ULSTER COUNTY, N.Y. — A judge signaled on Friday that New York may be in violation of its climate change law, casting doubt on the state’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as required. Ulster County Supreme Court Justice Julian Schreibman sharply challenged a lawyer from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), who argued that the agency could not implement necessary regulations in the near future.
During the hearing, Schreibman questioned the validity of the DEC’s claim that it needed flexibility due to the uncertainty of the times. “I don’t know that I’ve ever lived in a time that wasn’t one of change and uncertainty,” he asserted, emphasizing that this should not be a justification for regulatory delay.
Justice Schreibman highlighted that the case’s records strongly favor the plaintiffs—a coalition of four climate justice organizations—which have accused the state of noncompliance with its climate law due to the absence of critical regulations. However, he expressed skepticism about the timeline proposed by the plaintiffs’ attorney, which called for the state to draft regulations within 30 days and finalize them in 100 days.
The legal action, initiated in March, followed Governor Kathy Hochul’s abrupt suspension of the “cap and invest” policy. This initiative was designed to meet a pivotal requirement of the climate law, necessitating emissions regulations to be in place by 2024. Although the state had initially intended to move forward with the implementation of this policy, Hochul halted it earlier this year, citing post-pandemic economic challenges and shifting federal policies.
During the court proceedings, DEC attorney Meredith Lee-Clark argued that the state is committed to addressing climate change. She cited a new $1 billion fund from Hochul’s budget aimed at combating climate issues. However, Schreibman maintained his focus on the necessity for compliance with existing laws, challenging Lee-Clark’s assertion that external circumstances could justify a delay in action.
The judge pointed out that although the federal government has shifted its stance on climate action, this should not serve as an excuse for the DEC’s tardiness in meeting its regulatory deadlines, emphasizing that the legislature had opportunities to revise the timelines but did not take any action.
After the hearing, Rachel Spector, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs at Earthjustice, expressed optimism about the proceedings. She indicated that the judge appeared to recognize the validity of their argument, suggesting a favorable outlook for the plaintiffs.
While the exact ruling remains uncertain, Schreibman noted that it was improbable he would mandate immediate action from the state, especially if it chose to appeal the decision. If an appeal were to occur, the legal battle could extend for months, potentially complicating matters further during Hochul’s future election campaign.
Lee-Clark conveyed the administration’s ongoing commitment to establishing an emissions-reducing system, hinting that it could still involve a carbon pricing model, although specifics on implementation remain vague.
Spector acknowledged the legitimate challenges posed by the current federal administration but stressed that New York’s climate law was designed to position the state as a leader during a time of federal inaction. She insisted that these challenges should not exempt the DEC from fulfilling its obligations under state law.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.