"The failure to require a formulation of an underground alternative in Norwalk would set a terrible precedent for municipalities in the future because it would violate traditional notions of fairness and equity," stated the petition, which was sent on Wednesday. "If the Siting Council were to ignore alternatives at this stage in the case," the
petition continues, "it would be enabling an applicant to gain consideration of a version of a highly contested and controversial transmission route that substantially affects a municipality but from which that municipality was excluded during the final formulation."

The petition also asks the council to appoint a neutral expert, paid for by the utility company, to develop an alternative plan or to order the utility to develop its own alternative that would place the wires underground in Norwalk.  Frank Poirot, a spokesman for the utility, said the company is taking a close look at the mayor's request and will likely respond to it during a hearing on Monday before the council.

"The overhead option has been on the table for more than 18 months," he said. "To raise these questions now when we're nearing the decision stage is not the best of timing." Poirot added that an underground option through Norwalk may not be as simple as some officials suggest.  He cited a letter sent recently to the council by the First District Water Company, which points to the fragile nature of the area the transmission line is proposed to run near, including the districts well fields and the Norwalk River.

"The nature of the area adds to the challenges of developing an underground alternative," said Poirot.  Leigh Grant, president of the Norwalk Association of Silvermine
Homeowners, said the group was happy to hear about Knopp's request to the Siting Council.  "We are very pleased," she said. "This is what we've been working for."

Dirk Perrefort is a general assignment reporter. He can be reached at 354-1006.

A resident of Simsbury who holds degrees in environmental studies and engineering, Katz said she is doing "meet and greet tours" as the council's new chairman, conferring with environmental groups, municipal officials and utilities to determine how to make "good decisions for both the regulated industries and towns."

"I really want to encourage all the affected towns to participate fully in the hearing process," said Katz. "The questions that you generate at a local level are very helpful to our process."  The nine-member Siting Council serves as arbiter between utilities and local interests in deciding where the infrastructure of power companies, hazardous waste generators, and telecommunications providers will be placed. It held a public hearing in the city Wednesday on the proposal by Northeast Utilities to bring a
transmission line into Norwalk on 130-foot-tall poles.

"The (siting) process works best when we have a lot of local input, because sometimes we literally work in a vacuum," Katz said.  Named chairman in January, Katz rejoined the council in 1997 after serving on it in the mid-80's, and has been a member of various state and local boards and commissions for 25 years.  "It's a new day for them" said State Representative Robert Duff, D-137th Dist., of Katz's appointment as chairman of the council.  Katz spoke to area officials and reporters in City Hall Friday at Duff's invitation.

Katz said the council will probably vote the third week in June on Northeast Utilities' plan to run a 345-kilovolt transmission line from Bethel to Norwalk. The plan has met strong opposition here -- particularly from residents in Silvermine and Broad River -- because of the height of the poles from which the line would be strung.  During Wednesday's public hearing at Brien McMahon High School, speakers urged the Siting Council to require Northeast Utilities to install the transmission line below ground between Wilton and its terminus at a sub-station on New Canaan Avenue.

Asked to comment on Mayor Alex Knopp's allegation that officials in the other four towns through which the line would run -- Bethel, Redding, Wilton and Weston -- had reached a secret deal with the utility to have more of the line buried in their communities, Katz said, "We did not know that the towns and Northeast Utilities were talking.
The towns and Northeast Utilities chose to have this dialogue, they chose to make a settlement, and that's their privilege."

Katz said the council has encouraged Northeast Utilities to do more in the way of providing public information for phase 2 of its plan to establish a 345-kilovolt power loop in southwestern Connecticut.  "They've told us they're putting together special presentations that they're going to do in the towns to do more information up front," she said.
Northeast Utilities officially notified the council on Thursday of its plans for phase 2, triggering the start of a 60 day review period for the municipalities between Norwalk and Middletown through which the high-voltage circuit would run.  Katz said that as chairman, she has given her personal pledge that the council will confer more often with independent experts when considering a siting application.

"If we come up with a tricky issue, we can hire an outside expert who can give us another opinion or develop questions for cross examination so that we can ask the right questions," Katz said.

Northeast Utilities yesterday unveiled designs for a proposed 69-mile, $500 million power line from Norwalk to Middletown, which the company hopes to bury under local streets.  Under NU's favored scheme, the 345-kilovolt line would begin at the company's New Canaan Avenue substation and run under local roads before reaching
Route 1 and heading for Milford.

NU's preferred plan then calls for the oil-filled cable to run northeast from Milford to Middletown atop three types of poles ranging in height from about 80 feet to 130 feet.
The company also outlined several alternative designs in an eight-volume document NU delivered yesterday to leaders of 24 towns that could be affected by the   Norwalk-to-Middletown line.  The only option affecting Norwalk would involve stretching the line atop poles averaging 130 feet high from the Broad River substation to Wilton along the Route 7 right-of-way.  "It's not our preferred or primary route under consideration," NU spokesman Frank Poirot said yesterday.

Mayor Alex Knopp yesterday hailed NU's plan to bury the Norwalk-to-Middletown line in the city , calling it "very good news."  At a public hearing Wednesday, Knopp railed against NU's plan to use 130-foot poles for another 345-kV line that is slated to run from Norwalk to Bethel.  "The preferred route in (the Norwalk-to-Middletown) application to go underground . . . from Norwalk to (Milford) is much more preferable than the skyscraper tower route," Knopp said. "But it just shows that there is a better underground option -- not just for the Norwalk-to-(Milford) phase . . . but also for the Bethel-to-Norwalk phase."

Dozens of local residents echoed the mayor's request for NU to bury the Norwalk portion of the Bethel line during Wednesday's hearing, held by the Connecticut Siting Council at Brien McMahon High School.  The council, which decides the location of utility projects, is expected to rule on the 20-mile Bethel-to-Norwalk proposal in June.
Knopp told the Siting Council at Wednesday's hearing NU contended for much of the lengthy approval process for the Bethel-to-Norwalk plan that an underground power line could run no more than 5 miles.

The mayor said he was surprised when NU announced plans in March to bury more than half the Bethel-to-Norwalk line -- including a nearly 10-mile stretch -- under a settlement the company reached with the other four towns affected by the plan.  Poirot has said NU was only referring to solid-core cables, an alternative to oil-filled cables which represent the latest technology that has been field tested, when it mentioned the 5-mile limit.

The mayor resumed his push for NU to run the local portion of the line to Bethel underground after learning several weeks ago of NU's preference for burying the line to Middletown at least between Norwalk and Bridgeport.  Knopp said yesterday he wishes NU had revealed its preferred Norwalk-to-Middletown plan sooner in the approval process for the Bethel-to-Norwalk line, when there was more time to discuss burying the city stretch of that project.

Under NU's ideal design for the Norwalk-to-Middletown line, the company would bury a cable from the New Canaan Avenue substation to Riverside Avenue.  The line would continue under Cross Street and North Avenue before hitting Westport Avenue.  If the company is forced to run the line above ground from New Canaan Avenue to Wilton for some reason, Poirot said NU plans to stretch the cable atop poles averaging 130 feet high.  He said NU would have to build separate 130-foot poles for that project and the Bethel-to-Norwalk line.

Now that NU has submitted its Norwalk-to-Middletown proposal to leaders of potentially affected towns, Poirot said Siting Council regulations require the company to take at least 60 days to present its plan to residents and hear their concerns.  The company hopes to hold open houses at which residents could ask questions and experts would discuss different aspects of the plan.  Poirot said town leaders can choose the format for NU's presentations.  NU will then submit its application to the Siting Council, possibly in late summer, he said. The panel then has a year to render a decision.

"The is like the first chapter of a rough draft of a book that we're trying to put together," Poirot said. 

The line, 2 years old but used only temporarily and on an emergency basis
until Friday, was energized at 12:25 p.m., according to New York Gov.
George Pataki.

The action came after utility and regulatory officials in the two states,
pressured to do something by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
worked out a deal late Thursday to resolve differences.

The concession from Connecticut negotiators apparently ends three years
of controversy and legal battles that led to political tensions between
Connecticut and New York officials.

The Long Island Power Authority, meanwhile, which desperately wants the
power from the new transmission line, agreed to pick up half the cost of repairing
an old, damaged transmission line between Norwalk and Northport, N.Y. Total
cost of that project is about $95 million, according to Arthur J. Rocque Jr.,
Connecticut's environmental protection commissioner.

Also, the Cross-Sound Cable Co., which owns the line; Connecticut Light & Power
Co.; and the Long Island utility each will contribute $2 million to a new Long Island
Sound restoration and conservation fund.

Rocque, one of the negotiators, said the agreement was as good as either state
could hope for, given the deep divisions on the issue.  "I think on balance it was
a good deal," he said.  Although the cable is 2 years old, the state has never
authorized its use because seven sections in New Haven Harbor were not laid as
deeply as required in strict permit provisions intended to safeguard the environment
and navigation.

Rocque said that under the agreement, the company will still be required to meet
all permit provisions, except for the 750-foot section. In six locations, the company
will either clear obstructions or reroute the cable to get it to the specified depths.
Rocque said that in the remaining location, which would require extensive blasting,
the cable already is sunk deep enough that no ship that is allowed into the harbor
could strike it. Even so, he said, the company will be required to encase the cable
section so that it can cause no problems.

Pataki, who was critical of Connecticut officials last year for refusing to allow use of
the line, hailed the agreement Friday, calling it "a victory for the people of Long Island
and the millions of customers in both New York and Connecticut that will benefit
from its operation."

But Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a persistent critic of the project
whose office was not involved in the compromise, said he still had concerns over aspects
of the deal, including the concession on the cable depth and the agreement's impact on
future enforcement of environmental and consumer protection laws.

"There are a number of concerns about the potential ambiguities and enforcement authority
of this agreement which we are seeking to resolve," he said Friday.  Rocque said the
provision for the Long Island utility to help finance repairs to the Norwalk line was significant
for the health of Long Island Sound because the antiquated line has been leaking insulating
oil for decades and the repair project will eliminate that problem.

The Cross-Sound Cable has been used only on an emergency basis, and even then it has
been the subject of controversy.  During the Northeast blackout last August, U.S. Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham ordered the unused cable put into service. It continued in
service until last month, when Abraham, prodded by Blumenthal, conceded there no longer
was an emergency.

A benefit of those months of service, Rocque said, is that environmental monitoring required
of the cable owners during that period indicated the line was not causing environmental damage.
Rocque said the new $6 million Long Island Sound fund would be administered by an existing
management committee that includes officials from both states who are familiar with the
Sound's most pressing problems.

It will be used to protect open space, restore habitat and finance research and pollution-control
measures.

HARTFORD - A state Superior Court judge rejected a request by the Cross-Sound Cable Co. to turn on the juice along its long-stalled high-voltage power line to Long Island.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Sen. George L. Gunther, R-Stratford, hailed the decision Monday as appropriate, because the company failed to bury the 330-megawatt cable to the required depth under New Haven Harbor.

The head of Long Island Sound programming for the state Department of Environmental Protection said he had not seen a copy of the court decision, but it appeared to support state regulations.  The company responded Monday that it is "disappointed" and reviewing its options.

Judge Lynda B. Munro ruled that Cross-Sound Cable, a subsidiary of TransEnergie US, failed to prove that a statewide moratorium on new transmission lines was unconstitutional.  Munro, in the decision released through Blumenthal's office, said that the burden on interstate commerce from the continued inactivity of the power line
does not outweigh the environmental benefits.

"Maintaining a healthy seabed provides clean water, and healthy fisheries and shellfish beds, which in turn provide a safe food source and environment, and a viable job market for the welfare of the state's citizens," Munro wrote in a 43-page ruling.  When it laid the 24-mile-long cable last year, the company failed to reach the mandated depth of 48-feet below mean low water in the harbor channel because of submerged rock and other obstacles along hundreds of feet of New Haven Harbor.

Opponents of the cable claimed that failure forced the project into the realm of the legislative moratorium on new power lines that was approved by the General Assembly last year and signed into law by Gov. John G. Rowland.  "The court rightly rejected Cross Sound's effort to evade its clear legal obligations under the permits and its attempt to end-run state oversight and the legislative moratorium," Blumenthal said.

"Cross Sound unconditionally promised last summer in court that it would meet its permit obligations before operating the cable," Blumenthal said. "Since then, Cross Sound has consistently sought special treatment defying law and common sense, with no regard for the potential damage to Connecticut's environment and economy."

The ruling effectively blocks the project from obtaining a new excavation permit until the expiration of the moratorium in June. But then, the shellfish-spawning season begins and underwater excavation is prohibited until the fall. Under a bill that recently passed the General Assembly's Environment Committee, the moratorium would be extended another year.

Gunther, the chief legislative opponent of the power line, said Monday he supports the extended moratorium, but the whole approval process for the Cross-Sound project is suspicious, because it was plain to see on any map of the harbor, that the 48-foot depth could not be reached.  "Everybody knew damn right well that they couldn't fulfill that obligation," Gunther said. "You can't abuse the environment of the state of Connecticut."

Charles Evans, director of Long Island Sound Programs for the DEP, said he hadn't received a copy of the opinion yet, but he was pleased that it backed up the department, which has stood fast in barring the cable from energizing before the proper depth is reached.  "It does seem we have been interpreting the law correctly," Evans said in a phone interview.  Rita Bowlby, vice president of TransEnergie, said that the company, which is involved in a joint venture with Hydro-Quebec and the United Illuminating Co., is reviewing its legal options.

"The decision that was rendered by the court is disappointing, however we believe that the Cross-Sound Cable is safely buried, does not pose adverse environment impacts and does provide a benefit to Connecticut and the region," Bowlby said.  She said the cable, even if energized at its current depth, would have no adverse environmental
impact or be a threat to navigation.

Gov. John G. Rowland will veto a bill that would have imposed a one-year moratorium on all new energy lines under Long Island Sound - including a 24-mile transmission cable whose installation is set to begin as soon as next week.

After the state Senate overwhelmingly approved the measure and sent it to his desk Wednesday, Rowland said he would issue an executive order Friday for a siix-month moratorium on energy lines both in the Sound and over land.

The governor's plan also would allow installation of the controversial Cross Sound Cable between New Haven and Brookhaven, L.I., which has all regulatory approvals.

A source familiar with the governor's plan said Rowland believed stalling that project could leave the state liable for millions in court damages.  Laying of the $135 million cable, which would involve plowing a 6-foot-deep trench across the Sound floor, could begin as soon as April 19 unless the legislature were to override Rowland's veto.

The cable is one of five electric-transmission lines or natural gas pipelines proposed to cross under Long Island Sound. The moratorium was sought so officials could assess the projects' collective environmental effect and consider coordinating their placement.

The Senate on Wednesday voted 31-2 in favor of the moratorium after it passed the House 138-11 last week.

In his seven years as governor, Rowland has not had a veto overridden. But with 90 percent of the legislature favoring the bill, Capitol observers late Wednesday were wondering whether that record would remain intact.  Rowland is expected to argue that his plan is better because it addresses overland transmission lines not included in the legislation and because it would avoid costly litigation that probably would result from halting an approved cable.

Fairfield County residents have fiercely opposed Northeast Utilities' plans for high-capacity, overland transmission lines and the 130-foot-high towers that would carry them through their towns.

Cross Sound Cable Co. has said a one-year delay would cost it as much as $60 million.  While the governor would like to keep the Cross Sound Cable matter out of court, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal continues to take it there.

On Wednesday, he filed an emergency motion in state appellate court to appeal New Britain Superior Court Judge Carl J. Schuman's denial of an injunction to stall the project. Blumenthal and the city of New Haven sought the stay while they sued to overturn the state Siting Council's approval of the cable.  In a statement, Blumenthal applauded the Senate's vote.

"This measure is on sound constitutional ground, and I will vigorously defend it against any court challenge," he said.

The moratorium proposal was prompted by the recent proliferation of proposals for power lines and natural gas pipelines in Long Island Sound.  The chief concern is the Sound's ecology, including the effect on shellfish beds and the threat of churning up toxins that have settled to the Sound's floor.  Regulators and state environmental officials said the Cross Sound Cable - the only such project approved - poses minimal environmental threat.

Although the legislation approved Wednesday would stall the Cross Sound Cable, it would allow Northeast Utilities to replace several existing transmission cables between
Norwalk and Northport, L.I., that are prone to leaking harmful chemicals.  Rowland's plan also would allow replacement of those cables but with tighter restrictions, a source familiar with the plan said.

Opponents of a moratorium say it would delay energy connections with New York that are desperately needed to improve power reliability. Moratorium supporters say the energy across the Sound will flow only one way, toward power hungry New York.  The bill proposes that during the one-year freeze, an energy think tank - the Institute for Sustainable Energy at Eastern Connecticut State University - would study the proposals and their cumulative environmental effect. The Institute would then propose a plan for coordinating such projects in the future.

The Cross Sound Cable's developers have fought to install a cable across the Sound for two years. After the Connecticut Siting Council rejected an earlier plan - largely because of its impact to shellfish beds - developers returned with a new partnership and won approval for a new route that follows ship navigation channels.

State Sen. Thomas J. Herlihy, R-Simsbury, one of only two dissenters in Wednesday's Senate vote, said stalling the Cross Sound Cable would send a chilling signal to
companies wanting to do business in Connecticut.

"This company has acted in good faith," Herlihy said.  "They have invested incredible amounts of money and are on the verge of beginning construction."

But state Sen. Donald D. Williams, D-Killingly, said any financial loss for the company is not his top concern.  "We should make our decision first, and the company should set their timetables second," said Williams.

Herlihy and other senators expressed concern that the bill unconstitutionally took away approvals already given to the Cross Sound Cable Co.  Williams disputed that the bill committed a "taking" as is found in property law, and he pointed to a weapons seizure law that lawmakers passed that posed similar questions but has withstood legal challenge.

"This is not a perfect bill," Williams said. "One could raise issues of constitutionality on almost any piece of legislation we pass. The ultimate question is how likely [a
challenge] is to prevail." 

                     cwalsh@ctpost.com

                     Opponents of a proposed New Haven Harbor power cable expressed heightened
                     concerns about possible environmental damage from dredging Monday after the
                     Army Corps of Engineers said it is likely to approve the controversial electric project.

                     Army Corps officials said they are leaning toward approving the application because
                     the Cross-Sound Cable company agreed to increase the depth the cable is buried to
                     13 feet under the harbor's main navigation channel. Originally Cross-Sound proposed
                     burying the cable only 6 feet under the channel.

                     At that time opponents said the cable would interfere with regular dredging of the
                     channel and might be struck when large ships drop anchor.

                     "I am very distressed and disturbed," said state Attorney General Richard
                     Blumenthal, "a deeper channel means more sediment going into Long Island Sound
                     and therefore more environmental damage."

                     Blumenthal, who threatened to take legal action if the project is approved, said he
                     hopes the state Department of Environmental Protection will schedule a public
                     hearing on the matter. "This project is huge and the impact will be humongous," he
                     said.

                     State Sen. George "Doc" Gunther, R-Stratford, one of the most vociferous
                     opponents of the New Haven cable, said he believes the deeper dredging will do
                     more damage to the harbor and Long Island Sound itself.

                     "It's crazy," he said, "that channel is not all mud and sand. There's a large rock
                     formation toward the mouth of the harbor. God knows what will happen when they hit
                     that."

                     Gov. John G. Rowland could shoot down the whole project. Rowland spokesman
                     Dean Pagani said the governor has not made up his mind on the cable.

                     "He feels the issue is in the hands of competent state and federal agencies and will
                     wait for their decisions before rendering his," Pagani said, adding a rejection by
                     Rowland was "not out of the question."

                     Cross-Sound takes issue with the claim that increased sedimentation would result
                     from the dredging. The method of burying the cable uses a hydro-jet that directs
                     powerful blasts of water and air into the mud. The cable merely settles to the proper
                     depth through the loosened sediment.

                     "I think everyone agrees that the hydro-jet system does not create very much
                     sediment," said Cross-Sound spokeswoman Rita Bowlbie.

                     She called the efforts to pressure the DEP into holding a public hearing on the cable
                     project "just another delaying tactic" by opponents. She noted that the public had a
                     chance to speak at hearings conducted by the Connecticut Siting Council, which
                     eventually approved the project.

                     The call on another hearing belongs to DEP Commissioner Arthur J. Rocque Jr.

                     "I guess I'm the fly in the ointment," Rocque said Monday, "but I hope to come in
                     with a decision on this [the public hearing] in the next several days."

                     Soundkeeper Terry Backer, who is also a Democratic state representative, said
                     although he is not specifically opposed to the New Haven Harbor cable project, he
                     does favor the public hearing.

                     "First we've got to make sure there's nothing toxic in the sediment," he said, "and
                     then we have to know exactly what marine life will be disturbed."

                     Backer said there are wider issues to contend with regarding dredging and
                     sediment.

                     "If sediment suspension is the only issue with this project," Backer said, "then we're
                     going to have to rethink all our harbor dredging projects because they all create
                     sediment sustentions. Even lobstering and oyster farming stirs up sediments."

                     Backer said tentative widening and deepening of New Haven's and Bridgeport's
                     harbor channels to create deep water ports would stir up massive amounts of
                     sediment.

                     The Army Corps of Engineers did not return phone calls Monday.

                     The Associated Press contributed to this report.

               Bill hits L.I. Sound pipelines
                       By CHARLES WALSH

                       cwalsh@ctpost.com

                       With one underwater electrical cable project nearing final approval and a gas
                       pipeline under review, a bill seeking a one-year moratorium on applications for all
                       cross-Long Island Sound cables and pipelines is gaining momentum in the state
                       Legislature.

                       State Sen. George "Doc" Gunther, R-Stratford, the bill's sponsor, said he
                       received verbal assurances from Rep. Jessie Stratton, D-Canton, chairman of
                       the Legislature's Environment Committee, that hearings on the measure will be
                       scheduled in March.

                       The bill also calls for a non-partisan committee to conduct an environmental
                       impact study of Long Island Sound cable and pipe crossings, and the possibility
                       of establishing an ecologically acceptable corridor for utility lines.

                       The Connecticut Siting Council already approved TransEnergie US Ltd.'s Cross
                       Sound Connector project, a 330-megawatt cable from New Haven Harbor to
                       Shoreham, Long Island. All that remains before construction can begin are
                       approvals from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the Army
                       Corps of Engineers.

                       The cable will follow the harbor's dredged shipping channel. It was heavily
                       criticized by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and by New Haven
                       Mayor John DeStefano. Blumenthal believes that the electricity will benefit only
                       Long Island. DeStefano fears the cable will make dredging difficult and could
                       interfere with shipping. Gunther and some environmentalists fear the work
                       required to lay the cable will damage the Sound's marine life.

                       TransEnergie spokeswoman Rita Bowlbie said the company is concerned about
                       the proposed moratorium's impact on a project that has already been approved.
                       Bowlbie said she expects final approvals to come in the next few weeks.

                       Bowlbie countered critics who charged that a cable running down the shipping
                       channel of New Haven Harbor could create a hazard for large ships.

                       "We have told the DEP and the Army Corps that we will agree to any and all
                       conditions as far as making sure the cable is installed in a way so it does not
                       interfere with shipping," she said.

                       Bowlbie took issue with Blumenthal's charge that an electrical cable across
                       Long Island Sound would mainly carry power away from Connecticut.

                       "That's just not accurate," she said. "A cable can carry electricity both ways,
                       and that will be a benefit to Connecticut."

                       Bowlbie said better access to Long Island's power supply could benefit
                       Connecticut in future emergencies. She recalled an incident last Aug. 1 when
                       two major land power transmission lines went down in Norwalk, followed by the
                       Bridgeport power plant tripping offline.

                       "If ISO [the power industry association that controls New England's electrical
                       grid] hadn't got us power from Long Island that day," she said, "all Fairfield
                       County could have been without power."

                       Meanwhile, a gas pipeline between Branford and Shoreham, has received
                       preliminary approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the
                       Siting Council is studying the plan. As many as nine additional cross-Long
                       Island Sound projects are on the drawing boards of various utility companies.

                       Gunther's bill has considerable bipartisan support. Six state senators, including
                      William Finch, D-Bridgeport, and John McKinney, R-Fairfield, and six state
                       representatives, including John Harkins, R-Stratford, and Richard Roy, D-Milford,
                       are co-sponsors.

                       In mid January, Finch sent a letter to Michael Grzywinski of the DEP's Office of
                       Long Island Sound Programs, calling for a two-year moratorium on crossing
                       projects and expressing "serious concerns about cross sound cable's impact on
                       navigation and its environmental impact."

                       Even if hearings on the moratorium are scheduled in March, it would likely be
                       April before it could be brought before the full Legislature.

Underwater Power Line Gains Ground
 January 4, 2002
 By JOHN M. MORAN, Courant Staff Writer

 State regulators Thursday approved plans for the construction of a high-voltage, underwater electric cable crossing Long Island Sound, but opponents vowed to continue fighting the proposal.

The Connecticut Siting Council's unanimous vote is a major step forward for the Cross-Sound Cable project, which would see a 24-mile transmission line placed between New Haven and Brookhaven, N.Y.  But in order to proceed, the project still requires approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And it faces opposition from both environmentalists and those who say the cable will hurt Connecticut economically.

Council Chairman Mortimer A. Gelston said the latest proposal from Cross-Sound Cable Co. addressed the council's earlier concerns by rerouting the transmission cable away from shellfish beds and into an existing shipping lane.  Gelston said the 330-megawatt transmission line would reinforce the energy network in the Northeast by better connecting Connecticut with Long Island.  "It just strengthens our regional ties. We can't live as an
island," he said.

Cross Sound Cable Co. is a joint venture between TransEnergie U.S. Ltd., a subsidiary of Hydro-Quebec, and United Capital Investments Inc., a subsidiary of United Illuminating.  Last month, a preliminary vote by the council had indicated it expected to approve the proposal.  But Thursday's decision also represents a reversal of the council's position from last March, when it rejected a similar proposal by a vote of 7-1.

Opponents - including the state attorney general and the Office of Consumer Counsel - have argued that the project poses environmental risks and offers no economic benefits to the state.  Saying the project could lead to higher energy prices in Connecticut, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal urged the siting council to reconsider its decision and reject the project.  "The cable will almost surely siphon away energy and stick Connecticut with higher prices," Blumenthal said.  "We will continue to fight these proposals - going to court if the council fails to reconsider this decision."

New Haven officials said they will fight the decision, as well. In a statement released late Thursday, Mayor John DeStefano Jr. said his legal staff would file appeals to the siting council's approval.  DeStefano complained that the cable project would impede traffic in the New Haven harbor, interfere with dredging and improvements there and ultimately erode the commercial value of the harbor.  "I don't want to compromise a major economic lifeline for Connecticut for the benefit of the rest of Long Island," he said.

Mary J. Healey, the state's consumer counsel, said she was disappointed by the decision. Most of the benefits of the transmission line will go to Long Island, which has limits on how much power it can generate, she said.  Barbara Gordon, executive director of the Connecticut Seafood Council, one in a coalition of groups opposing the transmission line, said the new proposal did little to address environmental concerns.

"Regardless of where you put this, it will impact [shellfish] beds, as well as the entire environment of Long Island Sound," Gordon said.  "We feel that this opens up the Sound to greater vulnerability," she said. "Once you have done harm, there's very little you can do about it."

Rita Bowlby, a spokeswoman for the project, said backers hope to receive approval from the Army Corps of Engineers later this month or in early February.  If that is received, the project could get under way this spring and be completed by the summer, she said.

Courant Staff Writer Janice D'Arcy also contributed to this story. 

HARTFORD Conn. (AP)- Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is prepared to go to court to block a federal agency's plans to change the Northeast power grid. Blumenthal said the issue is the order by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's last month that separate power grid operators in New England, New York and the Mid-Atlantic states consolidate into a single organization. "It potentially means that power could be sucked away from our state, that prices will rise and that we will be at the mercy of an organization over which we have little or no say or control," Blumenthal said over the weekend.  The Bush administration has been backing a plan for creation of four huge grid managers nationwide, one each for the Northeast, Southeast, Northwest and Southwest. Large system operators would reduce barriers to the free flow of electricity and speed the development of free markets, leading to lower prices, the administration says.  However, Blumenthal said he doesn't believe a single Northeast system operator would lower prices or stabilize markets. He said he thinks the mega-grid manager proposed by FERC called a Regional Transmission Organization or RTO would be unresponsive to consumers or state regulators. "The larger and more dictatorial it is, the more Connecticut is at its mercy," Blumenthal said.  In June, U.S. Sens. Christopher J. Dodd, and Joseph I. Lieberman, both D-Conn., joined eight other senators from New England in writing a letter urging federal regulators not to push now for a single gird operator in the Northeast.

The public present, as well as the elected Town officials sharply questioned the CL&P staff and consultants on the need for this upgrade, the power situation in CT generally, why the need to cross Long Island Sound--is it that CL&P is now competing with out of area power suppliers and wants the competitive advantage of even more power than Connecticut may need...lots of questions, and this is just the beginning of a community dialogue.  One citizen pointed out that this very same proposal had been made 30 years ago...CL&P said it was now more than time to institute the upgrade.

FOR A MAP BY CL&P FROM THE ABOVE REPORTED MEETING, OF RESIDENTIAL POWER USAGE STATE-WIDE, CLICK HERE.

From the basic data supplied in the package given to the Town, it looks as if the high voltage lines will require 130 foot towers, wider right-of-ways (typical ROW in Weston part of the line 80' and typical additional land needed 45'), clearing of trees.  Please see below for a map reproduced from the Planning and Zoning Commission files.