To the Editor:
Propel NY was selected to meet a specific public need. That need has changed dramatically. New York should stop pretending otherwise.
In 2021, the Public Service Commission identified the “Long Island Offshore Wind Export Public Policy Transmission Need.” Its stated purpose was to ensure that at least 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind could be exported from Long Island to the rest of the state.
The anticipated offshore-wind generation created the need. The need produced the solicitation. The solicitation produced Propel.
Now we are being told to forget the first step and spend $3.26 billion on the third.
Propel’s representatives recently emphasized that the project is not an offshore wind project, is not tied to battery storage and is not “wed to any one generation source.” Instead, they call it “generation agnostic” — capable of carrying electricity from virtually any source in either direction.
That should alarm ratepayers, not reassure them.
A transmission line does not generate a single watt of electricity. Without sufficient generation to fill it, Propel would be an extraordinarily expensive empty highway.
Empire Wind 2, upon which much of Propel’s anticipated early benefit depended, lost its state contract. Other offshore wind plans have been canceled, delayed or reconfigured. Yet, instead of reconsidering whether Propel remains necessary, its supporters have simply replaced its original justification with a broader one: someday, someone will generate electricity somewhere, and these lines might carry it.
That is not energy planning. It is a multibillion-dollar leap of faith.
The economic warning signs were already flashing. NYISO’s independent Market Monitoring Unit estimated that Propel’s benefits were lower than its costs, producing a 20-year benefit-cost ratio of only 0.81. It found another proposal that was more cost-effective and concluded that proceeding with Propel was premature and “not advisable.” Without Empire Wind 2, it estimated Propel’s 2030 benefit-cost ratio could fall to approximately 0.1.
Environmental groups now lining up behind Propel should take a harder look at what they are actually endorsing.
A transmission line is not inherently clean, green or renewable. Its environmental character depends entirely on what generates the electricity placed onto it. By the applicants’ own admission, Propel could carry electricity produced by wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear power or anything else connected to the grid.
A generation-agnostic transmission line is no more inherently renewable than an empty highway is inherently reserved for electric cars.
No nuclear plant is currently proposed for Long Island. But if one were proposed in the future, Propel’s massive new transmission capacity could be cited as infrastructure capable of carrying its output across the state. Nothing reserves these lines for renewable energy.
Before committing ratepayers to $3.26 billion, the State must identify the generation expected to use Propel, demonstrate that the capacity will actually be needed and conduct a new independent cost-benefit analysis based on today’s energy landscape.
The facts changed. The public need changed. The analysis must change, too.
New Yorkers should not be forced to finance a $3.26 billion solution while the state is still searching for the problem it is supposed to solve.
— Bruce Kennedy