Summary of 2013 Legislation

Public Act 13-298 - An Act Concerning Implementation of Connecticut’s Comprehensive Energy Strategy and Various Revisions to the Energy Statutes

§ 44 — WIND FACILITY REGULATIONS

The act eliminates the requirement that the Siting Council's regulations on siting wind turbines include different requirements for different size projects.

EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE

§ 61 — SITING COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS

A Siting Council certificate is required to build or modify a variety of energy and telecommunications facilities. Generally, the council can grant a certificate only if it finds that there is a public need for the facility and that this need outweighs the environmental harm the facility may cause. The act establishes a presumption, based on federal preemption under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in the case of cell tower certificate applications, that there is a public need for personal wireless services. It limits the council's consideration of need to the specific need for the proposed tower to provide these services.

The council must consider a proposed facility's environmental impacts in determining whether to grant a certificate. For proposals involving new ground mounted cellphone towers to be installed on land owned by a water company, the act requires the council to consult with DPH to consider potential public health impacts to public drinking water supplies as part of this review. The act additionally allows the council, in the case of a proposed tower owned or operated by the state, to deny an application if no public safety concerns require that it be constructed in the proposed location.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2013

§ 62 — TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS IN WATERSHEDS

By law, (1) a private or public water utility needs a DPH permit to lease or change the use of any of its watershed lands and (2) there are restrictions on the circumstances under which DPH can issue these permits. The act allows the DPH commissioner to grant a permit to allow for telecommunications towers, ancillary equipment, or related access drives and utilities on water utility land used to provide cellphone and other personal wireless services under certain circumstances. These are that (1) the lease or change of use will not harm the purity and quality of the public water supply and (2) any use restrictions she imposes as a permit condition can be enforced against subsequent owners, lessees, and assignees.

The act requires the permit application for such facilities to at least (1) document the extent that the telecommunications service provider considered other sites and found them unsuitable and (2) include a finding by the commissioner that the lease or change of use will not significantly harm the public drinking water supply purity or adequacy. A permit is subject to any conditions or restrictions the commissioner considers necessary to maintain the water supply's purity or adequacy.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2013

PUBLIC ACT 13-279 – AN ACT REQUIRING STATE AGENCIES TO CITE SPECIFIC STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS

This act requires all state agencies taking certain regulatory actions under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA) to cite the legal authority for the action. The agencies must do this when rendering final decisions or taking actions against a license under that act. In either case, an agency must identify the statutes or its regulations supporting the decision or authorizing the action.

Under the act, an agency must also provide this information to a person or business affected by other specified regulatory actions if these parties request it. These actions include those involving (1) applications, permits, or requests for permits, licenses, approvals, or other permissions to conduct business or (2) the use of private property. The act specifies no deadline by which the agencies must respond to the request or consequences for failing to do so.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2013

PUBLIC ACT 13-186 – AN ACT CONCERNING INTERVENTION IN PERMIT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1971

The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that verified pleadings made under CGS § 22a-19 “must contain specific factual allegations setting forth the environmental issue that the intervenor intends to raise” (Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131, 164-165 (2002)). In addition, it found that intervenors may only raise environmental concerns that are within the jurisdiction of the authority conducting the proceeding. It held “the facts contained [in a verified pleading] should be sufficient to allow the agency to determine from the face of the petition whether the intervention implicates an issue within the agency's jurisdiction.”

This act codifies the Connecticut Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission by setting conditions on verified pleadings by parties seeking to intervene in a proceeding on, or judicial review of, conduct that could harm the state's natural resources. Under the act, a verified pleading in a proceeding under the state environmental protection act (CGS § 22a-19) must:

1. contain specific factual allegations setting forth the nature of the alleged unreasonable pollution, impairment, or destruction; and

2. allow the reviewing authority to determine whether the intervention affects an issue within its jurisdiction.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2013