Description: Challenge to the exclusion of a village from the list of “disadvantaged communities” promulgated under New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.
-
Town of Palm Tree v. Climate Justice Working Group
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/26/2023 Decision Download Motion to dismiss denied. New York Court Said Municipalities Had Standing to Challenge Exclusion from List of “Disadvantaged Communities” that Receive Funding Priority Under Climate Law. A New York Supreme Court denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a town and village to challenge their exclusion from the list of “disadvantaged communities” (DACs) designated by the Climate Justice Working Group pursuant to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The CLCPA requires that at least 35% of the benefits of investment in clean energy, energy efficiency, and other programs go to DACs, with a goal of 40%. The court agreed with the petitioners that inclusion on the DAC list “creates a benefit for certain communities to the detriment of communities … that are excluded.” The court therefore concluded that the petitioners had alleged a harm-in-fact sufficient for standing. The court also agreed with the petitioners that denying standing would “create an impenetrable barrier” to review of the issue of the issue raised by the petitioners: “the consequences of the race-based determinations inherent in the DAC criteria.” 07/26/2023 Petition Download Petition filed. Lawsuit Challenged New York Village’s Exclusion from List of “Disadvantaged Communities” Under State’s Climate Law. A New York town and village, along with town and village officials, filed a proceeding in New York state court challenging the exclusion of the village from the list of “disadvantaged communities” promulgated under New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The CLCPA directs that at least 35%, with a goal of 40%, of the benefits of investments in clean energy and energy efficiency go to disadvantaged communities. The petitioners contended that the exclusion of the village was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence; that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had arbitrarily departed from its own designation of the village as a disadvantaged community for the purposes of other programs; and that the respondents failed to comply with the State Administrative Procedure Act, the New York Constitution, and the State Environmental Quality Review Act.