The $3.26 billion Propel NY Energy project is facing renewed scrutiny over its extensive network of lobbyists, consultants, contractors and political connections as residents and local officials question how the project is being advanced and whether their concerns are receiving adequate attention.
New York Transco, the developer behind Propel, has spent more than $1.9 million lobbying state and local officials on Propel and other utility matters since 2022, including more than $327,000 in the first six months of this year.
Propel spokeswoman Marykate Guilfoyle wrote in an email that the spending reflects the scale and complexity of the project.
“Propel NY is designed to avoid brownouts and blackouts while strengthening the local economy and lowering the cost of power,” Guilfoyle wrote. “New York Transco prioritizes safety, proactive education, regulatory compliance, and transparency in all project activities. As such, like other infrastructure developers, we retain experts to ensure state and local officials, municipalities, and other stakeholders have accurate and timely information about this complex and vital project. These expenditures are paid for by New York Transco.”
Guilfoyle said that lobbying expenditures are accounted for separately from ratepayer costs, and represent less than 0.06 percent of the total project cost. The project team, she added, must provide information to more than 14,000 project “abutters” and 35 municipalities along the 90-mile project footprint.
Assemblyman Charles Lavine, whose district includes much of the North Shore route, said that New York’s lobbying disclosure laws provide transparency into such spending.
“Well, the law is such, and we helped pass that law, that lobbyists have to report the amounts they’ve spent, and who they’ve spent that funding on, and with whom they have interacted,” Lavine explained. “So the transparency is there. I’m not altogether sure what more could be done to provide greater transparency, and the fact that these issues are well known by the public indicates that there is sufficient transparency.”
Lavine’s son, Gregory Lavine, works for McBride Consulting and Business Development Group, which Propel has retained for stakeholder outreach and regulatory matters. Guilfoyle wrote that Gregory Lavine does not work on the Propel project.
Charles Lavine said he has taken steps to communicate the concerns of Propel’s opponents to state regulators. His office, he said, has submitted opponents’ petitions to the state Public Service Commission, and he has sent his own letters expressing concern about the project.
Glen Head resident Christine Panzeca, a prominent opponent of Propel, said that the project’s political relationships raise questions about whether residents’ concerns are receiving sufficient attention.
“I think that our three town supervisors here in Nassau County have done a wonderful job in representing the interests of their residents, whether it be battery storage or whether it be the lack of transparency and accountability related to Propel, based upon the press release that they issued,” Panzeca said, “and I feel very fortunate that we have members of our legislature here in Nassau County that represent our interests and have spoken out publicly with regards to Propel.”
Panzeca specifically praised U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi, Assemblyman Jake Blumencranz and Nassau County legislators who have opposed or questioned aspects of the project.
Suozzi’s office provided a statement saying that he opposes the project in its current form. “Congressman Suozzi believes the Propel proposal does not address the legitimate concerns raised by local residents,” it reads, “including: (1) protecting the harbors that the community and he have worked so hard to restore; (2) the impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and businesses; and (3) whether reasonable alternative routes have been fully considered. After listening closely to community members, Congressman Suozzi opposes the proposal in its current form because too many critical questions remain unanswered and too many potential impacts have yet to be fully evaluated.”
Sea Cliff Village Administrator Bruce Kennedy said the village’s concerns extend beyond lobbying and political relationships to what he described as a lack of direct communication.
“Neither Propel nor their representatives have ever directly reached out to the Village of Sea Cliff for anything,” Kennedy said. “They’ve never asked for a meeting.”
Kennedy said that the village has received mailings and legal notices, but has not been directly consulted about its concerns.
“The applicant has no respect for any of the potentially affected individuals, organizations, municipalities, businesses,” he said. “They have proceeded forward as if this was all a predetermined outcome, and that they’re just going through the motions.”
Propel disputes that characterization. Guilfoyle wrote that the project team has engaged with local communities for over two years, and has modified the project in response to stakeholder input, including moving portions of the route off a residential road on the North Shore and limiting construction near schools during bus arrival and dismissal times.
The project also remains subject to regulatory approvals. Construction cannot begin, Guilfoyle said, until required approvals are obtained, including a state certificate, Environmental Management and Construction Plans and a notice to proceed, in addition to federal permits.
Panzeca, however, said the project’s pre-construction activity sends a different message.
“Propel is trying to move this project forward,” she said. “They’re giving precontracts and are having those who stand to benefit financially from the projects now go out and lobby for the project as well.”
As the Public Service Commission continues its review, the dispute over Propel’s political relationships and community outreach remains intertwined with the larger disagreement over whether the project is necessary.
Kennedy said the central question remains, “What is the public need for this project?”
Guilfoyle reiterated in her email that the need has been established by the New York Independent System Operator, citing reliability concerns, transmission congestion and rising demand for electricity.
