October 29, 2025

CT Construction Digest Wednesday October 29, 2025

CT needs to plan for its energy future, but the view is cloudy

Jan Ellen Spiegel

Connecticut, along with the rest of New England, has long recognized that its energy future lies in cleaning up the electricity sources in its power grid.

And since the 1990s, with the start of the effort to close the “sooty six” coal and oil plants, cleaning up the air for health and climate reasons has figured equally with saving money by using free renewable sources like sun and wind.

The Trump administration has now made that a lot harder, if not impossible, to do, leaving Connecticut and the entire region with the question: Now what?

Since his first day in office, Trump has set about eliminating future development of onshore and offshore wind on federal property, which effectively means all offshore wind, a form of renewable power Trump openly despises. So far, his administration has issued stop-work orders for two northeast offshore wind installations already under construction, including one for Connecticut. Each resumed construction after about a month, losing millions of dollars in the process.

Trump has also succeeded getting a law on the books to end the widely popular and effective federal tax credits for wind, solar and energy efficiency projects. The administration also threw its weight behind keeping old and dirty coal plants operating longer than previously planned, as well as subsidizing more coal mining. And it is ramping up oil and gas drilling, all in the name of an “energy emergency” that Trump claims exists, even though the country is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world.

Bottom of Form

“Singling out and disfavoring renewable resources while many other resources continue to enjoy favorable tax treatment, including fossil resources — this is not leveling the playing field. This is definitely putting a finger on the scale to disadvantage clean renewable energy resources,” said Katie Dykes, commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. She called the end of the tax credit “really challenging,” noting the state had a pipeline of projects it had hoped to bring forward, and warned that power prices would likely increase.

“We are doing what we can within our state jurisdictional programs to try to fill in some of the gaps. Obviously, we can’t fill all the gaps,” Dykes said. The state is urging residents, businesses, governmental entities and energy developers to take advantage of the tax credits before many of them disappear at the end of the year. To that end, DEEP issued an expedited request for proposals for solar and onshore wind. Proposals were due Oct. 10. Energy efficiency, especially useful to lower income and environmental justice communities, may feel the impact most acutely.

But it is offshore wind and the massive amount of carbon-free power it can generate, that Connecticut, and really the entire Northeast, had been counting on.

DEEP must sort through all of this uncertainty as it devises its new Integrated Resource Plan, a 10-year look ahead at energy needs and how to meet them, in keeping with the energy and climate policies the state has in place.

But in addition to the federal government’s energy policies, DEEP now has to reckon with the administration’s tariffs, policies on imported critical minerals, supply chain concerns and environmental about-faces. And it risks the potential for retribution if the state defies Trump’s wishes on anything, not just climate policy.

“We are undertaking planning efforts that are intended to try to assess as best we can what some of the different future scenarios will look like in terms of electricity needs, but also climate planning, and to do our best to identify the types of investments that might make sense, on what time horizon, given the change in the federal landscape, but also demand growth and reliability needs and so on,” Dykes said.

The actions from the federal administration against offshore winds have been targeted and very calculated.

Stephanie Francoeur, senior vice president, Oceantic

Dan Dolan is also thinking about what to do now. He’s president of the New England Power Generators Association, a trade organization that represents about 95% of the generating capacity in the region.

“Where we stand right now is this muddled middle period,” he said.

Demand isn’t rising quite as fast as anticipated due to the impacts of solar and energy efficiency on the grid. But there’s also uncertainty about whether that trend will continue without tax credits and whether planned large power source additions will come online on time or at all.

“In terms of new supply sources, I am not seeing meaningful, large-scale new developments happening anytime soon in the region,” Dolan said. “If demand continues to be more muted in its growth, we can handle that.“

But he said if demand does go up significantly, despite individual state commitments to transition from fossil fuel power sources to clean and renewable ones, the region might have to look at keeping older, dirtier power sources operating for longer than planned, and that might mean spending more than a little money to upgrade them.

“I’m seeing a lot of investors watching but staying on the sidelines for the moment,” Dolan said.

Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, is co-chair of the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee. He has been a member of the committee since entering the legislature in 2011, so he has seen the twists, turns and growing pains as the state endeavored to create and implement its first short- and long-term strategies toward renewable energy while addressing climate change, health of citizens and high energy rates.

 “We had, in our procurement planning and our capacity analysis, obviously — in conjunction with (grid operator) ISO-New England — counted on the availability of renewable energy sources to meet our needs,” he said. With the federal government now undermining those supply plans, “That is now a crisis that might have been 10 years away. It is now moving closer and closer to being an actual, impending crisis.

“We’re really low on options, but renewables were a critical part of that picture going forward.”

After many years of delay, a transmission line for hydropower from Canada — the Northeast Clean Energy Connect, NECEC — is months from completion. The power is being purchased by Massachusetts, but it provides a relief valve for the entire New England grid. Breath-holding is underway that the Trump administration will not sabotage it, given the administration’s fraught relationship with Canada as well as the blue-state northeast.

If that and the two offshore wind projects under construction off New England are finished, Dykes said, it will add about 13% of supply.

But any offshore wind beyond that, including projects approved by the Biden administration? ‘Unlikely’ would be a generous assessment of its future.

How dead is offshore wind?

Offshore wind was the big prize. At the end of the Biden administration, 11 projects had been approved nationally that would have provided the power equivalent of nearly 10 Millstone power stations and gotten the U.S. about two-thirds of the way to the Biden goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030.

Today, five are under construction. A sixth, South Fork Wind off the eastern tip of Long Island, is completed and began operating about a year ago. The remaining five have been stopped either at early stages or through efforts by the Trump administration to review or outright rescind already-issued federal permits. The administration ended all new lease-area designations and permits.

Of the two under construction that faced stop-work orders, one is Revolution Wind, a joint Connecticut and Rhode Island project that is already 80% complete. While it and the other project — New York’s Empire Wind — have restarted, it’s unclear what might happen to the other three. In the case of Revolution, a legal dispute is still underway.

“I think there’s no question that East Coast states, particularly from the mid-Atlantic up, have to continue to fight for offshore wind,” said Elizabeth Klein, who served as the final Biden administration director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, the entity within the Interior Department responsible for offshore wind.

“There’s no question that what the current administration is doing is damaging to the industry and causing a great deal of harm,” she said. “The looming question is whether or not these companies who are involved will be able to essentially wait it out and invest their time and resources in parts of developing offshore wind that aren’t directly about getting permits and approvals to move forward with new projects.”

Ørsted, the company developing Revolution Wind and other projects, declined to comment on the situation. Avangrid, the company developing Vineyard Wind 1, the only other New England project under construction, did not respond to inquiries.

Klein said the Trump administration claim that it was concerned about national security issues with Revolution Wind is “specious.” She said national security is reviewed in conjunction with several departments throughout every stage of the offshore wind process, beginning with the basic identification of offshore areas that might be suitable for leasing.

“All of those things are considered throughout the process, starting with where these sales first take place,” she said. “This is arbitrary and capricious decision-making. There’s no evidence that there’s something new or unusual or that had not been considered.”

Trump himself has circulated a host of falsehoods about offshore wind — that it causes cancer and kills an outsized number of birds and whales, and that it only runs some of the time. Offshore wind is a technology that is a quarter-of-a-century old, during which time it has operated successfully in Europe. Onshore wind is far older.

one-year assessment of South Fork Wind by its developer, Ørsted, showed the turbines operated every month of the year. The data, which came from U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration, EIA, showed some of South Fork’s highest outputs were during the winter, when the power is needed most, due to natural gas being used for heating as well electricity. The wind power can prevent electricity price spikes.

The company also found the turbine foundations were already operating as artificial reefs that supported marine life.

The waters off the northeast U.S. are considered among the country’s best for offshore wind, given the area’s wind speeds and other factors. And since the region doesn’t have any fossil fuel resources, even with steep up-front costs, offshore wind is likely to quickly become cost effective, given the fuel is free.

A recent analysis by Politico of EIA data showed that adding wind and solar to the electricity mix tended to lower the cost of electricity, not increase it, as the Trump administration claims. The Politico analysis said: “Among the 22 states that drew higher-than-average shares of their power from wind and solar, 17 had below-average electricity prices in June, according to EIA data.”

“Undermining viable sources of energy is inconsistent with the objective of addressing an energy ‘emergency’ and will instead exacerbate energy supply challenges in the Northeast,” said Peter Shattuck, a director at Power Advisory LLC., a joint Canada/U.S.-based energy consultant. Shattuck also is an energy and grid expert with long experience in New England.

He said that, in something of a tarnished silver lining, the Trump blockage will give long-term projects such as transmission extra time to plan. But trying to strategize through all the Trump executive orders, other policy changes and legal battles is bound to make projects more expensive.

“It will likely raise the risk profile and risk premiums that are included in projects,” he said.

“The actions from the federal administration against offshore winds have been targeted and very calculated. In our view, it’s holding back a huge source of power that is so desperately needed,” said Stephanie Francoeur, senior vice president of communications and external affairs for the educational nonprofit Oceantic, which supports marine renewable energy world-wide including offshore wind.

“The administration talks about an all-of-the-above energy strategy and unleashing American energy dominance. We advocate that offshore wind is a critical component to that strategy.” She said energy needs to be depoliticized so the market, not the government, can pick the winners and losers.

“They’re looking to take apart an entire industry that could support energy demand in the U.S., address national security issues actually, because there is nothing better from a national security perspective on energy supply than generating it yourself at home, here in the U.S.,” Klein said.

Those concerns are not lost on the region’s grid operator, ISO-New England, which released an uncharacteristically blunt warning a couple of days after work stopped on Revolution Wind.

“The ISO is expecting this project to come online and it is included in our analyses of near-term and future grid reliability. Delaying the project will increase risks to reliability,” the statement read. “Unpredictable risks and threats to resources —regardless of technology — that have made significant capital investments, secured necessary permits, and are close to completion will stifle future investments, increase costs to consumers, and undermine the power grid’s reliability and the region’s economy now and in the future,” it continued.

The Revolution shutdown, along with the tax credit eliminations, unpredictability of Trump energy policies and mandates come just as the ISO was beginning its next 10-year energy forecast. The ISO has already said it expects demand to begin to increase after years of flat or even declining energy needs.

“I think in the short term we still expect to be OK, but it’s kind of in that longer-term and the uncertainty that’s brought into this that’s challenging from a grid planning standpoint,” said ISO spokesman Matt Kakley.

The ISO’s most recent estimates are that region’s annual electricity consumption will increase by about 11% over the next decade. On one hand, the removal of tax credits for electric vehicles and heat pumps could shrink that demand. On the other, their removal for solar systems and energy efficiency could increase it.

In addition to the offshore wind and the NECEC transmission line, the ISO is also expecting the six New England states to move ahead with their first joint development of transmission that, after more than a decade of delay, would finally get onshore wind from northern Maine onto the southern part of the New England grid.

Kakley said six proposals from four different developers were submitted by the Sept. 30 deadline.

Now there is the concern that the need for any federal signoffs could mean further delay, or worse.

Kakley said the ISO always deals with uncertainty when predicting power needs in the face of the complexities of long-term power and transmission projects. “This is a different sort of uncertainty than what we’ve seen,” he said. “We’re really looking at what we can do to enhance our ability to forecast and synthesize all the different factors that are coming in – adding resources, taking resources out, and seeing what that does to the region’s risk profile.”

What about solar?

Solar’s outlook is a little squishier than offshore wind’s. Yes, the coveted 30% tax credits are slated to disappear — for purchased residential systems at the end of this year and in another year for leased and commercial ones.

But costs for solar have come down dramatically over time, making it one of the cheapest forms of power to purchase. It’s also the fastest to install. So it’s possible residential consumers and commercial investors will still consider it a cost effective option.

Another unknown factor is the effect of tariffs and other restrictions on imported components on that low price and availability, as well as to storage systems that can be paired with it.

Solar is not only an industry here in the state, it is part of the solution for us.

Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport

New England has never been a hotbed for huge commercial installations the way the desert southwest and other parts of the country, with large sunny expanses, can be. But rooftop solar for homeowners and on municipal and commercial buildings still has huge potential in the region and can be extremely useful to grid reliability.

It is already more useful than the ISO ever imagined it would be. The ISO says it has prevented brownouts and worse on hot summer days with air conditioning cranked up around the region. It has sent spot market prices into negative territory, especially on sunny days when neither heat nor air conditioning is needed.

“I think there’s capital out there that’s willing to invest,” said DEEP Commissioner Dykes. “I think the question is, what’s the price of solar without federal support, and with tariffs, all these other things coming into play? How does that affect the cost benefit for investment, and how much can we bring those costs down?”

Dykes has a few ideas. One is to look into swapping out solar panels in older systems for new, more efficient panels as a means to increase power output. Another is to use — in her words — already disturbed sites, such as the site of a retired oil-fired generator, for grid-scale storage for excess solar power. Using a preexisting power site would mean there’s already connections to the distribution system.

The biggest open question for Connecticut is what might change in state policy to help make up for the lost tax credit. The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority will be weighing that as part of its reconsideration of the rules for the solar program it established. That reconsideration was already planned and underway, with recommendations due in March.

Another policy aspect involves what the state might do legislatively. Unlike most of its neighbors, Connecticut has kept caps on the amount of solar allowed, only loosening some of them in the last few years.

It’s also an open question whether state money would be authorized to make up some of the tax credit shortfall, or whether the state might do as Canada already does and establish an infrastructure bank to leverage private and public money into the financing pipeline, or create a Transmission Infrastructure Accelerator like California recently enacted to access low-cost public financing for such projects as a way to save money overall. The northeast-based advocacy group Acadia Center is helping the six New England states explore financing models.

“My only priority for next session is to set the stage for some extension or enhancement of our solar incentives,” said energy co-chair Steinberg. “This is very important to me as the godfather of solar, as Katie Dykes once called me, and that will be very hard.

“Everybody says it’s over; federal government has killed solar, game over, there’s nothing Connecticut can do. I cannot accept that,” he said. “Solar is not only an industry here in the state, it is part of the solution for us. To abandon it and not offer any incentives, or to backtrack to the point where the incentives don’t stimulate actual implementation — shame on us.”

But there are other ways to indirectly reduce costs for solar; specifically by streamling permitting, the regulatory process and siting – soft costs, as they are sometimes called.

Massachusetts is already doing that.

“We’re going to have to throw everything we can at permitting, streamlining and reducing soft costs in order to support the affordability of more solar investment for grid-scale projects,” Dykes said.

Kat Burnham, senior principal at the consulting and policy group Advanced Energy United and the state lead for all three southern New England states, said Connecticut and other states need to step up and put some financial skin as well as policy in the game. She pointed to financial tools like the Green Bank.

“I think what’s important is to make sure that we’re looking at a range of different options and trying to find the right one that fits the particular need or situation,” she said. “What are the tools in our kit, and how do we use those so that we minimize our risk?”

She said there’s a cost to building things. And she said there’s “a cost to inaction … We can’t just sit on our hands and hope for the best.”

DEEP is also in the final throes of accepting bids for innovative energy efficiency and energy upgrade proposals designed to help lower energy bills.

In Massachusetts, for instance, all three major utilities — one of which is Eversource — have agreed to discount electric rates in the winter for people who use heat pumps. While they run on electricity, aside from being efficient, they free up other fuels like natural gas to run power plants. In Connecticut, DEEP is continuing with its focus of lowering the upfront installation costs for heat pumps.

Solutions

Barbara Kates-Garnick, a former Massachusetts energy official, now a professor of practice at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, said the path forward she sees is bringing together utilities, regulators, policy makers, other stakeholders and system participants to explore some of the out-of-the-box solutions.

“The answers aren’t clear, but I think we have to look at how we regulate, what we regulate, and come to some conversations with the utilities so that we come to a bigger grand bargain,” she said.

She noted, however, the Biden idea of promoting clean energy by providing incentives, funding and jobs — especially in red states — “when push comes to shove, it didn’t work.”

Dykes is not ruling out increasing fossil fuel-run power as part of Connecticut’s solution to the Trump anti-renewables effort.

“It’s a possibility,” she said, noting that Lamont has talked about the need to be open to natural gas as part of a solution.   

If the offshore wind and other projects do not come online, she said, “that will certainly put us into a very challenging place in terms of having an adequate reserve margin and ability to maintain reliability even under some normal weather conditions.

“In light of that, we have to consider what are the alternatives that make the most sense to ensure we can continue to have an affordable, reliable grid in the early 2030s, and natural gas is part of that. Retaining those oil units — is that a solution that we’ll have to rely on?” Dykes said.

Dolan of the Power Generators Association, while also advocating continued use of the region’s gas and oil fleet, doesn’t have specific facilities he’d like to see targeted for reinvestment.

“I think there needs to be a refocus around the meat and potatoes about what is operating today and making sure it continues to operate tomorrow. Now the replacement energy supplies are not coming or not coming anytime soon, and for these power plants to be able to continue operating and operating at higher capacity, reinvestment is going to be necessary,” Dolan said, taking a thinly-veiled swipe at Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which all plan to have net-zero grids in the next 20 to 25 years.

For offshore wind proponents, it’s a rebuilding and refocusing period for the industry, said Oceantic’s Francoeur, who added that more than 100 turbine foundations and towers had been installed in the active offshore wind projects since construction season opened in May.

“The industry is going to weather this administration. Who knows what the next will bring,” she said. “But I think it won’t be the orderly advancement that it once could have been.”

Former BOEM Director Klein said she thinks it’s important for states to keep supporting the offshore wind projects that are underway.

“It’ll demonstrate to the project developers that there are important entities in the U.S. that are still supportive and want to find a path forward,” she said. “Folks aren’t building this for kicks, because it’s fun. This is about actual energy supply needs … and actually communities, when presented with alternatives, are likely to see that offshore wind is the best of the bunch.”

In the meantime, some of the wind focus may shift to Canada, where the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are exploring the development of huge amounts of offshore and onshore wind. Whether New England will be able to access some of that is years and likely many diplomatic twists away.

The Trump administration’s pivot away from wind and solar in particular and back toward fossil fuels is already taking the U.S. globally out of step. Recent data from the European clean energy think tank, data and policy tracker Ember showed that worldwide, in the first six months of 2025, renewables overtook coal power for the first time. And it showed that the growth in solar and wind power outpaced the growth of demand in the same time period. But while fossil fuel generation and its emissions dropped in China and India, the world’s most populated countries, fossil fuel generation and emissions increased in the U.S. Clean generation growth did not keep pace with demand growth in the U.S.

“For a bunch of largely economic reasons, we do still think that solar and wind are going to out-compete fossil fuels,” said Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy at the New England-based Conservation Law Foundation, though she admitted the Trump actions are slowing down their adoption.

But she wondered whether the industry would be able to pivot enough in the face of multiple challenges to keep investors confident enough to continue.

“That, I guess, is the big question mark,” she said.

Dykes sees the same challenge.

“Investors need to know that after a multiyear permitting process, when you have a project that’s 80% constructed, that you can bring it online, sell your power and get your money back,” she said. “And if we can’t guarantee that in the Northeast or in the U.S. anymore, I think that affects the investment climate for all types of resources at a time when we can least afford to increase investor perception of risk.”

The energy committee’s Steinberg added a warning. “That’s an excuse to be paralyzed. That’s an excuse to basically throw up our hands and say, ‘we just have to wait out the feds,’” he said. “That’s going to mean that the ramping up stage is going to be even more complicated on the other side, assuming there is another side.”


Naugatuck begins $80M mixed-use project aimed at revitalizing downtown

Greg Bordonaro

Officials, dignitaries and developers broke ground Tuesday on a roughly $80 million, 180-unit mixed-use, mixed-income apartment project in downtown Naugatuck.

Philadelphia-based Pennrose and Hartford-based The Cloud Co. hosted local and state officials on a 7-acre former industrial site, where construction is underway on the first of three 60-unit buildings. The development will ultimately feature more than 7,000 square feet of commercial space and a new public greenspace for the broader community.

“The Pennrose mixed-use project marks a turning point for our downtown — where new housing units, restaurants and walkable streets come together to create a vibrant destination,” Naugatuck Mayor N. Warren “Pete” Hess said. “We’re not just building housing; we’re building opportunity, energy and long-term value for our entire town.”

The development site is located along Old Firehouse Road, with one side bounded by the Naugatuck River. A government-led effort remediated environmental contaminants on the site before the property’s recent $600,000 sale to the developers, said Karmen Cheung, Pennrose’s regional vice president for New England.

The Pennrose-Cloud team was selected by Naugatuck officials to redevelop the property through a request-for-proposal process. Pennrose was drawn to the city’s proactive and sustained push for revitalization, Cheung said.

“The local leadership has a desire to densify and create a walkable downtown,” Cheung said. “Those are the kinds of communities we think we will continue to see grow. There is a lot of activity going on and that is a beacon for us that this is a place worth investing in.”

The project is being financed through a mix of federal low-income housing tax credits, a loan from the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, funding from the state departments of Housing and Developmental Services, the Federal Home Loan banks of Boston and New York, and a construction loan shared by Ion Bank and M&T Bank.

Cheung estimated the first building will cost about $26 million, with later phases expected to face typical cost increases. The four-story, wood-framed buildings will be constructed on grade slabs and include elevators.


Trumbull data center plans to invest $200 million in the property over the next five years

Shaniece Holmes-Brown

TRUMBULL — The operator of a Trumbull data center said he will make a $200 million investment that will upgrade the property, boost its value and bring more jobs to town.

Roelof Opperman, the CEO and founder of cogNOVUM, the operator of the data center at 80 Merritt Blvd, said the investment is the first step of a state-offered tax incentive program the company is pursuing and will bring many long-term benefits to Trumbull.

"We're really excited to contribute to the town," Opperman said. "I really appreciate the town's help and working with us."

Economic and Community Development Director Rina Bakalar said the town is in favor of the plan, and signed a host municipality fee agreement with the data center after the plan was approved by the Town Council on Oct. 6. 

She said the $10 million sale of the property from Digital Realty to AC Trumbull LLC in December 2024 didn't reflect the property's overall value to the town, given that Digital Realty originally purchased the property for almost $91 million in 2010, according to land records.

"The reason this is good for the town, is that when you make that level of capital investment in a property, it helps that property not only hold its value, but grow its value over time," she said. "And any time a value grows, that's good for our taxable grand list."

Bakalar said the investment will be over a five-year period, ending in 2030. Then, she said the company will apply to the state's Data Center Tax Incentive Program, which is under the state Department of Economic and Community Development.

According to the DECD website, the program provides tax and property tax exemptions to certain goods, services and real property of the data center after making a "significant upfront capital investment."

Bakalar said the agreement doesn't have a cost or negative impact on the town, but merely permits the business to make the investment and pursue the program.

"They don't get any tax benefits from the town. That's not what this is for," Bakalar said. 

Opperman said part of the reason his eyes were set on the Trumbull location was because of its history as the first Nasdaq Stock Market location and its proximity to New York City.

He said the plan is to retrofit the space with new technology designed to operate artificial intelligence computation systems, then leasing it to an AI company or corporate division.

"I think we were interested because we saw a data center that had a lot of potential, and also, had a decent amount of power that was not being used," Opperman said. 

Bakalar said this investment can push technological advancement not only in Trumbull, but Connecticut.

"I think it's an asset to the Trumbull area because, as I'm understanding it, with the proliferation of AI, the need for data is difficult in Connecticut because our energy costs are high and so forth. We're not as competitive as other states," she said. "What I'm learning from people in the industry is many of their major tenants want data centers within 60 miles of their location. So, I think that it's an asset for Trumbull."

Opperman said there will also be construction work done to two of the three buildings on the property. He said one building will be left alone because it is still relatively new after receiving an upgrade in 2013. 

He said given the substantial investment being made, he hopes the business stays in town for many years to come.

"We're really excited about building the infrastructure of the future in Trumbull," he said.


United Illuminating Moves to Uncover Possible Texting Before State Regulators Flipped on Power Lines

Daniel Tepfer

BRIDGEPORT- United Illuminating Co. wants to know what the governor and local officials were texting behind the power company’s back just before the state Siting Council reversed its vote and turned down UI’s plan to put giant monopoles through Bridgeport and Fairfield.

UI said it was “stunned” when the Siting Council voted 5 to 3 on Oct. 16 to reject the company’s application to build high-power transmission lines along the south side of the railroad tracks which local officials complained would affect homes, churches and historic buildings.

In expectation of requesting the siting council to reconsider its vote,  UI late last week filed a flurry of Freedom of Information requests to the Governor’s Office as well State Rep. Cristin McCarthy-Vahey, Rep. State Steve Stafstrom, State Rep. Jennifer Leeper, State Rep. Sarah Keitt, State Sen. Tony Hwang, Fairfield First Selectwoman Christine Vitale, Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim; Fairfield officials Timothy Bishop, the conservation director, Emmeline Harrigan, the planning and zoning director, and Christine Brown, the Fairfield chief of staff; Bridgeport officials William “Bill” Coleman, deputy director of planning and economic development, Tom Gill, director of planning and economic development, Thomas Gaudett, chief administrative officer, and Constance Vickers, deputy chief of staff.

All members of the Siting Council were also served with an FOI request.

The requests seek “all communications, texts and emails,” between the governor’s office, state and local officials and the siting council members prior to the siting council vote.

“We are deeply concerned that the Siting Council has failed to provide any justification or explanation for their vote to deny the Fairfield to Congress project, despite it being the least expensive and least environmentally intrusive option before them,” Sarah Wall Fliotsos, UI spokesperson, told CT Examiner. “By submitting these FOIA requests, we hope to gather more information on what drove the siting council’s inexplicable decision so that we can pursue the most appropriate path forward to ensure the reliability and resiliency of the transmission grid in Fairfield and Bridgeport.” 

UI has until Friday to ask the Siting Council to reconsider its decision. If the council refuses, UI can then file a lawsuit seeking an appeal in state Superior Court.

All those who have been served with the FOI request have indicated they will comply.

“The town will comply with all FOIA requests from United Illuminating in accordance with state law. We remain open to working collaboratively with UI to meet the region’s energy needs while also protecting our community’s economic, ecological, and historical resources,” Vitale told CT Examiner.

In a letter to UI, a lawyer for the Siting Council said they would also comply with the request with the exception of any anything privileged by attorney-client relationship.

In September the Siting Council voted 6 to 2 in a non-binding or straw vote to allow UI to install a series of monopoles, up to 195 feet high, along the south side of the Metro-North Railroad tracks through Bridgeport and Fairfield.

The decision caused outrage among residents and officials of the two communities who strongly favor a plan not supported by the utility to put the power lines underground. 

Gov. Ned Lamont stepped into the issue first urging UI to sit down with municipal officials and negotiate, which UI refused, and then publicly supported the siting council rejecting UI’s plan.

Although UI had not released specific details of all their plan, residents of the two communities claimed the installation of the monopoles would involve the taking of private land resulting in the destruction of homes, businesses and at least one church.

UI has maintained that its proposal serves “the public interest” by protecting the environment and controlling customers’ expenses. 

The company claims that burying the lines, which is favored by residents and local officials,  would increase the project’s estimated budget from $300 million to $800 million, a cost they say would be  borne by Connecticut rate-payers.

“We are stunned by the change in the Siting Council’s decision today with no explanation,” said UI’s Fliotsos said after the siting council’s vote. “In fact, before voting to reject the application, the Siting Council reviewed without criticism a draft order to approve the project.  To be clear, the siting council has already confirmed the public need for this project.   The public deserves to know what caused three members to change their votes and if they were improperly pressured, and UI will continue to work to ensure that critical reliability and resiliency projects are completed at the lowest cost possible for our customers.”




October 24, 2025

CT Construction Digest Friday October 24, 2025

Revised New Haven Harbor plan reduces dredging disposal sites in Long Island Sound

Austin Mirmina

NEW HAVEN — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has scrapped plans to build a salt marsh in West Haven that would have used enough material dredged from New Haven Harbor to fill 200 Olympic-size pools.

Instead, the more than 650,000 cubic yards of silt and clay originally slated for the salt marsh at West Haven's Sandy Point will be spread among three other sites — including two underwater "borrow pits" — as part of the Corps' $84 million effort to deepen and widen the harbor's shipping channel for larger vessels, according to a project official.

Craig Martin, a senior project manager with USACE, said in an email that the "level of containment" — or the barriers needed to form the salt marsh's perimeter and keep the soft, silty dredged material in place — "far exceeded" what engineers initially thought.

That stronger containment, he said, would have made the salt marsh more engineered and less natural, required more long-term maintenance and nearly tripled the construction cost, from $7.4 million to $20.6 million.

As a result, officials determined that building a salt marsh at Sandy Point was no longer possible and removed it from the project's scope, according to a public notice issued last month. 

More than 4.6 million cubic yards of material is slated to be dredged from the harbor.

That material will now be added to what's already being used to fill the Morris Cove and West River borrow pits, Martin said. Any excess material will be taken to the open-water Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site, where it will dumped on existing sediment piles from older dredging projects.

New Haven Harbor is the largest port in Connecticut and the second largest in New England, behind Boston Harbor. But it's not deep enough to accommodate larger cargo ships, forcing them to off-load outside the channel.

The dredging project aims to deepen the main shipping channel by 5 feet and widen the waterway basin so ships can more easily maneuver in and out. More than 4.6 million cubic yards of material is slated to be dredged from the harbor.

Project plans call for most of the dredged material to be taken to the open-water Central Long Island Sound Disposal site, where it will dumped on existing sediment piles from older dredging projects. Smaller portions will be used to fill the Morris Cove and West River borrow pits and create an oyster reef near the harbor's east breakwater. A rock reef north of the west breakwater will also be built using blasted stone.

Dredging is expected to begin in October 2026 and be completed in March 2029, Martin said. The project is in the design phase.

Deepening the harbor, city officials have said, will benefit the local economy by improving access for commercial ships. The harbor is a major entry point for petroleum products used by Connecticut and the rest of New England.

“It’s very important that that channel maintains significant depth in order to remain competitive,” Michael Piscitelli, the city’s economic development administrator, said in 2021. “By deepening the channel we’ll be able to maintain the market position of New Haven Harbor.”

The project could also bring environmental benefits. For years, shoreline residents have asked to fill the borrow pits, saying it would protect them from being used as a dumping ground for other dredging projects. A 2010 proposal to dump material from Bridgeport Harbor into the Morris Cove pit drew sharp pushback from city residents and then-gubernatorial candidate Dannel P. Malloy.

Martin said the pits are about 10 to 36 feet deeper than the surrounding seafloor, trapping organic matter and depleting oxygen levels. Filling the pits, he said, will restore habitats for bottom-dwelling marine life and expand breeding and nursery areas for several types of commercially valuable fish species, such as winter flounder.


PURA delays Aquarion sale decision amid leadership shakeup

Andrew Larson

The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority has postponed its decision on the proposed sale of Aquarion Water Co. to a newly created nonprofit entity, delaying a pivotal moment in the closely watched utility deal.

A proposed final decision in the $2.4 billion sale from Eversource Energy to the Aquarion Water Authority was originally expected Oct. 22. However, on that same day, PURA quietly amended its docket schedule, pushing the date to Nov. 19.

The delay comes amid major leadership changes at the agency. On Tuesday, Gov. Ned Lamont appointed four new commissioners — effectively resetting the five-member panel — and named Ronald Wiehl, an engineer and longtime PURA staffer, as the new chair.

The appointments followed the resignation of former chair Marissa Gillett earlier this month after five years in the post.

The Aquarion case has become a flashpoint for state and local officials, utilities and consumer advocates. Eversource, which acquired Aquarion in 2017, announced in January that it would sell the Bridgeport-based water utility to the nonprofit, quasi-public Aquarion Water Authority.

The authority was created through legislative changes to the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority’s charter, allowing it to acquire Aquarion and operate alongside its parent organization.

Supporters of the sale, including Eversource and the South Central Regional Water Authority, argue the deal will lower financing costs and stabilize rates by converting Aquarion into a nonprofit structure.

Opponents — including more than two dozen municipalities, the state Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Public Health and environmental group Save the Sound — 

An evidentiary hearing concluded this summer, and a decision by PURA will determine whether the deal proceeds. Eversource has said it hopes to complete the deal by late 2025.



October 23, 2025

CT Construction Digest Thursday October 23, 2025

For CT city, fresh hope: New 142-room hotel as part of harborfront mega-development

Don Stacom 

Nearly four years after the only hotel in Connecticut’s biggest city shut down, developers broke ground on a 142-room Marriott Residence Inn as the latest phase of the ambitious Steelpointe Harbor project on Bridgeport’s waterfront.

As steelworkers and carpenters worked on part of the 420-unit apartment complex under construction nearby, business leaders gathered on a vacant lot where True North Hotel Group and RCI Group plan to build the six-story hotel over the 15 months.

“Bringing a brand like Marriott is fitting. Only the best for Bridgeport,” said Bobby Christoph Jr., the chief developer of Steelpointe Harbor and president of RCI Group.

The more than 1,000 apartments planned on the 2.8-million-square-foot Steelpointe peninsula are the heart of the mixed-use project, a decade-old initiative to revive a largely ignored stretch of the state’s poorest city. New restaurants, stores, a busy boatworks and a marina are also key components, but the hotel long seemed to most aspirational.

Downtown Bridgeport was home to several once-proud hotels from its industrial heyday, but they’d mostly been abandoned, razed or turned into low-income apartments between the 1950s and 1980s. The only new initiative was a nine-story Holiday Inn that was erected in the 1980s; officials at the time portrayed it as the key to an economic turnarouned for the city.

But its revenue slumped as the wider downtown revival never panned out, and the Holiday Inn was already marginal by the time the pandemic hit. The hotel shut down in early 2022 and has been remodeled as apartments.

“With the harbor and the marina here, it’s a natural fit to have a hotel. The low-hanging fruit for us is that the largest city in Connecticut didn’t have a hotel,” said Dan Onofrio, president of the Bridgeport Regional Business Council.

The hotel developers are expecting roughly 30% of guests will want extended stays, ranging from families of patients at the St. Vincent’s or Bridgeport hospitals, parents of students at Fairfield University or other colleges, and business travelers working with MT Bank or other prominent employers.

“With the ampitheater there are thousands of people coming every summer to music shows, you have the Klein Memorial theatre, the Downtown Cabaret. People don’t realize the breadth of the arts sector here. And don’t forget, we have the state’s only zoo, the Beardsley.”

The Residence Inn groundbreaking comes 10 years after the sprawling Steelpointe project kicked off with the opening of a 150,000-square-foot Bass Pro Shops outlet. It has added a Chipotle, Starbucks and T Mobile, and Mobil plans a large gas station with car wash.

More retail is expected as part of the influx of new apartments, which are chiefly billed as waterview units leasing at market rates. The August will open with about 420 studio, one- and two-bedroom units are expected in the first wave, with a small number of three-bedroom models. At least 600 more are planned in future stages.

Renderings show an outdoor pool, pickleball courts and a large landscaped deck, all overlooking the Long Island Sound. There will also be a fitness center and yoga studio, along with two outdoor courtyards.

The first apartments are expected to open in January, and the hotel completion is scheduled for early 2027.


Kosta Diamantis guilty on all charges

Andrew Brown and Dave Altimari

Konstantinos Diamantis, Connecticut’s former deputy budget director, was found guilty on Wednesday of using his position overseeing the state’s school construction office to enrich himself and his family.

After deliberating for about a day and a half, 12 federal jurors found Diamantis, 69, guilty of 21 counts of bribery, extortion, conspiracy and lying to federal investigators.

“It was a clean sweep. I thought it was going to go my way, but obviously it didn’t,” Diamantis said outside the courtroom. “The jury clearly believed them and not me.”

Norm Pattis, Diamantis’ attorney, told reporters outside the courthouse that his client could face more than a decade behind bars, based on the federal sentencing guidelines.

“He is facing a catastrophic sentence of 10 to 12 years,” Pattis said, adding that he could appeal the verdict.

Bottom of Form

Diamantis will remain free on bond until his sentencing hearing, which is set for Jan. 14.

Diamantis left the court building without further addressing reporters and drove off in a white pickup truck with his daughter.

Federal prosecutors told the judge that remaining out of prison would allow Diamantis to meet with his defense attorney in preparation for a second federal bribery trial, which is currently expected to start in February.

They also told U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill that they recently learned, by monitoring unspecified communications, that Diamantis was attempting to obtain a Greek passport.

Underhill asked Diamantis to explain if that was true, and he told the judge that he had recently obtained dual citizenship in Greece and a Greek passport. But he said he applied for the passport to claim a piece of property in Greece that his father had inherited.

He also told the judge that his passport was sent to Greece to facilitate that property transfer.

Prosecutors did not answer questions as they left the courthouse.

The verdict was returned almost four years to the day after the federal grand jury issued a subpoena for all emails, text messages and attachments involving Diamantis and a broad range of construction projects

Gov. Ned Lamont released a statement after the verdict.

“Public service is a public trust. The conviction of Mr. Diamantis is a stark reminder that when that trust is violated, there are consequences. Our state places a great deal of trust in our government and that trust is harmed by rogue, bad actors like this,” the statement reads. “After immediately firing Kosta in 2021, I ordered actionable steps be swiftly taken to ensure this can never happen again. After returning school construction oversight back to the Department of Administrative Services, several proactive steps were taken to ensure accountability and restore public trust in the administration of school construction grants.”

The jury delivered its verdict after a nine-day trial, during which federal prosecutors presented a mountain of evidence that showed Diamantis negotiated payments from Acranom Masonry and a $45-per-hour job for his daughter with Construction Advocacy Professionals.

Several witnesses told the jury that Diamantis used his influence at the state’s school building office to help those companies win lucrative construction contracts on several projects in Tolland, Hartford and New Britain.

Diamantis, who chose to testify in his own defense, admitted to the jury that he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Acranom, and he acknowledged that his daughter, Anastasia, was hired by Construction Advocacy Professionals after consulting with him.

But Diamantis, who once held one of the highest-ranking positions in the state government, was adamant during the trial that he never used his public office to help the two companies gain an upper hand on school construction projects.

By Diamantis’ telling, the tens of thousands of dollars in cash that Acranom’s executives paid to him was for an introduction to another firm: D’Amato Construction. And the paychecks and bonuses that were paid to his daughter had nothing to do with his position overseeing the state’s school building program.

That testimony was contradicted during the trial, however, by three separate witnesses who have previously pleaded guilty to bribing Diamantis in return for work on school construction projects.

Sal Monarca and John Duffy, the president and vice president of Acranom Masonry, told the jury how they delivered envelopes of cash to Diamantis at his home, at a Dunkin’ Donuts and several times at the Capital Grille in Hartford.

Antonietta DiBenedetto Roy, the owner of Construction Advocacy Professionals, also explained to jurors how she chose to pay Diamantis’ daughter to keep him happy.

Federal prosecutors bolstered the testimony of those three witnesses with a large number of text messages, emails and one colorful voicemail, in which Diamantis discussed a bid that Acranom submitted for a school project and the $40,000 he was demanding from the company.

“I didn’t ask for the maximum. I asked for the minimum of what we bid,” Diamantis told Duffy in that voicemail. “So. That’s more than reasonable. I even asked for less than that. I asked for forty.”

The long list of text messages that jurors were shown included memorable details about how Duffy and Monarca referred to the bribes to Diamantis as “pints” and “birthday cards.” The texts also included several examples where Diamantis directly intervened in school projects on behalf of Acranom and Construction Advocacy Professionals.

“The defendant had his thumb on the scale for Acranom, because that is what Acranom paid for,” Assistant U.S. Attorney David Novick, told the jury during the closing arguments.

The federal prosecutors also featured text messages in which Diamantis threatened to remove the contractors from the local school projects if he didn’t receive the money they promised him.

“I will wait til Monday for him to give you 40. If not, then I think D’Amato needs a new mason for Tolland then he will see how real the job was,” Diamantis said, referring to the Birch Grove project where Acranom was working.

The evidence and testimony presented during the trial also highlighted for jurors how Diamantis forced the contractors to change how much they were bidding on the school contracts in order to factor his bribes.

“Doesn’t matter end of day you gone add 70,” Diamantis told Acranom.

There was far less documentary evidence presented at trial about the payments that Construction Advocacy Professionals paid to Diamantis and his daughter. But the records that did exist were highly damaging to the defense.

While he was on the witness stand, Diamantis claimed he did not have a hand in negotiating the compensation that his daughter received from the company.

But text messages between Diamantis and his daughter showed otherwise. In one exchange, Diamantis told his daughter that she would receive a percentage of the money that Construction Advocacy Professionals had been awarded for a school construction project.

“You happy,” Diamantis asked his daughter.

“Yes of course! I can pay my car taxes and a credit card!” she responded.

The three contractors who bribed Diamantis told the jury he demanded money on a monthly or weekly basis and made his situation seem desperate.

Diamantis complained in the texts and the voicemail about not having enough money to pay his mortgage or to afford his daughters’ wedding and private school tuition.

In one text exchange, Acranom officials said Diamantis wanted to collect an “annual fee” from the company for serving as a consultant.

Diamantis admitted that he told Acranom’s executives that. But he told jurors that it was a “tongue in cheek” comment. He said the same of several other texts that he couldn’t readily explain.


Massive CT office complex foreclosure lends no easy answers for future redevelopment.

The redevelopment challenge is seen as “really immense,”

The court-approved foreclosure of a majority of Hartford’s Constitution Plaza is expected to open up options for the future, but just how redevelopment unfolds — or over what period of time — is the next chapter in the plaza’s long struggle to find a niche in the half century since it was built.

“Constitution Plaza represents both great challenge in the present time but also potentially a great opportunity for the city,” Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam said, ‘to be able to stitch together parts of the downtown that are disconnected, reaching from Front Street on one end to a block away from Pratt Street on the other end, but also connect the downtown to the riverfront, which is an exciting possibility.”

“But at the same time, getting there, the challenge is really immense,” Arulampalam said.

Building a cohesive, redevelopment plan for the 7-acre property is seen as essential, but won’t be easy given the multiple owners with interests in the plaza.

The foreclosure, approved Monday by Hartford Superior Court Judge Claudia A. Baio, involves six buildings of about 671,000 square feet — including the two office towers at One and 100 Constitution Plaza —  parking garages with 1,743 spaces and the pedestrian surface of the plaza. The foreclosure also included part ownership of the pedestrian bridge the connects the plaza to Nassau Financial Group’s iconic “Boat Building.”

In addition, there are separate owners for the Spectra Plaza apartments converted a decade ago from a former hotel; the former Travelers Education Center, also considered for apartments, but remains vacant, and the former site of demolished WFSB studios, now a vacant lot for sale.

Constitution Plaza, the first redevelopment in Hartford from the Urban Renewal push of the 1950s and 1960s, failed, some say, to reach its potential because initial plans for apartments were later dropped and a planned connection to Main Street was never constructed.

The Capital Region Development Authority said it also has been approached with preliminary plans to use some of the office space on Constitution Plaza for hotel rooms. The city lost hotel rooms in the pandemic when travel — especially business travel plummeted — and scores of rooms were converted to apartments. More hotel rooms are now needed in the rebuilding and further growth of the city’s convention, sports and concert businesses.

Public financing for such conversions is likely to be seen as essential, but competition for those dollars also is likely to be intense.

A recent study showed that an estimated $450 million in public financing would be needed over three years to convert prime office space for other uses across downtown Hartford to rein in vacancies, estimated to be at least 40%.

Constitution Plaza also has been mentioned as a location for a $100 million practice facility for the WNBA’s Connecticut Sun, should the franchise move to Hartford from Mohegan Sun.

In addition, there is the potential for a temporary location for the applied artificial intelligence center that the Arulampalam administration hopes to establish in the city. A permanent location has been identified just east of Dunkin’ Park, the city’s minor league ballpark, where a vacant, decaying data center would be demolished.

Monday’s court ruling approved a strict foreclosure for the structures purchased by New York-based Constitution Plaza Holding LLC in 2015 for $71 million. A strict foreclosure means the lender or creditor takes control of the property without an auction to raise money to satisfy a debt.

The property — under the day-to-day control of a receiver for more than a year — is expected to be transferred to the new owner — a group of bondholders  — in late December, according to court documents.

The foreclosure was set into motion last year when Constitution Plaza Holding was unable to pay off, refinance or secure an extension on $51 million that was owed to lenders, court documents show. According to an appraisal filed with court documents, what was owed was nearly four times the $13 million the property is now worth. The loan matured in May, 2023, court documents show.

A shift to remote work in the pandemic and the resulting downsizing in the leases of major tenants pushed up vacancies not only in Hartford but across the country. Lenders are unwilling to take the risk to refinance commercial mortgages on office buildings, uncertain of the prospects for future leasing.

Other major office towers in Hartford — CityPlace I, Metro Center and 20 Church St., the “Stilts Building” — found themselves in a similar refinancing predicament, sliding into foreclosure and receivership.

Wilmington Trust National Association and its special servicer, LNR Partners LLC, filed for foreclosure on the Constitution Plaza properties in January, 2024. Wilmington Trust was the lead holder of $55 million in commercial mortgage-backed security loans issued to Constitution Plaza Holding in 2018.

According to the appraisal report, prepared by commercial real estate services firm CBRE, the office occupancy in the six buildings involved in the foreclosure at Constitution Plaza is about 70%.

But the report also warned at the major tenants such as law firm Shipman & Goodwin and insurer XL America were likely to downsize their space requirements — now about 100,000 square feet each — once their leases expire in 2026 and 2027.


October 22, 2025

CT Construction Digest Wednesday October 22, 2025

New CT Amazon building: 1,000 workers, 5-story building the size of two malls

Don Stacom

With a crew of more than 200 construction workers, Amazon is turning most of a 157-acre property on the Naugatuck-Waterbury line into what will be one of its biggest distribution centers in the state.

City and state leaders gathered at the sprawling, muddy construction site Tuesday to celebrate what they expect will be one of the region’s biggest employers when it opens sometime in 2027 or 2028.

“This marks the start of new opportunities and a much more vibrant regional economy,” Waterbury Mayor Paul Pernerewski Jr. told an audience of business leaders, community officials and Amazon senior managers. “It’s going to be a true game-changer for our region. It’s going to bring 1,000 really good-paying jobs to the area, it’s going to strengthen our local families and businesses.”

The five-story behemoth will use automation to sort and ship as many as 800,000 packages a day, and will take up more square footage than the West Farms Mall and Danbury Fair Mall combined. Even so, Amazon projects that it will need 1,000 employees and said fulfillment and transportation workers will average $23 an hour.

To officials in the Naugatuck Valley, where brass mills and others powered a thriving middle-class economy through the mid-20th century, Amazon is one of the few big-scale job new sources amid the decades-long trickle of factory shutdowns.

“I’ve worked on construction projects my whole life, I’ve never seen anything like this − it’s unbelievable,” Naugatuck Mayor Pete Hess said over the engine noise of a small fleet of cranes and earth movers. “The steel we’re erecting today is going to hold up much more than a building. It’s going to hold up jobs, dreams and a shared prosperity that will bind Naugatuck and Waterbury forever.”

As enormous as the new center will be, it is still sized about 600,000 square feet smaller than its premier Connecticut facility, BDL4 in Windsor just beyond Bradley International Airport. The Waterbury center will be largely hidden from public view at the back of an industrial park, while BDL4 dominates the skyline for Bradley flyers who recall the property as sprawling shade tobacco fields.

The new center will perform essentially the same work as BDL4, but with a higher concentration of robotics to sort and move products along miles of conveyors stretching across acres of shelving and bins. The company anticipates contractors will complete the building shell by early 2027, but say the opening will come later because Amazon will need to install all of the moving parts inside.

The project didn’t get done without controversy: Some homeowners have complained about rock blasting as Bluewater Property Group and its subcontractors clear the land and erect enormous retaining walls around the building’s foundation. A few residents have complained about tax incentives for the retail giant and the relatively low price it paid for the municipally owned property.

But overall leaders in both communities have endorsed the project, anticipating tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue along with a much-needed employment boost.

“Amazon I believe is the second-biggest employer in the state of Connecticut. This (project) is 3.2 million square feet, 60 football fields, 300 construction jobs,” Gov. Ned Lamont said, noting the company has other mega-centers in Wallingford and North Haven along with large operations in more than a dozen other towns.


Port Authority finalizes agreement with contractor for State Pier project

Greg Smith

The Connecticut Port Authority has settled a dispute over costs with the construction manager overseeing the reconstruction of State Pier and signed an agreement that finalizes an $11.3 million settlement, Port Authority Executive Director Michael O’Connor announced Tuesday.

The negotiated final cost is more than the $7.3 million expected payment to Kiewit Corp. to complete the project but will not come at any additional cost to the state. The port authority will cover the additional costs with its own funds, O'Connor said.

The port authority's board of directors previously authorized O'Connor to negotiate the settlement and end debate about the $24 million Kiewit said it needed to complete the $311 million project. Kiewit had claimed increased costs as the result of added work at State Pier. The port authority has said there were outstanding issues with the work: one related to soil quality and another with an improperly situated toe wall where vessels dock.

Connecticut Port Authority Board Chairman Paul Whitescarver said Tuesday that outstanding issues were worked out.

"The bottom line is it's a fully functional pier operating as it was designed," Whitescarver said.

In a statement, the port authority touted the agreement as a successful completion of "one of the East Coast’s most advanced heavy-lift port facilities."

State Pier is being leased and used as a launching spot for wind turbine parts in the construction of offshore wind farms. The State Pier reconstruction project, managed by the port authority, has been under scrutiny for years because of costs that have spiked since the early estimates of $93 million. The state has contributed $211 million to the cost of renovations while Danish offshore wind giant Ørsted, which is leasing State Pier, picked up the remainder of the cost of the renovations, the port authority said.

“State Pier stands today as a modern, heavy-lift port facility built to advance Connecticut’s maritime future,” O’Connor said in a statement. “We remain focused on ensuring operational excellence and long-term reliability. Our partnership with Kiewit has been essential in delivering this asset.”

Kiewit Infrastructure Co. Area Manager Pete Maglicic said in a statement that Kiewit was "proud to have partnered with the Connecticut Port Authority, local labor unions, subcontractors and suppliers on this transformative project.”

“The scope of work of taking an underutilized asset, stabilizing and reinforcing the pier’s structure and modernizing its cargo-handling capacity has resulted in a world class facility positioned to deliver long-term value for Connecticut and the region,” Maglicic said.

State Pier at the moment is serving as a staging area for Ørsted's 65-turbine Revolution Wind project off the coast of Rhode Island. O'Connor said there are 12 remaining turbines to assemble for that project. Ørsted has already started staging components for its next project, the 84-turbine Sunrise Wind in New York. That project is scheduled to be completed sometime in 2027.

A copy of the agreement is available here.


Jury in CT school construction corruption case deliberates on bribery, extortion, conspiracy charges

Ken Dixon

BRIDGEPORT — The 12-member jury in the trial of Konstantinos "Kosta" Diamantis,the state's former head of school construction accused of extortion, bribery and lying to federal agents, began its first full day of closed-door deliberations on Tuesday in a room adjacent to Judge Stefan Underhill's fourth-floor courtroom. 

Defense attorney Norman Pattis and Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Novick and Jonathan Francis are waiting for the verdicts in the complicated case. Prosecutors offered evidence of alleged contract steering, while the defense made the counter-argument that Diamantis was a disrupter whose goal was to save the state money and complete hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction projects on time.

Diamantis said that the tens of thousands of dollars from two firms were for introductions among contractors as well as for legal advice and career counseling outside his public service duties. Novick and Francis said the three co-conspirators, who have already pleaded guilty, were threatened by Diamantis with the fear, in a series of electronic messages, of having their subcontracts taken away if they didn't pay up.

Underhill, after giving the jury an hourlong review of the charges and procedures on Monday, then supervised a random drawing in which the 14-member jury pool was reduced to the 12 who will decide on the charges. If something unforeseen occurs, an alternate or two will be called to serve on the jury.

The jury's deliberations began around 9 a.m. Tuesday, with Underhill promising free lunch to keep the jury on-task. By the end of the day, the jury had not reached a verdict. The jurors were dismissed just before 4 p.m. Tuesday for the day.

If convicted on the 21 federal charges, Diamantis could be facing 20 years in prison.  

During closing arguments on Monday, the lawyers, in hourlong recitations, had starkly different views of the case. "The defendant was a corrupt public official," Novick said. "He helped the contractors who gave him these bribes. He also used his official position to get bribes and instill fear."

Pattis said the government made allegations that were never proven by the evidence nor by the testimony. That included a requirement under the bribery law that interstate commerce was affected beyond the fact that one of the alleged co-conspirators, a former masonry executive whose company paid Diamantis tens of thousands of dollars, lives in Rhode Island and the firm did work in neighboring states.

"You are not to do the government's work for it," Pattis said. "What testimony was there about creating fear?" He said a female owner of a construction management firm, Antonietta Roy, had been encouraged by Diamantis to strike out on her own. "She was a woman-owned business in a male-dominated culture and he told her to go for it." Earlier in the trial, Roy said she felt compelled to hire Diamantis's daughter.

“A quid pro quo must be clear and unambiguous,” Pattis said, portraying Diamantis as a disrupter of a connected fraternity of nearly all-male construction contractors. Pattis also said that one of the co-conspirators who has already pleaded guilty, John Duffy, kept his boss in the dark about his own share of alleged payments to Diamantis.

In his closing arguments, Pattis did not address the nearly dozen charges of lying to federal investigators. He told the jury that he avoided the issues, which Diamantis denied on the witness stand, to keep the prosecutors from bringing the issues up again in their final remarks, after he finished.

Diamantis, speaking to reporters outside the courthouse at about 4:20 p.m. Monday, said he had been under orders from Gov. Ned Lamont to save money and bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in annual school projects on schedule.

On the sidewalk in front of the courthouse, Diamantis said that school construction was second only to the state Department of Transportation in annual expenditures. In about 2019, the newly elected Lamont wanted to put the state on a “debt diet,” he said.