Saturday, October 10, 2026
The Village of Sea Cliff has filed a study by Cashin Associates, P.C. with the state’s Public Service Commission that estimates that hundreds of thousands of hard clams could be killed in Hempstead Harbor during construction of the Propel NY Energy Project — the 90-mile underground and submarine electric transmission initiative designed to modernize Long Island’s power grid.
After issuing the $3.26 billion project a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need to advance in the state’s permitting process last month, the PSC allowed public comments to be submitted on Propel’s first two phases of environmental management and construction plans through Oct. 1.
Phase 2 addressed plans for horizontal directional drilling, creating tunnels under a waterway or other area for cables to be installed. Appendix AC-2 of the plan states that avoiding direct impacts on hard clam habitat is not possible because of widespread distribution in Hempstead Harbor. It includes an assumption of 100 percent hard clam mortality “within bore disturbance and vessel anchoring.” Propel uses data from a 2021 survey to estimate impacts on clams and oysters, with its analysis indicating 9 to 54 clams would die.
As part of its additional comments on Phase 2, the village submitted the Cashin report, indicating that the impact on the harbor’s shellfish population could be significantly worse than Propel’s estimation.
Marykate Guilfoyle, Propel’s spokeswoman, wrote in a statement that the recently filed Cashin report relies on assumptions and “hypothetical scenarios.”
“We would have welcomed the opportunity while the record was open in the Article VII process to review and respond to such reports,” she wrote. “The submarine cable route and installation will avoid and minimize impacts while adhering to many restrictions and requirements that project marine life, water quality and use of the waters. Our programs such as net conservation benefits, fisheries compensation, and hard-shell clam mitigation, under the direction of (the Department of Environmental Conservation) and based on scientific data, will ensure long-term health of the harbor and sound.”
While Propel representatives maintain that a small number of clams would be impacted, the Cashin report applies the 100 percent mortality assumption to Hempstead Harbor shellfish density data, estimating roughly 12 acres of direct disturbance and more than 200,000 mature clams within the area, as well as more than 43,000 not yet mature clams.
The Cashin report also assumes a 25 percent mortality beyond the area being directly disturbed. Overall, the report estimates a potential loss of more than 320,000 hard clams.
Propel representatives said the 9 to 54 range applies only to horizontal directional drilling sites and do not include mortality for hard clams associated with submarine trenching, a construction method that will be included in Propel’s fifth phase of environmental management and construction plans. Phase 2 included an impact minimization plan for hard clams associated with horizontal directional drilling.
Propel representatives held the project’s quarterly webinar on Sept. 30. The webinar included a model of construction in the harbor and where Propel’s survey observed oysters in relation the project route. According to the model, oysters were recorded closer to the shoreline and not along the project route.
The Cashin report estimated more than 50,000 oysters could be affected “in the direct and adjacent disturbance areas.”
Propel representatives maintained that both surveys show no oysters along the project route. They added that Propel used sampling methods and previous Cashin data recorded by divers.
Sea Cliff’s comments also state that the village’s underwater property rights objection has not been resolved. The village presented the PSC with patents showing rights to underwater land in the harbor. Glen Head marina owner John Gladsky and the Iroquois Gas Transmission System have also raised concerns in filings over underwater land ownership.
Gladsky said at a community meeting on Sept. 30 that he has “a lot of vested interest in the harbor” and shared his experience owning Gladsky Marine on the harbor.
“Federal money was expended years and years ago to construct the breakwater to protect the moored vessels,” he said. “More money has been spent to improve that breakwater, more federal money to protect the vessels. By Propel running this cable down the middle of the federal anchorage, you’re desanctifying the efforts of that money that was spent to protect the vessels.”
The PSC’s order adopting Propel’s joint proposal in September states that the PSC “does not have jurisdiction over land use designation or property rights.”
At the meeting, held at the Gold Coast Public Library, more than 70 community members and local officials discussed updates on Propel’s approval status. They also discussed options for next steps, like accepting the project, continuing to fight it or moving out of the community.
Christine Panzeca and Dough Augenthaler, Glen Head residents and advocates against Propel, as well as Sea Cliff Village Administrator Bruce Kennedy urged attendees to contact the Army Corps of Engineers — the next stage of approval needed — telling them not to approve the project. Construction cannot begin without federal approval or approval of all five phases of environmental management and construction plans.
“If we’re not getting what we need out of the state,” Kennedy said, “we go above their heads.”
On Oct. 2, the PSC issued the project a water quality certification with conditions Propel must meet. The Village of Sea Cliff filed a motion on Oct. 6 for the PSC to review, cancel or suspend the certification.
A GoFundMe has been created by Augenthaler for community members to donate to help pay legal fees for an attorney assisting advocates with participating in the state permitting process.
North Shore residents and officials, like Kennedy, have said that they believe the PSC has ignored concerns from and evidence put forth by the community.
“The commission approved the (joint proposal),” Panzeca said at the Sept. 30 meeting. “They did not change one word. The only thing that was robust about this whole process is the (Department of Public Service) and the Public Service Commission robustly ignored the public. They ignored every argument.”
In a statement, Department of Public Service Executive Deputy Tom Congdon wrote that the PSC must ensure electric service is safe and reliable and has determined that Propel is needed to “maintain and enhance” reliability in New York City and on Long Island.
“The Commission realizes that it must balance the energy needs of New Yorkers and the required infrastructure development with sensitive habitats, and public health,” Congdon wrote. “The Commission has been responsive to many of the public comments received and will continue to consider the interest of host communities and public comments as the project moves forward.”
Additional reporting by Will Sheeline.
