Fairfield Leaders Blast CT Siting Council Over New UI Straw Vote

FAIRFIELD, CT ? In an unexpected reversal, the Connecticut Siting Council on Thursday voted to recommend United Illuminating's controversial monopole transmission line project through parts of Fairfield and Bridgeport, with local leaders blasting the decision.

Thursday's 6-2 straw vote was non-binding, as was a similar vote in June, in which the council voted against the UI proposal 4-2. The council is slated to hold its final vote on Sept. 18.

Residents, businesses and leaders in both Fairfield and Bridgeport have opposed the plan, which calls for the installation of dozens of tall, steel monopoles that would carry high voltage transmission lines through parts of the two communities. The opponents argue that the transmission lines should be buried instead of hung above ground.

Fairfield First Selectwoman Christine Vitale condemned the process as "tainted," following the Siting Council latest straw vote, in which the council recommended the approval of UI?s plan to install overhead monopoles to the south of the Metro-North Railroad tracks.

The council previously rejected that proposal as unfit for our community and that ignores private property rights, according to Vitale.

"The Town of Fairfield has led the opposition to UI?s unacceptable proposal throughout this process," Vitale said in a statement. "Despite overwhelming opposition from residents, local officials, local businesses, preservationists, and experts, the Siting Council [Thursday] reversed itself, by indicating support for a utility?s recycled plan that will scar Fairfield and Bridgeport?s historic neighborhoods and challenge local businesses for generations to come."

Vitale added, "The Council ignored clear, viable alternatives, and instead rubber-stamped a proposal that threatens the character, natural resources and economic stability of our Town, and claims more than 19.5 acres of private property in the process. We are stunned that the Council reversed its own straw vote taken only three months ago, when nothing has changed in the interim. This process was tainted."

Read More:

• Court Overturns Controversial Decision; Ruling Is A Victory For Fairfield And Bridgeport
• Huge Price Tag For Underground Transmission Line Project In Fairfield & Bridgeport: UI
• Setting the Record Straight on UI?s Misinformation Campaign
• UI Responds To Statements By Fairfield Advocates In Monopole Dispute

Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim agreed.

"The CT Siting Council?s reversal of their previous decision now allowing United Illuminating to install monopoles through Bridgeport and Fairfield is a betrayal of the people of Bridgeport," Ganim said. "I?m asking the state Attorney General to investigate this matter.

"What has United Illuminating said or done, behind closed doors, that has caused them to change their votes since their meeting in June? We know of nothing publicly, and this lack of transparency needs to be investigated. The people need to know. This is a public utility and transparency, and consistency is paramount. The residents deserve nothing less and we won?t stand for these shenanigans.

"The residents and business communities of Bridgeport and Fairfield have been explicitly clear that this project is a massive overreach that will infringe on private property and negatively impact environmental and historic preservation efforts. It is unconscionable that the Siting Council would suddenly side with the financial interests of UI over the people of Bridgeport and Fairfield. We will fight like hell to ensure that this project is not officially approved."

In a statement to Patch, UI spokesperson Sarah Wall Fliotsos said the utility is pleased with Thursday's outcome.

"We appreciate the Connecticut Siting Council?s thoughtful consideration of the Fairfield to Congress transmission project [Thursday]," Fliotsos said. "Over two years ago, UI submitted our application for this project with the same design criteria as the first four phases across 7 municipalities, all of which were approved. That is because our proposed overhead design best achieves all the necessary objectives: protecting the environment and reining in costs that are borne by all Connecticut customers, while ensuring UI can serve the present and future electric capacity needed for the New England region and the customers we have proudly served for more than 125 years. We look forward to continuing to work with the Council, municipal leaders, and residents and businesses across Connecticut both prior to and after the Council?s final decision."

Vitale said that Fairfield has consistently advocated for placing transmission lines underground along public roadways, a proven, safer, and modern solution that is regularly utilized by states throughout the nation and countries around the world.

"The people of Fairfield and Bridgeport deserve better," Vitale said. "We will seek out every legal option in opposition to this plan before we accept massive monopoles that will permanently disfigure our historic character. The plan the Council approved in a straw vote today was previously rejected as unacceptable, and we will fight it with every legal means available to force UI to submit a new, responsible plan that protects our neighborhoods."

In April, Fairfield won a legal victory for its residents, businesses and property owners, and grassroots organizations when Superior Court Judge Matthew Budzik reversed the CSC?s decision to approve overhead monopoles north of the Metro North train tracks. Judge Budzik ruled that the CSC ?exceeded its statutory authority and violated principles of fundamental fairness" and remanded the matter back to the CSC "for proceedings consistent with [the Court?s] memorandum of decision.?

During the June meeting, the Siting Council took the first straw vote, and rejected UI?s original proposal to install overhead monopoles to the south of the Metro-North train tracks.

"At that meeting, four Council members voted to deny the application, two voted to approve, and one abstained," Vitale said. "Although the straw vote was technically non-binding, as a result of the straw vote, Vice Chairman John Morrisette instructed Siting Council staff to draft a formal opinion and decision denying UI?s application."

UI petitioned to prevent the council from formally rejecting its application, based on its claim that the council was improperly constituted, because it lacked a member who was an ecological expert. Vitale said UI raised the issue for the first time only after it lost the June straw vote. The vacancy on the council was filled by Gov. Ned Lamont, which led to the second straw vote.

"There were no hearings, public deliberations, or proceedings at all while the case was stayed, and yet two Council members reversed their prior votes, suddenly supporting UI?s application," Vitale said. "The sudden turnaround [Thursday], when nothing had changed, is highly suspect and indefensible."

State Rep. Jennifer Leeper called the reversal "extremely disappointing."

"Even worse, the plan seizes 19.25 acres of privately owned land along the way," Leeper said in a statement to Patch. "While this is a non-binding straw poll vote, it represents a truly bewildering reversal from just a couple of months ago, which will greatly erode the public?s trust and confidence in this process."

Leeper added, "As I have for the past two years, I continue to stand in lockstep with the residents of Fairfield and Bridgeport as they defend their property rights and the best economic, environmental, and cultural interest of their communities. I am grateful that First Selectman Vitale continues Bill Gerber?s steadfast commitment to this fight. Along with my colleagues, I have already requested a meeting with Governor Lamont to discuss this confusing reversal.

"I will continue to keep Fairfield and Southport abreast of this evolving and urgent situation."

State Sen. Tony Hwang, who also opposed the UI proposal, called the council's action Thursday, "a stunning and deeply disturbing reversal."

"The decision directly contradicts the Council?s 4-2 straw poll vote on June 12, 2025, which had indicated clear opposition to the plan," Hwang said. "The move has ignited frustration and anger across the affected communities, and is shocking, disturbing, and a betrayal of public trust."

Hwang added, "The Siting Council has chosen to ignore the will of the communities they are supposed to serve and reverse their straw poll decision from just under three months ago. What happened between that straw poll and now? What has changed? Those are questions I believe the Siting Council failed to answer in their meeting [Thursday]."

Hwang criticized United Illuminating, and its parent company Avangrid, for their lack of meaningful engagement throughout the process, saying the companies "have consistently avoided meaningful, transparent engagement with affected residents, municipalities, and environmental stakeholders."

The latest straw vote "rewards a utility company that has refused to listen, and it undermines the core principles of good governance."

"I stand firmly with the residents, local leaders, and small businesses of these communities," Hwang said. "Their voices matter. Their history, their environment, their quality of life matters. This project is not just flawed, it is fundamentally irresponsible."

He called for a reset of the application process, urging the council to require UI to file a new proposal under current law.

"We need a new application?one that fully complies with the legislative requirements enacted in 2023," Hwang said. "That means transparency, accountability, and a process that respects economic and social equity, environmental sustainability, and the cultural and historical preservation of our communities.

"I urge Governor Lamont to act now. Our communities need a fully seated, impartial Siting Council and a process that reflects the values and concerns of the people, not the preferences of powerful utilities.

"We will not stop. We will continue to demand a fair, open, and equitable process that protects our communities, respects our values, and upholds the public interest. The people of Fairfield, Southport, and Bridgeport deserve nothing less."