Dredging to begin to make CT State Pier a hub for offshore wind projects

John Moritz

NEW LONDON — The $235 million plan to redevelop the State Pier into a hub for offshore wind projects will enter the next phase of its construction in January, officials said this week after receiving the final federal permit to begin work in the waters around the century-old pier.

That permit, from the Army Corps of Engineers, had been delayed for months after state regulators completed their approval of the project in August. The delay also caused the Connecticut Port Authority to miss its deadline for obtaining all necessary permits, prompting the state’s partners on the project to pledge their continued support.

The Port Authority announced it received the outstanding permit on Dec. 16 and its board of directors met Tuesday to authorize the contractor, the Kiewit Corporation, to begin limited dredging work this winter.

“We applaud the decision by the USACE to approve the project's federal permit,” Port Authority Executive Director John Henshaw said in a statement. “Paired with the state permit approved by [the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection] in August, the project has achieved all regulatory approvals for in water work. This major milestone caps two comprehensive state and federal permitting processes that began more than two years ago.”

Prior to the approval by state and federal regulators, work on the site had been mostly limited to land-based projects such as demolishing old buildings and regrading a portion of the property known as “The Hill.”

The bulk of the project, however, involves the work of dredging the riverbed around the pier and laying gravel to support a massive “jack-up” vessel that has legs capable of lifting itself out of water. The central wharf between the site’s two existing piers will also be filled with 7.4 cubic acres of material to create a single, massive pier capable of handling the heavy-lift equipment used to assemble wind turbines.

Once the renovation is completed, the State Pier will serve as a staging area for wind energy projects being built off the coast of Rhode Island and New York as part of a joint venture between Eversource Energy and Ørsted. Connecticut is slated to receive 304 megawatts of electricity a year from one of the sites, Revolution Wind.

While hailed by environmentalists and local leaders as a source of clean energy and jobs, the State Pier redevelopment has also attracted critics — several of whom spoke at Tuesday’s meeting — who point to the project's ballooning costs and an alleged lack of transparency.

“How high does the work at the State Pier have to go before you guys cry uncle?,” asked one critic, Kevin Blacker, referring to the original deal to spend $157 million as part of a public-private partnership.

Andrew Lavigne, a spokesperson for the Port Authority, told the board on Tuesday that the permit would allow authority officials to enter final talks with the contractor to determine a maximum price on the project, which he said could be presented to the board in January or February. “We remain diligent and confident in our ability to deliver the project in a cost-efficient and timely way,” Lavigne said.

The state’s partners on the project also expressed optimism at the news of the latest permit.

“With the receipt of the Army Corps permits, State Pier has cleared the last major remaining regulatory hurdle, and construction of the full project scope can now proceed,” said Justin May, a spokesman for the Ørsted-Eversource partnership said in a statement.

“When complete, State Pier will be transformed from a long-underutilized asset into a modern, heavy-lift capable facility, delivering well-paying jobs and economic investment to New London while positioning Connecticut as a regional hub for offshore wind for decades to come,” May added.

A spokesperson for the Army Corps of Engineers did not respond to requests for comment regarding the delay.

The State Pier is one of two planned locations in Connecticut for staging offshore wind projects. The other, a proposed 15-acre site in Bridgeport Harbor known as Park City Wind, is part of an effort to build an 804-megawatt wind farm in the waters off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard.

That project, Vineyard Wind, has also faced scrutiny from fishermen in Eastern Connecticut who are concerned about potential negative impacts to the industry. A spokesperson for Park City Wind did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.

Chamber of commerce releases study on opportunities from offshore wind

Greg Smith 

A new report examining the potential benefits to Connecticut from the offshore wind industry urges expedience in developing the assets needed to support the growing industry.

The report, “Embracing the Potential of Offshore Wind in Connecticut: a Study of Opportunities and Challenges,” was commissioned by offshore wind partners Ørsted and Eversource, the team funding a portion of the $235 million reconstruction of State Pier in New London.

The study was overseen by the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, which hired McAllister Marine Engineering LLC of Rhode Island to complete the study.

The 156-page report concludes that in addition to three deepwater ports attractive to the offshore industry, the state already has a well-developed supply chain built around Electric Boat operations, “which has resulted in a robust, developed set of suppliers and manufacturers able to pivot to support the (offshore wind) marketplace.”

The state’s existing aerospace industry also is in a position to adapt to some of the manufacturing requirements of the wind turbine generators and their various components.

Just how many future jobs will be created remains a question. The study projects, based on current state commitments to wind power, 127 direct jobs statewide, 410 indirect jobs and 174 “induced jobs,” or those created by a boost to the local economy.

State Sens. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, and Paul Formica, R-East Lyme, were among the participants in a video conference hosted by the chamber on Wednesday.

Osten said her focus was the number of full-time jobs that would be available for residents. “We did lose a number of full-time equivalent jobs at New London (State) Pier relative to the longshoremen. I’d like to make sure we’re hiring local people for these full-time jobs,” she said.

To capture local talent, the study urges the development of workforce training programs.

Formica urged use of the freight line from State Pier and opportunities presented by rail to reach inland assembly and manufacturing plants. He said he also had hoped the report touched on opportunities to work collaboratively with the commercial fishing industry and the plans to mitigate impacts to fishing grounds. The report does not delve into any collaborations with fishermen and concentrates on shoreline and inland developments.

The full report is available on the chamber’s website.

Tony Sheridan, the chamber’s president and CEO, said an additional forum to discuss the report is being scheduled for the new year.

The report, he said in a statement, gives “an unvarnished look at the status of the industry in Connecticut and the Northeast, the economic opportunities available, our advantages in attracting those opportunities, and challenges that can keep the state from realizing the maximum potential offered by offshore wind power.”

Gov. Ned Lamont, in a statement, said the state looks forward to supporting private sector partners “as we further strengthen our position in this emerging industry and maximize its benefits to the environment, job growth, economic development and our future as a state.”

Torrington school project needs $20 million more

Emily M. Olson

TORRINGTON — In spite of a year’s worth of work on the city’s new middle-high school project, building committee members need more money to build what voters want.

So, next month, the city will hold a referendum asking voters to approve adding $20 million to the project.

Voters in November 2020 approved building a new middle-high school and administrative offices for $159 million. Earlier this year, the state legislature announced that instead of 65 percent reimbursement for all eligible costs for the project, that amount would be increased to 85 percent.

When the school building project was approved in 2020, residents voted in favor of spending $159.6 million, with the expectation that, with about $85 million in state reimbursement, the city’s share would be lowered to $74.6 million. With the higher reimbursement, the city’s share was reduced to $28 million.

But in spite of the good news and more state funding, the building committee this week told City Council and Board of Finance members that it’s not enough, and asked them to borrow $20 million more.

Committee Co-Chairmen Mario Longobucco and Ed Arum said the district’s enrollment has increased significantly. That, coupled with escalating construction and materials costs, have resulted in the project running over budget. “The bottom line is, the project was approved pre-pandemic,” Longobucco said. “We had 71 percent of the voters approve it. We’ve done preliminary designs, based on state requirements, and we find ourselves in a position where the money that was approved, pre-pandemic, is no longer sufficient to deliver the type of school we want.

“This year alone, there are 137 new students in grades 7-12, that were not here pre-pandemic,” he said. “Construction costs $525 per square foot. And as we all know, everything’s going up. Materials costs have gone up. ... So we had to go back to the drawing board.”

Arum said the district’s total enrollment increased to 267 students in grades K-12, as of Oct. 1, 2021. The state requires a certain amount of square footage per student in a school building; if expected or projected enrollment is up, the building must be made larger, Longobucco said.

Arum said the increased enrollment is something that could stall the whole plan, unless the city acted quickly and added the $20 million to the budget, then held a referendum for taxpayers to approve it — hopefully. “We spoke to the state about the enrollment,” Arum said. “I want to caution everyone that any real deviation from the schedule will cause us to lose our funding from the state, and that includes the 85 percent reimbursement. If we go away from what we have, we’ll have to get a reconfiguration of our funding.”

Without the additional money, the co-chairmen said, the project still is over budget by about $9 million.

“There are many changes that would have to be made to stay with the amount that was approved for this project,” Longobucco said.

Mayor Elinor Carbone pointed out that the project has a two-year timeline to get “shovels in the ground.”

“We’re closing in on a year since this was approved, and we want to get shovels in the ground in another year,” she said. “So there is some rush because of the time frame (to get the $20 million approved).”

Finance and council members agreed that the additional funding was needed, but some were concerned about going back to the voters a second time.

“I’d object to going to the voters three or four times, certainly,” said Councilwoman Ann Ruwet. She asked Arum whether he ever had had to ask voters for more money in another project vote, and he said he hadn’t.

“That’s my fear,” Ruwet said. “With all due respect, this is highly unusual, to do a second referendum.”

The city’s financial adviser, Bill Lindsey from Munistat, reviewed the additional funding’s effect on the tax rate and people’s tax bills, saying it would be based on the value of a home, which is 70 percent of its assessed/market value. During the repayment period, the city’s tax rate would increase, and gradually decrease as the bonds are paid off.

After the two boards voted to add $20 million to the project, the City Council voted to send it to voters in a referendum set for Jan. 25.

“There’s no way around this — we have to approve it,” said Councilman Paul Cavagnero. “We need our school to be a magnet, to attract new businesses and residents.

“This additional money will make that happen,” he said. “We’re just trying to give (people) the school that (they)voted to approve.”