Glen Oaks Village Owners Inc. v. City of New York

The New York Appellate Division granted New York City defendants’ motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals the Appellate Division’s decision reviving a preemption challenge to the City’s law setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from existing large buildings (Local Law 97). The Appellate Division ruled in May 2024 that the City defendants failed to show that the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act did not preempt Local Law 97. The Appellate Division certified the question of whether its order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the preemption cause of action and otherwise affirming the trial court’s order was properly made. The Sabin Center filed an amicus brief in support of the motion for leave to appeal. The State of New York also filed an amicus brief in support of the motion, as did a coalition of organizations that including environmental justice groups, American Institute of Architects New York, and New York League of Conservation Voters.

–

–

A New York trial court granted New York City’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Local Law 97, which sets increasingly stringent limits on greenhouse gas emissions from existing large buildings in New York City, starting in 2024. First, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not establish that the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) preempted Local Law 97. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show how the local law would either prohibit conduct the State permits or impose restrictions on State-granted rights. In fact, the court said, the City presented evidence that there was no conflict between State and local law on abatement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and that, “rather than identifying any inconsistency or divergence in their objectives, New York State has repeatedly expressed its desire and intent to collaborate with the City and other local governments to abate GHG emissions under the CLCPA.” Second, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the penalties for violations of Local Law 97 were unconstitutional taxes on greenhouse gas emissions. The court said the plaintiffs’ argument relied on authorities regarding improper “fees” as opposed to improper “penalties.” Third, the court rejected due process challenges to the law. The court found that neither the prospective penalties nor the plaintiffs’ projections of compliance costs were “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to the offense …and obviously unreasonable.” The court also rejected the contentions that the law was unconstitutionally retroactive or impermissibly vague. Additional analysis of the court’s decision is available in this Climate Law Blog <a href="https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2023/11/06/new-york-state-court-holds-upholds-local-law-97/">post</a>.

–

–

Reversing an intermediate appellate court, the New York Court of Appeals held that New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) did not preempt the field of regulating greenhouse gas emissions and did not preempt New York City’s Local Law No. 97, which requires large existing buildings to reduce emissions. The court found that the CLCPA did not demonstrate an intent to preempt the field of greenhouse gas emissions regulation, noting that the state law “recognizes that local government plays an important role in this area,” that the state law does not expressly preempt local regulation of emissions, and that its legislative findings “evince a sense of urgency” regarding implementation of climate measures and encourage climate change mitigation action by other jurisdictions. In addition, the Court of Appeals pointed to the CLCPA’s directive requiring the Climate Action Council to consider measures taken by other jurisdictions such as localities when developing the Scoping Plan that sets forth actions to achieve the CLCPA’s emissions reduction mandates. The Court of Appeals noted that Local Law No. 97 had been enacted before the CLCPA and also cited “the recognized and longstanding involvement of localities in regulating matters of environmental concern” such as air pollution. The Court of Appeals said the inclusion in the CLCPA of a savings clause stating that the CLCPA did not relieve entities from compliance with applicable local laws and regulations further reflected the CLCPA’s “embrace of complementary local action.” The Court of Appeals held that the intermediate appellate court erroneously interpreted this “broad savings clause”—which provides that “[n]othing in this act shall relieve any person, entity, or public agency of compliance with other applicable federal, state, or local laws or regulations, including state air and water quality requirements, and other requirements for protecting public health or the environment”—to apply only to local laws that did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Court of Appeals also rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the “nature and statewide significance” of the CLCPA’s subject matter demonstrated an intent to preempt the field; the Court of Appeals acknowledged the “ambitious” reach of the CLCPA but said it could not conclude that “aspirational” legislative findings regarding the CLCPA’s intent to create a “comprehensive regulatory program” were meant to prevent local governments from taking actions that would help the State achieve its emissions goals.

–

–