You are here: / / NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION ...

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the New York Department of State’s ruling that Entergy was required to undergo a Coastal Management Plan (CMP) consistency review of its application to renew licenses to operate nuclear reactors at Indian Point for another 20 years was rational:

… [A]side from Department of State’s interpretation of the specific language of the exemptions (to a CMP review), it is plain that these narrow exemptions for projects that had final environmental impact statements completed prior to the adoption of the CMP do not apply to re-licensing. Entergy’s current application for a license to operate the Indian Point nuclear reactors for an additional 20 years is a new federal action, involving a new project, with different impacts and concerns than were present when the initial environmental impact statements were issued over 40 years ago. Thus, just as renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant triggers the requirement that the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] produce a supplemental environmental impact statement (see 10 CFR § 51.20), both the Coastal Zone Management Act and the CMP require consistency review for re-licensing of nuclear facilities. The Department’s position that the Indian Point reactors are not forever exempt from consistency review under the CMP, is reasonable.

In sum, the Department of State’s interpretation of the exemptions in the Coastal Management Program, and its conclusion that Entergy’s application to re-license the nuclear reactors at Indian Point is subject to consistency review are rational, and must be sustained.  Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. v New York State Dept. of State, 2016 NY Slip Op 07821, CtApp 11-21-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN)/INDAN POINT (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN) /COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN)

You might also like
THE SENTENCING COURT’S REJECTION OF YOUTHFUL-OFFENDER STATUS FOR THE DEFENDANT UPHELD (CT APP).
PLAINTIFFS, ATTORNEYS PRACTICING LANDLORD-TENANT LAW, ALLEGED DEFENDANT PUBLISHER OF “NEW YORK LANDLORD-TENANT LAW” OMITTED OR INACCURATELY PRESENTED SOME OF THE RELEVANT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AND THEREFORE VIOLATED GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES); THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ALLEGE DEFENDANT’S ACT OR PRACTICE WAS MATERIALLY MISLEADING (CT APP).
DEFENDANT MAY NOT APPEAL OR COLLATERALLY ATTACK AN “ILLEGALLY LENIENT” SENTENCE BECAUSE THE SENTENCE DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DEFENDANT (CT APP).
UPWARD DEPARTURE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED RAPE TO TAKE REVENGE UPON SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE VICTIM; THE FACT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN DEPORTED DID NOT RENDER THE APPEAL MOOT (CT APP).
WHERE THE RELEVANT OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED IN TWO COUNTIES, NO NEED FOR TWO SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.
THE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED AT TRIAL BUT REPRESENTED HIMSELF IN PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE NEVER ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING ONESELF OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ATTORNEY ACTING AS A “LEGAL ADVISOR” TO THE DEFENDANT AND AN ATTORNEY WHO “REPRESENTS” THE DEFENDANT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED TO REPEAT PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE NOT SPECIFIC OR SERIOUS ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
Evidentiary Issues Not Preserved for Review

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM... PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED...