3 North Shore school districts urge NYS to reject $3.6B power cable project

Three North Shore public school districts that oppose a state-backed plan to construct high-voltage power cables through their areas have filed new papers asking the state to deny or dismiss the developer’s application for the $3.26 billion project.

The move by the districts representing 13,000 students and more than 70,000 residents and taxpayers on the North Shore comes as developers of the Propel NY Energy cable project continue to file work plans and hire contractors for the five-year construction project ahead of receiving needed state and federal permits to begin the work. The developers, the New York Power Authority and New York Transco, say they want to start construction later this year. 

But opponents aren't giving up. 

In a 62-page joint brief filed with the state Public Service Commission Wednesday, the Roslyn Union, Syosset Central and North Shore Central school districts took issue with the "flawed" record filed in support of the 90-mile series of cables, charging the plan "wholly fails to adequately identify and evaluate the project's probable environmental impacts to the school districts."

Among potential impacts from the multiple 345,000-volt power lines and the five-year construction plan, according to the districts, were effects on "student health and safety, and significant impacts to transportation operations, instructional and educational programs, and the school districts' ability to fulfill their statutory mandates."

Some residents in the region who oppose the power lines near homes and schools said the state hasn’t adequately responded to their requests for specific studies that examine the health impacts from electromagnetic fields emanating from the 345,000-volt power lines. The developers say the project is within state standards for the fields, that they have engaged the public at meetings and that the project will benefit the electric grid through greater reliability.

A lawyer for the districts didn't respond to a message seeking comment. 

NYPA in a statement said Propel is "critically needed energy infrastructure that will significantly boost grid reliability and resiliency," and is supported by more than 1.000 organizations.

The motion to dismiss is the latest escalation in the North Shore communities’ opposition to the project, whose cables would run from western Suffolk and Nassau’s South Shore to a convergence point in the communities of Glen Head, Glenwood Landing and others on the North Shore. The cables would then travel under the seabed of Hempstead Harbor and Long Island Sound on their way to Westchester. Another leg of the line would travel from Uniondale to Queens and the Bronx.

Gov. Kathy Hochul has called the project "critical" to address "potential power shortages in coming years." Cable representatives have yet to provide Newsday with a list of power generating stations upstate that have excess power to send to Long Island, and there are certain restrictions on NYPA hydropower plants sending their power to LIPA.

Construction companies and unions are big supporters of Propel and will be the beneficiaries of the billions of dollars in building contracts and labor agreements. Green-energy advocates say Propel would allow for the smoother transfer of renewables, even though the project's originally stated purpose — to export excess wind power from downstate to upstate — has been disrupted by the Trump administration’s freeze on wind-power permits. Developers say the cable will be power agnostic and unclog a bottleneck between upstate and downstate that leads to higher energy prices during high demand times.

North Shore business groups, the Village of Sea Cliff, the Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee and U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi joined the Towns of Hempstead, North Hempstead and Oyster Bay in registering concerns or opposition to the project plan. A list of 1,627 citizens have filed a petition with the PSC expressing opposition.

In addition to criticizing the project’s deficiencies, the school districts also took aim at the state process that may ultimately award project developers a needed certificate of public convenience and necessity to complete the project. The districts called the PSC-run process "flawed," and charged that it "evades statutory mandates, subverts robust public participation, and shields critical details from public scrutiny."

PSC spokeswoman Kim Mashke, in an email, said the commission is "in the process of reviewing all comments filed," and that robust public input, including opportunities to comment in writing and during public hearings, is required by law" and is a critical component of the state process, known as Article VII. 

In asking for a denial or dismissal of the project’s application, the school districts noted that they are "political subdivisions of the state," each charged with "fulfilling the state’s educational mandates and protecting the health and welfare of thousands of school-aged children." All three were party to the Article VII process that resulted in a joint proposal, but refused to sign on.

The districts said the potential impacts to the districts "should be afforded great weight, demand serious consideration, and cannot be ignored." 

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

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