Court Orders New York DEC to Finalize Cap-and-Invest Program Under CLCPA

In a significant development for climate policy in New York, the Albany County Supreme Court has ordered the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to promulgate long-delayed regulations required under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The October 24, 2025, ruling in Citizen Action of New York v. DEC, Index No. 903160-25, NYSCEF Document No. 93,  grants partial relief to climate and environmental justice advocates seeking to compel DEC to implement a statewide cap-and-invest program that would place enforceable limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Background

The lawsuit was filed on March 31, 2025, by a coalition of environmental and community-based organizations, including Citizen Action of New York, People United for Sustainable Housing Buffalo, the Sierra Club, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice. (See NYSCEF Document No. 1). Represented by Earthjustice, the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, and the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, the petitioners initiated a hybrid Article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, alleging that DEC had unlawfully failed to issue regulations required by Environmental Conservation Law Article 75, which implements the CLCPA.

The CLCPA, passed in 2019, mandates that New York reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. DEC was required to finalize regulations to ensure compliance with these targets by January 1, 2024. Petitioners alleged that although DEC had prepared a cap-and-invest regulatory framework by late 2024, it abruptly halted its release in early 2025 and failed to provide any timeline for resumption. The state, in its answer, argued that it had discretion over the timing and content of the regulations and that mandamus relief was inappropriate. (See NYSCEF Document No. 31, dated May 7, 2025).

The Court’s Decision

In a decision dated October 24, 2025, Justice Julian D. Schreibman of the Albany County Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners seeking to compel the DEC to issue regulations required by the CLCPA.

Petitioners argued that DEC had failed to fulfill its mandatory obligation under Environmental Conservation Law § 75-0109(1), which required the agency to promulgate regulations ensuring compliance with statewide greenhouse gas emission limits no later than January 1, 2024. Their claim asserted both statutory noncompliance and a violation of the constitutional right to “clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” (See Verified Petition and Complaint, NYSCEF No. 1 (Mar. 31, 2025)).In response, DEC maintained that the CLCPA’s deadlines were not absolute and that the statute left room for agency discretion regarding the content and timing of regulations. It also challenged the availability of mandamus relief, arguing that the rulemaking function was not a purely ministerial duty. On the constitutional claim, DEC sought dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. (See State Respondent’s Answer and Memorandum of Law, NYSCEF Nos. 31, 76).

Justice Schreibman granted mandamus relief, concluding that DEC had a “clear legal duty” to act and that its failure to promulgate regulations by the statutory deadline constituted a “violation of a duty enjoined by law” under CPLR 7803(1). The court found that the relevant statutory language directing DEC to “promulgate regulations… by January 1, 2024” left no room for delay or discretion:

“The Legislature’s directive that regulations be finalized by January 1, 2024, is not a suggestion; it is a statutory mandate. DEC was not given the discretion to indefinitely delay regulatory implementation.”

Although the court acknowledged that it was not in a position to craft climate policy, it emphasized that it was obligated to enforce legislative mandates. As Justice Schreibman explained:

“The Court has no more authority to set climate policy than DEC, and would generally expect to have less. However, bearing in mind the factors and issues addressed by the parties, the Court considers that, at this point, it would be improvident to order relief before the next regularly scheduled session of the Legislature convenes.”

The court took judicial notice that the next legislative session begins in January 2026 and tailored its remedial order accordingly, allowing DEC time to finalize its regulations while preserving an opportunity for the Legislature to respond if needed.

The court ordered that: Final regulations must be promulgated no later than February 6, 2026.

In doing so, the court issued a warning against further delay:

“Respondent is cautioned that, having afforded it with the time to both further develop its regulations and address its concerns to the political branches, the Court is highly unlikely to grant extensions of this deadline.”

Insights

This decision is a notable development in the ongoing implementation of New York’s climate law. While the court declined to address the constitutional issues raised under Article I, Section 19, it granted mandamus relief based on a plain reading of ECL § 75-0109(1), concluding that the statutory deadline for regulatory action had been exceeded and warranted judicial enforcement.

The decision is subject to appeal as a matter of right under CPLR 5701(a)(1), and it would not be surprising if the State pursues appellate review, particularly given the separation-of-powers implications and the court’s imposition of a specific regulatory timeline. On appeal, the central questions are likely to include the degree of discretion afforded to DEC under the CLCPA and whether mandamus relief was appropriate under the circumstances.

Absent an appeal and stay, DEC remains under a judicially imposed deadline to promulgate final regulations by February 6, 2026. Considering the State Administrative Procedures Act’s requirements of public notice and comment and what would likely be an extensive rule-making process, DEC may seek clarification from the court as to whether “promulgate” was intended to require the proposal of draft regulations as compared to the adoption of final regulations.  If it is the latter, DEC would need to propose regulations almost immediately, and even then, it is unclear if it could meet the Court’s deadline.  The court's decision may signal a willingness by New York courts to enforce the procedural mechanisms of the CLCPA, though it stops short of interpreting the substantive contours of the Environmental Rights Amendment.

Clients affected by future rulemakings under the CLCPA or similarly structured mandates may wish to monitor the appellate posture of this case, potential legislative changes, and the evolving scope of judicial engagement in climate-related regulatory obligations.

Disclaimer: This client alert is a form of attorney advertising. Hodgson Russ LLP provides this information as a service to its clients and other readers for educational purposes only. Nothing in this client alert should be construed as, or relied upon, as legal advice or as creating a lawyer-client relationship.