Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Village of Sea Cliff and the Village of East Hills, along with Protect Our Coast LINY Inc., the Property Owners’ Association of North Shore Acres, the Gold Coast Business Association, The Self-Consolidated Parties, and several individuals on the North Shore have filed a joint motion to dismiss Propel NY Energy to the state Public Service Commission. A correction was later issued, adding B2bespoke Inc., the Greenvale Civic Association and several more individuals to the list of parties.
North Shore, Roslyn and Syosset school districts previously filed a joint motion to dismiss Propel in July. The motion comes as comments are filed in response to the second phase of Propel’s Environmental Management and Construction Plans, which are supposed to show how Propel will meet the parameters established by developers New York Power Authority and NY Transco in their joint proposal.
Propel was selected in 2023 by the New York Independent System Operator to satisfy the Long Island Offshore Wind Export Public Policy Transmission Need. Several offshore wind projects have been cancelled since, and Propel has been rebranded as “energy-agnostic” meaning it can carry any kind of energy. Propel representatives have said that the project is not tied to any specific offshore wind or battery energy storage project. NYISO is responsible for determining what kind of power will flow on the lines.
“The commission has to answer the threshold question before anything else,” Sea Cliff Village Administrator Bruce Kennedy said. “Does this $3.26 billion project still have a demonstrated public need? And if not, let’s come up with a better plan.”
In the motion, parties ask the Public Service Commission to deny or dismiss Propel’s application, defer approval or action on EM&CP phases one and two and to receive the Khazanovich Declaration. The declaration, by PSEG Long Island Senior Director of Strategy and Planning Lucyana Khazanovich, describes Propel’s capabilities and limitations. It emerged after the record for evidence to be submitted was closed, but parties argue that the information should be considered before the PSC decides whether to grant Propel a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need.
Propel Spokeswoman Marykate Guilfoyle wrote in a statement that the project team has done community outreach, incorporating stakeholder feedback and conducting environmental studies. “We are committed to delivering a project that will help prevent blackouts and brownouts on Long Island,” she wrote, “while protecting Hempstead Harbor through robust environmental safeguards, proven construction methods, and regular monitoring.”
EM&CP Phase 2 addresses plans for horizontal directional drilling, creating tunnels under a waterway or other area for cables to be installed. Appendix AC-2 states that avoiding direct impacts on hard clam habitat is not possible because of widespread distribution in Hempstead Harbor. It adds that Propel assumes 100 percent mortality for “hard clams within bore disturbance and vessel anchoring.”
Representatives say that “direct seafloor disturbance” will be in less than 0.0001 percent of the harbor and claim they are not anticipating measurable impacts on the overall hard clam population. The EM&CP states that the HDD workspace will be roughly 2.81 acres and that temporary disturbance for activities may occur across 5.62 acres. It adds that “the actual HDD bore disturbance” at the point where the drill head emerges after completing the initial path will be roughly 13 square feet.
Kennedy described the clam mortality at HDD sites as “unacceptable.” EM&CP Phase 2 also does not include any plans for protecting oysters, which representatives claim were not found along the project’s route and will not be reached by disturbed sediment.
Nine municipalities are part of the Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee, one local organization dedicated to ensuring the health of the harbor.
Concerns have also been raised about planning details, such as determining property rights, being deferred to later phases of the project. Sea Cliff has patents from 1938, 1970 and 1975 showing the village acquired the rights to underwater land surrounding the village.
“We need a detailed plan showing exactly where they’re going,” Kennedy said, “and if in fact you do intend to trespass upon our rights, we need to know in advance, and we need to reach an agreement as it relates to that.”
Propel representatives say property rights and environmental protections are being addressed through the PSC’s review process that is standard for major transmission projects in the state.
Glen Head residents and activists against Propel Christine Panzeca and Doug Augenthaler described the planning process as “build as you go basis” in their comments on EM&CP Phase 2.
NYISO found in a 2025 short-term assessment of reliability that reliability violations could begin on Long Island in 2027, “driven by a combination of proposed generator deactivations and rising consumer demand, transmission limitations, and risks associated with the availability of key future planned projects.”
“If New York is really serious about serving the public interest in meeting Long Island’s energy needs, then the $3.2 billion should be reallocated and redirected to the true priority: reliable generation,” Panzeca said. “We should be reinvesting in environmentally responsible upgrades to Northport and Barrett (power stations) to strengthen reliability and address our future energy needs here on Long Island.”
