The Village of Sea Cliff and North Shore-area school districts are challenging the state’s approval of the Propel NY Energy transmission project, arguing that regulators failed to adequately address environmental risks, school safety and whether the $3.26 billion project remains necessary in light of changes in offshore wind development.
The challenges come as the state has withdrawn Propel’s water quality certification, and is directing the developer to submit a formal certification application after Sea Cliff questioned how the approval was issued and whether the public had adequate opportunities to review the evidence related to the environmental impact.
The state Public Service Commission, which approved the overall project on Sept. 17, issued a water quality certification on Oct. 2, but withdrew it on Oct. 19 following objections from the village, according to Bruce Kennedy, Sea Cliff’s village administrator. The PSC had not responded to a request for comment by press time.
The village and three area school districts, including North Shore, have filed petitions for a rehearing to challenge the commission’s approval. They seek reconsideration of the decision and argue that important questions about the impacts of the project remain unresolved.
Christine Panzeca, a Glen Head resident who opposes Propel, said the filings reflect concerns that regulators have approved the project without adequately supporting their conclusions. “The overwhelming theme here is that the PSC and Propel are ignoring the impacted communities to push forward their project,” Panzeca said.
The water quality certification is required by the federal Clean Water Act. Kennedy wrote in a statement that Sea Cliff challenged the certification because the village could not identify a formal application by Propel in the public record, determine what public review had taken place or establish how the state had addressed the project’s potential environmental damage to Hempstead Harbor.
“What I find particularly troubling is that the state issued a water quality certification on Oct. 2,” Kennedy wrote, “but after the village challenged that action, the state withdrew the approval and directed Propel to submit the very application that should have been available for public scrutiny before any certification was granted.”
Kennedy explained that the village has raised concerns about disturbance of the harbor bottom, destruction of shellfish habitat and potential damage to an ecosystem that local communities have spent decades restoring.
Propel spokeswoman Marykate Guilfoyle claimed that the certification’s rescission would not affect the project’s progress. “This is purely an administrative activity,” Guilfoyle wrote in a statement. “All aspects of this permit and project — our route, environmental studies, modeling and monitoring, and construction means and methods — are well documented and available in the public record.”
She added that Propel had resubmitted its application and would continue advancing permitting in order to begin construction later this year.
Kennedy wrote that submitting an application does not establish environmental compliance, and called for a transparent review, meaningful public participation and a decision based on scientific evidence.
The school districts’ petition argues that the commission’s Sept. 17 order contained errors of fact and law, overlooked material evidence and relied on unsupported assumptions about the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.
The districts contend that the commission did not adequately address potential effects on student safety, school operations, transportation and their educational environments. They also argue that the order fails to account for financial and operational burdens on public schools and unresolved questions about electromagnetic field exposure near school facilities.
“Although the school districts presented substantial evidence concerning the Project’s adverse impacts on student safety, school operations, transportation operations, and educational environments,” the petition states, “the order largely responds with conclusory findings, generalized references to future coordination, and unsupported assumptions regarding mitigation effectiveness.”
The districts, which include Roslyn and Syosset, are seeking a stay of the commission’s order while their petition is considered. District representatives, including those from Garden City, Hicksville, and Manhasset school districts, were scheduled to hold a news conference on Thursday, at the North Shore School District’s transportation facility in Glenwood Landing, to address their petition.
Guilfoyle wrote that the commission thoroughly evaluated the issues raised by the districts, and added that Propel had engaged with schools along the route for years to identify necessary safety measures and to share details of construction and scheduling.
Sea Cliff’s petition also challenges the PSC’s assessment of Propel’s public need, arguing that cancellations and delays of offshore wind development have undermined the project’s original justification.
The village disputes the commission’s reliance on an estimated 1,866 megawatts of offshore wind generation as evidence of need, arguing that Empire Wind 1 Project— an offshore wind farm developed by Equinor located in the Atlantic Ocean south of Long Island — which accounts for 810 megawatts, connects to New York City’s electrical grid rather than Long Island’s.
According to the village’s petition, South Fork Wind and Sunrise Wind — two other offshore wind farm projects — are the projects identified in the commission’s order that connect or are planned to connect to Long Island, totaling roughly 1,056 megawatts.
The filing also questions whether electricity generated in eastern Long Island can be delivered to Propel’s proposed connection given existing transmission constraints.
Propel maintains that the project offers reliability benefits and can transmit electricity regardless of its generation source. The company has also argued that detailed construction plans and environmental protections will be addressed in the later phases of its environmental management and construction plan.
The village, and the school districts, are seeking a rehearing and an interim stay of the commission’s order.
The commission’s decision to withdraw the water quality certification adds another step to Propel’s permitting process, but did not reverse the Sept. 17 approval of the overall project.
Additional reporting by Julia Capitelli
