Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission

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.

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.

–

–