Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee updates on Hartford–Jackson interconnect; county to await PSC route decision
Summary
County staff told the Land Use & Planning Committee that We Energies continues to propose following existing transmission lines behind the Silver Lining amphitheater for the Hartford–Jackson interconnect, while the county previously signaled a preference for an alternate route; the county will not file further comment until We Energies identifies a final route at the Public Service Commission.
Jamie, a county project manager, updated the Washington County Land Use & Planning Committee on the Hartford–Jackson interconnect, describing the project as a transmission/pipeline route under review by the Public Service Commission. Jamie said the county previously communicated a preference for an alternate route that would route around the fairgrounds, but We Energies’ current filing still proposes following the existing transmission lines behind the Silver Lining amphitheater (the route the utility prefers).
“We are planning on this specific project to let this move through the public service commission process…we won't be submitting any additional commentary until we hear what the actual route is going to be from We Energies,” Jamie said.
Staff reviewed an aerial map with committee members and clarified a county parcel label: Supervisor Mary pointed out an inconsistency in the map’s parcel labeling and staff confirmed the property at the upper‑left of the aerial is Washington County property. Staff also noted a privately owned parcel (shown on the map as FGMS Property LLC) that We Energies has identified as potential staging or laydown space.
Supervisors asked about differences among route options A and B and which path county staff preferred; Jamie said the county’s preferred alignment would follow right‑of‑way around the fair park (route B), while We Energies was still pursuing an alignment close to route A. The committee was told that once the PSC identifies a selected route, county staff would return to negotiate temporary staging, easement language and restoration terms if the final route affects county property.
No formal board action was taken; staff characterized this as an informational update and said they will not submit additional county commentary until the utility files a final route with the PSC.
