The Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission (ORES) has proposed significant revisions to its rules implementing the Renewable Action Through Project Interconnection and Deployment (RAPID) Act. While the amendments span procedural, definitional, and technical updates, the most consequential changes concentrate in four areas: (1) completeness determinations, (2) municipal notification, (3) professional-engineer certifications, and (4) amending pending applications.
Together, these provisions expand local influence and agency discretion in ways that could reshape project timelines under Article VIII of the Public Service Law.
1. Completeness Determinations and the Expansion of ORES' Discretion
The draft rule significantly revises the definition of a “complete application” in § 1100-1.2(q). Under the proposed text, an application is considered complete once it is sufficient for ORES to begin preparing draft permit conditions, even if the agency anticipates requesting supplemental information later in the review. See 16 NYCRR § 1100-1.2(q) (proposed Oct. 2025). This structure allows ORES to issue a completeness determination while continuing to evaluate data gaps and technical issues that emerge downstream.
This approach runs counter to the traditional role of a completeness determination and could extend the schedule deadlines. By allowing or more significantly, requiring, supplementation after the completeness milestone, the draft transforms what has (under both ORES' procedures and DEC’s Uniform Procedures) historically been a firm procedural threshold into the opening step of an iterative exchange. Additional information requests may arise after a completeness finding, prolonging substantive review without formally resetting statutory or regulatory timelines.
The practical effect is a shift in predictability from applicants to the agency. Developers that previously relied on completeness determinations to anchor financing, procurement, NYISO interconnection milestones, or construction sequencing must now prepare for rolling information exchanges and evolving requests. Maintaining a contemporaneous record of all ORES communications and seeking explicit clarification on whether post-completeness requests implicate statutory deadlines will be essential for project planning and risk management. This is a potentially dramatic reversion to the former Article 10 process of incompleteness determinations followed by an open-ended review process.
2. Municipal Notification and Certification: A New Prerequisite for Procedural Progress
Revisions to §§ 1100-1.3(a) and 1100-1.3(f) formalize a pair of pre-application notice requirements that now operate as gating steps before an application may be filed. First, applicants must conduct municipal consultations at least 60 days before filing and provide municipalities with detailed information regarding project design, local law compliance, and anticipated filing timelines. Second, applicants must publish and serve a 60-day notice of intent to file, which must be provided to each affected municipality and all local agencies that participated in the pre-application meeting.
These revisions also introduce a new disclosure obligation for municipalities: under § 1100-1.3(a)(10), municipalities receiving the applicant’s 60-day notice must identify any pending new substantive local laws and disclose their expected enactment dates. This requirement is designed to ensure that both applicants and ORES are aware of any local provisions that may become applicable prior to filing, although questions remain regarding the purpose and effect of this disclosure window and what, if anything, constitutes a definitive cutoff date for new enactments. It also purports to impose an obligation on municipalities that may be less than inclined to accept another State mandate.
Because proof of notice and proof of service are now prerequisites to filing, these provisions create new procedural requirements that may affect project timelines. For example, failure to file an application on the date identified in the applicant’s 60-day notice will result in the notice being deemed withdrawn under § 1100-1.3(f)(2), a change that by design removes applicant flexibility and raises concerns about the consequences of any delay after notice is issued.
Applicants should therefore treat municipal notice as a critical-path item rather than a formal step to be completed on a “check the box” basis. Ensuring timely service, maintaining documentation sufficient to survive a completeness review, and anticipating jurisdictional issues across multiple municipalities will be essential to avoiding procedural disputes. The role of municipal cooperation raises questions regarding the extent to which an unresponsive municipality, or one that fails to confirm receipt, could delay an otherwise ready application.
More broadly, these revisions reflect ORES' continuing effort to integrate early local participation into a process originally designed for state-level uniformity. That effort creates a tension between rigid applicant-side notice requirements and a completeness framework that permits ORES to continue requesting supplemental information raises concerns about how these provisions interact and whether the revised structure risks creating inconsistencies or conflicts within the application timeline.
Applicants navigating projects located in multiple municipalities should evaluate the potential implications of these changes early in project planning and remain attentive to areas where the new requirements introduce uncertainty or reliance on municipal participation.
3. Professional Engineer Certification: Expanding the Scope of Technical Accountability
The revised § 1100-10.2 introduces a two-tier certification framework for all compliance filings submitted under Parts 1100, 1101, and 1102. Under the new § 1100-10.2(a), every filing must include a certification by a “responsible official” attesting, after reasonable inquiry, that the submission is true, accurate, and complete. § 1100-10.2(b) adds a second layer for any compliance filing “that pertains to the practice of engineering”: those materials must also be certified by a New York licensed professional engineer, who must attest that the filing was prepared under their general supervision and is accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief. See 16 NYCRR § 1100-10.2(a)-(b) (proposed Oct. 2025).
This broadened certification regime marks a distinct departure from current ORES practice, which ties professional-engineering oversight primarily to engineering drawings, structural calculations, or other technical materials that squarely fall within the definition of the practice of engineering under N.Y. Educ. Law § 7201. The new language in § 1100-10.2(b) is significantly more expansive: the phrase “pertains to the practice of engineering” is not defined, raising questions about which categories of compliance filings now trigger the requirement. The lack of a statutory or regulatory definition introduces uncertainty as to whether engineering certification may now extend to hybrid filings that incorporate engineering judgment indirectly, environmental or operational materials that contain embedded engineering elements, or multi-disciplinary documents prepared jointly across consultant teams.
4. Amending a Pending Application: New Constraints Under § 1100-7.1
The revised 16 NYCRR § 1100-7.1 introduces a more restrictive and consequence-laden framework for amending pending applications. Under the new structure, applicants may amend an application only with the express written permission of ORES, and each request triggers procedural consequences that directly affect statutory timelines and the status of the original filing. See 16 NYCRR § 1100-7.1(a) (proposed Oct. 2025).
An applicant seeking to modify a pending submission must now file a written request that identifies the proposed change, explains why it is required, assesses whether the amendment is minor or major, and provides a timeline for resubmission. Id. § 1100-7.1(b)(1). ORES must then review the request and, within 15 days, determine whether the amendment is minor or major. Id. § 1100-7.1(b)(2). This determination carries immediate procedural consequences.
If the request is submitted before ORES issues a notice of complete application, the completeness clock is suspended while the agency reviews the amendment request. Id. § 1100-7.1(b)(2)(i). If ORES determines the amendment is minor, the agency resumes review of the existing application without resetting statutory deadlines. If submitted after a notice of complete application but before issuance of a draft permit, the same suspension applies. Id. § 1100-7.1(b)(2)(ii). However, once ORES determines that the amendment is minor, the applicant is deemed to have consented to an extension of all applicable deadlines for publication of draft permit conditions and for the final determination on the application.
The consequences become more significant where ORES determines that an amendment is major. In that circumstance, the applicant is deemed to have consented to vacatur of the notice of complete application. Id. § 1100-7.1(b)(2)(ii)(b). The filing then transitions to a major-amendment track governed by § 1100-7.1(e), which restarts the completeness timeline. The rule reaches even further in cases where an applicant seeks to amend a pending application after issuance of a draft permit or notice of intent to deny. Any such request is automatically treated as a major amendment, and the applicant is deemed to have consented to vacatur of both the notice of complete application and the draft permit or intent-to-deny notice. Id. § 1100-7.1(b)(2)(iii). This structure creates strong disincentives for applicants to propose even modest refinements once a draft permit has been issued.
Major amendments also trigger additional procedural obligations. Applicants must submit only those materials that reflect changes from the original filing, including redlined documents, and must publish notice identifying the changes in accordance with § 1100-1.6. Id. § 1100-7.1(c). For amendments that increase nameplate capacity or, in the case of transmission facilities, increase project length such that the project moves to a higher category, applicants must also supplement the local agency account at the time of the amendment request. Id. § 1100-7.1(c)(2)-(3). After submission of a major amendment, local agencies or potential community intervenors may request an additional local agency account fee, and the ALJ may require further deposits of up to $75,000 for renewable energy facilities or $125,000 for transmission facilities. Id. § 1100-7.1(d).
These revisions significantly narrow the flexibility that existed under the 94-c regime. Requests that once would have been handled informally now operate within a rigid procedural architecture that imposes immediate effects on statutory timelines, completeness status, and local-agency-account obligations. The automatic vacatur provisions are particularly consequential because they recalibrate the risk calculus for developers and create a strong incentive to avoid amendment requests once the application advances into later stages of review. The new structure elevates the importance of internal coordination, early design certainty, and proactive municipal engagement, as even minor refinements introduced late in the review process may now reset procedural clocks and increase financial obligations.
Taken together, the RAPID Act revisions signal a meaningful recalibration of the ORES' process which embeds earlier municipal involvement, expands ORES’ discretion at key procedural junctures, and increases the technical formality of compliance obligations. What had been a largely centralized, state-driven permitting framework now incorporates additional points of local influence and new procedural gates that may affect project pacing. The draft regulations represent an abdication of ORES’s authority and responsibility to make decisions that advance the State’s needs – and echo the statements by a former Department of Public Service Chair who publicly announced that the Siting Board would never certify a project over municipal objection.
Impacted stakeholders are strongly encouraged to provide written comments on the draft regulations by the end of the April 18, 2025, public comment period. As ORES begins implementing these changes, project sponsors will need to monitor how the new rules operate in practice, where bottlenecks emerge, and how interpretive gaps, particularly around completeness, municipal notice, and engineering certification, are ultimately resolved.
Our next post in this two-part series will address the transmission, rights-of-way, and environmental-standard revisions that accompany these procedural changes.
For background on the original December 2024 proposal, see Hodgson Russ LLP, ORES Seeks Public Comments on Renewable Energy and Transmission Facility Permitting and Siting Draft Regulations (Jan. 2025)
Client Alert: RAPID Action - ORES Issues Revised Proposed Regulations Under the RAPID Act
Disclaimer:
This blog is a form of attorney advertising. Hodgson Russ LLP provides this information as a service to its clients and other readers for educational purposes only. Nothing in this blog should be construed as, or relied upon, as legal advice or as creating a lawyer-client relationship.
