- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, Inc. v. N...
Collection
Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission
Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission ↗
CV-23-0689N.Y. App. Div.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
03/07/2024
Decision
Dismissal of petition reversed.
The New York Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of a proceeding challenging the New York State Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) September 2022 declaratory ruling that a cryptocurrency company’s acquisition of a limited liability company that owned a natural gas-fired cogeneration facility in Niagara County did not require further PSC review. A trial court dismissed the proceeding as unripe because the PSC had not yet ruled on the petitioners’ application for rehearing. The appellate court found that the State Administrative Procedure Act foreclosed a rehearing on the September 2022 declaratory ruling and that the ruling was therefore ripe for review. The appellate court also rejected the cryptocurrency respondents’ contention that the appeal was moot because the transaction was complete and because it would be costly to undo construction and improvements to the facility undertaken since September 2022. The appellate court found that the petitioners sought relief that would be available even if unwinding the transaction was not feasible, namely analysis under Section 7 of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act that could lead to environmental mitigation requirements. The court also rejected the argument that the petitioners lacked standing, finding that increase in use of the facility would affect the petitioners’ members differently than other members of the public due to the members’ proximity to the facility.
Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission ↗
910162-23N.Y. Sup. Ct.3 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
11/16/2023
Stipulation
Stipulation of adjournment filed.
The parties stipulated to the adjournment of the new case pending the outcome of the environmental organizations’ appeal in the earlier lawsuit.
10/23/2023
Petition
Verified petition and complaint filed.
Two environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court challenging the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) decision approving the transfer of ownership interests in a natural gas-fired power plant to a cryptocurrency company. The organizations asserted that the PSC failed to comply with two provisions of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) that require State agencies to consider whether actions will interfere with attainment of the CLCPA’s greenhouse gas reduction requirements or disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities. The court previously dismissed on ripeness grounds the organizations’ earlier <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/clean-air-coalition-of-western-new-york-inc-v-new-york-state-public-service-commission/">lawsuit</a> challenging the PSC action. The organizations, which have appealed the dismissal, filed this new lawsuit “to preserve their rights” after the PSC denied their request for rehearing. They contended “that this duplicative action is unnecessary and that the merits of their challenge should be heard in the original Article 78 petition case.”
Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission ↗
900457-23N.Y. Sup. Ct.5 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
11/14/2024
Decision
PSC actions annulled and petition remitted to the PSC for further proceedings.
A New York trial court held that New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) required the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) to consider whether a proposed transfer of a membership interest in the owner of an upstate gas power plant to a cryptocurrency company would be inconsistent or interfere with the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits. The court concluded that the PSC’s consent to the transfer was a “permit[], license[], [or] other administrative approval[] [or] decision[]” within the meaning of the CLCPA Section 7(2), the provision that requires consideration of consistency with greenhouse gas emission reduction limits. Although the transfer had been completed and construction and improvements had taken place at the facility that would be costly to unwind, the trial court indicated the case was not necessarily moot and directed that the PSC should consider the issue of remedy if it determined the sale of the ownership interest was inconsistent or would interfere with the CLCPA emissions mandates. The court dismissed a claim that the PSC failed to consider the sale’s impact on “disadvantaged communities” pursuant to CLCPA Section 7(3) because the criteria for and list of disadvantaged communities were not finalized until after the PSC’s action.
03/20/2023
Decision
Public Service Commission's motion to dismiss granted and private respondents' motion to dismiss denied as academic.
A New York Supreme Court dismissed as unripe a lawsuit challenging a New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) determination that a cryptocurrency company’s acquisition of ownership interests in a company that owns and operates a natural gas plant in North Tonawanda did not require further review under the Public Service Law. The PSC determined that environmental concerns raised by petitioners—which involved whether the transaction required the PSC to assess compliance with the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction and environmental justice mandates—were beyond the scope of the PSC’s “limited review.” The New York court found that the petition did not present a ripe controversy because the petitioners had timely applied to the PSC for rehearing pursuant to the Public Service Law and the PSC had not yet ruled on the rehearing petition. The court did not reach alternative grounds for dismissal raised by the parties to the transaction. These parties argued that the petitioners lacked standing and that the case was moot because the transaction had closed in February 2023.
01/24/2023
Motion
Memorandum of law filed in support of petitioners-plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
–