Amicus Summary filed Watt in the owner of Glen Oaks Village v. New York City?

People from Manhattan against the trend

Francis Menton

Back to the beginning of this year, I published a post titled “March to Climate Utopia”. The post notes that everything about New York State’s vision for a zero-emission economy and “climate leadership” is collapsing. Its contracts to replace fossil fuels with a massive offshore wind farm have been completely cancelled (most) or reconsidered at higher and uneconomical prices (minority). Its two contract facilities produce “green” hydrogen to support intermittent winds, and solar energy has encountered financial difficulties and may fail. Its large contracted large capacity transmission line brings imaginary north wind and solar power to the Lower Country market, which has also been cancelled, without a reason to state, but is almost certainly not feasible due to economics.

I illustrated this article with pictures of Wile E. Coyote of New York State character, escaped from the cliff and was about to fall to the bottom of the canyon:

In just a few weeks since that position, you would think that the situation with the New York Utopian climate program is almost impossible to get worse. But in fact the situation have Get worse – worse.

On January 20, President Trump took office and immediately began to remove subsidies for federal support and “green” energy. By the executive order of January 20 this year, Trump “temporarily” withdrew all foreign shelves from leasing wind power projects. This seems the least popular, though perhaps not all, in New York's offshore wind program. (Although pauses in the lease are considered “temporary”, there is no promise that the lease will resume forever.).

Also on January 20, Trump signed another executive order entitled “Release American Energy.” In Section 7, all subsidies to “green” energy projects are ordered to be immediately stopped under the Inflation Reduction Act or the Infrastructure Investment and Employment Act.

All institutions should immediately suspend the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) or the Infrastructure Investment and Employment Act (Public Law No. 117-58). . . and shall review the procedures, policies and plans for its issuance of grants, loans, contracts or any other financial expenditures for such grant funds to be consistent with the laws outlined in Section 2 of this Order and their respective laws.

Under these actions, New York is likely to rely on receiving billions of dollars to support wind, solar, gearbox and green hydrogen programs. Again, this EO pause is only “temporary”, but it is likely that these funds will never even come back during President Trump.

Meanwhile, New York State's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act 2019 (Climate Act) is still in the book. The regulations ordered a complete restructuring of the New York energy economy to reach “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to 2050, and that by 2030, but they pretend they will do most of it through large offshore wind energy. Now that was dead, they didn't even have a false plan.

Meanwhile, New York City's “Local Method 97” is also preserved in the books. It is a regulation that requires all residential buildings over 25,000 square feet to convert to electric heat by 2030 – the same year the state's Climate Act requires 70% of electricity from “renewable energy”, most of which are only Energy comes from it, and there is no wind or solar energy. So our city demands by 2030, while the state demands the removal of our existing reliable power generation without a reliable plan to replace it.

Back in 2022, a group of Queens co-operative owners and boards filed a case in New York State Court in an attempt to make the city’s local law 97 declared to be “preempt” by the state climate bill. The case is named Glen Oaks Village owner, Inc. v. New York City. Since its inception, the case has been bound in motions and appeals. Initially, the trial court (in New York, we call the Supreme Court) dismissed the case, but did not seize it. However, the Appeal Division, the First Division, revoked and ordered the trial court to consider whether there was a preemptive move. Instead of returning to the trial court, the city decided to try to appeal to our Supreme Court Court of Appeals to allow the firing to be reconsidered. The case just ended its briefing in the court.

On Friday, my co-advisor CAM MacDonald and I filed a friend of court summary on behalf of a group of parties in this case, which included some co-op owners and a nonprofit, reliable, reliable energy called New Yorkers. A friend of the court summary argues that the Climate Act and Local Method 97 are in an irreconcilable conflict because the state has no plans or capacity to provide the electricity needed to comply with the city's local law 97. This is a quote. From our summary of arguments:

Uncoordinated [of the two laws] A simultaneous task derived from the law 97 and the Climate Act. First, local law 97 requires large residential buildings in New York City to convert to electric heat by 2030. Meanwhile, the Climate Act requires 70% of the state's electricity to come from “renewable energy”, which will also take until 2030.

The latter authorization requires intermittent wind and solar power generation to replace the always available fossil fuel power generation capacity, which is unable to provide a continuous supply of electricity. Intermittently threatens buildings that convert heat into electricity due to long periods of winter death.

The Climate Act and the “Scope Plan” established under it do not include reliable plans to provide other reliable electricity needed to heat all large New York City buildings, as authorized by local law 97.

I don't have a link to this court profile yet, but I plan to update this post when the link is available.

The Court of Appeals is here to get the opportunity to free New York City and its residents from their own stupidity. It may or may not take advantage of the opportunity. If the pass is passed and the case is revoked, then the local law 97 will still fail within a few years at most. It's just that in this case, many people are hurt.

Related