Proposed $3.6B Propel power line from LI to New Rochelle facing key approvals

As developers of the $3.26 billion Propel NY Energy power line project from Long Island to New Rochelle move closer to a planned construction start this summer, they still await crucial permits, including one from the federal government.

Propel’s developers at the New York Power Authority and New York Transco say they expect to have all needed approvals to start work on schedule later this year and keep the project on target for an in-service date of 2030. They have been participating in a lengthy New York State approval process called Article VII that entails reviews of the impacts, routes and need for the project, which is backed by state officials, green-energy and business groups and labor unions.

But a second needed permit could prove more challenging, and spokespersons for the White House and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers aren’t saying anything about their potential approval.

Propel’s total 89.7-mile high-voltage power transmission lines will snake underground from western Suffolk, Syosset and Island Park to a Uniondale hub and onward to Glenwood Landing, the Bronx and New Rochelle. Project plans includes three new substations on Long Island, and 345,000-volt cables between Island Park and Uniondale (8.9 miles), Uniondale and the Bronx (24.5 miles), Uniondale and Glenwood Landing (9.1 miles), Melville and Glenwood Landing (17.7 miles), and Glenwood Landing to New Rochelle (17 miles).  They also include a new 10.9-mile power line of 138,000 volts between Syosset and Glenwood Landing.

Since last summer, the Army Corps has been examining Propel’s request for a permit to install an 18-mile segment of cables between a LIPA substation at Glenwood Landing and a new substation in New Rochelle. That work includes 9.1 miles of cable under Long Island Sound. Propel’s application for the Army Corps permit said the project’s purpose is to satisfy the PSC’s declared "Long Island Offshore Wind Export Public Policy Transmission Need" to "increase transmission capability from Long Island into southeastern New York."

The project, touted as a major upgrade for the Western Long Island grid, which is being paid for by ratepayers across the state, "will significantly enhance the reliability of a grid under strain and benefit all New Yorkers," its developers say. 

Residents and businesses who oppose the project, including dozens who gathered at a community meeting in Glen Head on Thursday, say they hope that the project is delayed and rerouted, away from communities that face months of construction-related disruptions. They point to recent disruptions caused by another big cable project upstate, and say cancellation of planned wind farms off Long Island after Trump-administration permit halts make the project unnecessary.

"I hope the Army Corps comes to the conclusion that the cable has to be shifted away from dense development" in Nassau’s North Shore, said Doug Augenther, a Glen Head resident and a member and former president of the Gold Coast Business Association.

He suggested it be rerouted to Northport, where cables already run. "We already have two 345,000-volt cables coming out of Hempstead Harbor," he said, referring to NYPA cables already in place. "Why should they all be in the same place?"

James D’Ambrosio, a spokesman for the Army Corps, declined to comment on Propel's pending permits, saying the agency "cannot comment on policy matters." White House spokespersons didn’t respond to several requests for comment.

The Trump administration is known not only for the president’s opposition to green energy but wind farms in particular, pledging they won’t get built during his term. Newsday has reported that Propel has altered its public messaging about the project, saying it's energy "agnostic" and not a wind-farm cable.

In addition, several of the wind farms that were expected to be producing energy for the state grid by 2030 and beyond have been withdrawn, including Empire Wind 2, Beacon Wind and three that had been planned for farther out on Long Island’s South Shore in an area called the New York Bight.

NYPA spokeswoman Susan Craig, in written responses to questions from Newsday, said the developers believe progress on the Army Corps permit is ongoing.

"The application remains under their [Army Corps] review, and we anticipate a decision by mid-2026," Craig said, noting that progress on the permit approval "can clearly be seen with completion of the public comment period this summer, as well as completion of the consultation with the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service which provided a letter of concurrence."

"This is a multi-value infrastructure project that will boost reliability and resiliency of the transmission grid while creating jobs and bolstering the economy," she wrote.

Still unclear is whether local towns that have signed on as interested parties in the state review of the project will be part of any pending settlement. Hempstead and North Hempstead towns didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In a statement, Oyster Bay Supervisor Joseph Saladino said, "We remain deeply concerned about the safety risks of this project, its environmental impact, and the significant disruptions it may cause to residents and businesses."

Augenther, acknowledging he’s a party to the Article VII process, called it "legalized blackmail" because the developers can coax municipalities to settle by offering benefit packages, or withholding them if they don’t. He also charged the process silences critics like him from speaking out during the process, as all are bound by confidentiality clauses.

Craig said the project continues on course to receive a special permit from the state Public Service Commission after a state review and settlement process led by two administrative law judges.

Following a decision by the PSC, environmental management and construction plans must be reviewed and approved before project construction can begin "in phases in 2026," Craig wrote.

Most of the opposition to the project is locational, with communities raising concerns about the cables around homes, schools and businesses, Propel and its advocates say there is no debating the potential power benefits for Long Island and others. The two-way cable would provide a series of high-voltage power lines at one of the biggest bottlenecks in the state grid into the downstate region where prices are higher, notably around peak summer demand times.

But as Newsday has reported, there are statutory restrictions on LIPA receiving the cheapest hydropower from state-owned upstate hydro-generating plants. Those were tied to the formation of LIPA and fears from upstate lawmakers that Long Island would take an outsize share of the cheap energy.

Gary Stephenson, senior vice president for LIPA, in an interview with Newsday in November describing the state authority’s changing power road map, said the addition of Propel by 2030 "definitely helps" as other sources LIPA had banked on, chiefly offshore wind, face a less-certain future.

"Putting 345-kilovolt cables in Nassau alone will help us move power around and help us make better economic decisions," Stephenson said. That includes "being able to buy more power from upstate when it’s economical and moving some of that wind power in the opposite direction when it’s needed."

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

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