You asked for a discussion of factors the Siting Council can consider in deciding to approve an energy facility. You were particularly interested in whether the council can consider the facility's potential impact on health and on the value of neighboring properties.

SUMMARY

CGS § 16-50p requires the council to consider a wide range of factors in approving an energy facility. These include public health and safety, environmental impacts, and scenic, historic, and recreational values. The statutes do not specifically authorize or require the council to consider a facility's potential impact on the value of neighboring properties, but it appears that the council could address this issue in the context of other factors it must consider.

SITING COUNCIL CRITERIA

Factors Addressed in the Application

By law, a siting council certificate is needed to build or substantially modify power plants, electric and fuel transmission lines, and electric substations. The developer of a proposed energy facility must provide extensive information in its application, including (1) a description of the facility and why it is needed and (2) justification for the chosen site or route and a comparison with other alternatives.

For power plants, the developer must also provide, among other things: (1) safety and reliability information; (2) available site information, such as geological, ecological, and population data; and (3) a description of the measures the developer will take to mitigate environmental impacts. For transmission lines and substations, the developer must provide, among other things: (1) a map of the proposed route or site showing nearby settled areas, parks, and scenic areas; (2) a description of the facility's impact on environmental, scenic, historic, and recreational values and an analysis of how placing the facility underground would change these impacts; and (3) a justification for any overhead parts of the facility, including studies that compare the costs of overhead versus underground options over the facility's life (CGS § 16-501).

Council Decision Criteria

The council cannot grant a certificate unless it finds that the public need for the facility outweighs its potential environmental impacts. (In the case of power plants and underground electric transmission lines, the council must weigh the public benefit of the plant against its environmental impact. ) In addition to concerns such as air and water quality, environmental impacts include public health and safety and scenic, historic, and recreational values. The council also must find that any overhead parts of the facility are cost effective and the most appropriate alternative based on the studies discussed above. In the case of transmission lines, the council must find that the line's location will not pose an undue hazard to persons or property in the area it transverses.

Public Health and Impact on Property Values

As discussed above, the law specifically requires a certificate applicant to describe how the facility will affect public health and requires the council to consider these impacts in making its decision. The council has a manual that describes best practices with respect to the electric and magnetic fields produced by electric facilities, which some people believe to be a public health concern. In its most recent decision regarding an energy facility (the Bethel-Norwalk electric transmission line), the council required conformity with this manual, and the decision described measures that Connecticut Light & Power will take to minimize noise from the line's construction and operation. The decision (docket 217) is available on line at http: //www. ct. gov/csc/lib/csc/217. doc.

The law does not specifically address the potential impact of a facility on property values. The council could arguably address this issue in its review of a facility's impact on scenic values. For example, parties could argue that a facility could reduce scenic values, as reflected in what property owners are willing to pay for comparable parcels with and without a view of energy facilities. The issue of property values could be introduced in the analysis of the facility or public health. It could also be introduced in the life cycle cost analyses required for overhead facilities. For example, a party such as an abutting property owner could assert that building an overhead facility would leave the developer open to lawsuits based on a diminution of the value of the abutter's property, thereby increasing the cost of this option versus placing the facility underground. It would be up to the council to weigh these arguments in the context of the many other factors it must consider.

KM: ro