Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Propel New York outlines 90‑mile underground transmission plan; board members and residents press for more detail
Summary
Propel New York presented a 90‑mile plan to modernize aging transmission infrastructure and said the project would be mostly underground, require Article 7 review, and is expected to be ratepayer‑funded; residents pressed on routing, construction impacts, environmental review and timing, and the board deferred any support pending more committee briefings.
Propel New York representatives Philip Ellison and Jamal Wilkerson briefed Bronx Community Board 11 on April 23 about a 90‑mile transmission upgrade that would run from Long Island through Queens to the Bronx.
Ellison, who introduced himself as a New York Power Authority staffer working with Propel, said the grid being upgraded is "100 years old" and argued the project would increase resilience and two‑way energy flows. "In reality, we have to be able to move energy to and fro and back and forth," he said, adding the scope includes environmental reviews and coordination with DOT, MTA and parks before construction. He said the work is being routed through a multi‑year Article 7 permitting process.
Community members and board members pressed Propel on likely disruptions and costs. When asked how the capital cost would be allocated, a Propel representative said the Public Service Commission determines funding and that it is a ratepayer‑funded effort; when asked for a concrete estimate, a representative said it would be "something like six cents a day." Board members also asked whether horizontal drilling and other techniques would harm sensitive sites; Propel said horizontal directional drilling will be used where feasible and that environmental studies would be part of the Article 7 process.
Several residents asked about alternate routes, DOT stipulations, and construction notice. Propel said it has been contacting DOT, MTA and the parks department and plans to publish project progress through a Propel mobile app and mailings. Company staff asked the board to consider a letter of support but acknowledged community concerns and did not seek a vote that night: "If we are going to do our due diligence in terms of voting on a letter of support, I'm not going to make a motion for that today because it seems like a lot of people still have a lot of questions," the board chair said.
The presentation drew questions about timing (Propel said permitting is a multi‑year process), billing impacts (Propel projected bill relief only over the long term), and the extent of community outreach. The board asked Propel to return for a committee presentation so members could review technical details before any formal endorsement or letter.
