Editorial: Billions of dollars to CT must mean new priorities

Hearst Connecticut Media Editorial Board

It’s not as simple as being handed a $5.3 billion check to do with as we please. Still, there’s a good chance a huge amount of money could be headed Connecticut’s way in the near future to rebuild our infrastructure. It’s essential that we’re ready.

Gov. Ned Lamont was not able to move tolls through the Legislature early in his term, denying the state a windfall for long-delayed priorities. The election of Joe Biden, though, and a Democratic-led U.S. Congress means there could be help on the way on that front from Washington. Debate continues as progressives and moderates face off, and there remains a chance that nothing is passed. But the most likely outcome is a robust spending package that will include a large chunk of money for Connecticut.

Before we go into the traditional “roads and bridges” routine, where infrastructure money automatically means improving and enhancing means of vehicular traffic, there are a few things to consider.

High on the list is a state law that requires a reduction in emissions, something that, according to a recent report, the state is not abiding by. The state’s annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory came out earlier this month, and it showed that emissions from transportation are at higher levels than they were in 1990, which came in spite of great advances in fuel efficiency.

Under state law, greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors were supposed to be 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 2001 levels by 2050. We’re not on target to get there. Something has to change.

Remember, also, that this is Connecticut, where environmentalism is politically popular and we have elected representatives who have enacted tough regulations to keep our air clean. If Connecticut can’t do it, there’s little hope for the rest of the country.

So we have to do better. That means if we’re handed a few billion dollars to spend on infrastructure, we can’t simply widen highways and rebuild bridges to make it easier for everyone to continue driving everywhere as usual. Our climate goals, which are written into state law, don’t allow for such an outcome.

Katie Dykes, state commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, understands this reality, and touted this week the economic benefits of a transition to a green economy. “That’s going to mean a lot of infrastructure work to build out those charging stations across the state,” the CT Mirror quoted her as saying in reference to electric-vehicle infrastructure.

But there will need to be a statewide effort on rethinking priorities. It would be far too easy to dust off old plans for widening I-95 that would surely provide many construction jobs and maybe even some short-term traffic relief, but would put us in a worse position toward meeting climate goals.

In-fill construction, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and clean energy projects are essential. There is an unmet need for that kind of development in Connecticut, which would not only help the economy but attract a new cohort of state residents who are looking for something different.

That should be the goal on infrastructure spending — think different. Our future depends on it.

Bridge between Westport and Fairfield slated for replacement

Amanda Cuda

If all goes according to plan, the bridge over Sasco Brook, connecting Westport and Fairfield, should be replaced by late 2023 or early 2024.

The state Department of Transportation hosted an hour-long virtual public meeting on the project Monday, at which state and local officials laid out the reasons why the bridge needs replacing,

According to DOT spokesman Priti Bhardwaj, the project manager, bridges the size of the 24-foot one over Sasco Brook are inspected every two years. Each element of the bridge is given a number rating ranging from 9, which indicates excellent condition, to 1, indicating imminent failure.

“When a major bridge element reaches (a rating of) 4, or poor condition, that is when we start to initiate a project to address bridge deficiency,” Bhardwaj said.

Robert Bahler, the project engineer and a representative of Clough, Harbor and Associates, said that at the last bridge inspection, in 2020, three elements of the bridge were rated 4 or lower. He mentioned several aspects of the bridge that make it a good candidate for replacement, starting with the fact that it is more than 55 years old, having been originally constructed in 1965 (it was rehabilitated in 2002).

The bridge, which carries Old Road No. 2, also has a 10-ton weight limit and, due to its structural problems, wouldn’t be able to withstand a 25-year storm. In addition, its width does not meet state and federal standards, he said.

However, Bahler said, despite these deficiencies, it is safe for the traveling public.

According to a notice from the DOT, the bridge project “would include the realignment of Old Road No. 2 in the vicinity of the bridge, replacement of the existing structure with a wider precast concrete three-sided rigid frame structure supported on piles, construction of U-Type wingwalls, installation of an open bridge rail system and full depth pavement reconstruction within the project limits.”

The construction of the project is slated to start in spring 2023, provided that the appropriate permits are in place, Bahler said. Construction is predicted to take about eight months and is expected to cost $ 2.54 million. About 80 percent the cost will be paid for with federal funding. The remaining 20 percent will be split between Westport and Fairfield.

The project will require traffic diversion during construction, but is not expected to cause significant problems for emergency calls, mail delivery and bus routes, said Westport town engineer Keith Wilberg.

O&G completes work on net-zero middle school in Middletown

Press Staff

MIDDLETOWN — O&G Industries recently completed the construction of the new Beman Middle School (formerly Woodrow Wilson Middle School) at 1 Wilderman’s Way, where 650 students in sixth through eighth grade now attend.

The project included the construction of a new 190,000-square-foot facility, with abatement and demolition of the existing facilities administrative and classroom space, according to the Torrington-based firm. The existing middle school pool and gymnasium were not demolished. They are being renovated, and will eventually be turned over to the Middletown Parks and Recreation Department as a standalone structure.

The new net-zero facility meets Connecticut High Performance School standards (LEED Silver equivalent) and includes STEAM classrooms, an innovation lab, auditorium and multi-facility gym, according to a press release. The building will be over 28 percent more energy efficient than similar size buildings, and includes rooftop solar arrays that will help offset the buildings energy usage, it said.

TSKP was the project architect.

West Haven residents: Amid development, what will be done about flooding?

Brian Zahn

WEST HAVEN — When it rains, it pours.

Especially in the area of Washington and Campbell avenues.

That’s why neighbors are asking city commissions to do something to address the issue.

“I don’t know if the city could afford to fix this the way it really needs to be fixed,” said resident Mike Lipsett. “After 80 years of neglect, a Band-Aid’s not going to do it.”

Lipsett was among about a dozen people who attended an Inland Wetlands Agency public hearing this week to ask how the city plans to address flooding concerns as applicants for a proposed mixed-use development in the area obtain the necessary approvals to start building.

He said the area is plagued by a number of piping and drainage issues that take bad storms and make them worse.

Commissioner Of Public Works Tom McCarthy affirmed there are issues for the city to address.

“I don’t care whether this apartment deal goes through or not, but I’m here to tell you no matter what happens there are issues at Washington Avenue that need to get fixed,” he said.

He said one pipe becomes an “open trench” because of tree roots growing through a pipe. “We can see that the joints are compromised,” McCarthy said.

The proposed development at 291 Campbell Ave. and 288 Washington Ave. falls within 200 feet of the Old Field Creek. An engineer for the developer said the proposal would include rain gardens and catch basins to mitigate rainfall.

“The apartment complex could not have been more accommodating to the city,” McCarthy said.

Melissa Saint, a representative for developer Ocean Management, said the developers are “concerned about flooding, too,” and the site plan reflects that — such as keeping new construction away from easements on the property.

“We’re not trying to build something that’s not going to work. It’s not going to benefit us and it’s not going to benefit you,” she told neighbors.

Resident Tom Sciarappa said that, even if problems with the city’s water system were addressed, he questions whether it would impact him and his property. Because the proposed apartments would include the construction of a parking lot, he said it’s common sense that the property would be unable to contain all excess rainwater.

“The city moves at a snail’s pace,” he said. “When I walk out my door, the developer does what they’re supposed to do, but the city doesn’t fix that wetlands pipe, the river, the pipe, the whole deal. What happens to me, for how long? You know what happens to me? I get water like you’ve never seen before.”

McCarthy rejected that characterization, saying his department responds to issues within days.

“I have no interest in dragging my feet on this,” he said.

However, McCarthy said extreme rain likely always would have a negative impact on a shoreline city. He said he frequently hears that pipes are clogged, but he contends there are outflow pipes that function as expected but get backed up with water during unexpectedly large storms.

“It’s a fact of living seven feet above sea level,” he said.

Planning Director Chris Soto said that storm water is a consideration in every development proposal.

“We didn’t do that before, but now it’s a rule,” he said.

Wallingford PUC talks power supply agreement for data centers

Lauren Takores

WALLINGFORD — The Public Utilities Commission began talks this week on a market-price power supply agreement that describes how the town Electric Division would supply power to proposed data centers.

The agreement, which must be adopted by the PUC and then approved by the Town Council, is between the Electric Division and GotSpace Data Partners LLC.

GotSpace, a Groton-based company with its business registration in Boston, has signed a municipal host fee agreement with the town to bring data centers to Wallingford.

Under the agreement, GotSpace would pay Wallingford an annual host fee for each building that contains computer servers. The host fees, or payment-in-lieu-of-taxes, for each building with a capacity of 32 megawatts (MW) or higher would be $1.5 million annually.

Wallingford's current zoning regulations don't mention data centers, so language must been added to define a data center and allow them as a use. Although the proposed new regulations cover data center developments, GotSpace must comply with the stricter rules set forth in the host fee agreement.

The power supply agreement is the third piece that GotSpace needs to build data centers in town.

The Electric Division has similar agreements with other heavy power users, including Nucor, the steel production company on Toelles Road.

The power supply agreement for GotSpace is modeled after the Nucor deal — some language is lifted directly.

GotSpace would purchase electricity and capacity requirements from the Electric Division to supply the data center facilities in town. 

GotSpace would have a meter under the Electric Division and would be responsible for the cost of all new construction necessary to receive power from the town.

The Electric Division would provide services in connection with supplying power, including maintenance of delivery infrastructure, transformation, administration and billing. GotSpace would compensate the Electric Division for these services.

GotSpace would cover capacity and transmission payments attributable to their power load for as long as the capacity payment obligation exists.

GotSpace would pay the Electric Division under current ISO New England — the regional grid operator — market rules and practices. 

The Electric Division costs directly associated with services provided to GotSpace, such as maintenance, repairs or replacement of a substation, would be chargeable to GotSpace. Administrative costs, such as preparation of bills, would be recovered through a charge of $5 per megawatt hour, adjusted annually.

GotSpace would be required to make a security deposit, in cash or a letter of credit, in an amount to be determined by the Electric Division to cover three months of service, and may required an additional deposit if the estimate is not sufficient under its obligations to ISO New England.

The terms of the agreement are not deemed confidential. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Electric Division's ability to restrict information disclosure is limited, but the the Electric Division would make a good faith effort to provide GotSpace of any disclosure requests under FOIA.

The Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to further discuss and possibly vote on the power supply agreement at its next meeting, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Electric Division offices, 100 John St.

As debt limit looms, U.S. Senate Democrats see showdown vote next week

Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Senate aims to vote next week on raising Washington's borrowing authority and keeping the government funded, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat said on Wednesday, as a House Democrat warned that Republican opposition could lead to a historic default on the nation's debt.

Senator Dick Durbin said the chamber sometime next week would take up the bill passed in a party-line House of Representatives vote. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has said his caucus will sink the emergency legislation to suspend the $28.4 trillion federal debt ceiling.

Republicans have said Democrats should act alone to raise the debt ceiling, using a maneuver called "budget reconciliation."

Time is short as funding for federal agencies expires on Oct. 1 and the U.S. Treasury has warned it could run out of money to pay the government's bills by some time in October, potentially triggering a default.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth said "parliamentary obstacles" prevent Democrats from including language to raise the debt ceiling in a social spending bill moving through Congress under the budget reconciliation maneuver that circumvents the need for Republican votes.

"The ball is now in Senator McConnell's court. If he doesn't support this (House-passed) bill - or at least ensure it is not filibustered - our country will default and our government will shut down," Yarmuth said in a statement. "The decision is now his."

It further complicates a messy picture for Congress, where talks aimed at police reform collapsed https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-are-refusing-back-police-reforms-trump-supported-white-house-2021-09-22 on Wednesday and the moderate and progressive wings of President Joe Biden's Democratic Party are deeply divided https://www.reuters.com/world/us/splits-among-democrats-plague-effort-pass-bidens-domestic-agenda-2021-09-21 on the size of a proposed $3.5 trillion social spending bill that is at the core of the White House's domestic legislative agenda.

Republicans are betting that dragging out the debt debate will further stymie https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-see-opportunity-us-debt-ceiling-standoff-2021-09-22 Democrats.

Republicans say they support additional spending to keep the government operating with the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year and to help communities recover from recent natural disasters.

But they refuse to vote for it, saying raising the nation's borrowing authority is Democrats' problem because of the $3.5 trillion spending plan to invest in expanded social services and address climate change.

Democrats note that they voted to raise the nation's debt limit during Republican Donald Trump's administration even though they opposed deep tax cuts that added to the debt.

'ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY'

Durbin said: "There comes a point where you have to accept responsibility" for avoiding a U.S. government default on its debt in coming weeks and provide temporary federal funding for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1 to avoid the third partial U.S. government shutdown in a decade.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said on Wednesday it is "very important" for Congress to raise the federal debt ceiling in a timely fashion and that no one should assume the central bank can fully protect the economy or financial markets in the event of a U.S. debt default.

Biden met on Wednesday with a number of Democratic lawmakers in an attempt to heal divisions over his $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation plan of climate and social spending measures that Democrats aim to pass in coming weeks using special procedures that do not require Republican support.

Moderate Democrats see the price tag as too high, while some House progressives are threatening to vote down a bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill backed by the president, and set for a Monday vote, unless the $3.5 trillion bill is also nailed down.

Biden met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, then held separate sessions with moderate and more liberal lawmakers from his party.

There was a "robust" discussion of the top line for the budget reconciliation plan, Senator Mark Warner, one of the moderate lawmakers, told reporters after the meeting.

"He (Biden) just basically said: 'Find a number you're comfortable with, based on the needs that we still have, and how we deliver to the American people,'" said Senator Joe Manchin, another moderate. Manchin has urged the price tag be no more than $1.5 trillion.

A third Democratic moderate, Senator Jon Tester, said: "I think he (Biden) wants to get something by the first part of next week" in terms of agreement on the reconciliation plan.

But there were fresh signs of Democratic infighting as 11 liberal senators supported the House progressives who want the planned Monday vote on infrastructure delayed.

Senator Bernie Sanders and the other 10 senators said in a statement they had voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill with the understanding that the two bills would move together.

"Passing the infrastructure bill first would be in violation of that agreement," they said. "That is what we agreed to, it’s what the American people want, and it’s the only path forward for this Congress.”