[ EMF-Link Home
| Online Store
| Comments
| Up One Level ]
Litigation - Recent Cases.
Town of Fairfield et al. v. Connecticut Siting Council et al.
Last modified on:
Tuesday, July 02, 2002 09:53:56
Copyright © 1994-2008, Information Ventures, Inc.
Background: In January, 1991, Connecticut Light and Power Company and United Illuminated Company applied to the Connecticut Siting Council for a certificate for the construction of an electric transmission line that would be 15.3 miles in length and extend from Bridgeport to Norwalk within an existing railroad right-of-way. A six hour contested hearing was held in the Westport town hall on April 29, 1991. On September 18, 1991, the council approved the application. No appeal was taken from this decision. The utilities then went ahead and completed a substantial portion of the project in reliance on the certificate granted by the council. Between September 18, 1991 and May 6, 1993, numerous motions and requests seeking to open the granting of the certificate and concerning stop work orders and investigations into alternatives to the proposed construction were submitted to the council. Without holding a hearing, the council denied the motions and requests in a written decision dated May 6, 1993 concluding that the information and facts presented were available at the time of the September 18, 1991 decision. Subsequent to the May 6, 1993 decision, new motions for modification under Uniform Administrative Procedure Act Provision 4-181a(b) were filed with the council claiming changed conditions, new information, and new technology. On July 13, 1993, a public hearing took place at which the council permitted the submission of evidence and briefs. On July 30, 1993, the council issued a written opinion deciding not to reopen the case. Commissioner Paulann H. Sheets filed a six page dissenting opinion concluding that there were changed conditions and that a rehearing should take place.
The town of Fairfield, the Alliance to Limit Electromagnetic Radiation Today (A.L.E.R.T.), Ann Graney, Santo Piro, Christine Piro, Jennifer Lindine, Spencer Stout and David S. Parker appealed to the Superior Court. The council and the utilities then each filed a motion to dismiss based on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the council's denial of the motions to modify was not an appealable final decision under the statute governing administrative appeals. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgement of the trial court. On the granting of certification, the utility companies appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court which on July 30, 1996 reversed the judgment of the Appelate Court and remanded the case to that court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Copyright (c) 1994-2008, Information Ventures, Inc.
Mail us at: Customer-Service@infoventures.com
http://infoventures.com