UI asks court to overturn transmission line rejection, citing political pressure

The United Illuminating Co. is asking a Connecticut judge to revive its $300 million transmission line project through Fairfield and Bridgeport, arguing state regulators reversed an initial vote to approve it after Gov. Ned Lamont’s office and local opponents pushed for a delay. In a brief filed Thursday in New Britain Superior Court, UI asked Judge Matthew Budzik to overturn the state Siting Council’s denial and order the agency to approve the project. At the center of UI's appeal is the Siting Council’s change of course in fall 2025. That September, the council took a nonbinding straw vote of 6-2 to approve the project. Six weeks later, with no new evidence before it, the council voted 5-3 to reject it, according to UI's brief. “Using identical findings to reach opposite conclusions cannot be reconciled with reasoned decision-making,” wrote UI attorney Jennifer Morgan of Harris Beach Murtha Cullina. UI wants to move its high-voltage lines off century-old structures, which also support overhead railroad wires, and onto steel poles along 7.3 miles of the Metro-North Railroad corridor. The company says the work is needed to maintain reliable electric service and would complete a broader transmission upgrade it began in 2017. Residents and local officials have fought the proposal, citing harm to neighborhoods, historic properties and economic development. Some have pushed to bury the lines, which UI has argued would be substantially more expensive. The Siting Council, the state agency that reviews major energy infrastructure projects, has agreed that an upgrade is needed. But it has rejected UI’s proposed approach, citing concerns about community impacts, alternatives and costs. UI’s brief includes exhibits with emails and text messages, some obtained from Lamont’s office through a Freedom of Information Act request, which the company says show political influence over the process. Rob Blanchard, then Lamont’s communications director and a member of Fairfield’s Representative Town Meeting, wrote to the Siting Council opposing the project shortly before a scheduled vote. He also exchanged texts with Fairfield First Selectman Christine Vitale about persuading the governor to seek a delay, according to the filing. Vitale texted Blanchard that she had told Lamont a denial “does leave space to provide an alternate plan.” Lamont’s office asked the Siting Council on Sept. 17, 2025, to postpone its decision to explore alternatives. The council voted unanimously the next day to table the vote until October, meeting transcripts show. Blanchard, who left the administration in April, said in a statement that, as a Fairfield Representative Town Meeting member, he stood with neighbors who opposed the project. “That's exactly what I was elected to do, and I’d do it again,” he said. In a follow-up email, Blanchard said that in his texts with Vitale, he “was communicating as a member of the governor’s staff with a town leader." A spokesperson for Lamont did not say whether the governor had a position on UI’s proposal itself. “The governor continues to believe that all of the parties should work together to find a solution that makes necessary upgrades to our grid while protecting community assets at the lowest cost to ratepayers,” said Cathryn Vaulman, Lamont's communications director. UI also alleges the council kept a state Department of Transportation letter supporting the project out of the public record. The department sent the letter Sept. 3, 2025, backing UI’s plan and opposing burying the lines. The next day, the department replaced it with a letter taking “no position on whether the current proposal or another is preferred.” “Just remove the DOT comments from the website and call it a day, please,” Siting Council Executive Director Melanie Bachman wrote to a staff member, according to the brief. In August, Budzik granted UI’s request to add both letters to the court record over the Siting Council’s objection. In an email Friday, Bachman said she could not discuss the pending appeal, but noted the Siting Council decided to rule on the existing record without accepting new evidence or comments after the court’s remand. That left no formal way for anyone, including state agencies, to weigh in, she said. She said the emails UI cites were released earlier through a public records request from the Southport Congregational Church, one of the project's opponents. The attorney general’s office, which represents the Siting Council in the appeal, declined to comment. Beyond the allegations of political pressure, UI’s main legal argument is that the Siting Council reached opposite conclusions from the same record. The Siting Council left its findings essentially unchanged from its 2024 approval, the brief says, but flipped the outcome in part by deleting the word "not" in three places. The dispute dates to 2024, when the Siting Council approved the project but moved it from the south side of the railroad tracks, where UI proposed it, to the north side. Budzik overturned that decision in April 2025, ruling the Siting Council could not approve a route UI hadn’t applied for, and sent the case back to the agency. The Siting Council then considered UI’s original plan and rejected it in October 2025, and again, 6-1, in February after UI sought reconsideration.