Short Decision template with disclaimer

This draft Decision is being distributed to the parties in this proceeding for comment. The proposed Decision is not a final Decision of the Department. The Department will consider the parties' arguments and exceptions before reaching a final Decision. The final Decision may differ from the proposed Decision. Therefore, this draft Decision does not establish any precedent and does not necessarily represent the Department's final conclusion.

The Department of Public Utility Control (Department) established the instant docket to investigate a notification provided to municipal streetlighting customers by The Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P or Company) regarding Public Act€01-134, An Act Requiring Energy Efficient Roadway Lights (Act).

Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated January 18, 2002, the Department held a public hearing on this matter on January 25, 2002, at the offices of the Department, Ten Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut, 06051. By Notice of Close of Hearing dated February 27, 2002, this matter was closed.

The Department designated the following as Parties to this proceeding: The Connecticut Light and Power Company, P.O. Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141-0270; The Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC), Ten Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051; The Connecticut Section of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDSS), 1060 Mapleton Ave., Suffield, CT 06078, as Parties to this proceeding. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), 900 Chapel Street, New Haven, Connecticut, 06510-2807, was designated as an Intervenor.

Representative Ruth Fahrbach of Windsor, a co-sponsor of the Act, states that the legislation was intended to address a variety of concerns related to streetlights, including energy conservation, light pollution, light trespass and traffic safety (i.e., reducing the glare from streetlights). Representative Fahrbach goes on to state that the authors of this legislation were sensitive to the needs of individual communities, and that the legislation included a waiver provision that allowed each municipality the opportunity to determine the appropriateness of using full cut-off streetlights on a light-by-light, or area-by-area, basis. She states:

I believe that CL&P's blanket waiver violates the intention of the statute and the Legislature. The Legislature specifically provided for notice from the public utility company 30 days prior to installation or replacement. It didn't say 60 days, six months or two years.

The legislation specifically states that the (municipal) official may determine that a waiver is necessary for the lighting application. It does not state that a waiver may be issued for all future applications€.€.€.€it does not leave it up to CL&P to determine the form in which such notice shall be provided to each municipality. In its correspondence with the municipalities CL&P misled local officials by leading them to believe that the towns would be required to add additional light fixtures. Nowhere in the legislation is that required, nor is there a minimum lighting requirement in the statutes. Tr. 1/25/02, pp.€6-8.

Representative O'Rourke further stated that the legislation was intended to provide certain benefits to the citizens of Connecticut. Among them is the restoration of the public's access to a view of the night sky. Regarding the waiver provision, Representative O'Rourke states that the CCM assisted lawmakers in drafting that provision of the Act. Further, the waiver provision was meant to address the lighting needs of each municipality. For example, state lawmakers did not want to restrict a town's ability to install `streetscape' lighting in historic districts or to require that a town reduce the lighting in areas of high crime.

We're not here to determine whether full cutoffs are better than semi-cutoffs. The Connecticut General Assembly has decided that, and it's not up to CL&P field staff to go out and argue the case in the streets and create their own law by virtue of the weight of their bureaucracy. They need to follow the direction€.€.€.€that has been laid down€.€.€.€in accordance with state law. Tr. 1/25/02, p.€17.

IDSS states that CL&P failed to provide the prerequisite conditions for a waiver when it contacted the municipalities and that in general, the information provided was grossly misleading, resulting in over 30 towns signing the blanket waiver provided by CL&P. IDSS also believes that CL&P misrepresented the financial consequences of complying with the Act by implying that a town would need to install, and therefore pay for, additional lights to replace the light output that would be lost as the result of installing full cutoff lights. Further IDSS states that there are state roadways within each municipality and that the state's Department of Transportation oversees the lighting of these thoroughfares. CL&P's letter did not provide sufficient information related to the Act's applicability as it relates to state vs. municipal roads resulting in confusion among municipal leaders. IDSS requests that the Department find that CL&P's letters were grossly misleading, that all waivers be returned and that CL&P be fined for its actions in this matter. Tr. 1/25/02, pp.€25-37.

Public Act 01-134 was enacted in the fall of 2001. The Act essentially requires CL&P to install a full cutoff style streetlighting fixture for all new installations or when an existing semi cutoff style streetlighting fixture fails in the municipalities it serves. The Act includes a provision that allows each municipality to waive the requirements of the Act. The waiver provision states:

The chief elected official of a municipality or said official's designee may waive the provisions of subdivision (4) of subsection (b) of this section when, after a request for such a waiver has been made and reviewed, said official or said official's designee determines that such a waiver is necessary for the lighting application. Requests for such a waiver shall be made to said official or said official's designee in such form as said official shall prescribe and shall include, without limitation, a description of the lighting plan, a description of the efforts that have been made to comply with the provisions of subdivision (4) or subsection (b) of this section and the reason such waiver is necessary. In reviewing a request for such waiver, said official shall consider safety, costs and other factors deemed appropriate by said official.

``inform the municipalities that the Public Act existed. I might add that all letters had a copy of the Act attached to it, including these four that we're calling unauthorized letters. Our intent was to inform them (municipalities) that CL&P would not ask for a waiver to the Act and would comply with the law. We also informed the municipalities of the technical differences of the full cutoff, our semi-cutoff streetlight luminaire, illustrating both the good points and the bad points of each of these. And we also informed the towns that they had a choice to make regarding streetlighting.'' Tr. 1/25/02, pp.€43 and€44 by CL&P witness Morante.

To fulfill its goal, CL&P's Marketing Manager drafted a letter for use by each regional district. That letter was approved by the Company's legal department (Authorized Letter) and distributed to CL&P's District Managers. In turn, the letter was provided to the Account Executives in each district for distribution to each town. Tr. 1/25/02,€p.€65; Late Filed Exhibit No.€3. Response to Interrogatory EL-69SP01. CL&P goes on to state that approximately 139 towns received the Authorized Letter, but that four municipalities, located within the same district, were sent a letter that was not approved for use (Unauthorized Letter). CL&P also acknowledged that a third letter, one that contained elements of the Approved Letter, was forwarded to several towns (Modified Letter). Tr. 1/25/02, pp.€57-64. In addition to the three letters, the Company also provided sample waiver templates to some municipalities, upon request. Id. The Authorized, Unauthorized and Modified Letters, as well as the Sample Waiver are attached as Appendix 1. CL&P states that it reviewed each waiver that was submitted to assure that the proper town official had signed the document. As evidenced by the feedback it received from its municipal customers on this issue, CL&P believes that it achieved its goal. Id.

The issue in this case centers on CL&P's intent regarding the notification it provided to its municipal customers and whether the Company displayed a bias against the Act in its correspondence with the towns. The Authorized Letter comprises seven paragraphs and is just under two pages in length. The first two paragraphs provide notification that the Act is in place. The third paragraph discusses the technical differences between full and semi cutoff streetlighting while the bulk of the remainder of the letter, paragraphs five and six, is dedicated to a discussion of the negative consequences of installing full cutoff lighting. Although the Company states that its intent was to inform, it appears to the Department that the tenor of paragraphs five and six is meant to raise concern regarding public safety and cost should a town choose to install full cutoff lights.

A memo accompanied the Authorized Letter to all District Manages recommending that the letter be sent to representatives of each town. Late Filed Exhibit No.€3. The memo states, ``I'm most concerned with the existing streetlighting. These areas were designed with semi-cutoff streetlighting fixtures. The use of full cutoff lighting in these areas will dramatically reduce the coverage area of the light along the road by close to 50%. This is a big difference. While I would have liked to be a little more forceful in the letter explaining this difference to towns, Legal has probably correctly toned down my language.'' Id.; Tr. 1/25/02, pp.€47€and€48. Language contained in the memo reinforces the conclusion that the Authorized Letter was intended to raise concerns among town officials regarding full cutoff streetlights.

Based on a review of the Unauthorized Letter it appears to the Department that CL&P sought to encourage towns to sign a blanket waiver of the Act and offered the Company's assistance to do so. Tr.€1/25/02, pp.€64€and€99. Regarding the Modified Letter, it states, ``if full cutoff fixtures are used to replace existing semi cutoff streetlights for a particular roadway, the municipality may need to redesign the lighting (i.e., add more poles and fixtures) to compensate for the ensuing reduction in light dispersion.'' The letter implies that the town may incur additional costs if full cutoff fixtures are installed in compliance with the Act and that public safety may be compromised. This letter too was intended to raise concerns among municipal officials regarding public safety and cost, prompting said officials to consider waiving the provisions of the Act. Neither of these letters simply informed a town about the Act.

When asked, CL&P provided a Sample Waiver to a municipality. However, neither the Marketing Manager nor CL&P's legal staff reviewed that sample. Instead, CL&P's field personnel drafted and distributed it. Tr. 1/25/02, p.€63€and€80. CL&P's Sample Waiver indicated that the use of full cutoff lighting would reduce the lumens provided from each light. The Company acknowledged that this information was wrong, stating that the area being illuminated would be reduced, not the lumen rating of the fixture. Tr.€1/25/02, pp.€94-97.

Upon receipt of signed waivers, CL&P checked to be sure that the proper town official had signed the document but took no further action to assure that the waiver complied with the Act. The Company states that municipal officials are responsible for the accuracy of the documents they sign and that it is not CL&P's responsibility to police the activities of each town regarding such matters. Tr.€1/25/02, pp.€95-101 and 110-113.

The waiver provisions of the Act are clear; blanket waivers are not permitted. A review of the waiver submitted by each town, including CL&P's sample, finds that none conform to the requirements of the Act. CL&P believes that it should not be responsible to police its municipal customers and that town officials should assume responsibility for the accuracy of the documents they sign. However, CL&P is an integral part of fulfilling the directives of the Act. CL&P took the time to assure that the chief elected official of each municipality or said official's designee signed each waiver, returning two waivers based on invalid signatures. Tr€1/25/02, p.€98. CL&P took these actions to assure that these waivers could not be challenged (i.e., found to be invalid) based on the technicality of an erroneous signature. However, CL&P took no action to assure that the waivers complied with the substance and spirit of the Act.

Regarding CL&P's Sample Waiver, it is reasonable to conclude that the towns that used CL&P's sample language relied on the Company's implied understanding of the Act and expertise in streetlighting matters in submitting what was thought to be a valid waiver. CL&P knew, or should have known, that the Sample Waiver did not conform to the Act and that the other waivers it received did not comport with the Act. CL&P's legal department should have reviewed all waivers.

There was no requirement that CL&P notify the towns of the existence of the Act. However, CL&P chose to do so. Although CL&P claims that its intent was to simply advise its municipal customers as to the existence of the Act while providing information on streetlighting, CL&P went well beyond a simple notification by including language in its correspondence that displayed a bias against full cutoff streetlighting. Based on the evidence presented, it appears that CL&P sought to undermine the Act.

To address this situation CL&P shall be required to install a demonstration project of full cutoff streetlights on public roadways in two towns in each of its eleven districts so that municipal officials can view the affect of full cutoff streetlighting. The full cut off streetlights should replace existing semi cutoff fixtures and should be installed in series. Each demonstration project must include no fewer than ten fixtures, (i.e., ten per town, and 20 per district). The towns should be selected so as to be convenient for town officials within each district to visit the demonstration sites. CL&P must work with IDSS and Representative O'Rourke in choosing the town and street(s) for each demonstration project and shall submit the location of each demonstration project to the Department.

CL&P's management and field personnel have displayed a bias against full cutoff streetlighting and have sought to spread this bias to municipal officials. In so doing, CL&P has attempted to thwart the intention of the Act. As the result of CL&P's actions, approximately 34 towns have submitted invalid waivers of the Act. The Company held itself out as an expert on this matter and town officials relied on that expertise when pursuing their options under the Act.

The foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Decision issued by the Department of Public Utility Control, State of Connecticut, and was forwarded by Certified Mail to all parties of record in this proceeding on the date indicated.

CL&P wishes to inform you of a recently passed law concerning municipalities and roadway lighting. Public Act 01-134 (copy attached) states, in part, that only full cutoff roadway lighting fixtures or luminaires may be used for new installations of roadway lighting or when replacing a failed existing luminaire. It also requires that the luminaire be designed to maximize energy conservation and minimize light pollution, glare and light trespass. It further states that the lowest wattage streetlight that will adequately meet the lighting needs must be used. A chief elected official of a municipality or his/her designee may waive these provisions in favor of another type of streetlight fixture, such as a semi-cutoff fixture, but only after considering other alternatives such as reducing speed limits, reflective markings, informational signs and any safety issues.

The law explicitly states ``no public utility company'' may install or replace a permanent outdoor luminaire for roadway lighting unless the luminaire meets the criteria of P.A. 01-134. The law is effective on October 1, 2001. As of that date, CL&P will be required to install only full cutoff roadway lighting fixtures for any new or failed street lighting fixture (not lamp burn out) unless the municipality issues a waiver. The monthly rental fee for either a full cutoff or semi-cutoff streetlight fixture of the same wattage is identical. Although the law authorizes public utility companies to request the waiver, CL&P does not currently intend to do so. CL&P will continue to provide the streetlight fixtures requested by the municipality, so long as the request is within the approved rate structures.

There are some differences between full cutoff and semi-cutoff streetlight luminaires that municipalities may wish to consider in response to P.A. 01-134 (the definitions for streetlight luminaires are found in the Illuminating Engineering Society handbook). A full cutoff fixture allows no direct light emissions above a horizontal plane through the luminaire's lowest light-emitting part and no more than 10% of the fixture's light output at or above a vertical angle of 80 degrees. A semi-cutoff fixture allows less than 5% direct light emissions above a horizontal plane through the luminaire's lowest light-emitting part and no more than 20% of the fixture's light output at or above a vertical angle of 80 degrees. In both cases, the lamp is contained within the upper half of the fixture, which minimizes glare although the full cutoff fixture, because of its flat lens, does a superior job in reducing glare. The full cutoff fixture also is better at controlling light pollution and creates less light trespass.

CL&P often is asked which type of streetlight fixture, full or semi-cutoff, uses less energy. The answer depends on where and for what purpose the streetlights are being used. There are cases where the use of semi-cutoff fixtures will use less energy because the spacing between the lights can be greater. Regardless of which type of streetlight fixture is used, we generally suggest that municipalities try to minimize the wattage to produce the minimum light output for the intended purposes of the lighting.

About 95% of the approximately 200,000 current streetlights in CL&P's service territory are of the semi-cutoff variety. CL&P receives about 20 complaints per year from the general public concerning light pollution, trespass or glare.

The most dramatic difference between full and semi-cutoff streetlight fixtures is the lighted area covered by these fixtures. The full cutoff fixture directs most of its light downward and therefore the coverage along the roadway is much less than a semi-cutoff fixture, which has greater dispersion. In fact, using the same 70 watt high pressure sodium lamp (the most common streetlight on the CL&P system) at the same mounting height and the same bracket length, the coverage along the roadway for a full cutoff fixture is about half that of a semi-cutoff fixture, 70 feet versus 130 feet at 0.3 footcandles (the minimum effective light level to accurately detect and identify objects using high pressure sodium lamps).

Please be aware that if existing streetlights are replaced with full cutoff fixtures in areas where the lighting design was completed using the photometrics of semi-cutoff fixtures, the change to full cutoff fixtures will change the lighting along a roadway. The municipality may need to redesign the street lighting design in some cases. The percentage of the roadway that will be covered with an effective level of light will in some cases be about half of what is currently present. Depending on what is trying to be achieved with the street lighting, the reduction in light coverage using full cutoff fixtures in some cases maybe sufficient. This decision must be left to the municipality, and CL&P will be pleased to discuss these issues with you.

CL&P asks that the municipality inform us by September 28, 2001 of its intentions regarding which type of streetlight fixture, full cutoff or semi-cutoff, it wishes CL&P to use to replace any failed existing streetlight fixtures. If we do not receive a formal response from the municipality, CL&P will comply with Public Act 01-134, by replacing failed streetlight fixtures with full cutoff fixtures only. Public Act 01-134 requires the municipality to issue a waiver if it elects to use something other than a full cutoff fixture.

I'd like to inform you of a recently passed law concerning municipalities and roadway lighting. Public Act 01-134 (copy attached) states that as of October 1, 2001 CL&P will be required to install only full cutoff roadway lighting fixtures: 1) for all new street lights; or 2) when replacing failed street light heads. However, if Middlefield issues CL&P a waiver in writing, this act can be circumvented.

As you know, there has been a long-running debate over the pros and cons of semi-cutoff street lighting vs. full cutoff street lighting. Semi-cutoff street lighting offers greater light dispersion (illuminating roadways better), while full cutoff street lighting reduces glare to traffic and creates less light trespass.

The most dramatic difference between the two types of streetlights is the lighted area coverage. For example, using a 70 watt high pressure sodium lamp, the light dispersed by a semi-cutoff fixture is about double of the output of a full cutoff fixture - with no difference in the cost of either fixture (both are $8.66 per month). Thus, a full cutoff fixture reduces the usable light output without a corresponding reduction in cost. Another downside to the full cutoff fixtures is that if they replace existing semi-cutoff streetlights for a particular roadway, the municipality may need to redesign the lighting (i.e., add more poles and fixtures) to compensate for the ensuing reduction in foot-candles.

CL&P asks that Middlefield inform us by September 28, 2001 of its intentions regarding Public Act 01-134. If CL&P does not receive a formal response from Middlefield, CL&P will comply with Public Act 01-134 and install full cutoff streetlight fixtures for all new and failed streetlights. If Middlefield wishes to issue a waiver for Public Act 01-134 (for reasons of safety, vagueness of the Act's language, possible negative economic impacts, etc.), a short letter explaining these reasons on town letterhead addressed to me should suffice. I am willing to assist in drafting such a waiver letter at your request.

CL&P wishes to inform you of a recently passed law concerning municipalities and roadway lighting. Public Act 01-134 (copy attached) states that as of October 1, 2001 CL&P will be required to install only full cutoff roadway lighting fixtures for any new or failed street lighting fixtures unless Haddam issues CL&P a waiver in writing.

CL&P asks that Haddam inform us by September 28, 2001 of its intentions regarding which type of streetlight fixture (full cutoff or semi-cutoff) it wishes CL&P to use henceforth in replacing any failed or new streetlight fixtures. If CL&P does not receive a formal response from Haddam, CL&P will comply with Public Act 01-134 and install full cutoff streetlight fixtures for all new and failed streetlights.

The Town of Glastonbury will waive Public Act No. 01-134, which mandates that CL&P use full cutoff fixtures when installing new or replacement roadway luminaires paid for by The Town of Glastonbury, based on the following: 1) it would create unsafe conditions due to the reduction in lumens which would result; 2) it would necessitate the addition of a large quantity of streetlights to compensate for the reduced lumens which, in turn, would create an undo financial burden upon the Town of Glastonbury; and 3) the general language of the act itself is unclear.

Thus, please continue to replace all luminaires in Glastonbury with semi-cutoff heads, or as directed otherwise by the town. Likewise, all newly installed luminaires requested by the town should be of the semi-cutoff variety, or as otherwise directed by the town.

The primary difference between full and semi cutoff streetlighting fixtures is the design of the lens and location of the lamp (bulb) within the fixture. In a semi cutoff fixture the lens is rounded and extends down from the fixture. This allows the lamp to be located within the lens, which in turn provides light more outward from the fixture across a horizontal plane. In a full cutoff fixture the lens is flat and extends across the fixture. This requires that the lamp be installed in the fixture such that light is directed more downward, thereby emitting less light across a horizontal plane.





	Louise E. Rickard		Date
	Acting Executive Secretary
	Department of Public Utility Control

First Selectman Town of Middlefield Town Hall PO Box 179 Middlefield, CT 06455	September 5, 2001
RE: Public Act 01-134 (Cutoff vs. Semi-Cutoff Street Lighting)

First Selectman Town of Haddam Town Hall 30 Field Park Drive Haddam, CT 06438	September 4, 2001
RE: Public Act 01-134 (Cutoff vs. Semi-Cutoff Street Lighting)

Account Executive 49 Randolph Road Middletown, CT 06457	September 26, 2001
RE: Public Act 01-134