Connecticut Court Overturns Agency Permit for High-Voltage Power Lines
On April 23, 2025, firm client Southport Congregational Church prevailed in an appeal that it brought along with several other plaintiffs, including the City of Bridgeport and the Town of Fairfield, challenging the Connecticut Siting Council’s approval of a project involving the United Illuminating Company’s (UI’s) proposal to rebuild a high-voltage power line along a stretch of the Metro North Railroad (MetroNorth) corridor. While UI had applied to the Siting Council for approval to rebuild the power lines south of the MetroNorth tracks, the Siting Council instead approved an alternative configuration that would have permitted UI to rebuild a different line north of MetroNorth.
Spears Manning & Martini represented Southport Congregational Church in its appeal, alongside other firms representing the other plaintiffs. Collectively, the plaintiffs argued that the Siting Council’s decision to approve the alternative version of the project violated the Connecticut Public Utility Environmental Standards Act (PUESA) and its procedural and substantive requirements. The Church also argued that the decision infringed on the Church’s rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) as well as Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In proceedings before the Siting Council, the Church presented evidence of the various ways in which the proposed easement and the location of the electrical cables would adversely affect the Church’s primary building, preschool, parking lot, and overall ability to conduct its religious activities.
The Superior Court did not reach the Church’s arguments under RLUIPA or RFRA, as it agreed with plaintiffs as a threshold matter that the Siting Council lacked statutory authority to completely change the “facility” under consideration as that term is defined by PUESA. The Court also found that the Siting Council’s decision to approve a different version of the project deprived plaintiffs and the public of proper notice and violated principles of fundamental fairness. It accordingly remanded the case back to the Siting Council for further proceedings.