Thursday morning, a group of Republican lawmakers held a press conference at Hartford’s Legislative Office Building, advocating for two bills which would require greater transparency and community participation for the siting of state solar projects.
“In Winsted and Torrington, we’ve heard from numerous community members frustrated by the extensive tree clearing required for these solar farm projects,” said Rep. Jay Case (R-Winsted). “This is significantly altering the landscape of our historic communities, with little direct benefit to those living near the developments. I am also concerned about the long-term environmental impact of these installations and the massive clearing that is taking place.”
In addition to Case, Reps. Joe Canino (R-Torrington) and Carol Hall (R-Enfield) also spoke at the conference. The three argued that the Connecticut Siting Council, a state body originally established in 1972 for the purpose of siting utility infrastructure, has too much power to supersede municipal decision making processes in the siting of solar developments.
The group advocated for the passage of two bills. The first bill is SB 78, which is being considered by the legislature’s Environment Committee. It would mandate that mayors or other municipal chiefs be allowed to appoint a non-voting member to the council for the duration of any siting proposal located in their municipality.
The second bill, HB 6298, is being considered by the Government Administration and Elections Committee. The bill would require the Siting Council to consider the testimony of any resident or municipal official regarding siting proposals located in their municipality, require the council to abide by any conditions set by the municipal chief if the projects produce more than one megawatt is located within five miles of any other system that produces 100 megawatts or more, and requires projects to maintain distribution capacity for the area in which it’s located.
“Investing in alternative energy sources shouldn’t come at the expense of local communities,” said Canino. “It’s mind-boggling that the Connecticut Siting Council would approve a solar development within 100 feet of Torrington homes to power the City of Hartford, while our residents are struggling with rising electric bills. That’s why local representation on the siting council is essential to ensure municipalities have a voice in these decisions.”
The Environmental Committee reviewed testimony on the first bill this Wednesday. Groups such as the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST), and the CT Roundtable on Climate and Jobs (CTRCJ) submitted testimony in support of the bill, while the Siting Council opposed it.
“By allowing towns sufficient representation on Siting Council projects within their jurisdiction, the Council will navigate their duties in a more efficient manner through the expedition of surveying local needs, constraints, and boundaries specific to the municipality at hand,” reads COST’s testimony.
The organization also advocated for the inclusion of voting power for the municipal official, and advocated for the inclusion of language that would prohibit the municipal official from being involved in any industries that may pose a conflict of interest.
CTRCJ, which brands itself as “a statewide nonprofit that builds alliances among diverse constituencies to combat climate change, create jobs, and promote racial, economic, and environmental justice,” wrote that environmental justice values local input in environmental decisions.
“Environmental justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation,” read its testimony. “Non-voting local representation on the Connecticut Siting Council gives communities a small voice where they currently have none, so that the voting members of the Council may better consider the perspective of the host municipality and its residents, allowing some influence over projects impacting their communities.”
Testimony submitted by the Siting Council argued that the bill would be redundant, as a bill passed last year already accounted for the addition of a member who has past experience as a municipal official, and included several provisions that increased the level of municipal input on siting processes. It stated that solar applicants already must consult with local officials prior to petitioning the council.
It also argued against the inclusion of local officials in siting proposals located in their towns, and said that it currently requires council members to recuse themselves from cases located in their municipality of residence “to avoid the appearance of bias, partiality, predetermination and/or impropriety.” Furthermore, the council argued that municipal officials can already access and participate in siting council proceedings, and can pay to appeal siting council decisions.
The second bill, which was originally brought by the Energy and Technology Committee, was rerouted to the Government Administrations and Elections Committee on Feb. 14. The bill has not currently received or reviewed any testimony for the bill.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The internet is full of scams on CT solar power. There should be some enforcement against these unlawful fraud.