NYS panel bars testimony that raises questions about need for Propel cable project
An aerial view of the property for a proposed substation for the Propel NY Energy cable project on Shore Road in Glenwood Landing. The view looks toward Hempstead Harbor. Credit: Newsday/J. Conrad Williams Jr.
A three-judge panel overseeing the state review of a high-voltage cable from Long Island to Westchester has barred the testimony of a senior PSEG analyst in an unrelated case that raised questions about the need for the Propel NY Energy project.
In denying motions by several North Shore opponents of the $3.26 billion cable, the judges noted that the testimony "existed prior" to the closing of the official record in the case and "could have been cited" in their prior filings. They also said the filing failed to raise issues not already on the record in their case, even though opponents argued that a LIPA filing that contained the testimony was posted days after the record in the Propel case closed.
As Newsday first reported last month, a senior analyst at PSEG Long Island, in a sworn declaration in an unrelated federal case by LIPA, said Propel would "simply shift" power constraints in the region "rather than eliminate them."
The testimony states that LIPA "would not gain meaningful access to upstate generation resources or broader regional capacity" through Propel.
"Even assuming the three [Propel] transmission lines enter service in 2030, there is limited surplus of capacity in Con Edison’s territory, and there remains a bottleneck ... that limits access of upstate generating capacity to Westchester," the LIPA complaint said, citing the PSEG analyst's declaration. "Permitting for new generation between the northward bottleneck and Westchester faces the same challenges as on Long Island."
But judges refused to admit the testimony.
"In our view, even assuming the statements in the affidavit are accurate regarding the [Propel] project’s purported benefits and limitations, such allegations are not inherently inconsistent with the evidence in the record and, in our view, further discovery on the issue would not materially enhance the record," the judges wrote.
Opponents of the project were quick to pounce.
Bruce Kennedy, the administrator for the Village of Sea Cliff who has written many of the opposition briefs, including one citing the PSEG testimony, took issue with the judge’s failure to equally question new documents cited by Propel’s developers as they moved to dissuade the judges from allowing the LIPA testimony.
"In our view, it is procedural misconduct that creates an unfair evidentiary advantage and threatens the integrity of the commission’s adjudicatory process," Kennedy wrote in a release Thursday.
The developers of Propel at the New York Power Authority and New York Transco had argued that the PSEG testimony raising questions about the need for the cable was both too late to be admitted and irrelevant to the case.
Efforts to include the PSEG testimony by the opponents are "an attempt to reopen the record and continue litigating issues that have already been the subject of extensive record development and briefing," the developers argued, saying neither the judges nor the PSC "need revisit indefinitely the evidentiary record whenever a party identifies another question that it wishes had been asked, wishes to ask again, or remains unsatisfied with a prior answer."
Meanwhile, Garden City Public Schools has filed comments opposing the plans for the project. While not a party to the case, the district’s superintendent, Kusum Sinah, expressed "concerns" about the planned project and "opposition to further action" to approve the project until "further study and analysis is provided to address the impact it may have on staff, school facilities, residents and the surrounding community."
Propel’s developers say they have met through nearly 3 years of planning with community groups and other stakeholders and have addressed concerns, which include traffic congestion, health worries over the multiple 345,000-volt lines near homes and schools, and impacts to businesses.
Kennedy in his statement Thursday charged that an "environmentally destructive project backed by enormous financial resources" isn't needed.
"Anyone who still thinks Propel NY is a good idea should do some research and ask one basic question: What specific power source justifies it?" Kennedy wrote. "Calling the project ‘generation agnostic’ does not answer that question. Even a $3.26 billion extension cord needs something to plug into."
Asked to comment on the Sea Cliff and Garden City Public Schools statements, NYPA spokeswoman Susan Craig said the Village of Sea Cliff was a party to the process and has been engaged on project safeguards and environmental protections that will be included during construction ... once approved."
She noted that the Propel team has engaged with the Garden City School District and "feedback received from the school was incorporated into project planning.”
Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.
'It's personal to me' The law would require businesses to have proper state licensing, prove that their employees are paid and ban staff from living at the spas or sleeping there overnight. Repeat offenders could face penalties up to $25,000. NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn has more.
'It's personal to me' The law would require businesses to have proper state licensing, prove that their employees are paid and ban staff from living at the spas or sleeping there overnight. Repeat offenders could face penalties up to $25,000. NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn has more.
