Proposed senior center campus in Meriden could be delayed two years: 'It's disheartening'
MERIDEN — The Harbor Brook flood control project threatens
to delay the proposed $48 million senior center/health department campus on
Cook Avenue.
Members of the building committee learned two weeks ago that
the flood control project underway near 116 Cook Ave., the proposed site of the
new campus, would cause delays. Workers are correcting two bridges before they
can excavate the channel and relocate the soil. The soil is needed to raise 116
Cook Ave. out of the existing flood plain.
The soil relocation was seen as a cost-cutting measure for
the city.
But architects and engineers can't immediately begin design
work until they know if any of the deposited soil is contaminated and what the
final elevation will be.
"Until that work is done, we won't be able to allow the
architects to begin the design," said former acting City Manager Emily
Holland. "Best case, I believe summer of 2026 is when design work will
happen."
The news shocked committee members who sat through two years
of a feasibilty study, presentations, and a final vote on two potential
sites.
"During my interactions, the architect sitting in on
the study and final meeting, at no point do I recall a 24-month timeline,"
said Mayor Kevin Scarpati. "I would assume that would have weighed heavily
in our site selection. If that was known and not disclosed, I have an issue
with that."
In
addition to 116 Cook Ave., the committee looked at a former nursing home site
on Westfield Avenue for the campus. But the city would have to pay for
that site while 116 Cook Ave. is city-owned and closer to downtown. Scarpati
said that despite some of the setbacks with the Westfield Avenue site, the city
would be further along on the work.
Holland explained that part of the final presentation
centered on the intersection of the flood control project and the pending
demolition of 116 Cook Ave. Demolition is expected to begin later this year.
However, she and others did not recall a discussion of a two-year delay.
Scarpati told committee members two weeks ago that they had
three choices: return to another site, hope some meaningful work can be
done during the delay or "scrap this committee and reconvene in two
years."
At a meeting Friday morning, city officials reviewed costs
to truck in clean fill that didn't need to be screened. Scarpati explained the
cost is north of $2 million and wouldn't solve the problem because despite
raising the elevation, without the completed dredging work the property remains
in the flood plain.
The city is also too along to switch sites, he said. State
officials have approved the $2 million demolition work payment and are
reviewing the final request for proposals for a contractor, Holland said.
The city was handed a $48 million cost estimate for the
campus with 10 percent allowed for inflation. The delay will likely cause an
increase in the final price tag, Scarpati said.
Committee Chairman Bruce Fontanella said two weeks ago that
he too had not heard anything about a two-year delay on the start of
construction. He raised the possibility of using unspent American Rescue Act
funds to pay for the clean fill.
"There was never any mention of a two-year
period," Fontanella said. "Whether that‘s an oversight, that’s
what we’re going to have to find out. I know you're all disappointed."
The city awarded a contract for work on two bridges that
began in July. However, the brook dredging cannot begin until the bridge work
is completed. The dredge work is expected to take nine months.
"On that premise alone," Scarpati continued.
"If we have all the money and press go, we can't break ground until
2027."
The building committee meets again Wednesday, when internal
and hired engineers will update members on the project scope and
timeline.
Scarpati sees no other recourse but to disband the building
committee for two years.
"It's disheartening to know we've come this far,
and to have this issue come now, is concerning," Scarpati said Friday.
"We worked with Fuss & ONeil. The architect stated there was flood
control work but it would be done by 2025. so construction could begin. At this
point, I don't know if we have other options."
Manchester not selected for 'Safe Streets' grant for proposed streetscape overhaul
MANCHESTER — Though the
proposed overhaul of downtown Manchester was not selected for a
recently awarded federal grant, town officials are optimistic for the next
funding round.
The Downtown Manchester Improvements
project was introduced
in March 2022 by town staff as a conceptual plan that would make numerous
changes to a segment of Main Street while conducting necessary
infrastructure work.
Town Manager Steve Stephanou said Friday that the project is
now estimated to cost about $15 million to $20 million, which could be split
into phases if approved.
Some
residents have taken issue with a proposed "road diet,"
which consists of reducing travel lanes in the corridor from four to three,
though town staff and some elected officials have said the changes would
enhance safety.
In May, elected officials authorized Manchester's
application for federal funding through "Safe Streets and Roads
for All," a grant program established by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law in 2022. The intent of the five-year program is to fund
projects designed to prevent injuries and deaths on roadways, a
key component of the proposal by Manchester's town staff.
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Sept.
5 more
than $1 billion for projects in 354 communities across the country.
Manchester was not one of those chosen in the latest round,
though other Connecticut projects did receive awards. Among those selected were
West Hartford, which secured $3.1 million for its
"Vision Zero" road safety improvement plan, and New Haven, which
will receive $11 million to improve 1.6 miles of road on the
crash-prone Chapel Street.
The program has granted $2.7 billion to more than 1,400
communities, including Connecticut towns like Fairfield and Westport,
and has over $2 billion left to grant in the next two years.
Stephanou said that the Safe Streets grant is highly
competitive, and New Haven and West Hartford were the only two
municipalities in Connecticut to receive funding in this round.
Town staff will hold a debrief with the U.S. DOT to hear
about how they can strengthen Manchester's application, Stephanou said, and he
will recommend to the Board of Directors that the town submit an application
for an upcoming round of funding in early 2025.
"That will ultimately be up to the Board of Directors
to authorize," Stephanou said.
Stephanou also noted that West Hartford's approved project
includes a road diet, bike lanes, speed management, and new or modified
features to aid pedestrian travel.
"These are very similar components and goals to the
application we submitted, so I am hopeful our application will be successful
next round," Stephanou said.
As for other funding sources, Stephanou said Manchester has
secured $8.3 million in grants to implement the proposed overhaul and is
actively seeking other external funding and grant sources.
Looking to the future of the plan, Stephanou said 2024
remains a year of engagement for the plan, and the town hopes to have an
approved plan sometime next year. He said any construction timeline would
depend on both the Board of Director's approval and available funding.
Could deal with Mass. return Conn. to latest offshore wind energy auction?
Edmund H. Mahony, Hartford Courant
A week after Connecticut
was a no-show at an offshore wind auction it helped organize, a
proposed energy swap with Massachusetts could lead to its return to the
multi-state collaboration that was created to reduce the costs of wind power
for southern New England.
Massachusetts has signaled it is receptive to an agreement,
proposed by Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, that could put Connecticut back into
offshore wind procurement.
Under the plan, according to industry and government
officials, Massachusetts would join Connecticut in a long term agreement to buy
energy from the Millstone
nuclear power station in Waterford. Connecticut, in return, would
partner with Massachusetts on buying power from the offshore wind project
Vineyard Wind 2, planned for a tract of ocean about 25 miles south of Martha’s
Vineyard.
Lamont discussed the plan with Massachusetts Gov. Maura
Healey during a regional energy conference in Boston this week.
“Governor Lamont believes that Millstone is a regional asset
and is grateful that Governor Healey included the procurement language in a
recent legislative proposal,” a Lamont spokesperson said Friday. “As was
discussed at the meeting on Tuesday, making our grid more reliable, green, and
affordable is a multi-state effort.”
Healey’s office did not respond immediately Thursday to
specific questions about the Millstone deal. But earlier in the week, a
spokesperson described the benefits of regional cooperation on energy issues.
“Offshore wind is key to unlocking jobs and economic
development in our region,” the Healey spokesperson said. “We believe in the
Vineyard Wind 2 project. Selecting projects now will ensure New England stays
in the lead as the industry takes off nationwide. Massachusetts appreciates
Connecticut’s partnership and we look forward to other entities joining in this
procurement.”
Recent developments in offshore energy arrived at a
politically unfortunate time for the Lamont administration. Consumer outrage
over a summertime spike in consumer electric bills continues as a legislative
election approaches and questions about conversion to an all electric economy
pile up.
The price increase for consumers arrived in the public
benefit portion of bills, which reimburses Eversource and United Illuminating
for hundred of millions of dollars the state requires them to spend on social
welfare, decarbonization and other so-called public benefit programs
Most of the July increase, 78%, is the result of a contract
the state has with Dominion Energy that requires Eversource and United
Illuminating to buy electricity from its Millstone station. The contract is
intended to be a hedge against fluctuations in energy costs but over the past
year it has committed the utilities to purchasing power at above market rates.
A week ago, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were
expected to simultaneously announce the winning bidders in the first tri-state
wind energy auction. Connecticut’s absence was attributed by industry observers
to political reluctance to commit to buying expensive wind energy while
consumers complained about bills arriving now.
Connecticut’s failure to commit to an offshore power
purchase raised doubts about both the future of a three state initiative and
the Vineyard Wind 2 project, which would connect to the New England power grid
through an undersea transmission line ending at a yet-to-be-built power
substation in Montville, creating hundreds of local jobs and millions in local
investment.
At a news conference earlier this week, before Healey
proposed legislation to authorize a Millstone deal, Lamont sounded uncertain
about whether Connecticut would return to the wind auction.
“Look, I think everybody would like us to triple down on as
much new power, particularly carbon free power, as we possibly can,” Lamont
said during a mid week press conference. “And I do as well, but I also have a
close eye for the rate payer because I know how expensive it is.”
Connecticut already has an agreement to buy offshore power,
with Rhode Island, from the Revolution Wind project under construction south of
Block Island by Danish multinational Orsted. The project will provide 304
megawatts of energy to Connecticut and 400 megawatts to Rhode Island, enough
energy to power more than 350,000 homes in both states.
Asked when he would make a decision on rejoining the latest
offshore auction, Lamont said, “We’ll see.” Asked whether it would be before
the election, he said, “I’m cautious on this, as you know, so not for a while.”
When the winning bids were announced a week ago, the project
developers chosen by Massachusetts to produce, collectively, 2,678 megawatts of
electricity for that state, were SouthCoast Wind, Vineyard Wind 2 and New
England Wind 1, a venture of Avangrid, parent company of Orange-based United
Illuminating. Rhode Island took an additional 200 Megawatts from SouthCoast
Wind.
The announcements, and Connecticut’s absence, raised doubts
about the future of Vineyard Wind 2, which is designed to produce 1,200
megawatts of electricity, but sold only 800 to Massachusetts. Because of the
project’s design, it is not clear whether it can proceed with less than full
production, according to a company official.
“We look forward to Connecticut’s forthcoming decision on
the remainder of the procurement so that we can begin to deliver important
economic and climate benefits to the region,” Vineyard Offshore CEO Alicia
Barton, the project developer, said in a statement this week.
While a Millstone/wind energy agreement appears to be under
discussion, few details, including how it would affect consumer bills, are
known. A Connecticut legislator present at a meeting when Lamont raised the
subject, said Massachusetts would not buy into Millstone power until after the
state’s existing contract runs out in 2029 and a new contract is negotiated.
Political and industry observers in Hartford and Boston said
there is no certainty that such an agreement would win political approval in
either capital. Because Healey needs legislative authorization to enter a power
purchase agreement with Dominion’s Millstone, and the Massachusetts legislature
is not in session. she has attached a Millstone provision to a supplemental
budget bill.
“Now, just because she added it doesn’t mean it is going to
survive in the legislature,” a Massachusetts power industry official said.
“There are broader politics around it. But it is a very live deal.”
In Connecticut, moderate Democrats and Republicans appear
reluctant to agree to anything that would raise rates.
State Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Republican and ranking member of
the Legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee has questioned why the either
state would consider buying into wind energy at current prices, which are at
least two to three times the $04.99 cents per kilowatt hour Connecticut is
paying under the existing Millstone contract.
CT opts out — for now — of offshore wind, raising concerns about motives
It was supposed to be New England’s biggest and most
innovative offshore wind initiative ever — a three-state solicitation by
Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island designed to get the best prices and
efficiencies for a lot of new offshore wind that would be key in creating
carbon-free energy to help curb climate change.
It was the first such effort in the U.S., and it would also
reset the offshore wind process in the region, which has suffered setbacks in
the last year or so due to balky national and international economies,
inflation and more than a few geopolitical problems.
But when an announcement of the projects selected from the
March solicitation finally came a few days after Labor Day, Connecticut was
MIA. A brief statement from the state Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection congratulated the other states and then said simply:
“The evaluation of project bids remains underway in Connecticut and we will
announce a final decision in our solicitation at a future date.”
To be fair, there had been hints for several weeks that the
state would not follow the same schedule as its neighbors. But Connecticut’s
absence has prompted more than a little private speculation that politics —
specifically around the high electricity rates that are providing Republican
campaign fodder in this election season — is at work.
“We don’t know, but we do know that that’s been a
challenging issue in the state,” said Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president
of law and policy at Conservation Law Foundation, or CLF. “We hold out hope
that Connecticut, as it said it was, is continuing to evaluate the
opportunities and may yet come forward with one or more projects.”
Gov. Ned Lamont told The Connecticut Mirror this week that
his reason for caution with a new offshore wind commitment is its high cost
that would compound existing high electric rates, coupled with the reality that
the state already is essentially subsidizing the Millstone Nuclear Power
Station. At 2,100 megawatts, Millstone is the region’s largest source of power,
all of it carbon-free.
“We’re the ones who are subsidizing nuclear, the biggest
source of carbon-free power. I care deeply about affordability, especially
now,” Lamont said. “I had some background discussions on that and am still
thinking about it.”
But some privately worry that Lamont might pull the plug as
he did in 2021 when the transportation and climate initiative, TCI, faced
massive opposition from Republicans and others.
“This feels eerily similar,” said one advocate, who declined
to be named.
But most were taking Lamont at his word that his calculation
was money, not politics and the upcoming election.
“I certainly, in my heart of hearts, hope that’s not a
consideration. If this is announced after the first week of November, I would
be very angry,” said Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, and the ranking member on
the Energy and Technology Committee. “I think the governor is very reticent to
sign a contract to buy electricity at three or four times the wholesale market
rate for electricity. He’s a businessman; he understands that’s a bad deal for
consumers in Connecticut, and I think the hope from him, me, others, is that
these projects, these megawatts, become a lot cheaper and more competitive in
the future. We should not be a buyer at any price.”
Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D- Westport, and the committee’s
co-chair, agreed that money was the core issue for the governor, who had met
with the committee’s leadership to discuss the situation. “He is extremely
focused on ratepayer pain right now and does not want to have his fingerprints
on something that is going to raise rates,” Steinberg said, adding that an
agreement reached now wouldn’t impact ratepayer rates for years.
At the same time, he held out hope the political and price
landscapes would change quickly.
“Does he pivot right after the election? I would hope so,
certainly. I urged him to do that,” Steinberg said. “I would have thought
perhaps he would have hedged his bets and made a rather small procurement. … I
would have expected something.”
Steinberg and climate advocates repeatedly pointed to the
need for offshore wind to help meet the state’s mandate for a zero-carbon grid
by 2040, lower greenhouse gas and other climate-warming emissions that plague
the region, and help meet an increased need for power supplies as motor
vehicles, heat and other heavy power users, such as data centers, turn to
electricity for their fuel source.
“Developing our offshore wind resources is absolutely
critical to reaching our energy and climate goals, that much is clear,” said
Charles Rothenberger, climate and energy attorney at Save the Sound. “These
projects need to start being built.”
“We’re still hoping that there may be an announcement from
Connecticut, or perhaps continued negotiations, even among the three states,
that will result in the announcement of more,” Daly of CLF said. “The fact that
this still represents forward progress is a net positive.”
Both pointed out that the power from offshore wind really
goes into the New England grid, where all the states benefit from the power as
well as the job creation associated with it and, eventually, lower energy
prices.
But the current situation was not how regional offshore wind
development was originally conceived. And it is putting some pressure on
Connecticut to live up to its commitment, especially because the state was a
key player in developing this particular coalition as well as others aimed at
modernizing and decarbonizing energy and transmission in the New England grid.
What happened
Several projects were already in progress in the region when
inflation spiked, supply chains fractured and worldwide economies sputtered as
a result of COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Some offshore wind developers on the East Coast tried to renegotiate their deals to accommodate their now
higher costs. Others pulled out of their deals.
Among them was Avangrid. It pulled out of an
804-megawatt contract for Connecticut called Park City Wind, which
included jobs and port development in Bridgeport. It also pulled out of a
1,200-megawatt contract in Massachusetts called Commonwealth Wind.
In 2019, the Connecticut legislature authorized the state to
purchase up to 2,000 megawatts of offshore wind. Park City had been the first
purchase towards that goal. Its cancellation put the state back to zero, where
it remains.
An earlier offshore wind project, Revolution Wind, pre-dated
that authorization and is under construction. It will supply 300 megawatts for
Connecticut and 400 for Rhode Island.
Avangrid put its projects back up to bid, presumably at
higher prices, in the multistate solicitation in March of this year. Park
City was renamed New England Wind 1. Commonwealth is now New England Wind 2.
Avangrid continued working on them all along, and New England Wind 1, the old
Park City, is fully permitted and much farther along than any other project in
the bid group.
Somewhat surprisingly, Massachusetts — not Connecticut
— chose that project, now 791 mw. It’s unclear whether the
Bridgeport development component remains. It also chose 800 mw of a 1,200 mw
project called Vineyard Wind 2 and 1087 mw of a project called South Coast
Wind, also a rebid project. Rhode Island opted for the remaining 200 mw of South
Coast.
What remains, aside from New England Wind 2 (likely to be
rebid in a future solicitation) and the rest of Vineyard Wind 2, is the
entirety of a project called Starboard Wind. It’s an Ørsted project, proposed
at 1,184 mw specifically for Connecticut or Rhode Island, or a joint project.
The project would use the State Pier in New London for staging and
construction.
Ørsted owns the pier and it is already handling assembly and
delivery operations for three offshore wind projects: Revolution, Sunrise Wind
in New York and the already completed and operational South Fork Wind 35 miles
off the eastern tip of Montauk Point on Long Island.
But it is the remaining 400 mw of Vineyard Wind 2 that
stands to threaten the heretofore synchronized and amicable energy relationship
among the New England states, especially the two largest power users:
Massachusetts and Connecticut.
A somewhat ominous statement on Vineyard Offshore’s website is
casting doubt on the viability of the project if no state picks up the rest of
the power. That could eliminate about 30% of the Massachusetts commitment, and
the finger is pointed directly at Connecticut.
It reads: “’Vineyard Offshore congratulates Gov. Healey and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for their commitment to procure up to 800
megawatts from our 1,200-megawatt Vineyard Wind 2 project, which provides the
opportunity to deliver New England’s next-generation offshore wind project,”
said Vineyard Offshore CEO Alicia Barton. “We look forward to
Connecticut’s forthcoming decision on the remainder of the procurement so that
we can begin to deliver important economic and climate benefits to the region.’”
Vineyard Offshore did not respond to a request for further
comment. But those with knowledge of the project say it is not an idle threat.
“I think Gov. Healey is looking for a partner. I think she
had a reason to be expecting she’d have a partner,” Steinberg said. “Everything
that the New England states have been talking about incorporates offshore wind
as a significant component. I’m just disappointed in the governor’s position at
this point. I don’t think it’s constructive.”
But he and others believe the governor has time to make up
his mind, given that these projects are years away, the developers keep working
on them even without buyers for the power and given the financial landscape may
be about to change with the Federal Reserve widely expected to lower interest
rates at its next meeting this month.
On the flip side, Donald Trump famously hates offshore wind, and his first administration slow-walked its development for four
years. If he returns to office, a similar scenario may well play out.
“I don’t know what the plan is, but we could pick up those
400 megawatts, and there’s no particular urgency for us to make that decision
yesterday,” Rothenberger said. “If Connecticut chose no projects from this
latest round, that would be very disappointing. … It would seem to indicate a
real lack of awareness of the benefits of these projects for Connecticut
residents, which I know the administration possesses.”
As for the governor himself, when asked when he might decide
on whether to opt in on offshore wind: “I’m cautious on this, as you know,” he
said. “Not for a while.”