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

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.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–