On July 25, 2025, the New York Supreme Court in Nassau County issued a decision in Sierra Club et al. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al., denying a petition to annul the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)’s renewal of the Title V Air permit for Caithness Long Island, LLC’s power plant in Yaphank, NY (Caithness). The petitioners argued that NYSDEC, in granting the Title V permit renewal, failed to comply with requirements of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) by not adequately considering the facility’s GHG emissions or the burden of its emissions on disadvantaged communities (DACs).

Enacted in 2019, the CLCPA imposes requirements on New York State (NYS) agencies to consider statewide greenhouse gas emissions and any increased burden to DACs when reviewing permit applications. Section 7(2) of the CLCPA states; “[i]n considering and issuing permit, licenses and other administrative approvals and decisions… all state agencies, offices, authorities and divisions shall consider whether such decisions are inconsistent with or will interfere with the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits.” While Section 7(3) states; “[i]n considering and issuing permits, licenses, and other administrative approvals and decisions… All state agencies, offices, authorities, and divisions shall also prioritize reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants in disadvantaged communities.”

The petitioners alleged that Caithness operates a power plant known to be one of the highest emitters in NYS, and that NYSDEC disregarded the requirements of Section 7(2) and 7(3) by granting the renewed permit without considering emissions from the facility. However, the court found that NYSDEC followed lawful procedures and acted within its jurisdiction. Following the enactment of the CLCPA, NYSDEC adopted policies DAR-21 and DEP 24-1 to formalize implementation of Sections 7(2) and 7(3) respectively. DAR-21 states; “[a] permit renewal that does not include a significant moderation… and would not lead to an increase in actual or potential emissions would in most circumstances be considered consistent with the CLCPA… [h]owever, DEC staff may require… a CLCPA analysis for a permit renewal… if the facts surrounding the project indicate that an analysis is warranted.” NYSDEC engineers affirmed that Caithness’s renewal met these criteria as the renewal did not propose modification to the facility, significant changes to emission sources, nor any other change that would result in a change in emissions from the facility. Per DAR-21, NYSDEC determined that the Caithness permit renewal was not inconsistent with CLCPA Section 7(2) nor Section 7(3) and, therefore, did not require Caithness to submit any additional analysis to comply with the CLCPA.

This ruling reinforces agencies’ discretion in applying CLCPA requirements, and in particular, the NYSDEC’s implementation of DAR-21. Further, it could set a precedent that additional analysis under DAR-21 and DEP 24-1 is not needed for applications for air permit renewal when no changes to a facility nor its emissions are proposed.

For More Support

Trinity’s Albany office has previously written in depth on the requirements of DAR-21, DEP 24-1, and other regulations associated with the CLCPA. If you would like to discuss the dynamic landscape of regulations relating to the CLCPA and their impact on your facility, please email Kenneth Fay in Trinity’s Albany office or call 518.460.1939.