Thursday, October 1, 2026
For generations, Hempstead Harbor has been central to life in Sea Cliff. Residents gather to swim, sail, fish, kayak and enjoy the natural beauty of our community. The harbor sustains beaches, marinas, yacht clubs, wildlife and local businesses. After decades of neglect, it has made a remarkable recovery because municipalities and residents refused to give up on it.
That progress is now at risk from the proposed Propel NY Energy project, which would install high‑voltage transmission cables through Hempstead Harbor.
Sea Cliff’s opposition is the product of careful review — not reflex or reluctance. The village became a formal party to the Public Service Commission proceeding on Dec. 2, 2024. Since then, village representatives have taken part in more than 200 settlement conference sessions and dedicated countless hours to studying technical documents, environmental analyses and legal filings. We have submitted more than a dozen letters, briefs, comments and objections, each outlining the protections we believe the harbor requires.
We entered the settlement process in good faith, seeking clear and enforceable safeguards. Time and again, we identified the protections needed to ensure the harbor’s safety. Yet Propel chose not to adequately address these concerns, leaving critical issues to future Environmental Management and Construction Plans — after principal approvals would already be granted.
Sea Cliff isn’t alone in its reservations. Only 10 of the proceeding’s 79 parties signed the Joint Proposal submitted by Propel. None of Nassau County’s three towns — Hempstead, North Hempstead and Oyster Bay — signed it. The North Shore Central School District also submitted opposition papers. Together, these objections illustrate substantial unresolved concerns from the communities most directly affected.
The Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee shares our position: The Joint Proposal does not sufficiently protect the harbor. Since 1995, the committee has united municipalities, advanced water‑quality improvements and helped lead shellfish‑restoration efforts that have added millions of oysters and clams to harbor waters — work that transformed a once‑degraded harbor into an environmental success story. When the organization established specifically to protect the harbor warns that stronger safeguards are needed, that warning must be taken seriously.
The project’s purpose has also shifted. Originally promoted as a transmission pathway for offshore wind energy from Long Island to New York City and Westchester, it is now described as an “energy‑agnostic,” two‑way system capable of carrying electricity from any source, in either direction. The Joint Proposal contains no guarantee that the power transmitted will be offshore wind — or any renewable energy. This significant change warrants public scrutiny.
Sea Cliff recognizes the importance of a reliable electric grid and understands that major infrastructure projects may be necessary. But necessity can’t justify weak environmental protections. We shouldn’t have to choose between reliable electricity and a healthy Hempstead Harbor. If this project advances, Propel Applicant must be required to use the strongest available safeguards, prevent avoidable damage and take full responsibility for any harm caused.
Installing submarine cables would disturb the harbor bottom, suspend sediments and create turbidity plumes. Given the harbor’s industrial history, project documents identify monitoring thresholds involving arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, dioxins, and furans. Disturbing those sediments could threaten water quality, marine habitat, shellfish beds and public beaches.
The proposed protections act too late. Work would not automatically stop when pollution limits are first exceeded. By the time officials are notified and corrective action begins, contaminated sediment may already have spread through the harbor.
The village requested clear shutdown standards, immediate municipal notification, sediment‑containment measures, independent testing, beach protections, and full responsibility for immediate cleanup and restoration. These are reasonable safeguards — practical measures to prevent harm, not obstacles to progress.
Sea Cliff’s ownership rights beneath Hempstead Harbor must also be resolved before any approval is granted. The village holds historic state grants of lands underwater that the proposed cable route may trespass on or permanently impair. These property rights can’t be ignored or deferred for later resolution. The proposed burial depth is only a target, and if it proves unfeasible, concrete mattresses or similar structures could limit generations of residents from accessing and using the harbor for activities like boating, sailing, fishing and mooring that have long been part of Sea Cliff’s identity.
The harbor’s recovery took decades. After extensive and good‑faith participation, Sea Cliff cannot support a Joint Proposal that fails to adequately protect a resource we all cherish. The village board will continue to insist on a transparent, scientifically sound review that safeguards the harbor, its surrounding communities and future generations.
Elena Villafane is the mayor of Sea Cliff.
