Rensselaer Environmental Coalition v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

In a lawsuit brought by Rensselaer Environmental Coalition and the City of Rensselaer to challenge the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC’s) renewal and modification of a permit for the Dunn Landfill in Rensselaer County, a New York Supreme Court dismissed claims under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) and the New York Constitution’s Green Amendment, as well as most claims under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court also held that the City did not have capacity to challenge NYSDEC’s determinations but could proceed with claims against the operator of the landfill for property damage. Under the CLCPA, the court found that NYSDEC had considered the operator’s submissions and public comments concerning greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants before issuing the permit with limitations designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The court noted that NYSDEC was entitled to deference on these technical assessments. Under SEQRA, the court rejected the argument that SEQRA claims were untimely and found that DEC took the required hard look at potential impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, release of hazardous air pollutants, and truck traffic, and included limitations in the permit to mitigate impacts. Citing appellate court precedent, the Supreme Court further declined to apply the Green Amendment to impose standards “above and beyond” those in place under SEQRA. The court, however, denied motions to dismiss a SEQRA segmentation claim, finding that NYSDEC’s characterization of a berm as an “independent structure” was “not reasonable as stated,” given that the berm was meant to mitigate the landfill’s environmental effects. The court dismissed claims under NYSDEC Commissioner Policies regarding the incorporation of environmental justice concerns into SEQRA reviews and the permit review process and regarding NYSDEC’s incorporation of climate change considerations into its activities. The court also found that the petitioners did not meet their burden of establishing that the issues they raised were “substantive” and “significant” requiring an adjudicatory hearing.