In December of 2024, the New York Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission (“ORES”) published draft regulations implementing the 2024 Renewable Action Through Project Interconnection and Deployment Act (the “RAPID Act”). In January 2025, Hodgson Russ shared a client alert on the published draft regulations and explained how the pending regulations impact clients operating within the New York renewable energy development space.
After holding a public comment period for over seven months and disseminating a “fact sheet” and slide deck detailing the proposed regulations, ORES recently published a letter stating they would be proceeding with a revised rulemaking pursuant to State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) § 202(4-a). This was reportedly in response to “over 2,000 public comments” and the subsequent need for “substantial revisions to the regulations as originally proposed.”
As the name suggests, the RAPID Act aims to speed up the siting and permitting processes for major renewable energy and electric transmission facilities. Accordingly, the RAPID Act’s proposed regulations are intended to consolidate and streamline existing requirements and, in part, to more formally codify a range of pre-application requirements that were generally required in practice, though never formally mandated by regulation, while also expanding on other relevant issues likely to generate conflict. These changes were in addition to the goal of creating a single permitting scheme governing both Major Renewable Energy facilities and Major Electric Transmission facilities under the sole permitting authority of ORES, thereby replacing both Public Service Law Article VII, Article 10 siting certificates, and the existing corresponding 94-c requirements with a single “siting permit” process under Article VIII. While facilities and transmission have historically been subject to different regulatory processes, the proposed regulations of the RAPID Act would bring the two together under the same regulatory framework. Ultimately, the resultant draft regulation contained notable additions to the previous ORES siting framework including changes to the pre-application process, more expansive application exhibits, updated Uniform Standards and Conditions (“USCs”), and new mandatory compliance filings following permit issuance.
To provide interested parties with a helpful digest of what to potentially and eventually expect, the following is a short summary of the more significant proposed changes and the pending draft regulations, together with a distillation of some general themes manifested in the many public comments submitted:
I. Pending Regulations
The proposed regulations borrowed heavily from the current provisions of 16 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1100 and were separated into three distinct sections: General Provisions (16 N.Y.C.R.R. 1100 et seq.), Major Renewable Energy Facility Siting (16 N.Y.C.R.R. 1101 et seq.), and Major Electric Transmission Facility Siting (16 N.Y.C.R.R. 1102 et seq.).
A. General Provisions
While the General Provisions (Part 1100 et seq.) did effectively mirror much of the current Part 1100 and prior Section 94-c regulations, important additions that would apply to all applicants included: (a) additional pre-application consultation and notice requirements; (b) more stringent application filing timelines; (c) an updated application review, draft permit, and project approval timeline; and (d) a “dual certification” requirement. A more rigid procedural framework, new definitions, and new application criteria were among these provisions.
B. Major Renewable Energy (“MRE”) Facility Siting
In Part 1101, the proposed regulations governing MRE facility siting moved previously enforced but uncodified surveys and assessments into the pre-application stage. While hopefully providing some clarification, the shift would also mean increased coordination with ORES before commencing site surveys pre-application. Regulatory changes in this section included: (a) expanded delineations for wetland and surface water; (b) expanded identification of threatened and endangered species; (c) mandatory visual impact consultations and agricultural resources mitigation plans; and (d) an expanded assessment of cultural resources.
C. Major Electric Transmission (“MET”) Facility Siting
Part 1102, the proposed regulations concerning MET facility siting, again codified previously enforced practices, but also proposed a significant increase in prepared exhibits necessary for applications. This section, if unchanged, would also provide a specific set of uniform standards and conditions for electric transmission facilities from siting through operation. One notable proposal allowed potential parties, such as municipalities or even individuals, to propose an alternative route for the project within sixty-five (65) days of an applicant’s six-month notice of intent to file. While the applicant would have had fifteen (15) days to respond and subsequently seek an ORES determination, this proposed regulation would likely lead to additional costs and delays to assess any alternative routes.
II. Feedback and Public Comment
ORES cites the “substantial revisions” necessary following an overwhelming number of public comments (reportedly over 2,000) as the reason for proceeding with a revised rulemaking. Some general themes emerged from the impacted and interested parties that may have contributed to this decision.
While most stakeholders appreciated the RAPID Act’s purported goal of streamlining, many expressed serious concerns around the increased costs and potential delays associated with shifting and added requirements to an expanded pre-application process. Restrictive deadlines and expiration dates for applications were routinely noted as difficult challenges to developers.
As with any new set of draft regulations, impacted parties sought clarity and further explanation regarding many different components of the RAPID Act. Various comments requested or set about establishing their own “clearer” definitions. For those developers with projects at each stage of the current ORES permitting process, questions also arose about how those pending projects would be practically transferred and assessed under the new regulations.
Highlighting the complexity of permitting, large infrastructure developments such as MREs and METs, which tend to involve significant municipal and local discourse, comments from developers questioned the proposed regulations, allowing for potentially disruptive challenges from landowners and other impacted parties. However, comments from landowners and municipalities petitioned for more representation in the application process and increased transparency.
Finally, given the expanded pre-application process containing additional and stricter regulations for developers, many comments included requests that regulations allow for opportunities to amend or modify applications.
III. Hodgson Russ Insights
The 2024 Rapid Act, and the proposed regulations to implement it, sought to decrease the time and complexity of renewable energy and transmission siting and permitting while also providing all key stakeholders with transparency and a “one-stop shop” application process under ORES authority. However, feedback from developers and other stakeholders suggested that the proposed regulations had not properly accounted for the additional effort and costs necessary for compliance. Now, after a wave of public comments ranging from concerns around even more potential delays and increased costs and challenges in the pre-application process, ORES has chosen to proceed to a revised rulemaking, rather than adopting the draft regulations with minor changes. This means that ORES has concluded the draft regulations will require “substantial revisions” to adequately address the issues raised during the first comment period. An informal notice was filed to DPS on June 16, 2025, to provide “advance notice” of a formal notice of revised rulemaking and inform planning and permitting decisions in the “near-term.”
The objective of the RAPID Act itself – to consolidate the disparate permitting processes and provide streamlined rules - will remain. The significant response, however, to ORES’s first attempt at proposing regulations was clearly compelling enough to require changes. In “due course,” ORES will submit a formal notice of revised ruling containing any substantially revised rules, after which stakeholders will have a minimum of forty-five (45) days to submit comments. Pursuant to SAPA § 202(4-a), the formal notice will include the last date for submission of comments on the revised rules. ORES’s decision to proceed with a revised rulemaking is evidence that the agency is concerned about striking a proper balance among the various stakeholders, who should remain vigilant and prepared to offer additional input in the coming months.
Given the level of anticipation regarding these regulations, the formal revised rulemaking notice may be submitted before the end of the year, though Hodgson Russ will be monitoring any associated developments. Hodgson Russ is prepared to assist our clients who wish to better understand the originally proposed regulations and these recent developments in addition to helping our clients navigate the application process once the regulations are eventually promulgated.
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.
