Thursday, October 1, 2026
The New York State Public Service Commission has granted the Propel NY Energy project a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need, clearing a major regulatory hurdle for the $3.26 billion transmission project, despite continued opposition from North Shore communities.
The commission issued its order on Sept. 17, adopting the terms of a joint proposal submitted by the New York Power Authority and New York Transco. The certificate allows the project to advance toward construction, subject to numerous conditions and additional approval of environmental management and construction plans.
The PSC’s order found that the project satisfies a public need and that significant environmental impacts would be avoided or minimized to the “extent practicable.” It also found that the project is necessary to maintain system reserve margins, maintain electric reliability in New York City and on Long Island, and facilitate the goals of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.
Motions concerning the project had been filed with the PSC by the North Shore, Roslyn and Syosset school districts and the villages of Sea Cliff and East Hills, along with local residents and organizations. Those efforts were rejected by the commission.
Developers of the power project filed the joint proposal in April. The proposal establishes conditions the project must meet, including requirements concerning environmental protection, construction, monitoring and mitigation. Only 10 of the 43 parties participating when the joint proposal was filed signed on, with the majority of signatories being state entities, such as the state departments for environmental conservation, agriculture and markets.
“The issuance of the certificate of environmental compatibility and public need is a significant milestone for Propel NY Energy,” NY Transco President Joris Veldhoven and NYPA President Justin Driscoll wrote in a joint statement, “and reflects the extensive record before the Public Service Commission that has included years of planning, environmental and technical review, and meaningful, inclusive community engagement that incorporates local voices and values.”
Many North Shore residents have opposed the project since the New York Independent System Operator selected Propel in 2023 to address the Long Island Public Policy Transmission Need associated with offshore wind. Opposition has included concerns about public health, safety, environmental impacts, traffic, construction and communication with affected communities.
The PSC’s order acknowledged changes in the offshore wind industry, including projects that have been canceled, but concluded that the transmission project remains necessary. The commission pointed to existing and planned offshore wind generation as well as broader reliability concerns.
The commission wrote recent NYISO assessments have identified growing reliability risks resulting from retiring generation, increasing electricity demand and transmission constraints. According to the PSC, Propel would more than double Long Island’s power import capability and significantly increase reliability.
Sea Cliff Village Administrator Bruce Kennedy described the PSC’s decision as “a remarkable display of regulatory tone-deafness.”
“The only thing robust about this project or this whole procedure has been the way they ignore people with legitimate concerns,” Kennedy told the Herald. “The argument is this issue has already been litigated and decided, and the and the PSC decided that their own rules and the decisions of their own ALJ’s (administrative law judges) doesn’t matter.”
Kennedy and Glen Head resident Christine Panzeca, an advocate against Propel, wrote in separate statements on Sept. 18 that they believe arguments and evidence residents and local municipalities provided were ignored.
The PSC’s ruling rejects opposition arguments concerning the project’s potential impacts, finding that the conditions in the joint proposal and subsequent environmental management and construction plans are sufficient to minimize significant adverse impacts to the extent practicable.
Hempstead Harbor was specifically addressed in the commission’s review. Opponents argued that the proposal did not provide adequate safeguards for the harbor, including concerns about the project’s submarine cable work and potential effects on recreational and ecological resources.
“We have to go to experts and we have to have studies done, and we continue to do that because our concern is the health, the longevity, the continued use of the harbor,” Kennedy said, “and if they want to keep ignoring and minimizing, and in some cases outright lying about the impact, then we’re going to keep digging.”
He added that the village had paid to have a separate impact study done, and while it is not ready to be submitted to the public, he claimed that the preliminary results suggest that Propel’s projection of less than 100 dead shellfish is off by a margin of hundreds of thousands.
The commission concluded that the record contained sufficient environmental analysis and that the project, if constructed and operated according to the certificate conditions, would minimize significant impacts to Hempstead Harbor and other water bodies to the extent practicable.
The commission extended the public comment periods for the project’s first two construction plan phases to Oct. 1. In response, the Village of Sea Cliff filed a motion for a stay of the Oct. 1 deadline, arguing that by setting this deadline to submit comment, the PSC has reduced the required 30-day comment period. On Thursday, the PSC denied the motion, asserting that the village’s argument that more time was needed for public participation “lacks merit.”
The PSC’s order ultimately adopted the joint proposal and associated certificate conditions and granted the certificate under Article VII of the Public Service Law. The proceeding will continue as the project’s environmental management and construction plans undergo review.
Kennedy emphasized that the village would continue to fight to protect its residents and harbor, and Panzeca echoed Kennedy’s intention to explore next steps.
“There are multiple legal actions that can be taken. There can be petitions for a re-hearing. There can be litigation in the appellate court, and you can take this all the way up to the court of appeals,” she said. “So, there are numerous legal actions that can be pursued, and their decision is the gift that keeps on giving because in their rush to push this through, they’ve opened themselves up to the injustice that they committed.”
