State Nuclear Bailout Lawsuit Moves Forward
Acting Albany Supreme Court Justice Roger D. McDonough issued a decision Monday denying five of six objections raised by the New York Public Service Commission and the nuclear power plant owners who sought to dismiss a lawsuit by environmentalist and consumer groups over subsidies for aging nuclear plants in western New York.
January 24, 2018 at 01:55 PM
3 minute read
ALBANY – The state Supreme Court in Albany will allow to proceed a lawsuit filed by several environmental groups challenging billions of dollars in ratepayer subsidies to nuclear plants.
Acting Albany Supreme Court Justice Roger D. McDonough on Monday issued a decision denying five of the six objections raised by the New York Public Service Commission and the nuclear power plant owners trying to dismiss the lawsuit, Matter of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater v. NYS Public Service Commission, 7242-16. The PSC and the nuclear plant owners argued that the claims brought against them lacked timeliness and standing.
The lawsuit filed in June by the groups—including the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, the Nuclear Information Research Service and the New York Public Interest Research Group—argued that the PSC violated several state rules and procedures when it adopted plans in August 2016 to bail out three aging nuclear plants in the western part of the state as part of its Clean Energy Standard, including the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant near Rochester, and the James A. FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point nuclear plants in Oswego County, all of which are owned by a subsidiary of Chicago-based Exelon Corp.
Lawyers for the PSC argued that they followed the state's rules in adopting the nuclear subsidy and that the organizations don't have standing to sue. Keeping the nuclear plants online is better than the alternative of replacing them with fossil fuel-powered plants, the PSC lawyers argued.
In April, average home ratepayers in New York began paying $2 more a month on their utility bills to subsidize the three plants. The Cuomo administration estimates that 12-year subsidy, slated to end in 2029, will cost roughly $2 billion. Meanwhile, opponents of the nuclear bailout claim that it could cost roughly $7.6 billion.
A spokeswoman for Exelon said in an emailed statement that “the Clean Energy Standard is positive for New Yorkers and the climate because it preserves the most cost-effective source of carbon abatement available, and we are pleased that the state Supreme Court dismissed the substantive environmental claims against it and are confident that the court will ultimately uphold the CES upon the review of the full administrative record.”
Manna Jo Greene, the environmental director of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, however, compared McDonough's decision to David and Goliath.
“We were opposed by the PSC, the nuclear energy plant owners, Entergy, Exelon and Constellation, and their phalanx of lawyers. But we prevailed and proved our issues are substantive and triable. It's vitally important that the court fully adjudicate the reasons why these nuclear subsidies don't belong in the Clean Energy Standard. It doesn't serve the public interest or even follow the law that New York's ratepayers are required to pay to keep these nuclear plants open, when they are no longer economically viable without a subsidy,” Greene said in a statement.
A spokesman for the PSC declined to comment on the decision. A spokesman for Constellation did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Constellation, the subsidiary of Exelon Corp. that owns the three nuclear plants, is being represented by Jenner & Block and Albany-based Harris Beach. The PSC is represented in the lawsuit by the agency's general counsel and the slew of petitioner plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at Rockland Environmental Group.
This story has been updated with comment from an Exelon Corp. spokeswoman.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDOJ Supports Appointing US Judge Backed By Trump to Review Mar-a-Lago Documents
3 minute readJay-Z, Quinn Emanuel Say AAA Offers Only 'Token' Black Arbitrators
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250