Long Island Divided: Propel NY's Urgent Need Collides with Private Profits and Public Risks

Long Island faces a critical challenge with its aging electric grid, which is increasingly struggling to meet demand, especially during soaring temperatures and heatwaves. This necessitates significant investment to ensure reliability and efficiency for the region. The proposed solution, Propel NY Energy, a $3.26 billion project, aims to upgrade the constrained and congested grid, but it has sparked a contentious debate regarding its benefits, costs, and local impacts.

Proponents, like Bob Catell, chairman of the Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center at Stony Brook University, emphasize the vital need for Propel NY Energy. He argues that the project is essential to prevent costly outages that disproportionately affect Long Islanders. Catell highlights that electricity prices in June 2025 more than doubled compared to other parts of the state due to delivery problems, where power generated elsewhere could not reach Long Island because of transmission capacity limitations. Propel would create additional transmission capacity, alleviating congestion, allowing energy to flow more freely and economically. A study estimated that Long Island ratepayers could have collectively saved over $100 million in a 12-month period if Propel's capacity had been available. Beyond cost savings, the project promises enhanced reliability for critical services like police, emergency services, hospitals, and local businesses, and it is expected to create jobs during construction. Catell acknowledges the temporary inconvenience of construction but insists these disruptions are minor compared to the grave risks of inaction, advocating for proper oversight, clear communication, and advance planning to manage the process effectively.

Conversely, critics like Bruce Kennedy, a Glen Cove resident and village administrator of Sea Cliff, challenge the narrative of Propel NY Energy as a purely public-spirited endeavor, asserting that the underlying business model is primarily profit-driven. NY Transco, a consortium owned by affiliates of major utilities including Con Edison and National Grid, is developing Propel. Kennedy points out that under federally approved rate terms, NY Transco's owners are projected to collect approximately $132 million annually as a return on investment once the project is operational, while ratepayers would cover all other costs, including borrowing, depreciation, operating expenses, and taxes. He argues that the financial arrangement is structured such that profits are privatized, but the risks are socialized, with ratepayers even covering costs if the project is abandoned for reasons beyond the owners' control.

Kennedy further details the severe physical consequences for Long Island communities. Propel involves installing approximately 80 miles of new underground transmission lines, largely beneath public roads in densely developed areas. This would entail years of extensive trenching, lane closures, detours, and construction staging, particularly affecting critical routes in communities like Glen Head and Glenwood Landing. Such prolonged disruption is predicted to cause daily gridlock, delay school buses and emergency vehicles, and harm local businesses. Concerns are also raised about the quality of road restoration, with past utility work often resulting in substandard repairs. Kennedy advocates for a requirement for curb-to-curb road restoration and long-term responsibility for pavement integrity.

Environmental and safety concerns are also significant. The project's route would cut through Hempstead Harbor, potentially disturbing sediment and habitat that communities have spent decades restoring. On land, large excavations (around 37 feet long, 13 feet wide, and 10 feet deep) would be required at intervals, some potentially near local streets used by children walking to school. The risk of underground electrical-vault failures, which have historically caused explosions and injuries, is also a serious safety concern. Furthermore, Kennedy calls for a comprehensive electromagnetic-field (EMF) analysis that considers cumulative exposure from both existing infrastructure and the new Propel lines, rather than just modeling the new cables, noting that the proposed post-construction measurements are insufficient. He urges the Public Service Commission to scrutinize the financial structure and the full, long-term costs and risks to the public before granting approval.