‘What’s in it for us?’ Utility’s plan for a large-scale battery farm in New Milford prompts concerns
NEW MILFORD – A Colorado
company planning to build a large-scale energy storage battery farm
capable of powering tens of thousands of homes for a few hours drew opposition
from a crowd of residents and town leaders over safety
concerns during a 2 ½-hour informational meeting.
“You made a comment [on an application] that this project is
less impactful to the environment and ecologically more beneficial than a
housing project,” said William Taylor, chair of New Milford’s Zoning
Commission, during the packed meeting. “Can you explain what you mean by that
and how you came to that conclusion? Because it’s not obvious”
“This part of the country is in critical need of capacity
services due to the aging electrical infrastructure,” said Charlie McGovern,
director of development for Flatiron Energy, which wants to build a
140-megawatt battery energy storage plant on residential Aspetuck Ridge Road.
“The ability for us to interconnect into the grid at this point and provide
such a service to the local distribution system is huge for the local
resiliency of this community.”
A Flatiron colleague added that the installation of dozens
of lithium iron phosphate battery cells represented a “low impact project.”
“There’s not going to be trucking coming in and out,” said
Sarah Salem, director of environmental justice and community investment for
Flatiron. “It doesn’t add to the localized pollution. It won’t add traffic.”
New Milford leaders and 22 residents didn’t agree, raising
concerns about battery fires and the plant’s impact on environmentally
sensitive land, which includes a stretch of the West Aspetuck River.
“What is in it for the town other than tax revenue?” asked
Sharon Shuester during the Dec. 3 meeting.
Much of the frustration expressed by residents during the
hearing was that New Milford has standing but no real say in the debate over a
major battery farm in its own back yard.
Instead, the Connecticut
Siting Council has jurisdiction over the decision.
“We have had these informational meetings before for things
that are beyond the control of this zoning commission [such as] cell towners
and solar projects over one megawatt,” Taylor told the crowd. “We will write a
letter after this [meeting] expressing our concerns or our positives and
negatives, however this comes out.”
“We can say ‘no,’ but does it mean anything?” asked Cheryl
Hill from the crowd.
“We have taken our concerns to the Connecticut Siting
Council before and had hearings in front of them before on a 20-megawatt solar
project that was never built,” Taylor said. “So we do have some influence. Am I
going to say it’s huge? No. We have some. Just not a lot.”
Flatiron Energy’s interest in New Milford comes at a time
when there are increasing numbers of battery
farms under development across Connecticut.
ISO New England, which oversees the region’s wholesale power
market, listed 30 active battery farm projects last year statewide.
Flatiron Energy, which is building a 200-megawatt
battery farm in Uxbridge, Mass., said it plans to complete
construction in New Milford by mid-to-late 2028.
A public hearing is expected to be conducted in the summer.
In the meantime, the company said it can begin formulating a
host community agreement with New Milford to tailor the delivery of unspecified
benefits to the town.
“I can recognize how sensitive this is for the community,”
Salem said. “We hear you and we’re here to be a partner with you.”
“A lot of people are asking, ‘What do we get out of this’ as
residents?” said Robert DiMichele, a Zoning Commission alternate. “What’s in it
for us?”
“We have the ability to work with you guys on what a
community host agreement may look like,” said McGovern. “We would like to
customize that so that it is working for you in a way that is beneficial.”
$50M rehab of CT's state Capitol will be delayed until after nation's 250th celebrations
HARTFORD — The two-year $50
million exterior cleaning and restoration of the historic state
Capitol building will take a back seat to next year's 250th anniversary of
the Declaration
of Independence.
The advisory State Capitol Preservation and Restoration
Commission voted recently to delay the project until Sept. 1, 2026. That
means the historic 1878 Gothic structure in Hartford will not be
sheathed in scaffolding at a time when it will be a major backdrop for a
variety of commemorative activities, particularly July 4, 2026, when the nation
will celebrate semiquincentennial events.
Denise Merrill, chairwoman of the America 250 Connecticut Commission, said Thursday
the 14-acre State Capitol campus and the adjacent Bushnell Park are scheduled
to host groups from towns and cities throughout the state on July 4. She
praised state Sen. Cathy Osten, chairwoman of the restoration commission,
for steering the group in support of delaying the work, which will include
repointing granite and marble blocks and refurbishing 522 windows.
Merrill, a former majority leader of the state House of
Representatives, said 145 municipalities in the state have established local
efforts to mark the semiquincentennial despite major
cuts in federal funding through the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
"Our goal is to have local stories on things that went
on in their towns and the people involved back 250 years ago," Merrill
said.
During the Capitol Preservation and Restoration Committee
meeting on Tuesday, Osten asked the 12-member group for a consensus to allow
the Capitol project to start in September.
"The question is, should we start before the 250th
celebration?" said Osten, D-Sprague, who is co-chairwoman of the
budget-setting Appropriations Committee. "Because once we put (the
scaffolding) up, we can't take it down for the celebration and put it back up
again. We're going to have large celebrations next year. We don't want people
coming up here with horse guards and people in uniforms and other things and
say that we're not respecting the 250th celebration."
Brian Pencz, facilities administrator for the Office of
Legislative Management, said the price shouldn't be too different and delaying
the construction until the fall is manageable. The building checklist includes
a million dollars to brush on new gold leaf 3/1000th of an inch thick around
the massive 250-foot-tall dome designed by architect Richard Mitchell Upjohn.
State Begins Public Debate on Nuclear Energy, With Little Opposition So Far
HARTFORD — State officials launched a public debate this
week about the advantages of expanding nuclear energy in Connecticut as a first
step toward encouraging towns to host new capacity, in what could mark a
reversal after decades of stagnation in the sector nationwide.
Wednesday’s workshop drew a largely receptive audience, with
only one critical voice among the participants.
State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
Commissioner Karie Dykes noted that Connecticut has recently adopted regulatory
changes that will enable expanded capacity.
“We have a long and proud history of supporting nuclear
generation with the operation of the Millstone facility and strong fundamentals
in terms of our nuclear workforce,” Dykes said. “This is not a new topic for
us, but it’s a new moment.”
The workshop was intended to engage residents in discussions
about nuclear benefits and concerns, with the goal of implementing next year a
program of grants and loans for towns interested in welcoming new advanced
reactors.
The program was approved during the last legislative
session, allowing the state to fund it up to $5 million. It is part of a
broader shift in Connecticut’s approach to nuclear power, which also includes
creating a path for towns to allow new plants, despite the statewide
moratorium.
To host new capacity, towns must approve it through their
legislative body or a referendum.
Lawmakers also designated nuclear power a Class I renewable
source, meaning it will count toward meeting zero-emission grid goals for 2040.
The state has lifted its moratorium on the Millstone site, in Waterford,
currently Connecticut’s only nuclear facility, providing one
third of the state’s electricity generation.
Dykes also noted that Connecticut signed a contract in 2019
with Dominion, Millstone’s owner, securing a fixed
price and preventing premature closure. Millstone celebrated its 50th
anniversary this year since construction began.
Renewed interest in nuclear energy comes while the sector is
positioning itself as an ally in the energy transition. Advocates highlight
that it does not produce greenhouse gas emissions and provides stable
generation, which complements other intermittent production sources such as
wind or solar and could reduce the cost of grid decarbonization.
Among the most promising developments highlighted by experts
were advanced modular reactors, including small modular reactors and
microreactors, which are smaller in size and reflect new technological advances
presented as safer, with lower time and construction costs. Although there are
several projects under development, none are currently operational in the U.S.
The industry’s potential comeback follows years of retreat
that began after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 in Pennsylvania and
deepened after the Chernobyl explosion, which caused tighter regulations,
public concern, increased costs and ultimately a loss of momentum. Since 1996,
only three reactors have entered production in the entire country — in 2013,
2023 and 2024 — according to data from
the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, in Haddam, was the
first in the state, operating from 1968 to 1996. Millstone completed its first
reactor in 1970 and added two more in 1975 and 1986. The first Millstone unit
was permanently shut down in 1998, embroiled in controversy over whistleblower
reports of internal mismanagement and safety concerns.
Bipartisan support
Jeff Semancik, the state’s radiation division director,
highlighted the growing support for atomic power in recent years, with most
states taking steps to promote it.
“If you’re looking for topics that are generally pretty
bipartisan right now, this is definitely the case,” Semancik said.
That support was reflected in the energy bill voted on this
year, and its benefits were emphasized by both the co-chair of the Energy
Committee at the state’s General Assembly Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and
Sen. Ryan
Fazio, R-Greenwich, a harsh critic of the Lamont administration’s energy
policies who is running for governor in 2026.
Semancik said this consensus stems from increased
electricity demand, as well as climate goals.
“We were talking of a large electrification occurring at the
same time we’re looking for decarbonization,” Semancik said. “Data centers need
reliable power.”
Estimates show that including atomic capacity in the energy
mix would reduce the overall cost of renewables while enabling decarbonization,
Semancik said. To achieve the 2050 goals, the country would need to add 200
gigawatts of capacity.
“We’re talking about tripling nuclear,” Semancik said,
noting that New England ISO forecasts an 11% increase in electricity demand in
the next decade and 35% in the following decade.
Sukesh Aghara, director of the Integrated Nuclear Security
and Safety Laboratory at UMass Lowell, said for years he had worked more abroad
because there were more opportunities in Eastern Europe and developing
countries than in the U.S.
Showing an image of the spent fuel pools at Fukushima and a
photo of a nuclear bomb mushroom cloud, Aghara said it was necessary to have
honest conversations about risks to address fears.
“We need to also not only be stuck with images that are
generally the ones that everybody knows,” Aghara said, “but those are not
things that define nuclear.”
Aghara argued that the technology has advanced significantly
since the 1950s and 1960s, when most reactors currently in operation were
designed. Among the advances, he highlighted the development of interim storage
for spent fuel that can last up to 160 years.
Aghara said traditional technology required emergency
planning zones of up to 10 or 50 miles in radius, for which plans must be
designed in case of major accidents, while with Small Modular Reactors they
would be considerably smaller, reflecting greater safety.
“You’re talking about less than five miles,” Aghara said,
“ideally about two miles.”
Supportive audience
The workshop audience was overwhelmingly in support of
nuclear energy, applauding each speaker’s presentation and asking questions
related to technical aspects or making openly favorable comments.
The exception was anti-nuclear activist Nancy Burton,
president of the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, whose testimony was
met with antipathy by the public.
“I experienced the death of my mother who lived two miles
away from Millstone for a certain period of time. She died of cancer,” Burton
said. “And when we had services for her, I made acquaintances with many people
in her community and it seems that I’m close to the truth when I say that there
wasn’t a household in her whole neighborhood that wasn’t personally affected by
cancer or other terrible debilitating diseases.”
Burton said that, considering Millstone’s 50th anniversary,
studies should be conducted on the health effects of the plant on surrounding
areas.
Regis Matzie, member of the Connecticut Academy of Science
and Engineering, spoke afterward, though without referring explicitly to
Burton, saying that there are studies and published results on the safety and
health effects of all energy technologies.
“When you look at nuclear, it compares tremendously
favorably with renewables in terms of the prompt and latent health effects for
the entire life cycle of the plant, which you have to do,” Matzie said.
“Nuclear is actually better than solar and compares favorably with wind. So
it’s important when people worry about the health effects that they look at the
published results and compare them against other technologies.”
Patrick White, an expert for the Clean Air Task Force,
outlined the licensing path for new projects. The process, he said, involves
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the federal level, DEEP at the state level
and local regulations.
White said there has been a change in how developers engage
with residents, noting that communities traditionally learned about projects
through the newspaper when they were already designed.
“It results in projects that can get delayed through
litigation, through lawsuits, and ultimately leads to essentially a sense of
distrust between the utilities and their customers and neighbors,” White said.
“I think the conversations that we’re seeing here in Connecticut are a really
important first step in building this informed base and having a community and
state that can support new nuclear energy projects, as opposed to having the
feeling that something’s just being put in your backyard and you have no saving
room.”
Semancik said the workshops would resume after the holidays.
Waterbury to spend $5.44M advancing cleanup, redevelopment of former Anaconda Brass site
Waterbury officials are preparing to spend another $5.44
million on a long-running cleanup of the former Anaconda American Brass site
near the city center, preparing for its redevelopment.
The roughly 20.5-acre site along Freight Street had, until
recent years, hosted a massive industrial complex that had serviced the city’s
once-prosperous brass industry for well over a century.
As the brass industry faded, portions of a building at 170
Freight St. were leased out to various companies. The neighboring building at
130 Freight St. hosted a handler of environmental waste products.
City officials have used millions of state and federal grant dollars in recent years to acquire and demolish buildings in the complex that were aging or entirely decrepit and failing.
Waterbury Development Corp. Executive Director James
Nardozzi said the city has about $11 million pooled from state and federal
sources to remove foundations and further environmental cleanup of the site.
On Monday, the city’s Board of Aldermen will be asked to
sign off on a $5.44 million contract with Plainville-based Manafort Brothers to
demolish the foundation slab and remove subsurface utilities at 170 Freight St.
A similar effort will be pursued later at 130 Freight St.
After the slabs are removed, the city will be able to have the soils underneath tested for possible contamination.
Nardozzi is hoping to spend the $11 million cleanup pool in
2026. That will result in a much cleaner site and a fresh understanding of any
remaining pollution. He believes the city will be ready to begin seeking
development partners by the end of next year. The aim is to create a mix of
residential, commercial and retail development – essentially a new
neighborhood, Nardozzi said.
“This is an extremely important site for the economic
redevelopment of Waterbury,” Nardozzi said Friday.
The downtown-adjacent site has a lot to offer developers,
Nardozzi noted. The land is flat and bordered by the Naugatuck River on one
side. The site is within a short walking distance to the city’s passenger rail
station and is positioned near ramps to Route 8 and Interstate 84.
The city has already used federal funding to upgrade utilities along Freight Street, making for easy and reliable connections. The streetscape was also improved, with plans to connect a pedestrian bike lane to a growing riverside trail.
Manafort Brothers was the lowest of four bidders for the
pending slab removal effort. The company is very familiar with the site, having
been hired to a $3.6 million contract in 2023 to level the 138,304-square-foot
building on the site.