Nassau school districts, others criticize PSC conditional approval of Propel project

School districts, residents and a North Shore village are criticizing the Public Service Commission’s "conditional" approval of the Propel NY Energy project, charging the state agency largely ignored concerns collectively expressed by thousands of residents.

The PSC at a previously scheduled Sept. 18 meeting conditionally approved the $3.26 billion project after listing it on the meetings consent agenda, without public debate. The project still awaits approvals by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as local road-use permits.

"The school districts are deeply disappointed by the Public Service Commission's determination and the process through which it was reached," Christine M. Durant, counsel to the North Shore, Roslyn and Syosset districts, which had filed opposition papers in the case, said in a statement. "The school districts remain profoundly concerned that the significant issues raised in their submissions, particularly those relating to the health, safety, and well-being of the thousands of students educated within the affected communities, were not meaningfully considered or addressed by the Commission."

Durant noted the districts are "currently reviewing the determination and evaluating all available options and next steps."

In responses to Newsday questions, Tom Congdon, executive deputy and deputy chair of the PSC, said the agenda is "established by the chair at his discretion taking into account topics that merit discussion by commissioners." He said "many projects" seeking approval under a state process known as Article VII "are included as consent agenda items due to the number of orders to be considered."

But former PSC commissioner and one-time PSC chairman John Howard said the PSC’s approval was anything but typical. Major PSC actions are often debated, while the consent agenda is reserved for lesser housekeeping items, he said.

"I find it very unusual that an item of this magnitude and this apparent importance would go on a consent agenda," Howard said, noting that the PSC’s action on Propel was followed by a "glowing news release" from the PSC.

He also took aim at the PSC’s "conditional" approval, noting that the PSC’s green light came despite "missing some very key permits," calling that "also unusual. And particularly when there’s no indication when those permits will be issued."

Howard said he was also taken aback by some of the language in the PSC’s decision approving the permit, notably its "dismissal of local concerns as being ‘off-base.’

"I don’t think that gives adequate respect to the communities involved who have real concerns, which in their mind have yet to be addressed," Howard said in an interview.

Congdon said the PSC’s conditional approval "speaks to the additional time allotted" for public comment of the project’s environmental management and construction plans. Comments are due by Thursday.

Propel’s backers and Gov. Kathy Hochul have called Propel a "critical" infrastructure project, helping to shore up projected future reliability gaps even as it creates a new high-voltage backbone from Long Island to the Bronx and Westchester. The project has morphed from its origins as an export cable for up to 3,000 megawatts of anticipated excess Long Island offshore wind energy to one that is power "agnostic."

Some critics have taken issue with the amount of time allotted by the commission to file comments. Bruce Kennedy, administrator for the Village of Sea Cliff, which opposes the project on environmental and property rights grounds, said the commission timeline actually reduces what would normally be a 30-day comment period. A one-judge ruling last week rejected his arguments.

Others have voiced opposition to Propel on health, business and school disruption and lack of necessity grounds say the PSC process fell short.

Thomas Rogers, superintendent of the Syosset Central School District, said the district was particularly "disappointed that the PSC did not insist on more stringent standards to avoid operational disruptions and keep our school community safe."

He was specifically seeking seasonal restrictions on construction around schools, "something the developers didn’t provide, even though they did so for parks." He noted the commission also deemed the construction noise “‘compatible’ with schooling for young children, yet required construction to cease immediately if bald eagles showed signs of noise distress."

"Most worrisome of all," Rogers wrote, the developers and the PSC "have yet to assure us that the electrical and magnetic field standards from the 1970s and '90s are still considered safe today."

Concerns about magnetic fields from the multiple 345,000-volt cables have been continually expressed by parents and others who live along the proposed route.

Others criticized the PSC process of reviewing and approving the project.

"As we confront this deeply flawed process and determination, on behalf of the Roslyn Board of Education and myself, let it be clear — the disruption of the educational environment of our children is more than a ‘temporary inconvenience,’" said Allison Brown, superintendent of the Roslyn Union Free School District, in her response to a Newsday request for comment.

Christine Panzeca, a Glen Head resident who has led local opposition, said the PSC’s approval solidified her opinion that the agency is not about protecting the public.

"The only thing robust about this process is that everybody who participated was ignored," she said. "The only concerns that were addressed were the concerns of the applicant," Propel’s developers at the New York Power Authority and New York Transco. "The public participated and they ignored the public. It should be called the Propel Service Commission."

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.