The legislature finds that power generating plants and transmission lines for electricity and fuels, community antenna television towers and telecommunication towers have had a significant impact on the environment and ecology of the state of Connecticut; and that continued operation and development of such power plants, lines and towers, if not properly planned and controlled, could adversely affect the quality of the environment and the ecological, scenic, historic and recreational values of the state. The purposes of this chapter are: To provide for the balancing of the need for adequate and reliable public utility services at the lowest reasonable cost to consumers with the need to protect the environment and ecology of the state and to minimize damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values; to provide environmental quality standards and criteria for the location, design, construction and operation of facilities for the furnishing of public utility services at least as stringent as the federal environmental quality standards and criteria, and technically sufficient to assure the welfare and protection of the people of the state; to encourage research to develop new and improved methods of generating, storing and transmitting electricity and fuel and of transmitting and receiving television and telecommunications with minimal damage to the environment and other values described above; to promote energy security; to promote the sharing of towers for fair consideration wherever technically, legally, environmentally and economically feasible to avoid the unnecessary proliferation of towers in the state particularly where installation of such towers would adversely impact class I and II watershed lands, and aquifers; to require annual forecasts of the demand for electric power, together with identification and advance planning of the facilities needed to supply that demand and to facilitate local, regional, state-wide and interstate planning to implement the foregoing purposes.
(1971, P.A. 575, S. 1; P.A. 75-375, S. 1, 12; P.A. 76-359, S. 1, 7; P.A. 77-218, S. 1; P.A. 89-45, S. 1, 4; P.A. 03-140, S. 1; P.A. 04-236, S. 1.)
History: P.A. 75-375 deleted “orderly processes” with regard to balancing utility services and environmental concerns and modified reference provision to utility services with “at the lowest reasonable cost to consumers”; P.A. 76-359 included in purposes of chapter provision re forecasts of power demands and advance planning for necessary facilities; P.A. 77-218 included references to community cable television and telecommunications services and facilities; P.A. 89-45 included provision of chapter re promotion of sharing of towers; P.A. 03-140 added promotion of energy security as legislative purpose, effective July 1, 2003; P.A. 04-236 made a technical change, effective June 8, 2004.
Cited. 180 C. 474.
Cited. 20 CA 474.
Cited. 35 CS 303.
Notes of Decisions
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting Council, 942 A.2d 345 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 16-50g. The Public Utility Environmental Standards Act also establishes the siting council; General Statutes § 16-50j; and vests the council with near exclusive jurisdiction, amongst state agencies, over the “location and type of modifications” to existing…”
Town of Preston v. Connecticut Siting Council, 568 A.2d 799 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 6× “4 The applicants filed an application with the council pursuant to PUES A; General Statutes §§ 16-50g et seq.; for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need (certificate) to construct and operate a regional resource recovery facility in Preston.”
Concerned Citizens of Sterling, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council, 576 A.2d 510 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiffs’ argument for publication of notice in Rhode Island finds no support in the express language of the relevant provisions of the Public Utility Environmental Standards Act, General Statutes §§ 16-50g through 16-50z.”
Hopkins v. Pac, 429 A.2d 952 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 16-50g. 3 “[General Statutes] Sec.”
Haynes v. Power Facility Evaluation Council, 419 A.2d 342 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 3× “General Statutes §§ 16-50g et seq. This act, by its terms, is intended to “provide for the balancing of the need for adequate and reliable public utility services .”
Town, Westport v. Connecticut Siting C., No. Cv 00 0501129s (Jun. 27, 2001), 797 A.2d 655 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Cellco applied to the council on June 24, 1998, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 16-50g through 16-50aa, for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for construction, operation and maintenance of a cellular telecommunications facility in the town.”
Nipmuc Props., LLC v. PDC-El Paso Meriden, LLC, 927 A.2d 978 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 2× “PDC-E1 Paso then initiated the process to obtain permits necessary to build an electric generation facility on this property, including a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need issued by the [Connecticut siting council (siting council)], pursuant to General…”
Town of Westport v. Connecticut Siting Council, 796 A.2d 510 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “This is a consolidated appeal 1 emanating from a decision of the Connecticut siting council (council), the named defendant in the first case, approving, subject to certain modifications and conditions, an application of the defendant Célico Partnership (Célico), doing business…”
Woodbridge Newton Neighborhood Env't Trust v. Connecticut Siting Council, 349 Conn. 619 (Conn. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Connecticut Siting Council ing the application of the defendant Cellco Partnership (Cellco), doing business as Verizon Wireless, LLC, for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need pursuant to the Public Utility Environmental Stan- dards Act (act), General…”
Jaeger v. Cellco P'ship, 936 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Conn. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 16-50g. As a self-funded agency, the Council recovers administrative fees via an assessment levied against those who provide communications services and those who have come before the Council in the preceding year.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.