In February 2026, the New York State Public Service Commission approved regulations implementing the RAPID Act, creating the new Article VIII framework governing the siting and permitting of major electric transmission facilities and renewable energy generation projects. The final regulations, which went into effect on March 9, 2026, are a significant change from the previous regulations required by the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) under Article VII and the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) Part 94c.
The RAPID Act aims to streamline and accelerate the siting and permitting of energy infrastructure. The goal is to help New York deploy renewable energy and transmission facilities more efficiently while advancing the clean energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals established under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.
While Article VIII introduces numerous changes from the previous Article VII siting framework, there are several major differences in the permitting process for electric transmission and substation facilities.
Seeking a Complete Project
One of the most significant differences between Article VII and Article VIII is the level of preparation required to file an application with ORES (formerly the DPS). Under Article VII, applicants could pursue an Article VII Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (CECPN) at a relatively conceptual stage of project development. While applications included preliminary engineering and environmental information, detailed engineering design, additional environmental field studies and other project elements were often refined as the proceeding advanced through the discovery, settlement or adjudicatory processes and administered by the DPS.
Project approval followed a linear process: Apply, be found complete, settle the case with the parties and obtain a joint proposal, then receive the CECPN. During this time, engineering advanced and field activities were completed. Completion of the Environmental Management and Construction Plan (EM&CP) followed by certification.
In contrast, Article VIII requires a significantly higher level of project development prior to submitting an application. Applicants must complete extensive pre-application consultation, stakeholder outreach and environmental field studies. They must prepare detailed engineering, environmental and siting exhibits before filing with the ORES. As a result, Article VIII applications are expected to be substantially complete and supported by comprehensive technical documentation at the time of submission, reducing the need for significant project refinement during the review process.
The new regulations require applicants to prepare plan and profile-level engineering drawings, as well as desktop and field environmental analyses for wetlands, waterbodies, offshore considerations, rare and endangered species, and invasive plant species. The application must also include historic and cultural studies conducted to the State Historic Preservation Office Phase 1B level, where applicable, identification of disadvantaged communities within the project area, and review of local ordinances for potential conflicts.
The average life of an Article VII project typically ranged from 24 to 36 months, sometimes longer, with activities spread throughout the process. Under Article VIII, those activities are compressed, with about 24 months of preparation before the application is filed and a maximum of 12 months for ORES to complete the CECPN approval process.
Greater Expectations for Public Outreach
Drawing comparisons to the former 94c process for renewable energy generation, Article VIII places greater emphasis on public outreach prior to filing applications.
Traditional municipal consultations continue under Article VIII, but there is a stronger focus on project routing and location. Under Article VII, discussions with municipal governing bodies are often centered on the routing of overhead or underground transmission facilities. Under Article VIII, municipal officials now have approval authority and may propose routing alternatives to ORES for consideration.
The new regulations also require public open houses before an application is filed. These meetings allow affected residents to review proposed routes and provide feedback, including suggesting alternatives for ORES to evaluate.
Beyond routing and location, Article VIII also requires consideration of disadvantaged communities and how project impacts are addressed. Public engagement is now more formalized. Rather than serving as an attachment, the project information plan is required within the application exhibits, and the EM&CP. Active websites, hotlines, communication channels and public meetings must be documented as part of the application review process.
Another change involves the review of local ordinances that may conflict with the application. Previously handled privately, this process is now public. Municipal officials can review potential waiver requests with applicants before the application is filed, introducing a step that may lead to new outcomes.
A More Comprehensive Application Process
Another key difference between Article VII and Article VIII is the expanded scope of information required within the application exhibits. Article VII required 16 exhibits, whereas Article VIII requires 29. The additional exhibits introduce new technical studies and policy considerations, such as bathymetry studies for offshore wind interconnections, identification and evaluation of disadvantaged communities, and a dedicated exhibit on electromagnetic fields. The rulemaking also introduces new guidance on the intervenor process, including updated funding mechanisms.