May 30, 2007

LAWMAKERS, UI TANGLE OVER MOVE

Gregory B. Hladky, Capitol Bureau Chief

HARTFORD — New Haven-area lawmakers angered by United Illuminating Co.'s plan to relocate said Tuesday they are pushing for legislation to allow the city to sue UI for "economic damages" if the utility were to depart.

"We need to fight for our commercial tax base," said state Rep. Patricia Dillon, D-New Haven. "At the very least, the company should reimburse the taxpayers of New Haven if it leaves."

Dillon said she will attempt to attach the proposal as an amendment to an energy bill the state House is hoping to vote on before the end of this week. But UI spokeswoman Anita Steeves said that the utility "serves 17 towns and we need to make decisions that will benefit our customers in all those 17 towns."

"If moving to a centralized facility (outside New Haven) saves money and improves service for all our customers, then that's what we should be doing," Steeves said.

Steeves added that, while UI's corporate headquarters may be moving out of the building it currently rents at 157 Church St., "The infrastructure we have here in New Haven is staying in New Haven. ... They aren't going to be losing that tax revenue."

But such explanations haven't satisfied Dillon and state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-sponsors of an amendment that would make the utility liable for any economic damages the city suffers as a result of UI's headquarter relocation, in terms of money UI employees would spend on food, gasoline, parking or any other services or goods within the city.

In 2005, UI gave the state Department of Public Utility Control a plan for consolidating their operations into a central facility to save money. The plan calls for a relocation of UI's New Haven headquarters in 2012 when its lease expires.

UI officials say they have looked at potential relocation sites in West Haven, at the former Bayer Healthcare campus, and in Milford.

The lawmakers say UI has received tax breaks and other benefits from the city and the state, is a regulated industry and should thus be held accountable for the economic impact of its corporate actions.

"I don't see why New Haven can't have a fair shot at encouraging them to stay with both the carrot and the stick," said Lawlor, who is co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee. "I think we have a legitimate say in where they are located."

Lawlor said the state has an interest in preventing major companies from moving out of the central cities to suburban locations when such moves would create more highway traffic and pollution. "We should be encouraging them to stay there," Lawlor said.

Dillon proposed legislation in February that would have blocked UI from recovering any of its relocation costs from New Haven taxpayers. Although that measure hasn't been included in draft versions of the Democratic majority's major energy bill, Dillon insisted Monday that it isn't dead.

"I'm keeping everything alive," said Dillon. She said she has "three or four other proposals in the hopper" to offer as amendments.

Dillon said UI's relocation plan is coming when the utility is asking state lawmakers to allow it to get back into the electricity generation industry. "It's seeking further benefits from the state legislature at the time it's seeking to abandon our city," said Dillon.

Gregory B. Hladky can be contacted at ghladky@nhregister.com or (860) 524-0719.