NYC Climate Law Upheld by State’s Highest Court

In a major victory for local climate action and environmental regulation, the New York State Court of Appeals recently upheld New York City’s Local Law 97 against a legal challenge that alleged it was preempted by state law. The decision in Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v. City of New York affirms the authority of local governments to impose their own climate-related regulations, even when the state has also acted in the same field. This landmark ruling has significant implications for municipalities, businesses, and the future of environmental law in New York State.

Local Law 97: A Bold Step to Cut Building Emissions

Passed in 2019, Local Law 97 is one of the most ambitious municipal climate initiatives in the United States. It targets greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings, which account for nearly 70% of New York City’s carbon footprint. The law requires substantial emissions reductions—40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels)—and imposes enforceable caps on individual buildings based on their size and usage. Covered buildings must either meet these targets or face significant penalties.

To implement and enforce these rules, the law established a dedicated Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance. This office is tasked with guiding compliance, offering resources, and holding building owners accountable.

The Legal Challenge: Field Preemption and the Climate Act

Not long after the City enacted Local Law 97, the New York State Legislature passed its own sweeping climate legislation, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Act”). The Climate Act aims to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, the Climate Act takes a broader, more aspirational approach: it sets overarching goals and establishes a framework for developing specific policies and regulations over time, led by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the newly formed Climate Action Council.

Landlords of large residential properties challenged the City’s Local Law 97, arguing that the state’s Climate Act preempted the City’s law. Their theory was one of “field preemption,” and that by enacting a comprehensive climate policy, the state legislature intended to occupy the entire field of greenhouse gas regulation, leaving no room for local laws like Local Law 97.

The Court’s Decision: No Preemption, Local Action Preserved

In a unanimous decision, the New York State Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ preemption claim. The court held that the Climate Act does not evince a clear legislative intent to preempt local regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Quite the opposite, the court pointed to the Climate Act’s savings clause, which explicitly states that the Act does not relieve anyone from complying with other applicable federal, state, or local laws.

Moreover, the court emphasized the longstanding role that local governments play in protecting public health and the environment. It noted that Local Law 97 was enacted before the Climate Act, that it complements—not conflicts with—the state’s goals, and that nothing in the Climate Act requires statewide uniformity in how emissions reductions are achieved. The court interpreted the state’s framework as intentionally flexible and inclusive of local innovation.

The decision sends a strong message that municipalities can, and should, act on climate change, even if the state is also tackling the issue from a broader perspective.

Why This Matters for Local Governments

This ruling reaffirms the authority of local governments to address environmental issues head-on. It affirms that state-level environmental laws set the floor, not the ceiling. Localities remain free to adopt stricter or more tailored regulations to meet the unique needs of their communities.

For municipalities looking to tackle climate change, especially through land use and building regulation, the court’s decision is empowering. It provides legal backing for forward-thinking policies that promote energy efficiency, green infrastructure, and emissions reductions.

It also reinforces New York’s “home rule” principles, which give local governments autonomy over matters affecting the health, safety, and welfare of their residents—especially in areas where the state has not expressly or impliedly taken over the field.

What It Means for the Business Community

For property owners and developers, the decision underscores the importance of monitoring not just state-level regulations, but also local environmental ordinances. Compliance with state climate goals does not excuse non-compliance with stricter local laws.

Businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions should be prepared for a patchwork of local climate policies, especially in areas where environmental concerns are pressing. While this can add complexity, it also presents opportunities, such as incentives for energy-efficient upgrades, access to green building programs, and the chance to lead in sustainability.

Broader Environmental Significance

Perhaps most importantly, the decision validates a “layered” approach to environmental regulation, where local, state, and federal governments each play a role in combating climate change. Rather than viewing overlapping laws as a problem, the court recognized them as complementary. In the face of a global climate crisis, every level of government has a part to play.

By allowing Local Law 97 to stand, the court bolstered one of the most aggressive urban climate policies in the United States and signaled to other cities, counties, and local governments, that they have legal room to act boldly.

Looking Ahead

As implementation deadlines under Local Law 97 draw near, New York City building owners will need to invest in retrofits, energy-efficient systems, and carbon reduction strategies. The ruling leaves no ambiguity: compliance is not optional, and legal challenges based on state preemption are unlikely to succeed.

For other municipalities, the decision opens the door to crafting their own climate policies, especially in areas like building codes, land use, and energy efficiency. The court’s recognition of local authority could inspire more cities, towns, and villages across New York States to act.

And for environmental lawyers and policy professionals, the ruling will be a touchstone case in understanding the interplay between state environmental statutes and local laws in the years to come.

Jacob H. Zoghlin is a Partner in Underberg & Kessler LLP’s Litigation department and chairs the firm’s Environmental Law and Municipal Law practice groups. He focuses his practice in the areas of environmental law, municipal law, development law, energy law, zoning and land use law, cannabis law, Article 78 proceedings, and related litigation. He can be reached at jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com or 585-258-2834.

Reprinted with permission from The Daily Record and available as a PDF file here.