Propel NY Energy project moves ahead despite lack of local support

The developers of an expansive cable project known as Propel NY Energy are pressing ahead with plans for a sprawling 90-mile series of power lines from western Suffolk to Westchester without the support of local towns and villages and despite opposition from three school districts that worry they will be worst impacted by the $3.26 billion project.

This week, the project’s developers at the New York Power Authority and New York Transco awarded three pre-construction contracts to local firms as they prepare to start work on the power lines later this year.

Transco president Joris Veldhoven in a statement pointed to the "substantial local input" in a recently concluded state-review process and the "kickoff of detailed construction plans" in declaring that Propel had made "meaningful progress toward securing our necessary permits and breaking ground later this year."

But while state agencies, construction firms, trade unions and electric utilities have expressed support for the plan, local opposition to Propel remains fierce, particularly in North Shore communities where much of the work will take place. The project awaits several needed permits, including from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

On Wednesday, local groups held a rally in opposition to the plan. Weeks earlier, town supervisors in Oyster Bay, Hempstead and North Hempstead expressed concerns about ratepayer bill impacts, power-line safety and traffic in declining to support the plan until their concerns were addressed.

"We are the ones most intimately aware of the impacts of this project," said Christine Panzeca, a Glen Head resident who participated in the state process and led opposition to Propel based on health, business and traffic concerns. "When you have three town supervisors, the Village of Sea Cliff, three school districts and numerous residents opposing the project, that speaks volumes." 

During the rally, Kathleen Jensen-Cusick, a Whitestone resident whose neighborhood is in the proposed path of the cable in Queens, spoke emotionally about impacts she's seen since Propel began pre-construction drilling on her street. The work over the past year and a half has caused numerous sink holes, she said, accusing the developers of lax responsiveness. "They completely ignored me," she told the group of 60 residents and business owners.  

Three school districts, in filings with the state, went deeper. In its papers, the North Shore Central School District said the recent joint proposal agreement in a Public Service Commission process doesn’t adequately mitigate "substantial adverse impacts to student safety, school-transportation operations, emergency access," or "safe access to educational facilities during the project’s construction phase."

The districts, including Syosset's and Roslyn's, also noted the lack of widespread local support for the joint proposal that will serve as the blueprint for the project.

"Conspicuously absent from the list of signatories are the vast majority of local municipalities, school districts, residents, local business owners, and civic associations in and around Nassau County who are parties to this proceeding," lawyers for the Syosset Central School District wrote in their filing. 

The Coalition to Save Hempstead Harbor, in a statement Wednesday, said it "continues to be very concerned about the impact the Propel NY project will have on the harbor we have spent 40-plus years protecting and restoring." 

"While we do not doubt that Long Island has a need for more reliable and robust power, we question whether this $3.2 billion project is a vital component in pursuit of that objective," wrote coalition co-presidents Stephanie Sobel and Nino Luciano. 

Another group, the Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee, on Thursday released a statement to Newsday saying the recent joint proposal "falls significantly short of what is needed" to be "confident that Hempstead Harbor's ecosystem is protected" and that "any damage resulting from the construction of four cable trenches is immediately addressed."  

"Our nine member municipalities have invested 31 years of effort and funding into restoring Hempstead Harbor and have achieved much success including the re-opening of thousands of acres to shellfishing after being closed for over 40 years and more recently the re-opening Crescent Beach in Glen Cove after being closed for 17 years due to high bacteria levels," committee executive director Eric Swenson wrote. "We cannot afford to have these efforts set back.”

Settlement process

In response to questions from Newsday, NYPA noted that the joint proposal is "not meant to be a measure of overall project support," but rather a settlement agreement "among formal parties to" the state proceeding.

Developers say they have "responded to questions and concerns raised by school districts and municipalities that were part of the settlement process," overseen by state-appointed administrative law judges, and that the feedback led them to "limit our construction hours near schools and coordinated construction sequencing in several areas along the project route." They point to widespread support from environmental groups, LIPA, trade unions and others. 

NYPA spokeswoman Susan Craig also noted that developers "made firm commitments to adhere to state standards for electric magnetic fields," one of the primary concerns of parents, residents and school districts who would live in proximity to the high-voltage cables. 

The new high-voltage cables are proposed to link new or beefed-up substations in Syosset, Melville, Oceanside and Uniondale to a convergence point in Glenwood Landing before traversing Hempstead Harbor and Long Island Sound to a point in Westchester. There’s also a line connecting Uniondale to Queens and the Bronx.

 LIPA will also need to complete "several" upgrades to its transmission system for Propel, spokeswoman Michelle Livingston wrote in an email, and will recover those unspecified costs, "plus a return on capital, via a formula rate that is applied to all transmission users across New York" state. 

All but one of the six new transmission segments are 345,000-volt power lines, with some areas of the North Shore scheduled to host multiple high-voltage cables through single streets, heightening concerns about impacts of electromagnetic frequencies.

Karen Yanelli, a Glenwood Landing resident, suggested in her filings with the state PSC  that regulators appeared to give more consideration about potential health impacts to wildlife than children whose schools will be adjacent to the cables.

The proposal "repeatedly claims that it protects public health and safety," yet the record in the case provides "no school property analysis, no daycare or playground property analysis, no analysis of cumulative long-term exposure to children and medically vulnerable populations, and no explanation for why precautionary measures are appropriate for fish, birds, bats, shellfish, parklands, and water quality but not for people living and learning beside the route."

Many have criticized the state review process itself, calling it flawed and secretive. A lawyer for one vocal opponent of the project, citizens group Protect Our Coast-LINY, wrote in its opposition papers that the process was so secretive that parties were threatened with sanctions for revealing information about it.

The project developers have "expressly refused to disclose the reasons for key decisions — most notably the burial depth increase [of cables in Hempstead Harbor] — citing confidential settlement negotiations," the lawyer wrote.

"This whole process is broken," Bruce Kennedy, administrator of Sea Cliff, which is opposing the joint proposal, said of the state review process known as Article VII, noting he was threatened with sanctions on three occasions for raising questions during the process.  

NYPA in its responses to Newsday said it has “responded to questions and concerns raised by school districts and municipalities that were part of the settlement process. Because of that feedback, we have limited our construction hours near schools and coordinated construction sequencing in several areas along the project route. We also have made firm commitments to adhere to state standards for electric magnetic fields.”

Opposition was expected

Experts say the state review process keeps New York in the driver’s seat through the approval process for a reason.

"Nobody has ever liked power-line construction," said John Howard, a former PSC commissioner and chairman. "It’s anticipated people aren’t going to like it."

Whether that opposition will have an impact remains to be seen. Howard said the project appears "to have momentum now," particularly now that construction firms and unions who will be rewarded with "a jillion man-hours" of work anticipate getting started later this year. 

Among the firms awarded a pre-construction contract is the Haugland Group, a politically influential Melville-based firm that also won an $200 million-plus contract to build the Sunrise Wind farm’s land-based cable. Haugland and its leaders have donated more than $1 million to state campaigns over the years, including among other contributions, two donations of $69,700 on Nov. 3, 2021, to the Friends for Kathy Hochul campaign committee.

Haugland said in a statement that the company was "helping advance sustainable, resilient power infrastructure for Long Island, while ensuring local communities have a voice in the process and share in the benefits of this critical investment."

Hochul spokesman Ken Lovett in an email called Propel NY a "critical transmission project designed to bring much needed energy to Long Island and downstate that will help address potential power shortages in coming years. The governor expects developers and regulators to engage in regular community outreach and act with the best interests of New Yorkers in mind."

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

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