The case against Propel NY: Why upstate shouldn’t pay for a dead mandate | Opinion

May 21st, 2025

Justin Wilcox Special to the USA TODAY Network – May 21, 2025

Key Points:

• New York’s $3.2 billion Propel NY transmission project, initially intended for offshore wind power delivery, is now questionable due to the state’s stalled offshore wind projects.
• The Public Service Commission’s justification for the project and its cost-sharing model relied heavily on now-defunct offshore wind goals.
• A project developer admitted the project has “zero” connection to offshore wind, contradicting the PSC’s initial reasoning.
• Upstate ratepayers are questioning the cost-sharing model, arguing they shouldn’t subsidize a downstate project unrelated to original stated goals.
• The PSC is urged to re-evaluate the project’s necessity and cost allocation given the changed circumstances.

No matter where you stand on New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, one thing is clear: the $3.2 billion Propel NY transmission project, originally pitched to deliver offshore wind power onto and through Long Island, is no longer necessary.

When the Public Service Commission approved the project in its order on March 18, 2021, it cited a public policy requirement tied directly to the CLCPA’s offshore wind goals. At that time, the state’s plan to develop nine gigawatts of offshore wind by 2035 seemed feasible. The PSC maintained the “beneficiaries pay” principle, meaning downstate ratepayers would cover 75% of the costs, since they were the primary beneficiaries, while the remaining 25% would be split across the state.

Without missing a beat, just a month later, petitioners, including the Long Island Power Authority challenged the cost allocation, arguing that because offshore wind was a state mandate, the entire state should bear the cost. Despite two commissioners dissenting, the PSC reversed its decision and adopted a cost-sharing model that shifted the financial burden statewide, forcing upstate residents, who already meet or exceed renewable energy targets, to help pay for a project primarily benefiting downstate.

At the core of the PSC’s decision was the determination that Propel NY was essential to meet the CLCPA’s offshore wind target. The City of New York echoed this, saying the transmission was “to facilitate achievement of the CLCPA’s offshore wind goals.” The term “offshore wind” appears 37 times in the rehearing order, underscoring just how central it was to the PSC’s justification for the project and the new cost-sharing formula.

Fast-forward to 2025, and that justification has collapsed.

Offshore wind in New York has stalled — completely. The projects that originally supported the PSC’s decision no longer exist. The state’s 9 GW offshore wind target for 2035 is now, frankly, dead in the water.

Even before these cancellations, a May 2023 report from NYISO’s Market Monitoring Unit cast serious doubt on the usefulness of these projects. The report concluded that the proposed transmission would make no impact on meeting the CLCPA’s 2030 targets and only a modest contribution to the 2035 goals. And that was before multiple offshore wind projects were scrapped.

Most damning of all? A developer behind Propel NY admitted last month that offshore wind had “zero” to do with the project. In a Newsday article on April 29, 2025, a Transco engagement manager stated plainly: “Zero percentage is for offshore wind.” According to the same article, the representative said the project would proceed even if all offshore wind projects were stalled or canceled.

The state Energy Research Development Authority is examining a 16,740-square-foot area off the coast of Long Island and New York City for possible offshore wind turbines.

This admission blows a hole in the PSC’s original justification. The commission itself said in 2022 that “the Commission finds compelling the direct nexus between the transmission need… and the offshore wind procurement mandate imposed under the CLCPA.” But if there’s no offshore wind, then there’s no public policy transmission need, full stop.

We strongly believe the PSC needs to reevaluate whether this transmission line is still necessary — and whether its staggering $3.2 billion price tag is justified — given the significant changes in circumstances. Then, if, and only if, the PSC deems the line necessary, the cost allocation should return to the original 75/25 beneficiaries pay model since the line would be advancing to serve entirely different purposes than those initially cited.

Ultimately, if the developers claim the project is needed for reliability or congestion relief, rather than to fulfill CLCPA mandates, they should return to the PSC and make that case openly. Until they do, upstate ratepayers should not be stuck subsidizing a downstate infrastructure project, especially one that no longer has any connection to offshore wind or the CLCPA’s goals.

Justin Wilcox is executive director of Upstate United, a nonpartisan business and taxpayer advocacy coalition.