Residents have their concerns heard about Amazon plant

 LIVI STANFORD

WATERBURY – Mayor Paul K. Pernerewski Jr. said the city would work with Bluewater Property Group to ensure safeguards are in place to address residents’ concerns about noise and traffic from a planned multistory Amazon distribution center on the Waterbury-Naugatuck line.

“There are guidelines that are going to be followed regarding lighting, noise, and things like that,” Pernerewski said. “There will be sound barriers put up. The lights will be put up so that the ambient light will not be cast out.”

Several residents spoke out at an informational meeting Bluewater Group, the developer of the facility, held on Sept. 10, expressing frustration with the project, saying it would encroach on their neighborhood. Many more attendees expressed frustration with the planned project.

Christina Bernardin, vice president of Bluewater, said she did not have an update to share at this time on how the company would address noise concerns. Bernardin added that Bluewater would be summarizing residents’ concerns and looking into providing more information to address them at upcoming meetings.

“We are still early in the process,” she said. “As we move forward with design and engineering, we will be able to get more answers and provide them.”

Waterbury, Naugatuck and Bluewater entered into an agreement on May 17, 2022, hoping to create up to 1,000 permanent jobs. The facility would cover 650,000 square feet and stand four-and-a-half stories high, including a two-story parking garage.

Bluewater Property Group officially applied for an inland wetlands permit.

The mayor said once the company goes through the whole permitting process, it could take 18 months to two years to develop the facility.

In November of last year, the Board of Aldermen unanimously approved extending the purchase and sales agreement for one year to December of this year to allow Bluewater Property Group to continue with a construction feasibility analysis.

Bernardin has said the process is taking longer due to the finalization of the facility design being evaluated on the backdrop of the current economic environment and specific site conditions, including the topography and rock conditions, which are significant challenges.

Some residents at the informational meeting said they were concerned about blasting at the site. Pernerewski said whoever is working at the site would have to work with the fire marshal’s office to obtain a blasting permit and make sure they are doing the work appropriately.

“The company would do an analysis of the homes beforehand and they would be responsible for damage that occurs as a result of blasting,” he said.

Tommy Hyde, executive director of the Waterbury Development Corp., said the city has extended the contract once again with Bluewater to Aug. 4, 2025, instead of December to give them additional time for “due diligence, design, and project approvals.” Hyde said it does not delay the project.

Other residents are worried about truck traffic at the site.

Bernardin has noted 90% to 95% of traffic would be from employees using Sheridan Drive, while only 5% to 10% would be truck traffic.

The mayor said he is confident if you stagger the shifts the right way you are not going to have “100 people going and coming at one time.”

Board of Aldermen President Michael DiGiovancarlo agreed.

“I don’t think we are going to have an issue with tractor-trailers running throughout our neighborhood,” he said. “I am not too concerned about the noise. It is not like a machine shop making noise all day long and the windows open.”

The mayor said the facility will generate a substantial amount of tax dollars for the city, but the full number is not yet known until the building is complete, including its equipment.

“It is located in a state enterprise zone which does allow for a tax abatement for five years,” he said. “After five years, the city will start collecting the full taxes. It will help offset some of the taxes in Waterbury and Naugatuck.”

The mayor said the building is estimated to be worth $150 million.

DeLauro delivers fed funds for Prospect water mains

ANDREAS YILMA

PROSPECT – Residents of the Coachlight Circle neighborhood will be getting relief for long-standing water supply issues with nearly $1 million in federal funds.

U.S. Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, visited Prospect Town Hall on Friday where she presented Mayor Robert J. Chatfield with $959,757 in Community Project Funding for a water main installation.

“This is great news for the residents of Coachlight Circle. This funding will enable us to move forward with the installation of new water lines which will rectify the insufficient water supply issues these families have been facing,” Chatfield said in a news release.

“Congresswoman DeLauro has been a longtime advocate for water infrastructure expansion in Prospect. I thank her for recognizing the need here in Prospect and securing these federal funds to help us address it.”

Chatfield said that the neighborhood has been experiencing water supply issues for nine years.

The newly allocated funds for the town marks the fourth time DeLauro was able to secure funding for this section of town which includes Putting Green Lane, Straitsville Road and Cambridge Drive. This grant is the biggest one yet for the town.

“It’s going to do two things. It’s going to give them potable water so they can live a normal life like everybody else in town. Also, for every 1,000 feet of water main we put in, we will put in a fire hydrant,” Chatfield said. “That will also give them fire suppression.”

At least half a dozen fire hydrants will be added to the neighborhood, he said.

Some residents have had to wash clothes at a laundromat while some others have pool trucks filled with water dump their load on their wells in order to have sufficient water.

Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee DeLauro secured $16.4 million for local projects in the state in the 2024 funding bill.

“I am proud to have secured needed dollars to fund several projects in our community,” DeLauro said. “When I was Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, I fought to bring back community project funding. I strongly believe Members of Congress know their communities best, and I am pleased that they can once again hear from the people they represent and direct spending to local projects that help their states thrive.”

One of the other projects includes $1 million for property acquisition for Main Street South Transit Oriented Development and road construction.

Norwich agrees to close Lawler Lane to assist Occum Industrial Center

Claire Bessette

Norwich ― The City Council on Monday agreed to start the process to permanently close and discontinue use of a 1,500-foot section of Lawler Lane to foster future development in the new Occum Industrial Center.

Aldermen promised neighbors and residents opposed to the closure that the city and the Norwich Community Development Corp. will address their concerns about emergency response times, drainage and the potential negative impacts of suddenly having dead-end cul-de-sacs in front of their homes instead of a through street.

The portion of the road extends from 185 Lawler Lane to 256 Lawler Lane. It has no development on either side, and the land on both sides already is part of the Occum Industrial Center.

An unidentified developer has expressed interest in the larger development lot to be created at the eastern end of the 384-acre industrial center. NCDC has received an $11.3 million state grant to build a 7,700-foot-long industrial park access road from Route 97 through the property, ending at the Lawler Lane end.

The lack of details about the interested developer were one of the concerns expressed by neighbors opposed to the road closing.

“You have hundreds of acres, now all of a sudden somebody’s got to build the first lot on that side of Lawler Lane,” Wales Road resident Donald Surprenant said. “For what reason? They can’t go on the other side?”

Surprenant and others pointed out that during informational meetings on the industrial center hosted by NCDC for Occum residents, that the Lawler Lane end of the industrial center was anticipated to be the final area developed, with lots close to the Interstate 395 Exit 18 ramp expected to be marketed first.

The city planning commission has approved a 12-lot commercial subdivision for the industrial center.

Frederick Browning of Scotland Road, who has represented the neighborhood group opposing the Occum Industrial Center, urged the city to take the residents’ concerns seriously.

Susan Jacobson of 256 Lawler Lane who lives at what will be the western end of the closed road, asked the council for assistance to deal with the driveway drainage problems she already is experiencing..

Nola Oldfield of 185 Lawler Lane lives in the last house at the eastern end of the road, said she did not want to see a cul-de-sac in front of her house. She asked the council if the road end could be adjusted to avoid that scenario. Jacobson also asked police to monitor the two cul-de-sacs, so they do not become isolated havens for drug use and other illicit activities.

Other residents stressed safety issues and the use of Lawler Lane as an important route to cross from the rural Occum area to Taftville and Norwichtown, and especially to the John Moriarty School at 20 Lawler Lane.

Mayor Peter Nystrom and other aldermen pledged to address the neighbors’ concerns. Nystrom said a city with a struggling tax base that puts heavy burdens on residential property owners cannot afford to pass up the prospect of large commercial development in the park.

Alderman Mark Bettencourt said while city officials cannot discuss the prospective development at this time, once development applications are filed, there will be public hearings and a transparent review process.

NCDC President Kevin Brown said the roadway closure will allow NCDC to combine the two parcels, creating a larger development at the western end of the 384-acre industrial center. It also assures that no industrial traffic would have access to the portions of the residential road that will remain open.

In response to concerns about disturbing wetlands, the east side of Lawler Lane would be preserved as open space, expanding the 25 acres already planned for preserved open space to 40 acres.

““This action allows for the highest and best use of property in the Occum Industrial Center,” Brown said. “By aggregating two parcels now bisected by Lawler Lane, it further restricts any industrial traffic from using Lawler Lane.”

Residents previously had expressed concerns that industrial traffic would try to use the rural residential roads in the area as shortcuts to the industrial center.

Emergency vehicles, however, will have access to the local rural roads from the new industrial center, considered an improved, quicker route for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicles only would be able to control secured gates at the end of the industrial access road to reach the remote areas of Scotland Road, Lawler Lane, and several dead-end streets off Scotland Road.

Construction on the industrial access road is expected to begin next spring. NCDC has advertised a request for proposals for a construction manager to oversee the road construction. Responses are due Oct. 10.

New London council approves $6.5 million in tax breaks for Fort Trumbull developer

John Penney

New London ― The City Council late Monday approved nearly $6.5 million in tax breaks over 20 years to a developer planning to construct 500 new apartments on two sections of the Fort Trumbull peninsula that have sat vacant for more than two decades.

The fixed tax agreement with RJ Development + Advisors, LLC, approved by a 5-2 vote, would offset about half the $13 million in estimated pre-construction costs needed to meet flood plain requirments and address remaining remediation and other sub-surface issues at the two sites.

In exchange, the city would receive approximately $18 million in tax revenue over the 20-year period of the agreement on parcels that Mayor Michael Passero noted have sat fallow and not producing taxes for a generation.

The vote was preceded by testy exchanges between council members and emotional rhetoric that referenced the peninsula's dark past as a national symbol for eminent domain.

A large swath of the Fort Trumbull area was left undeveloped after a controversial demolition and development push by the former New London Development Corp. That led to the landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court eminent domain decision, Kelo v. New London.

Passero, who called that decision a debacle that left the land an “open sore,” said the housing project would serve as a salve to “help heal the wound.”

Councilors Jefferey Hart and John Satti, who both voted against the tax agreements, echoed concerns raised by several citizens earlier in the meeting, including the prospect of giving a sweetheart deal to a developer who stood to make millions from a project being subsidized on the backs of taxpayers.

“It’s important to show resistance to people offering you a bad deal,” Hart said. “There’s a lot of assumptions that no other developer is willing to take on this project (without a tax break).”

But Felix Reyes, the city’s director of planning and economic development said no other viable investor has stepped forward since the property became marketable. Reyes acknowledged the trauma suffered by former residents of the peninsula and the “cruel things done” there as part of the city’s effort to attract private development.

“There’s no line out the door of developers willing to tackle this project,” Reyes said, adding any such firm would face the same pre-construction costs as RJ Development, including a requirement to build the complexes on raised platforms.

Reyes said the city stood to collect roughly $1 million in direct construction permit fees with millions more in indirect money expected to flow into New London’s restaurants, shops and other businesses.

Council President Efrain Dominguez Jr., who loudly accused Satti and Councilor Akil Peck of slowing the pace of discussions Monday, said there was no “fairy tale” white knight developer waiting in the wings with a better deal to build on the property.

“Where have they been for the last 20 years?” he asked.

The Renaissance City Development Association, the city’s development arm, brokered an agreement in 2023 that includes selling the two city-owned parcels, totaling 6.28 acres, to RJ Development for $500,000.

That agreement contained terms that required the development company, which built The Beam, a 203-unit apartment complex on Howard Street, to obtain state and local permits for the construction of a pair of apartment buildings, each containing approximately 250 units, on land located on Nameaug and Walbach streets.

Under the tax agreements passed Monday, the city would forgive 80% of the complex’s assessed real estate taxes in the first year after a certificate of occupancy is granted. Sixty percent of year two taxes would be forgiven, as would 40 percent of taxes for years three through 20, for a total of $6.5 million in tax forgiveness. It is the same agreement the city made with RJ Development for the Beam project.

“What have we done in the last 30 years on that property?” Councilor Alma D. Nartatez asked before voting in favor of the tax agreement. “It’s not like developers are banging on our door to develop it.”

Peck, who called the night’s vote one of the most important taken by the council, reminded his colleagues and the audience that the project was likely to free up existing affordable housing options as residents moved in from lower-income apartments.

The two complexes will consist of market-rate units with none set aside as “affordable” apartments.

Construction is slated to begin early next year.

CT Construction Digest Monday September 16, 2024

Proposed senior center campus in Meriden could be delayed two years: 'It's disheartening'

Mary Ellen Godin

MERIDEN — The Harbor Brook flood control project threatens to delay the proposed $48 million senior center/health department campus on Cook Avenue.

Members of the building committee learned two weeks ago that the flood control project underway near 116 Cook Ave., the proposed site of the new campus, would cause delays. Workers are correcting two bridges before they can excavate the channel and relocate the soil. The soil is needed to raise 116 Cook Ave. out of the existing flood plain.

The soil relocation was seen as a cost-cutting measure for the city.

But architects and engineers can't immediately begin design work until they know if any of the deposited soil is contaminated and what the final elevation will be. 

"Until that work is done, we won't be able to allow the architects to begin the design," said former acting City Manager Emily Holland. "Best case, I believe summer of 2026 is when design work will happen."

The news shocked committee members who sat through two years of a feasibilty study, presentations, and a final vote on two potential sites. 

"During my interactions, the architect sitting in on the study and final meeting, at no point do I recall a 24-month timeline," said Mayor Kevin Scarpati. "I would assume that would have weighed heavily in our site selection. If that was known and not disclosed, I have an issue with that."

In addition to 116 Cook Ave., the committee looked at a former nursing home site on Westfield Avenue for the campus. But the city would have to pay for that site while 116 Cook Ave. is city-owned and closer to downtown. Scarpati said that despite some of the setbacks with the Westfield Avenue site, the city would be further along on the work. 

Holland explained that part of the final presentation centered on the intersection of the flood control project and the pending demolition of 116 Cook Ave. Demolition is expected to begin later this year. However, she and others did not recall a discussion of a two-year delay.

Scarpati told committee members two weeks ago that they had three choices: return to another site,  hope some meaningful work can be done during the delay or "scrap this committee and reconvene in two years."

At a meeting Friday morning, city officials reviewed costs to truck in clean fill that didn't need to be screened. Scarpati explained the cost is north of $2 million and wouldn't solve the problem because despite raising the elevation, without the completed dredging work the property remains in the flood plain.

The city is also too along to switch sites, he said. State officials have approved the $2 million demolition work payment and are reviewing the final request for proposals for a contractor, Holland said. 

The city was handed a $48 million cost estimate for the campus with 10 percent allowed for inflation. The delay will likely cause an increase in the final price tag, Scarpati said.

Committee Chairman Bruce Fontanella said two weeks ago that he too had not heard anything about a two-year delay on the start of construction. He raised the possibility of using unspent American Rescue Act funds to pay for the clean fill. 

"There was never any mention of a two-year period,"  Fontanella said. "Whether that‘s an oversight, that’s what we’re going to have to find out. I know you're all disappointed."

The city awarded a contract for work on two bridges that began in July. However, the brook dredging cannot begin until the bridge work is completed. The dredge work is expected to take nine months. 

"On that premise alone," Scarpati continued. "If we have all the money and press go, we can't break ground until 2027."

The building committee meets again Wednesday, when internal and hired engineers will update members on the project scope and timeline. 

Scarpati sees no other recourse but to disband the building committee for two years.

 "It's disheartening to know we've come this far, and to have this issue come now, is concerning," Scarpati said Friday. "We worked with Fuss & ONeil. The architect stated there was flood control work but it would be done by 2025. so construction could begin. At this point, I don't know if we have other options."

Manchester not selected for 'Safe Streets' grant for proposed streetscape overhaul

Joseph Villanova

MANCHESTER — Though the proposed overhaul of downtown Manchester was not selected for a recently awarded federal grant, town officials are optimistic for the next funding round.

The Downtown Manchester Improvements project was introduced in March 2022 by town staff as a conceptual plan that would make numerous changes to a segment of Main Street while conducting necessary infrastructure work. 

Town Manager Steve Stephanou said Friday that the project is now estimated to cost about $15 million to $20 million, which could be split into phases if approved.

Some residents have taken issue with a proposed "road diet," which consists of reducing travel lanes in the corridor from four to three, though town staff and some elected officials have said the changes would enhance safety.

In May, elected officials authorized Manchester's application for federal funding through "Safe Streets and Roads for All," a grant program established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2022. The intent of the five-year program is to fund projects designed to prevent injuries and deaths on roadways, a key component of the proposal by Manchester's town staff.

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced Sept. 5 more than $1 billion for projects in 354 communities across the country.

Manchester was not one of those chosen in the latest round, though other Connecticut projects did receive awards. Among those selected were West Hartford, which secured $3.1 million for its "Vision Zero" road safety improvement plan, and New Haven, which will receive $11 million to improve 1.6 miles of road on the crash-prone Chapel Street.

The program has granted $2.7 billion to more than 1,400 communities, including Connecticut towns like Fairfield and Westport, and has over $2 billion left to grant in the next two years.

Stephanou said that the Safe Streets grant is highly competitive, and New Haven and West Hartford were the only two municipalities in Connecticut to receive funding in this round. 

Town staff will hold a debrief with the U.S. DOT to hear about how they can strengthen Manchester's application, Stephanou said, and he will recommend to the Board of Directors that the town submit an application for an upcoming round of funding in early 2025.

"That will ultimately be up to the Board of Directors to authorize," Stephanou said.

Stephanou also noted that West Hartford's approved project includes a road diet, bike lanes, speed management, and new or modified features to aid pedestrian travel.

"These are very similar components and goals to the application we submitted, so I am hopeful our application will be successful next round," Stephanou said.

As for other funding sources, Stephanou said Manchester has secured $8.3 million in grants to implement the proposed overhaul and is actively seeking other external funding and grant sources.

Looking to the future of the plan, Stephanou said 2024 remains a year of engagement for the plan, and the town hopes to have an approved plan sometime next year. He said any construction timeline would depend on both the Board of Director's approval and available funding.

Could deal with Mass. return Conn. to latest offshore wind energy auction?

Edmund H. Mahony, Hartford Courant

A week after Connecticut was a no-show at an offshore wind auction it helped organize, a proposed energy swap with Massachusetts could lead to its return to the multi-state collaboration that was created to reduce the costs of wind power for southern New England.

Massachusetts has signaled it is receptive to an agreement, proposed by Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, that could put Connecticut back into offshore wind procurement.

Under the plan, according to industry and government officials, Massachusetts would join Connecticut in a long term agreement to buy energy from the Millstone nuclear power station in Waterford. Connecticut, in return, would partner with Massachusetts on buying power from the offshore wind project Vineyard Wind 2, planned for a tract of ocean about 25 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard.

Lamont discussed the plan with Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey during a regional energy conference in Boston this week.

“Governor Lamont believes that Millstone is a regional asset and is grateful that Governor Healey included the procurement language in a recent legislative proposal,” a Lamont spokesperson said Friday. “As was discussed at the meeting on Tuesday, making our grid more reliable, green, and affordable is a multi-state effort.”

Healey’s office did not respond immediately Thursday to specific questions about the Millstone deal. But earlier in the week, a spokesperson described the benefits of regional cooperation on energy issues.

“Offshore wind is key to unlocking jobs and economic development in our region,” the Healey spokesperson said. “We believe in the Vineyard Wind 2 project. Selecting projects now will ensure New England stays in the lead as the industry takes off nationwide. Massachusetts appreciates Connecticut’s partnership and we look forward to other entities joining in this procurement.”

Recent developments in offshore energy arrived at a politically unfortunate time for the Lamont administration. Consumer outrage over a summertime spike in consumer electric bills continues as a legislative election approaches and questions about conversion to an all electric economy pile up.

The price increase for consumers arrived in the public benefit portion of bills, which reimburses Eversource and United Illuminating for hundred of millions of dollars the state requires them to spend on social welfare, decarbonization and other so-called public benefit programs

Most of the July increase, 78%, is the result of a contract the state has with Dominion Energy that requires Eversource and United Illuminating to buy electricity from its Millstone station. The contract is intended to be a hedge against fluctuations in energy costs but over the past year it has committed the utilities to purchasing power at above market rates.

A week ago, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were expected to simultaneously announce the winning bidders in the first tri-state wind energy auction. Connecticut’s absence was attributed by industry observers to political reluctance to commit to buying expensive wind energy while consumers complained about bills arriving now.

Connecticut’s failure to commit to an offshore power purchase raised doubts about both the future of a three state initiative and the Vineyard Wind 2 project, which would connect to the New England power grid through an undersea transmission line ending at a yet-to-be-built power substation in Montville, creating hundreds of local jobs and millions in local investment.

At a news conference earlier this week, before Healey proposed legislation to authorize a Millstone deal, Lamont sounded uncertain about whether Connecticut would return to the wind auction.

“Look, I think everybody would like us to triple down on as much new power, particularly carbon free power, as we possibly can,” Lamont said during a mid week press conference. “And I do as well, but I also have a close eye for the rate payer because I know how expensive it is.”

Connecticut already has an agreement to buy offshore power, with Rhode Island, from the Revolution Wind project under construction south of Block Island by Danish multinational Orsted. The project will provide 304 megawatts of energy to Connecticut and 400 megawatts to Rhode Island, enough energy to power more than 350,000 homes in both states.

Asked when he would make a decision on rejoining the latest offshore auction, Lamont said, “We’ll see.” Asked whether it would be before the election, he said, “I’m cautious on this, as you know, so not for a while.”

When the winning bids were announced a week ago, the project developers chosen by Massachusetts to produce, collectively, 2,678 megawatts of electricity for that state, were SouthCoast Wind, Vineyard Wind 2 and New England Wind 1, a venture of Avangrid, parent company of Orange-based United Illuminating. Rhode Island took an additional 200 Megawatts from SouthCoast Wind.

The announcements, and Connecticut’s absence, raised doubts about the future of Vineyard Wind 2, which is designed to produce 1,200 megawatts of electricity, but sold only 800 to Massachusetts. Because of the project’s design, it is not clear whether it can proceed with less than full production, according to a company official.

“We look forward to Connecticut’s forthcoming decision on the remainder of the procurement so that we can begin to deliver important economic and climate benefits to the region,” Vineyard Offshore CEO Alicia Barton, the project developer, said in a statement this week.

While a Millstone/wind energy agreement appears to be under discussion, few details, including how it would affect consumer bills, are known. A Connecticut legislator present at a meeting when Lamont raised the subject, said Massachusetts would not buy into Millstone power until after the state’s existing contract runs out in 2029 and a new contract is negotiated.

Political and industry observers in Hartford and Boston said there is no certainty that such an agreement would win political approval in either capital. Because Healey needs legislative authorization to enter a power purchase agreement with Dominion’s Millstone, and the Massachusetts legislature is not in session. she has attached a Millstone provision to a supplemental budget bill.

“Now, just because she added it doesn’t mean it is going to survive in the legislature,” a Massachusetts power industry official said. “There are broader politics around it. But it is a very live deal.”

In Connecticut, moderate Democrats and Republicans appear reluctant to agree to anything that would raise rates.

State Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Republican and ranking member of the Legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee has questioned why the either state would consider buying into wind energy at current prices, which are at least two to three times the $04.99 cents per kilowatt hour Connecticut is paying under the existing Millstone contract.

CT opts out — for now — of offshore wind, raising concerns about motives

Jan Ellen Spiegel

It was supposed to be New England’s biggest and most innovative offshore wind initiative ever — a three-state solicitation by Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island designed to get the best prices and efficiencies for a lot of new offshore wind that would be key in creating carbon-free energy to help curb climate change.

It was the first such effort in the U.S., and it would also reset the offshore wind process in the region, which has suffered setbacks in the last year or so due to balky national and international economies, inflation and more than a few geopolitical problems.

But when an announcement of the projects selected from the March solicitation finally came a few days after Labor Day, Connecticut was MIA. A brief statement from the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection congratulated the other states and then said simply: “The evaluation of project bids remains underway in Connecticut and we will announce a final decision in our solicitation at a future date.”

To be fair, there had been hints for several weeks that the state would not follow the same schedule as its neighbors. But Connecticut’s absence has prompted more than a little private speculation that politics — specifically around the high electricity rates that are providing Republican campaign fodder in this election season — is at work.

“We don’t know, but we do know that that’s been a challenging issue in the state,” said Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president of law and policy at Conservation Law Foundation, or CLF. “We hold out hope that Connecticut, as it said it was, is continuing to evaluate the opportunities and may yet come forward with one or more projects.”

Gov. Ned Lamont told The Connecticut Mirror this week that his reason for caution with a new offshore wind commitment is its high cost that would compound existing high electric rates, coupled with the reality that the state already is essentially subsidizing the Millstone Nuclear Power Station. At 2,100 megawatts, Millstone is the region’s largest source of power, all of it carbon-free.

“We’re the ones who are subsidizing nuclear, the biggest source of carbon-free power. I care deeply about affordability, especially now,” Lamont said. “I had some background discussions on that and am still thinking about it.”

But some privately worry that Lamont might pull the plug as he did in 2021 when the transportation and climate initiative, TCI, faced massive opposition from Republicans and others.

“This feels eerily similar,” said one advocate, who declined to be named.

But most were taking Lamont at his word that his calculation was money, not politics and the upcoming election.

“I certainly, in my heart of hearts, hope that’s not a consideration. If this is announced after the first week of November, I would be very angry,” said Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, and the ranking member on the Energy and Technology Committee. “I think the governor is very reticent to sign a contract to buy electricity at three or four times the wholesale market rate for electricity. He’s a businessman; he understands that’s a bad deal for consumers in Connecticut, and I think the hope from him, me, others, is that these projects, these megawatts, become a lot cheaper and more competitive in the future. We should not be a buyer at any price.”

Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D- Westport, and the committee’s co-chair, agreed that money was the core issue for the governor, who had met with the committee’s leadership to discuss the situation. “He is extremely focused on ratepayer pain right now and does not want to have his fingerprints on something that is going to raise rates,” Steinberg said, adding that an agreement reached now wouldn’t impact ratepayer rates for years.

At the same time, he held out hope the political and price landscapes would change quickly.

“Does he pivot right after the election? I would hope so, certainly. I urged him to do that,” Steinberg said. “I would have thought perhaps he would have hedged his bets and made a rather small procurement. … I would have expected something.”

Steinberg and climate advocates repeatedly pointed to the need for offshore wind to help meet the state’s mandate for a zero-carbon grid by 2040, lower greenhouse gas and other climate-warming emissions that plague the region, and help meet an increased need for power supplies as motor vehicles, heat and other heavy power users, such as data centers, turn to electricity for their fuel source.

“Developing our offshore wind resources is absolutely critical to reaching our energy and climate goals, that much is clear,” said Charles Rothenberger, climate and energy attorney at Save the Sound. “These projects need to start being built.”

“We’re still hoping that there may be an announcement from Connecticut, or perhaps continued negotiations, even among the three states, that will result in the announcement of more,” Daly of CLF said. “The fact that this still represents forward progress is a net positive.”

Both pointed out that the power from offshore wind really goes into the New England grid, where all the states benefit from the power as well as the job creation associated with it and, eventually, lower energy prices.

But the current situation was not how regional offshore wind development was originally conceived. And it is putting some pressure on Connecticut to live up to its commitment, especially because the state was a key player in developing this particular coalition as well as others aimed at modernizing and decarbonizing energy and transmission in the New England grid.

What happened

Several projects were already in progress in the region when inflation spiked, supply chains fractured and worldwide economies sputtered as a result of COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Some offshore wind developers on the East Coast tried to renegotiate their deals to accommodate their now higher costs. Others pulled out of their deals.

Among them was Avangrid. It pulled out of an 804-megawatt contract for Connecticut called Park City Wind, which included jobs and port development in Bridgeport. It also pulled out of a 1,200-megawatt contract in Massachusetts called Commonwealth Wind.

In 2019, the Connecticut legislature authorized the state to purchase up to 2,000 megawatts of offshore wind. Park City had been the first purchase towards that goal. Its cancellation put the state back to zero, where it remains.

An earlier offshore wind project, Revolution Wind, pre-dated that authorization and is under construction. It will supply 300 megawatts for Connecticut and 400 for Rhode Island. 

Avangrid put its projects back up to bid, presumably at higher prices, in the multistate solicitation in March of this year. Park City was renamed New England Wind 1. Commonwealth is now New England Wind 2. Avangrid continued working on them all along, and New England Wind 1, the old Park City, is fully permitted and much farther along than any other project in the bid group.

Somewhat surprisingly, Massachusetts — not Connecticut — chose that project, now 791 mw. It’s unclear whether the Bridgeport development component remains. It also chose 800 mw of a 1,200 mw project called Vineyard Wind 2 and 1087 mw of a project called South Coast Wind, also a rebid project. Rhode Island opted for the remaining 200 mw of South Coast.

What remains, aside from New England Wind 2 (likely to be rebid in a future solicitation) and the rest of Vineyard Wind 2, is the entirety of a project called Starboard Wind. It’s an Ørsted project, proposed at 1,184 mw specifically for Connecticut or Rhode Island, or a joint project. The project would use the State Pier in New London for staging and construction.

Ørsted owns the pier and it is already handling assembly and delivery operations for three offshore wind projects: Revolution, Sunrise Wind in New York and the already completed and operational South Fork Wind 35 miles off the eastern tip of Montauk Point on Long Island.

But it is the remaining 400 mw of Vineyard Wind 2 that stands to threaten the heretofore synchronized and amicable energy relationship among the New England states, especially the two largest power users: Massachusetts and Connecticut.

A somewhat ominous statement on Vineyard Offshore’s website is casting doubt on the viability of the project if no state picks up the rest of the power. That could eliminate about 30% of the Massachusetts commitment, and the finger is pointed directly at Connecticut.

It reads: “’Vineyard Offshore congratulates Gov. Healey and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for their commitment to procure up to 800 megawatts from our 1,200-megawatt Vineyard Wind 2 project, which provides the opportunity to deliver New England’s next-generation offshore wind project,” said Vineyard Offshore CEO Alicia Barton. “We look forward to Connecticut’s forthcoming decision on the remainder of the procurement so that we can begin to deliver important economic and climate benefits to the region.’”

Vineyard Offshore did not respond to a request for further comment. But those with knowledge of the project say it is not an idle threat.

“I think Gov. Healey is looking for a partner. I think she had a reason to be expecting she’d have a partner,” Steinberg said. “Everything that the New England states have been talking about incorporates offshore wind as a significant component. I’m just disappointed in the governor’s position at this point. I don’t think it’s constructive.”

But he and others believe the governor has time to make up his mind, given that these projects are years away, the developers keep working on them even without buyers for the power and given the financial landscape may be about to change with the Federal Reserve widely expected to lower interest rates at its next meeting this month.

On the flip side, Donald Trump famously hates offshore wind, and his first administration slow-walked its development for four years. If he returns to office, a similar scenario may well play out.

“I don’t know what the plan is, but we could pick up those 400 megawatts, and there’s no particular urgency for us to make that decision yesterday,” Rothenberger said. “If Connecticut chose no projects from this latest round, that would be very disappointing. … It would seem to indicate a real lack of awareness of the benefits of these projects for Connecticut residents, which I know the administration possesses.”

As for the governor himself, when asked when he might decide on whether to opt in on offshore wind: “I’m cautious on this, as you know,” he said. “Not for a while.”