The meeting’s focal point was the discussion surrounding the transmission line project proposed by National Grid. Residents, led by Sarah Riley, voiced their concerns about the deteriorating infrastructure on Copicut Road and the Quanap River Culvert. Riley emphasized the importance of maintaining the road for emergency access, highlighting that the current condition would be exacerbated by the heavy equipment needed for construction. She criticized National Grid’s plan to address only the potholes on unpaved sections without repairing the already damaged paved areas. Riley stressed, “it permits things like ambulances and police to get to our neighborhoods when we need to.”

Josh Lee Smith, representing National Grid, responded by outlining the project’s rigorous scrutiny and historical context. He acknowledged the resident’s concerns but underscored the project’s significance in enhancing electric service reliability not only in Fall River but also in surrounding communities. Smith assured the council that National Grid was committed to addressing any damage incurred during construction, even proposing to conduct video inspections of roads before and after work to ensure proper restoration.

The issue of environmental impact was also a prominent topic. Concerns were raised about tree removal and its implications under the Wellness Protection Act. The project had already received approvals from the Conservation Commission, but further permits were pending from other agencies. The Council was reminded that their role was limited to approving the use of airspace for overhead wires, with environmental and road maintenance issues falling outside their jurisdiction.

While the environmental concerns were acknowledged, there was tension regarding the perceived urgency of the project. Some council members insisted that the project should not be considered urgent until the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) had made its determination. The legal representation for National Grid reiterated the thoroughness of the permitting process, emphasizing that the EFSB’s role was to balance the project’s necessity against environmental costs.

The discussions also touched upon the broader regulatory framework involving multiple agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers. The city’s engineering and planning director cautioned the council against overstepping their jurisdictional authority, stressing the importance of adhering to the specific scope of their responsibilities.

As the meeting progressed, it became evident that further dialogue was necessary to address public safety and infrastructure issues related to the project. Residents like Riley called for additional measures, and the council suggested that these concerns be referred to relevant subcommittees focused on environmental affairs and public safety.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adopt the discussed measures. The council expressed a commitment to continue addressing environmental issues, such as pollution and tree management, separately from the current petition.