Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99 (1983)
A local law is invalid if the state legislature has preempted the field of regulation, or if the local law is inconsistent with a general state law.
Summary
Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) sought to build a power plant and began site studies. The Town of Red Hook then enacted a local law requiring a license from the town to conduct such studies, effectively allowing the town to block the studies based on local concerns. Con Ed challenged the law, arguing that it was preempted by state law (Article VIII of the Public Service Law), which established a comprehensive state-level review process for power plant siting. The New York Court of Appeals held that the local law was invalid because the state legislature had preempted the field and because it was inconsistent with the state law.
Facts
In March 1978, Consolidated Edison announced proposed sites for a new power plant, including one partly in the Town of Red Hook.
In response, in May 1978, the Town of Red Hook enacted Local Law No. 2, requiring a license from the town board to begin a site study for a power plant.
Applicants for the license had to pay a fee and submit detailed data. The town could reject the application if the activities were detrimental to town property, residents, wildlife, or ecology, or inconsistent with the town’s land use plan and zoning regulations.
Procedural History
Con Ed sued the Town of Red Hook seeking a judgment declaring Local Law No. 2 invalid as it applied to major steam electric generating facilities, arguing it conflicted with the Public Service Law.
Special Term found the local law a valid exercise of the town’s authority.
The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that the state law only precluded a municipality from imposing conditions on the construction or operation of a major steam facility with respect to which an application for a certificate had been filed.
Issue(s)
Whether Local Law No. 2 is invalid because the State Legislature, by Article VIII of the Public Service Law, has preempted the field of regulation concerning the siting of major steam power plants.
Whether the local law is inconsistent with the state statute.
Holding
Yes, Local Law No. 2 is invalid because the Legislature has preempted such local regulation in the field of siting of major steam electric generating plants.
Yes, Local Law No. 2 is invalid because it is inconsistent with Article VIII of the Public Service Law, a general law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the state legislature had demonstrated its intent to preempt local regulation in the field of siting major steam electric generating plants. This intent was implied from the Legislature’s declaration of state policy and the enactment of a comprehensive regulatory scheme in Article VIII of the Public Service Law.
The Legislature stated that the purpose of Article VIII was to have the Siting Board balance all interests, including local interests, on a state-wide basis in a single proceeding. The Court cited the legislative history, noting the desire to replace the “uncoordinated welter of approvals” with a unified certification procedure.
The Court also found the local law inconsistent with the state law. “Inconsistency is not limited to cases of express conflict between State and local laws.” Local Law No. 2 added further restrictions to an applicant’s ability to conduct site studies required by Article VIII and allowed the town to prohibit such studies altogether.
The Court stated, “Defendants have, in effect, arrogated to themselves the power to determine, solely on the basis of local concerns, whether the site studies required for facilities within article VIII of the Public Service Law can be conducted.” The Court emphasized that the local law would allow communities to prevent applications from ever being filed, which was contrary to the state’s plan. The court emphasized that the purpose of the Public Service Law was “to provide for the expeditious resolution of all matters concerning the location of major steam electric generating facilities…in a single proceeding”. This goal would be undermined if each locality could impose its own requirements, potentially halting the project before it could be considered on a statewide basis.