Thursday, October 1, 2026
The North Shore, Roslyn and Syosset school districts have formally asked the state Public Service Commission to dismiss or deny the application for the proposed Propel NY Energy transmission project, arguing that regulators lack enough information to determine whether the work can be done safely or comply with state law.
The 62-page motion, filed July 29, marks the latest escalation of opposition to the $3.26 billion project, which would install roughly 90 miles of underground high voltage transmission lines across Long Island, New York City and Westchester County. The school districts had previously rejected Propel’s joint proposal, an agreement among Propel, state agencies and other parties that determines site, environmental impact and construction requirements to which the project must adhere, along with other stakeholders. The districts contend that the information before the commission is incomplete, and fails to adequately evaluate environmental impacts on schools, students and communities.
“The School Districts act as political subdivisions of the State and, as a result, are charged with fulfilling the State’s educational mandates and protecting the health and welfare of thousands of school-aged children; they are not marginal stakeholders in this proceeding,” the filing states. “Collectively, the School Districts represent the health, safety, and educational interests of more than 13,000 students and serve communities of over 70,000 residents and taxpayers.”
The motion argues the commission does not have critical information about construction traffic, electromagnetic fields, mitigation measures and other environmental impacts, which has either not been provided or has been deferred to future Environmental Management and Construction Plans, known as EM&CPs.
In response, Propel spokeswoman Marykate Guilfoyle asserted the importance of the project to the state energy grid, and claimed that Propel has made every effort to accommodate the districts.
“Propel NY is critically needed energy infrastructure that will significantly boost grid reliability and resiliency,” Guilfoyle wrote in a statement on Wednesday. “We have responded to questions and concerns raised by school districts and municipalities that were part of the settlement process. Because of that feedback, we have limited our construction hours near schools and coordinated construction sequencing in several communities along the project route.”
Guilfoyle reiterated that the project has worked closely with the districts to minimize impact, and that studies have found that there is no risk to human or animal health from underground transmission lines.
Local activist Christine Panzeca, of Glen Head, said the filing reflects concerns raised by many of the parties participating in the state review.
“I think in conjunction with the letters of opposition, this [request for] dismissal highlights key flaws in the process and the dismissal of legitimate concerns of people who are party to the case,” Panzeca said. “The majority of parties to the case did not sign on to the joint proposal. How can that be representative of anything when the majority of the parties to the case did not sign on, citing serious concerns and flaws?”
The motion comes as municipalities, environmental organizations and residents continue filing papers opposing various aspects of the proposal.
Sea Cliff Village Administrator Bruce Kennedy said that the village participated in more than 200 hours of settlement discussions before deciding not to support the joint proposal negotiated by a limited number of parties.
“We did not feel that they had adequately addressed the concerns that we had brought up repeatedly during the process,” Kennedy said.
Sea Cliff’s objections have centered largely on Hempstead Harbor. The village, Kennedy said, believes that the joint proposal fails to adequately protect oyster beds, navigation and underwater property rights.
Among the village’s most recent filings is a July 21 submission arguing that developers have not demonstrated that they have the legal authority to construct portions of the project across underwater lands subject to historic grants owned by the Village of Sea Cliff.
“The Commission should not decide how the Applicant may construct across Hempstead Harbor until the Applicant establishes where it proposes to construct, who owns or controls the affected lands, and what legal authority it has to occupy and burden them,” Kennedy wrote in the filing.
Panzeca said that the growing number of municipalities, school districts, civic groups and residents publicly opposing the project demonstrates broader dissatisfaction.
“The fact of the matter is local stakeholders who are directly impacted by this project spent time, money and resources to participate, to have a say in the process, and we’re all being dismissed,” she reiterated. “If the governor wants to talk about local say and local control, well, then we should be starting with Propel.”
The Public Service Commission has not yet ruled on the districts’ motion.
