomed the support of Republicans in Brookfield and hoped the experience
would lead them to shift their stance on other natural gas projects beyond
their own communities.
“The negative impacts you’re going to have in Brookfield —
the air pollution impacts, the climate impacts, the health impacts — should be
a concern across all fossil fuel expansions,” she said. “It should be eye
opening.”
Who benefits?
Both Harding and Foncello said they believe Connecticut
needs more natural gas to fuel power plants and meet increasing customer demand. Last year, Harding and other
Senate Republicans introduced legislation to address high electricity prices, which
included a provision requiring the state to “study methods by which the supply
of natural gas may be increased in the state.” The bill was not successful.
In separate interviews this month, both lawmakers defended
their stance opposing the Iroquois project by pointing out that the pipeline’s
owners plan to use the new capacity to sell more gas to utilities in New York,
where the pipeline terminates after crossing under Long Island Sound.
“Connecticut is getting no benefit, we’re not getting any
increase in supply from this expansion” Harding said. “It’s expanding it
strictly to provide more natural gas to New York.”
But Iroquois leaders and other experts said the reality of
the situation is more complicated. In addition to serving customers in New
York, Iroquois currently delivers about 30% of its gas to customers and power plants in
Connecticut, according to company records. The proposed capacity expansion
would boost the pipeline’s overall capacity by around 8%.
Ira Joseph, a senior research associate at Columbia
University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, said that increasing the Iroquois
pipeline’s capacity should lower the price of the gas that moves through it
relative to the U.S.
benchmark, regardless of its final destination.
“It’s certainly targeted for the Long Island or New York
market,” Joseph said. “But I don’t think that in any way prevents potential new
customers in Connecticut from emerging if they wanted to make those type of
investments. That definitely is possible.”
In an emailed statement, Iroquois spokeswoman Ruth Parkins
said the project will help ease pipeline constraints in both New York and New
England during the winter, when the demand for gas is at its peak.
“The ExC [Enhancement by Compression] Project will enhance
the reliability and availability of natural gas supplies for Connecticut’s
natural gas consumers and power generation fleet since additional quantities of
natural gas will be flowing into and through the state, and available for
consumption within the state on a majority of the days throughout the year,”
she said.
In addition, Parkins noted that Connecticut relies on
pipelines passing through other states — including New York — to supply all its
own natural gas.
“If it weren’t for neighboring states not taking a
narrow-minded view on infrastructure to get the gas to Connecticut, everyone
would be on oil,” Parkins said.
Other critics have questioned the need for any increase in
Iroquois’ capacity, given the pledges from both New York and Connecticut to
lower their overall greenhouse gas emissions over the next several decades.
In New York, those efforts include a state law that would
ban the use of gas heating systems and appliances in most new buildings. That
law was supposed to take effect on Jan. 1, before Gov. Kathy Hochul paused implementation for at least another year.
Tai Michaels, an activist with the Sunrise Project New York,
spoke out against the project at a virtual public forum earlier this month. “We
have stated strong climate goals here in New York City, which make this project
not only inadvisable economically, and inadvisable from health perspective, but
[it] just plain doesn’t make sense,” Michaels said.
Locally, however, opponents of the new compressor station
have largely framed their case around the local impacts of the project within
Brookfield — rather than the larger debate around climate change and greenhouse
gas emissions.
“I think we’ve conscientiously said, from the standpoint of
this project, if you make it about carbon, you run the risk it has some sort of
political problems,” said Daniel Myers, an organizer with a group of residents
fighting the project.
“Locally, the calculus is they’re polluting our town because
it’s more profitable for them…. We’re not getting any reduction in our energy
costs,” he added. “In that lens, it doesn’t matter whether you’re ‘Drill, baby,
drill,’ or you’re chaining yourself to a tree. It’s not a good deal for you as
a Brookfielder, right now.”
Seeking changes
Like much of Connecticut, Brookfield already experiences
poor air quality and particulate-matter pollution that blows
into the state from the west. It’s located in Fairfield County, which the
U.S Environmental Protection Agency has designated in “severe nonattainment” with air quality standards.
For that reason, many local opponents argue that if
compressor stations are going to be expanded, the Connecticut Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection should force Iroquois to utilize
less-polluting technologies such as all-electric motors.
“It’s not a huge expense considering you’re protecting the
environment, you’re protecting Connecticut and Brookfield residents from all
this particulate matter,” said Dunn, the town’s first selectman. “It seems to
me a no-brainer, right?”
Other ideas floated by town officials and residents include
adding security guards around the compression station and conducting continuous
monitoring of its emissions, particularly in the vicinity of the middle school.
Some criticism has focused on the process by which the company and DEEP have
engaged with the public.
In January, the town, along with the environmental group
Save the Sound, filed
a lawsuit alleging that DEEP failed to provide opponents to the
project with adequate opportunities to raise concerns before the agency reached
a final decision on the project. That lawsuit remains pending.
Harding, the Senate Republican leader, also criticized
Iroquois’ owners for not responding to input from Brookfield residents.
“The company has not been transparent, has not really
listened to the public at all,” he said. “The public has given them options to
make this a much safer, healthier project for the community, and they’ve shut
all them down.”
Iroquois declined to respond directly to criticism that the
company hasn’t done enough to assuage local concerns.
During last month’s public meeting, however, Michael Kinik,
Iroquois’ director of operations and maintenance, said the company had
responded to feedback by agreeing to install devices on both the new and
existing compressor turbines to lower noise and reduce emissions.
“This project has been reviewed for more than five years by
multiple state and federal agencies,” Kinik said. “Along the way, Iroquois has
revised designs, performed additional modeling, added emissions controls, and
accepted permit limits that are more stringent than what the regulations
require.”
DEEP’s public analysis of the project states that Iroquois
examined whether to use electric compressors to power its expansion. That idea
was ultimately rejected, the company said, due to the need to upgrade
electrical connections that could take up three years to complete and add
between $45 million and $50 million to the project’s cost.
Will Healey, a spokesman for DEEP, said in a statement that
the agency is only required to consider the project’s impact on air pollution
as part of its evaluation, and not who the intended customer of the gas is.
“DEEP required Iroquois to investigate the economic and
technical feasibility of using electric turbines in accordance
with applicable permitting law and determined that, due to the cost
and technical challenges, electric turbines would not be required for this
project,” Healey said. “This does not preclude Iroquois from
volunteering to do so if they chose. However, to date Iroquois has not
expressed a desire to use electric turbines.”
As part of its analysis of the project, DEEP also determined
the addition of the two new compressors would not meet the threshold for a
major modification — which is subject to more stringent review — because the
increase in ozone-forming pollutants would not exceed 25 tons per year. Critics
of the project, including Myers and Save the Sound, questioned the agency’s
methodology for reaching that conclusion.
As for concerns that the compressor station could explode or
experience a gas leak, Joseph, the Columbia University researcher, said that
while such incidents are rare, they are a risk for older pipelines. The
Iroquois pipeline began operating in 1992.
“You’re trying to create a bigger system on a piece of
infrastructure that’s not new,” Joseph said. “There’s risks that always come
with that.”
New York’s role
The Iroquois pipeline is one of three major gas transmission pipelines serving
Connecticut. The other two are the Algonquin and Tennessee systems, both of
which enter the state from New York and follow a northeasterly route to service
the rest of New England. Parts of the Tennessee pipeline also enter the state
from Massachusetts.
The Iroquois and Algonquin pipelines intersect in
Brookfield, near the site of the existing compressor station and the proposed
expansion.
Each of those pipelines already operate at or near capacity,
creating a supply bottleneck during winter months when gas is used to both heat
homes and fuel the power plants that produce the bulk
of the region’s electricity.
Lamont has publicly
expressed interest in expanding the capacity of one or more pipelines
running through New York into Connecticut, often drawing criticism from
environmental groups who want to wean the state off of natural gas. While the
governor has yet to publicly weigh in on the Iroquois project, DEEP issued draft permits for the new compressor stations
last summer. A final decision is not expected until March, and could be pushed
back due to pending litigation.
Efforts to expand pipelines running through New York are
also often met with strong local opposition.
In November, the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation blocked approvals for the proposed Constitution
Pipeline project that would serve as a major artery for gas flowing to
New England by linking up with the Iroquois and Tennessee systems. At the same
time, the NYDEC approved another pipeline intended to serve New York
City and Long Island. Regulators have also granted permits necessary for
Iroquois to build new compressors in upstate New York.
Lamont has said that he’s in discussion with Hochul and
federal officials regarding plans to build out pipeline capacity for the
region. Last year, the governor traveled
to Washington, D.C. to meet with Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior
Secretary Doug Burgum regarding energy issues, including the demand for natural
gas.
“It’s not easy because of 2040 zero-carbon goals,”
Lamont told reporters following his return from that trip. “But, you know,
[Hochul’s] got some energy needs of her own. Let’s say the discussions have to
continue.”
Rob Blanchard, a spokesperson for the governor, said those
discussions have not included an agreement to approve pipeline projects serving
Connecticut in exchange for allowing Iroquois’ compression project to move
forward.
During a press
conference last week regarding his own energy plan, Republican
gubernatorial candidate Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, said the decisions by New
York regulators amounted to a violation of interstate commerce. Fazio
encouraged Connecticut to take legal action against its neighbors. (Fazio
serves as the ranking member of the legislature’s Energy and Technology
Committee.)
“New York is clearly embracing the fact that they’ll need
more natural gas for their own residents and their own state economy,” Fazio
said. “They’re doing what’s necessary to accomplish that while essentially —
how should I say — rejecting the concerns of New England residents. So that
gives Connecticut more leverage in any discussion on several different affairs,
including Iroquois.”
Fazio said he that while he would like to see DEEP address
some of the local concerns that have arisen around the Brookfield compressor
station, he is not opposed to the project. His district is also home to the
Tennessee pipeline, which enters the state in Greenwich.
“I’m open to anything,” Fazio said. “Again, I don’t view
[more gas] as a nice-to-have. I view this as a necessity for the New England
and for the Connecticut economy.”
Harding declined to say whether he would support the
Iroquois project in Brookfield if it were a part of a larger regional effort to
boost the supply of natural gas in Connecticut.
“We’re talking about hypotheticals that currently don’t
exist,” Harding said. “I’m talking about this project right here before us
right now. So, this is the deal we have at this moment.”
“I think any senator from any party, from anywhere, would
tell you that if you have more gas supply that could benefit affordability with
electric rates, great,” Harding added. “But if it’s going to involve the
public, you have to have their input, be transparent with them and work with
them. And they’re just not doing that here.”
Inside Waterbury’s costly water crisis: $33.7M on fixes in 2025 -- including $230K for bottled water
WATERBURY — The city spent $230,000
on bottled water for residents and $146,284 in police overtime during
the citywide water outage that lasted five very long days and closed schools
and businesses.
The water crisis cost the city $2.5 million on water, parts,
labor and continued repairs after the lack of a bypass valve on Thomaston
Avenue forced the city to shut off water to fix the leak without causing more
damage.
The lack of a bypass valve was also an issue with an earlier
disruptive break in one of the city’s largest and oldest high-pressure water
mains on Huntingdon
Avenue in September. The parts and repair costs in that disruption
were $1.2 million, according to the mayor’s office.
Collectively, the city spent $33.7 million on repairs and
preventive equipment upgrades in 2025, according to city officials.
The December breach was a domino effect that started with a
smaller leak from a 120-year-old pipe section at the intersection of Thomaston
Avenue and Manville Street, Mayor Paul Pernerewski Jr. said last week.
That section gave way and water undermined a 36-inch pressurized water main
creating a geyser in the center of Thomaston Avenue near Sprague
Elementary School.
Water crews were in the midst
of relining a 42-inch pipe along the area at a cost of $13 million in
partnership with the state when the break on Thomaston Avenue occurred. The
work rehabilitated nearly two miles of brittle, outdated concrete transmission
main by sliplining a new high-pressure main within the existing pipe. That work
is finished and new valves have been installed to isolate areas in need of
repairs without shutting down the city.
“One of the reasons that we went through this, and we went
through the same problem back in the fall, is because within the system —
when we have a leak — we have not been able to isolate it as sufficiently
as we should be,” Pernerewski said in December.
Crews installed a bypass valve on the Thomaston Avenue main
as part of the repair work there.
One lesson from the massive water outage was to move faster
on planned repairs to the city’s water delivery system.
The $17 million spent on repairs to the Thomaston Avenue and
Huntingdon Avenue disruption adds to $30 million spent in 2025 on
infrastructure improvements. Nearly $10 million was allocated to upgrade pumps
and mixers that deliver water to the city’s storage tanks and distribution
system. This project is near completion and expected to be fully finalized this
year, Pernerewski said last week.
“These upgrades will allow the city to restore confidence in
a pumping system that was significantly outdated and in urgent need of
replacement,” Pernerewski said. “The new pumps and mixers are expected to
provide decades of improved performance and enhanced energy efficiency.”
The city also built a new facility at the north Main Pump
Station for supplying reliable water flow to the Blackman Water Tank. It
also installed a new automated meter reading system and software to provide
real-time data from water meters at homes and businesses throughout the city,
allowing staff to more accurately address billing inquiries, errors, and
potential leaks. The city plans to continue expanding this system in the coming
years.
But the priority is to replace key transmission main valves
along two corridors, thus allowing ever better control and manipulation of the
water in times of an emergency.
“This will help to ensure that when an emergency does take
place, the smallest number of people possible are affected it,” Pernerewski
said.
Part of the costs of the improvements are through the city’s
capital improvement budget and some will come out of a $34
million settlement the city received from Watertown. Roughly 60 percent of
those funds go to the city’s sewer division, the mayor said.
As $300M plan for New Haven Bus Rapid Transit program advances, state officials seek public's input
NEW HAVEN — A planned Bus Rapid Transit program to enhance
local mass transportation in New Haven, Hamden and West Haven is making the
rounds through a public input process.
In 2023, a $25
million federal grant kicked off what is now projected to be a $300 million
project to add three rapid transit bus routes incorporating dedicated bus lanes with
several new stops and "mobility hubs" at the end of each line to
provide space for buses to turn around, facilities for drivers and electric bus
charging capabilities by 2030.
"This is part of our overall strategy to improve
transportation options for everyone in the city," said New Haven Mayor
Justin Elicker. "In addition to Bus Rapid Transit, we’ve been working to
improve infrastructure with traffic calming, pedestrian-cycling infrastructure,
the scooters, e-bikes, Via NHV, you name it and we’re trying to do it in New
Haven to try to make public transportation and transportation in general more
affordable, accessible and diverse."
Three new Bus Rapid Transit lines are proposed, spanning
Hamden's Dixwell Avenue to New Haven's Union Station; Whalley Avenue to Foxon
Boulevard, both in New Haven, and the West Haven train station to the New Haven
Green.
All three lines would stop in downtown New Haven, connecting
to other existing bus routes. Stops along the route are expected to be enhanced
with additional amenities, such as lighting, signage with real-time
information and larger shelters.
"The frequency of buses is going to be higher,"
Elicker said. "There won't be as frequent stops, but it will be every
couple blocks and it will be a much faster way for people to get where they
need to go."
Last week, state Department of Transportation officials held
the first of several planned public input sessions on the scope of the Bus
Rapid Transit project.
According to information presented at that session,
construction is estimated to begin in 2028. Included in the currently planned
scope of work are the bus lanes, mobility hubs and upgraded bus stops along the
Bus Rapid Transit lines.
New bus lanes are planned in areas where buses currently
experience the most congestion: Dixwell Avenue, Whalley Avenue moving
eastbound, Boston Post Road and downtown. Among the features proposed for Bus
Rapid Transit is the ability for buses that are running late to either reduce
wait time at red lights or elongate a green light that is close to turning red.
In addition to bus-specific upgrades, roundabouts are
planned for four New Haven intersections, three of which lie along Dixwell
Avenue where it intersects with Whalley Avenue and Broadway; Putnam Avenue,
Helen Street and Circular Avenue and Munson Street and Orchard Street. A fourth
is planned for the intersection of Grand Avenue and Ferry Street.
In 2023, the city debuted a Westville
peanut-shaped roundabout on Yale Avenue as a traffic deterrant. Other
pedestrian-friendly upgrades are expected citywide as part of the Bus Rapid
Transit construction, including more raised crosswalks, flashing beacons at
pedestrian crossings and curb extensions.
Elicker said the plans to upgrade public transportation in
the city connect to a larger strategy of increasing public services while also
creating higher housing density to meet a statewide shortage of residential
units.
“We’re seeing a lot more housing construction in the city
and the density requires more transportation options, but also helps facilitate
more transportation options because when you have more customers it's easier to
justify the investment in the transportation network," he said. "More
people are funding the bus, more people are renting scooters and electric
vehicles and, because of that concentrated density in our city, people don’t
have to rely on a car to get to where they need to go."
Future public input sessions are planned at the Wilson and
Stetson Branch Libraries from 6 to 8 p.m. on Feb. 11 and at the Fair Haven and
Mitchell Brand Libraries from 6 to 8 p.m. on Feb. 12.
CT businesses rush to start solar projects before federal tax credit expires
Connecticut’s commercial solar industry faces a blitz as
businesses and developers scramble to launch projects before a July 4 deadline
that dictates whether they may qualify for an expiring federal tax credit.
The urgency prompted New Haven-based solar developer
Jefferson Solar LLC to petition state regulators for expedited approval,
warning of a “continuing assault on the construction of solar energy by the
federal government.”
The state Siting Council approved the company’s proposed
2-megawatt facility in North Branford at its Jan. 8 meeting.
The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) has been around for
decades and was established to spur renewable energy development. It allows
commercial solar project owners to claim 30% of their installation costs as a
federal tax credit.
ADVERTISEMENT
Now, under new rules enacted last summer under the One Big
Beautiful Bill, projects must either begin construction by July 4, or reach
full operation by Dec. 31, 2027, to qualify for the ITC — effectively setting
an end date for the incentive.
Developers are rushing to launch projects to capture the tax
benefit before it disappears, industry experts said.
“It’s kind of organized chaos right now,” said Mike
Trahan, executive director of the Connecticut Solar and Storage Association.
Reshaping the market
Danielle Fidel, chief commercialization officer at Earthlight Technologies, said her company has been
“completely slammed” helping businesses navigate the deadline.
The Ellington-based solar developer doubled its contract
volume in 2025 from a year earlier, driven largely by a second-half surge of
customers seeking to secure the ITC, she said.
Earthlight is adding sales and construction staff to meet
rising demand. The company handles engineering, procurement and construction
in-house and expects a major build-out this year as new contracts come in.
Much of the rush centers on federal rules that define when a
project is considered to have started construction. For projects under 1.5 MW,
businesses can qualify by spending more than 5% of total project costs rather
than physically breaking ground. Larger projects must show on-site construction
activity.
To help clients meet that threshold, Earthlight uses a
strategy known as “safe harboring,” Fidel said, which involves buying key
equipment before the deadline.
“We’re taking 7% of the total project cost and purchasing
safe harbor solar panels that we’re warehousing for them until installation, so
that they can show that they have incurred at least the 5% for start of
construction,” Fidel said.
That approach gives businesses flexibility to work through
lengthy regulatory approvals without losing access to the incentive.
Among its recent work, Earthlight is developing a
372-kilowatt solar array paired with a 555-KW battery for East Hartford steel
fabricator United Steel, with installation expected in late 2026 or early 2027.
United Steel made a safe-harbor payment for solar modules, preserving its ITC
eligibility, Fidel said.
As solar developers push to advance projects before the
deadline, some firms lacking the capital to start construction are selling or
transferring projects to better-financed companies that can move quickly,
industry officials said.
That dynamic is reshaping the market, according to Jenna
Dobbins, head of marketing at West Hartford-based solar developer Verogy.
“There’s been a consolidation of the marketplace, a
shuffling around of projects, just to get them to that start of construction,”
Dobbins said.
Fidel said businesses considering solar may want to move
soon if they hope to qualify for the federal tax credit, but noted projects can
still be viable even if the deadline is missed.
“If they’re not ready right now, it’s not as if solar is all
of a sudden no longer going to make sense,” she said. “Solar is going to
continue to make sense for businesses in Connecticut because of our high
utility rates.”
Strong pipeline
The timeline for completing a solar development ranges from
less than a year for simple rooftop projects to three to eight years for
larger, more complex ground-mount installations.
While the permitting process can take years, Dobbins said
solar is still faster to deploy than other energy sources.
In Connecticut, Verogy — which focuses on commercial,
industrial and small utility-scale projects — has six projects totaling 26.9 MW
actively under construction or recently completed. They include facilities in
Glastonbury, Windsor, East Windsor, Stafford, Franklin and Woodstock.
The company also has a 1.97-MW project in Willington pending
before the Connecticut Siting Council, the state agency that reviews and
approves most solar and other electric generating facilities larger than 1 MW.
That proposal, along with another in Plymouth approved Jan. 8, was accelerated
to meet the federal deadline, Dobbins said.
The state Siting Council has seen a spike in
activity tied to the solar push, receiving about a dozen petitions for new
projects in July and August 2025 alone, according to Executive Director
Melanie Bachman.
The council’s Jan. 8 meeting agenda included six commercial
solar projects ranging from 0.97 MW to 4.65 MW.
Beyond Connecticut, Verogy has nearly 200 projects in its
national pipeline, Dobbins said.
State responds
Even as federal incentives wind down, Connecticut is
continuing to back solar development as part of its long-term energy strategy.
The state has a goal of becoming carbon free by 2040, but
most of its electricity still comes from natural gas (about 60%) and nuclear
power (roughly 33%), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Solar accounts for only about 4% of in-state generation.
Against that backdrop, state regulators are adjusting the
timeline for the Non-Residential Renewable Energy Solutions Program, or NRES,
to help businesses pursuing projects ahead of the July federal deadline.
The program provides a key state incentive: 20-year utility
contracts awarded through a state-run procurement program, under which
Eversource and United Illuminating agree to buy electricity and renewable
energy credits from approved solar projects at fixed prices.
That long-term, predictable revenue stream helps make
projects financially viable.
In a Dec. 17 decision, the Public Utilities Regulatory
Authority directed Eversource and United Illuminating to offer the entire 2026
NRES solicitation in a single February procurement round — instead of splitting
it between February and August as in past years — aligning the state incentive
schedule more closely with the federal tax-credit deadline.
Eversource’s 2026 allocation includes 80 MW for small,
medium and large zero-emission projects, plus an additional 20 MW for school
solar projects.
Companies do not need to participate in NRES to build solar
or claim federal tax credits, but many pursue both to strengthen project
economics.
Solar developers supported the compressed procurement
window, but Trahan said it creates another layer of complexity for businesses.
“Winning developer bidders will have to move quickly for
what may be twice the number of projects,” Trahan said. “Otherwise their
customers will miss out on the federal tax credit.”
To further offset the reduced federal support, PURA also
increased the maximum prices utilities can pay for solar power under NRES by
roughly 25% to 37% over 2025 levels. Small projects of up to 200 KW can receive
as much as $250.42 per megawatt-hour, medium projects up to 1 MW can receive up
to $236.74, and larger projects up to 5 MW can receive up to $182.94.
Businesses that miss the February procurement will have
future opportunities, as the state plans to continue the NRES program in 2026.
Looking beyond the tax credit
Developers say losing the ITC will raise costs in the short
term, but not by the credit’s full 30% value.
“It’s not like projects are going to get 30% more
expensive,” said Fidel of Earthlight Technologies.
Fidel, who has worked in solar for 17 years, said returns
today — even without the tax credit — are stronger than when she entered the
industry, largely because Connecticut utility rates have climbed.
“Businesses have to protect themselves against those utility
rate increases,” she said.
Fidel added that financing could become simpler in a
“post-ITC” market, as projects may no longer require complex tax-equity
partnerships that match investors seeking tax credits with system owners.
“Solar finance transactions get so much simpler when you
don’t have to put tax equity partnerships together, and you don’t even think
about the tax side of things,” Fidel said. “I do think that over time, it
simplifies solar transactions tremendously to not have to rely on the ITC.”
She noted that the cost of solar continues to fall relative
to grid electricity, strengthening the business case even without subsidies.
Companies that initially looked to solar for environmental reasons increasingly
find the economics stand on their own.
“While it seems like the sky is falling, the sky is not
falling,” Fidel said. “We still have access to the most powerful source of
energy out there with solar.”