Natural gas pipeline plan involves two CT state parks. DEEP to do environmental impact evaluation.
Stephen Underwood
There is a proposal submitted
to the state’s top environmental agency for the construction of a natural gas
pipeline that would potentially impact two popular state parks.
The state’s largest utility company, Eversource, which owns Yankee
Gas, submitted a project proposal to the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, according to the scoping notice on the plan
shared last August and a copy
of the application.
The electric company is proposing two modifications to
two existing
electric transmission easements. The modified easements would allow
construction, operation, and maintenance of a 199-psig natural gas distribution
pipeline across state owned property, records show. The pipeline would allow
for the maximum allowed operating pressure or pounds-per-square-inch for
industrial gas piping in Connecticut, according to the plan shared in the
scoping notice.
The proposed
pipeline would be 16 inches in diameter and stretch for the entire
length of the already existing electric easements, records
show. The proposed pipeline segment would cover a distance of
approximately 6,700 feet or 1.2 miles, according to the project proposal. The
existing electric easements were established by the former Hartford Electric
Light Co., now modern day Eversource.
The utility company said that the proposed construction is
part of its “Southeast Resiliency Project.” The aim of the pipeline is to
improve Connecticut’s natural gas infrastructure to better withstand threats
and impacts while ensuring greater energy supply to customers, according to
Eversource, records show.
According to DEEP, the first easement is located on
the Connecticut
Valley Railroad State Park Trail in Middletown. The second easement,
several hundred feet wide and located in Haddam and East Hampton, covers
portions of Hurd State
Park and George Seymour State Park Scenic Reserve along with Higganum
Meadows Wildlife Management Area.
Construction and gas equipment would not impact the George
Seymour State Park Scenic Reserve and the Higganum Meadows Wildlife Management
Area portion of the existing easement, according to DEEP. Officials said that’s
because that portion “falls to the south of the proposed pipeline segment.”
Construction would impact the Connecticut Valley Railroad State Park Trail and
portions of Hurd State Park.
DEEP did not specify if those areas would be closed to
recreational use during construction.
The agency notes that “at the scoping stage, detailed
information on a project’s design, alternatives, and environmental impacts does
not yet exist. Sponsoring agencies are asking for comments from other agencies
and from the public as to the scope of alternatives and environmental impacts
that should be considered for further study.”
In a report
shared this month on a public meeting on the project, DEEP noted, “It
is unlikely that this project would impact the overall energy diversification
of Connecticut, but DEEP generally agrees that there is a significant need for
a greater supply of clean, reliable, and affordable energy in the state.”
Asked about the portion that would pass below the
Connecticut River, DEEP said it is the regulatory agency “for activities
proposed in public trust areas like the Connecticut River. However, DEEP’s
statutory authority to grant interests in submerged land beneath navigable
waters is limited to lands beneath certain lighthouses in Long Island Sound.
That authority is not implicated here and Eversource has not requested such
rights from DEEP. In the absence of a delegation of authority to a state agency
to grant those rights, the General Assembly would have authority to grant an
interest in submerged lands.”
After the public hearing held on Sept. 9, DEEP officials
said they are moving forward with an environmental impact evaluation. AN EIE is
the next step after a proposal that may “significantly affect the environment”
to review any possible impacts.
“DEEP will proceed with the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Evaluation for the proposed modification of easements within portions of
Hurd and Connecticut Valley Railroad State Parks for the purpose of
accommodating the operation and maintenance of a 199-psig natural gas
distribution line,” the agency noted.
“DEEP agrees that before an amendment to an existing
easement moves forward, additional surveys of critical species, natural
communities, and their habitats within and in proximity to the easement
corridor should and will be required from the applicant,” the post
meeting report notes.
The agency
noted that it “knows that in the long-term a new pipeline will
necessitate increased access to the property for repairs, vegetation
management, or other reasons, but the full extent of the habitat and species
impacts will only be understood once the additional habitat and species
analyses are completed. Going forward, any impacts would be mitigated before
and during construction as well as each successive time Eversource re-enters
for work on the pipeline. ”
The agency did not give a timeline for when the EIE is
expected to be completed.
Four-year regional transportation plan to go to hearing
Kimberly Drelich
Norwich — The Southeastern Connecticut Council of
Governments is seeking comments on a four-year regional transportation plan
outlining projects from the Gold Star Memorial Bridge to bicycle and pedestrian
upgrades.
The 2027-2030 Transportation Improvement Program is a
planning document with a list of projects expected to be funded federally, with
state and some local matching funds, over four years, according to the
document. The projects include improvements to transit, highways, and
pedestrian and bicycle paths.
A public hearing on the draft plan will be held Thursday,
March 26 at 6:30 p.m. at the Council of Governments' office at 5 Connecticut
Ave. and virtually.
Kate Rattan, director of transportation planning for the
council of governments, said the plan lists about $1.5 billion of highway
projects and $50.7 million in transit projects.
Projects featured in the plan include phases of the Gold
Star Memorial Bridge northbound project in New London and Groton and its
southbound walkway and bike path improvement; the Mohegan-Pequot Bridge in
Montville and Preston; safety improvements on Route 32 in New London and Route
82 in Norwich; and signal modernization, according to the document.
Among the other projects are Interstate 95 Exit 89 ramp
improvements and a Depot Road to Thomas Road bicycle improvements project in
Groton that "will include the re-striping of Industrial Drive, Depot Road,
Route 1, and SR 649 (South Road/Tower Avenue) to create bicycle lanes and share
the road pavement markings."
The plan also calls for bicycle and pedestrian upgrades
along Williams Street from Gordon Court to Huntington Street in New London, the
reconfiguration of the I-95 Exit 71 and 72 interchanges in Old Lyme and East
Lyme, rehabilitation of a culvert carrying Route 165 in Preston, and
improvements to bridges carrying Route 11 northbound and Route 11 southbound
over Eight Mile River in Salem.
Transit projects include an Electric Vehicle facility and
new paratransit vehicles for the Southeast Area Transit District.
The plan, updated on a two-year basis, includes safety and
traffic congestion goals.
Rattan said the council looks at a number of factors for
determining what projects get on the list, including funding, air quality, and
safety and congestion metrics.
She said the council balances transportation projects likely
to make air quality worse — for example, adding lanes on a highway — with
projects likely to improve air quality, such as improving signal timing and
traffic flow.
The public comment period is open through April 16. Comments
can be emailed to office@secogct.gov or mailed to SECOG, 5 Connecticut Ave.,
Norwich, CT 06360.
The council of governments board is expected to take a vote
on adopting the plan in May. The plan can be amended later if there are changes
to projects, Rattan said.
The plans from regions across Connecticut also get
incorporated into a statewide plan, Rattan said.
The next step then is federal approval.
"It's really important that we go through this process
every two years, because if we don't, then we don't have any funds to be able
to apply to those projects," Rattan explained.
More information on the hearing and how to attend virtually
is available at: https://secogct.gov/event/public-hearing-transportation-improvement-program-tip
Quaker Farm Road bridge to be replaced
Kimberly Drelich
Groton — The long-closed Quaker Farm Road bridge over
Haley's Brook is being replaced.
Geoff Foster, supervisor of technical services and acting
assistant public works director for the town, said the town took the road out
of service at least 8 years ago because it was deemed structurally unsafe and
pursued funds to repair the bridge.
He said the roadway over the top of the culvert had started
showing signs of collapse. The bridge's two 54-inch diameter corrugated metal
pipes also were collapsing.
The bridge, which connects Lambtown Road on the west side to
Haley Road on the east side, has been closed off by jersey barriers.
The construction cost is $1.7 million, of which the state
will cover half, and the town will cover the other half, Foster said.
Construction, awarded to Watertown-based Dayton
Construction, started at the beginning of February and is slated to be
completed by July, he said.
Foster said the project will replace the two circular pipes
for the culvert with an open bottom box culvert, a design that is better for
fish passage and other aquatic life in the wetlands in that area.
He said while the roadway and the height of the bridge will
remain the same size, the new bridge will be longer at 26 feet. Since the
bridge will be greater than 20-feet-long, it will be put under the jurisdiction
of the state Department of Transportation for inspection.
He said local police and EMS have wanted the bridge to be
open for them to travel for emergency response.
Old Mystic Fire Chief Kenneth Richards Jr. said the bridge
replacement will enable the fire department to get to Lambtown Road from two
different ways.
He said the fire department opposed closing the bridge from
the beginning.
Richards said there are no hydrants in the area. The bridge
was in a strategic location for tankers to come in from the northern side of
the district, and it provided a water source if the fire department had to
draft from the brook underneath.
He said another bridge, the
North Stonington Road bridge near Old Mystic Fire Department's Station 1,
is even more
important and has been closed since it was deemed in poor condition
following a 2010 flood, which puts a severe strain on the department.
That bridge in Groton and Stonington remains closed, despite
lobbying from the fire department that the bridge was important for emergency
vehicles heading from the fire station to Groton and for hydrant access. The
project would have required funding contributions from both Groton and
Stonington at the same time, but that did not happen.
But Richards called replacing the bridge on Quaker Farm Road
"definitely a positive step for better fire protection in the area."
Town Manager John Burt said state funds that would have paid
roughly 50% of the cost of replacing the North Stonington Road bridge have
lapsed, and there are no immediate plans to discuss that project further.
Foster said the town is analyzing the traffic plan in the
area of the Quaker Farm Road bridge.
He said that due to the closure of Quaker Farm Road, the
three-way intersection has functionally turned into a two-way intersection, and
he's witnessed many residents no longer abide by the stop sign at Haley Road
because there is no conflicting traffic.
Foster said there is concern that people who drive that road
everyday and drive through the stop sign may continue to do so even when Quaker
Farm Road re-opens. The Public Works Department and the local traffic authority
are looking at ideas, such as an advanced warning sign ahead of the stop sign,
a new stop sign from Quaker Farm Road to eliminate potential high-speed
collisions at that intersection or flashing beacons to draw people's attention.
Solar farm fires in Connecticut prompt pushback over expansion of facilities
HARTFORD — In the last decade, 1,500
acres of farm and scenic land in East Windsor has been converted
into large fields of aluminum-framed, glass-encased solar panels with
semiconductors and copper wiring that has resulted in at
least two fires last March and September.
The solar photovoltaic facilities - known as solar farms,
which are proliferating
around the state - are helping Connecticut
reach its goals in renewable energy production.
With a recent
approval of an expanded site, East Windsor is on track to
produce about
170 megawatts, enough to power 34,000 homes. But the solar farms are
encroaching on neighborhoods. Developers backed by private equity money are
clear-cutting woodlands. On sunny days the solar fields create loud humming
sounds that bother neighbors.
There are
more solar arrays planned in East Windsor, population about 11,440 on
26 square miles. Democratic First Selectman Jason Bowsza is beside
himself, powerless to stop the solar developments. Without some sort of local
control, state and municipal officials are hard-pressed to put the brakes on
further property acquisition and solar development. "It's beyond
frustrating," Bowsza said Friday afternoon, as he recalled
talking this month with two key legislative committees.
But a bipartisan group of state legislators has joined him,
seizing on the solar farm expansions, fires and noise as a need to slow down.
There are at least five related bills that have emerged from
the General Assembly's committee process, targeting improved
safety at the solar farms and energy storage sites including
controversial plans for a New
Milford battery facility that's within
two miles of downtown.
Another bill, which recently passed the Environment
Committee, would require
regular testing of soil at the photovoltaic sites. A
third bill would upgrade fire reporting. Two other pieces of
legislation would change
the makeup of the Connecticut Siting Council,
the agency that reviews the proposed locations of energy facilities.
"I'm turning to you guys for help," said Sen.
John Kissel, R-Enfield, to the legislative Environment Committee, asking
for legislation to require regular testing of soil on solar farms. .
"We've had in the last decade a proliferation of solar arrays in our neck
of the woods. We don't know the long-term effects of having rain water travel
through all these solar arrays."
Kissel, first elected in 1992, said that with many residents
relying on well water, and the number of solar farms encroaching, there is a
question on what the environmental affects of the solar farms will be. "We
just don't know the long-term impact of these solar arrays," Kissel
said. "The last thing that my constituents want is a contaminated water
table."
"It's a battle we've been fighting for a long
time," said veteran state Rep. Carol Hall, a Republican whose district
includes half of Enfield and half of East Windsor. "We've lost tons of
farmland and forest," she said in a Friday interview. "We have to
make the siting of solar farms farms equitable across the state. The safety
bills are important, but the real answer is to start mandating where these
things can go. We want to see them in industrial zones. They taking the landscape
and totally changing it. It's just a mess."
"East Windsor has had enough," said Rep. Jaime
Foster, D-Ellington, a member of the Energy and Technology Committee. "At
this point there is little-to-no local benefit. They've done their fair share.
Thirty percent of the state's renewable portfolio is energy generated in East
Windsor. People are saying that their ears are ringing from sunrise to
sunset because
of the inverters," which hum at about 30 decibels. At the very least,
homeowners should have green barriers between their properties and solar farms,
she said
"We gave solar a green halo, but the fact of the matter
is that anything that's electrical has a potential for fire," Foster said.
"Recognizing that emergency or safety issues with
energy generation systems has been relatively rare, as the state continues to
expand these resources, clear safety and reporting standards are essential to
protect surrounding communities, first responders and rate payers,"
said Claire Coleman, the state's Consumer Counsel in prepared testimony on the
proposed safety improvements.
"The Connecticut Siting Council has
exclusive jurisdiction over the construction, maintenance and operation of
energy and telecommunications infrastructure throughout the state,"
Melanie Bachman, executive director of the Siting Council wrote to state
lawmakers. "It balances the need for adequate and reliable services at the
lowest reasonable cost to consumers with the need to protect the environment
and ecology of the state through a quasi-judicial public hearing process."
Bachman offered redrafting suggestions for both the safety and fire proposals.
RENEW
Northeast, a non-profit trade organization representing renewable energy
companies, said the fire-related bill is legally and technically flawed,
according to testimony filed by Francis Pollaro, president.
"This gives the local fire marshal and the Council
unchecked discretion, will produce inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions,
and lowers the threshold for regulatory intervention far below any reasonable
standard of proportionality. " Pollaro wrote recently to the legislative
Public Safety and Security Committee, Pollaro called the safe storage
bill, ambiguous and unpredictable.
Mike Trahan, executive director of the Connecticut Solar
Storage Association, said in testimony on the fire-related bill that blazes
related to solar fields are rare, "with reported incident rates typically
falling below 0.03% annually per installation," he wrote in testimony to
the Public Safety and Security Committee.
Waterford data center plan likely over as host agreement expires
Daniel Drainville
Waterford — A developer that sought to build a 1.5 million
square foot AI data center on the site of Millstone Power Station has failed to
file a permit application with the town in time, resulting in the termination
of a 2023 agreement between it and the town, and marking the likely end of the
project.
The agreement was terminated Tuesday as the result of
Belmont, Mass.-based developer NE Edge failing to file a building permit
application within three years — which was a criterion of the agreement signed
with Waterford. First Selectman Rob Brule, in a Facebook post Wednesday,
announced the termination, writing that the failure to file the permit means
the agreement is now expired "by its own terms."
Brule indicated that the town will no longer be open to any
kind of data center development.
"Over the past three years, I have had many thoughtful
and meaningful conversations with residents, regional partners, and neighboring
communities," Brule wrote. "Those discussions matter. Listening
matters."
"As a result, and with a continued focus on what is in
the best long-term interest of Waterford, I want to be clear, as First
Selectman, I will not be supporting any future host fee agreements for data
centers in our community," he continued in the post. "Waterford’s
future remains bright and we will continue to pursue opportunities that align
with our values, strengthen our tax base responsibly, and protect the character
of our town for generations to come."
Multiple attempts to reach Brule on Thursday — by phone, at
his Town Hall office and at his home — were unsuccessful. Brule's executive
assistant said he'd been out of the office all day.
NE Edge plans to continue working to develop in the state,
NE Edge CEO Thomas Quinn said Thursday. The company reportedly has a project in
the works in Killingly.
"We've timed out on the Waterford municipal host fee
agreement," Quinn stated. "And though we could not achieve our goal
of building a qualified data center in Waterford, Connecticut in the
contractual period, we were successful in assembling a high-level,
well-qualified team, a $3 billion-contingent financing commitment for
construction, and interest from multiple end users."
"The NE Edge team would like to express thanks to the
town of Waterford representative town meeting members as well as the first
selectman, his staff and town departments for their commitment and support
bringing the opportunity forward," Quinn said. "We will continue to
work to preserve the opportunity for the state of Connecticut, as our neighbors
in Massachusetts and New York continue to accelerate their development in this
space."
Quinn declined to answer further questions regarding the
termination of the agreement.
The town in March 2023 signed the agreement, known formally
as a host municipality fee agreement, with NE Edge. Host municipality fee
agreements — required for any potential data center deal in the state since
Gov. Ned Lamont signed legislation in 2021 to provide tax incentives to data
centers — outline the amount of payment the municipality will receive in lieu
of taxes.
Waterford's agreement, which opened the door for NE Edge to
start acquiring approvals to develop two two-story buildings and a switchyard
on approximately 55 acres of the Millstone property, set a payment to the town
of $231 million in lieu of taxes over 30 years, as well as guidelines on sound
and environmental impact. The agreement received the unanimous support of the
Representative Town Meeting and Board of Selectman.
Brule wrote in his Wednesday post that the decision
"reflected the information and opportunities available to us at that time,
and a shared interest in exploring new economic possibilities for
Waterford."
But well before NE Edge could start building, Dominion
Energy Nuclear Connecticut, the owner and operator of the Millstone site, had
to get approval from the Connecticut Siting Council — which oversees
power-generating facilities in the state — in order for it to be able to host
the data center on its property.
But in January 2024, the siting council denied Dominion's
request, dealing a significant blow to the project. The council did so without
prejudice, meaning Dominion would be able to resubmit a revised version of that
plan, but it never did.
"While we had preferred a different outcome, Dominion
did not refile our petition," a spokeswoman who works for the company said
Thursday.
More than a year then went by with NE Edge out of the public
eye, before finally, in April 2025, it once again took the podium at a Board of
Selectmen meeting to request a transfer of the rights for the project to a
subsidiary company — NE Edge Waterford LLC.
The meeting, like many others held that have involved the
controversial project, was attended by multiple concerned neighbors. The board
ultimately approved the name change, and again things became quiet. It's been
that way for nearly a year, said Selectman Greg Attanasio, who with Brule and
Selectman Richard Muckle voted to approve the agreement.
On Thursday, several members of the Concerned Citizens of
Waterford and East Lyme group, which opposed the project, agreed that the
termination had been preceded by a year where nothing was heard. They
celebrated the termination, but disagreed that Brule had listened to the
public.
“He didn't listen to us,” member Tina Dubosque said,
referencing a poorly publicized meeting held early on in the project at a local
fire house. “To me, that was the start of his, just, trying to glass it all
over.”
Attanasio said he views the termination of the agreement as
a good thing.
"I think it's a good opportunity for the town to reset
and focus on a lot of other things," he said.
Dominion said it has "no current plans to develop a
data center" on its site.
Asked how much time and resources went into planning the
project, Dominion responded that it had "approached this potential
project, as it does with all projects, with thoughtful analysis and
consideration." On the impact of the termination of the agreement,
Dominion further said the data center project would have provided "an
additional off taker for our generation, but it would not impact the amount of
power produced at Millstone Station."