In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., et al., Respondents,v.New York State Department of State et al., Appellants.BriefN.Y.October 19, 2016APL-2015-00152 Appellate Division, Third Department No. 518510 Albany County Clerk's Index No. 1535/13 Qrnurt nf Apprala nft(Je ~lair nf N rw lfnrk ------~tt.------ IN THE MATTER OF ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 3, LLC, Petitioners-Respondents, -against- THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE and CESAR A. PERALES, Secretary ofthe New York State Department ofState, Respondents-Appellants. BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE NEW YORK STATE SENATOR KEVIN S. PARKER, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLYMAN J. GARY PRETLOW, THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF WESTCHESTER, THE HUDSON VALLEY GATEWAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, TEAMSTERS LOCAL #456 and UWUA LOCAL 1-2 IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS Date Completed: September 1, 2016 David H. Wollmuth James J. Brennan Nicholas G.O. Veliky WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP Attorneys for Amici Curiae 500 Fifth A venue New York, New York 10110 Tel.: (212) 382-3300 Fax: (212) 382-0050 SECTION 500.1(0 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Section 500.1(±) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals for the State of New York, the Business Council of Westchester, the Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce, Teamsters Local #456, and UWUA Local 1-2 state as follows: The Business Council of Westchester is a not-for-profit business organization with no parents or subsidiaries. The Business Council of Westchester is affiliated with the Westchester Chamber Educational Foundation, a 50l(c)(3) organization. The Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce 1s a not-for-profit business organization with no parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates. Teamsters Local #456 is not-for-profit labor union with no parents or subsidiaries. Teamsters Local #456 is affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. UWUA Local 1-2 is a not-for-profit labor umon with no subsidiaries. UWUA Local 1-2 is a Local of the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, which is its National Union. TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... ! INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ...................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 6 I. INDIAN POINT PROVIDES ENORMOUS ECONOMIC AND RELIABLE ENERGY BENEFITS TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, NEW YORK, AND THE UNITED STATES ........... 6 A. Indian Point Provides Immense Economic Benefits to the Local, State, and National Community ....................................... ? B. Indian Point Provides Low-Cost, Reliable, and Emission- Free Electricity ............................................................................ 9 II. THE CMP WAS NOT INTENDED TO ACT AS A TOOL FOR REEVALUATING EXISTING FACILITIES LIKE INDIAN POINT .................................................................................. 14 III. THE NYSDOS' PURPORTED AUTHORITY TO REEVALUATE EXISTING FACILITIES UNDER THE CMP WOULD INTRODUCE GREAT UNCERTAINTY ......................... .16 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 18 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases In re Megan-Racine Assocs., Inc., 102 F.3d 671 (2d Cir. 1996) ......................................................................... 17 Sklar v. Byrne, 727 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1984) ......................................................................... 17 Statutes and Other Authorities 16 U.S.C. §§ 1454-1464 .......................................................................................... 14 N.Y. EXEC. LAW§§ 910-923 ............................................................................. 14, 15 The Bus. Council of Westchester, The Effects of Closing Indian Point on Westchester Electric Rates (2008) ................................. 10, 12 Charles River Assocs., Indian Point Energy Center Retirement Analysis (20 11) ............................................................................................. 1 0 Dr. Howard J. Axelrod, Westchester Bus. Alliance, An Assessment of Energy Needs in Westchester County: The Economic Impact of Rising Energy Prices and Shortages in Supplies (2008) ........................... 11 Jonathan A. Lesser, Ctr. for Energy Policy and the Env't at the Manhattan lnst., The Economic Impacts of Closing and Replacing the Indian Point Energy Center (2012) ....................................... 10 Nat'l Research Council, Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs (2006) ...................... 11 Nuclear Energy Inst., Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center (2003) ................................................................................. 7, 8 Nuclear Energy Inst., Economic Impacts of the Indian Point Energy Center (2015) ............................................................................ passim 111 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This action concerns an effort by the appellants New York Department of State and Secretary of State Cesar A. Perales (together, "NYSDOS") to rewrite New York's Coastal Management Program ("CMP") to permit the appellants to insert themselves into the federal licensing renewal process for the Indian Point nuclear power facilities. Appellants' interpretation of the CMP as granting them power to reevaluate existing facilities like Indian Point conflicts with the intent of the various stakeholders who developed the CMP and the plain language of the CMP, which exempts such existing facilities from CMP review. The CMP, as its name suggests, is a program for managing New York's coastal areas. The program was formulated after "years of local, state and federal government efforts, as well as those of groups representing civic, environmental, development, and other interests," like Amici here. 1 The CMP represents a careful balancing of the varied interests in New York's coastal areas, including environmental, commerce, labor, wildlife preservation, and energy production interests. The CMP was intended to create a consistent framework for considering all these interests when assessing proposed facilities impacting New York's coastal 1 Senator Kevin S. Parker, Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow, the Business Council of Westchester, the Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce, Teamsters Local #456, and UWUA Local 1-2 are collectively referred to herein as "Amici." Amici and their counsel are the sole authors of this brief, and no other persons or entities contributed financially to the brief. area. The CMP was not intended to act as a means for reevaluating existing facilities. Indeed, the CMP expressly exempted existing facilities, including the Indian Point facilities, from review under the CMP. The appellants, however, seek to rework the CMP to permit them to review and (as appellants clearly intend) stop the operation of the Indian Point facilities after forty years of beneficial operation and well over thirty years after the CMP was created. The appellants' proposed rewriting of the CMP frustrates the careful balancing of interests embodied by the CMP. Moreover, the appellants' briefing presents a one-sided view of the alleged costs of the Indian Point facilities, without fairly presenting the far larger benefits that the Indian Point facilities provide the local community, the State ofNew York, and the nation. In fact, Indian Point provides immense benefits to the community. The Indian Point facilities are a major local employer and help support over 10,000 jobs throughout the country. Indian Point also acts as a major contributor to the economy and is one of the largest taxpayers in Westchester County. Indian Point is one of the largest power plants in New York State, providing reliable and emission-free electricity for over forty years. Approximately 10 percent of New York State's electricity comes from the Indian Point facilities. The continued operation of Indian Point is absolutely vital to helping New York meet its demand for affordable, reliable and sustainable energy. 2 The current NYSDOS administration's interpretation of its powers under the CMP also introduces huge uncertainty to businesses and the public that depend on existing facilities like the Indian Point facilities. Indeed, the NYSDOS asserts the broad power to re-review any facility based on any "material changes" to the facilities' operations. Considering the fact that all facilities undergo changes over time, the NYSDOS's creation of this seemingly open-ended override of the CMP's exception for existing facilities would result in exactly the type of uncertainty and confusion that many of the stakeholders participating in the development of the CMP sought to preclude by exempting existing facilities from the CMP. The Appellate Division's correct interpretation of the CMP as exempting Indian Point from review should be affirmed. INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE New York State Senator Kevin S. Parker is a resident of New York City and the State of New York. He was elected in 2002 to represent the 21st Senatorial District in Brooklyn, which encompasses the Flatbush, East Flatbush, Midwood, Ditmas Park, Kensington, Windsor Terrace and Park Slope neighborhoods. Senator Parker is currently the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee. 3 New York State Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow is a resident of Mount Vernon and the State of New York. He was elected in 1992 to represent the 89th Assembly District, which includes the cities of Mount Vernon and Yonkers. The Business Council of Westchester ("BCW") is a business membership organization with offices in Rye Brook, New York. The BCW is the largest business membership organization in Westchester County with members encompassing a wide range of industries. The Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce ("HVGCC") is a chamber of commerce with offices in Peekskill, New York. The HVGCC provides services to businesses, residents and tourists. The majority of HVGCC's member businesses are located in Buchanan, Croton-on-Hudson, Cortlandt Manor, Peekskill and Putnam Valley, New York. Teamsters Local #456 ("Local #456") is a labor union with offices in Elmsford, New York. Local #456 is a chapter of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and represents local labor interests in New York. UWUA Local 1-2 ("Local 1-2") is a labor union with offices in Hawthorne and New York, New York. Local 1-2 is a Local of the Utility Workers Union of America and represents utility workers in New York City and Westchester, including employees ofEntergy. 4 As State legislators and representatives of the people of Brooklyn, Mount Vernon and Yonkers, electorates that depend heavily on the reliable electricity provided by the Indian Point facilities, Senator Parker and Assemblyman Pretlow understand the local and statewide need for affordable, reliable, and emission-free energy sources. As representatives of local business and labor interests, the BCW, HVGCC, Local #456 and Local 1-2 similarly recognize the vital role that the Indian Point facilities play in allowing commerce to thrive in Westchester County. The closure of the Indian Point facilities would directly and negatively affect the financial health and wellbeing of local residents, employees, and businesses, including Amici's constituents and members. Amici all believe that the closure of the Indian Point facilities, and the subsequent increase in energy costs, would greatly hamper local citizens' access to affordable energy and local businesses' ability to grow, and would deter new businesses from entering the Westchester area. Further, Amici believe that the significant loss of well-paying local jobs and economic output provided by the Indian Point facilities would magnify the damage caused by higher energy costs. Amici believe that their unique perspective as representatives ofNew York citizens and local business and labor interests affected by the Indian Point facilities will help to inform the Court's decision in this case. 5 ARGUMENT I. INDIAN POINT PROVIDES ENORMOUS ECONOMIC AND RELIABLE ENERGY BENEFITS TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, NEW YORK, AND THE UNITED STATES Indian Point provides important economic and environmental benefits to the local community, the State of New York, and the nation. The CMP acknowledges the "important role" that New York's coast plays in "satisfying the energy needs of the State." (R. 129.)2 Consistent with the CMP's balancing of varied interests, the CMP recognizes that all energy facilities, including Indian Point, "have certain positive and negative aspects." !d. In its briefing, the NYSDOS overstates the negative aspects of the Indian Point facilities, while ignoring the far greater benefits the facilities provide the broader community.3 Since construction began on the facilities in the 1960s, Indian Point has been an integral part of the region's economy. Specifically, Indian Point has and continues to contribute to the local, state, and national economy as a major employer and taxpayer and through its charitable contributions. Additionally, the Indian Point facilities also provide affordable, reliable, and emission-free energy that is crucial to powering our modem society. 2 References to the Record on Appeal are herein referred to as "(R. _)". 3 Brief for Petitioner-Respondents ("Respondents' Br.") pages 9 through 14 address the alleged negative aspects of Indian Point as presented in the Respondents-Appellants' opening brief at pages 13 to 17. 6 A. Indian Point Provides Immense Economic Benefits to the Local, State, and National Community The operation and maintenance of the Indian Point facilities provide great economic benefits to the local, state, and national community. First, the operation and maintenance of the Indian Point facilities directly and indirectly creates and stimulates a great number of much needed jobs in the local community and across the state. Directly, the Indian Point plant employs about a thousand people in high-quality permanent jobs with a total annual payroll of approximately $140 million.4 Most of these jobs require technical training and are among the highest- paying in the area. 5 Indirectly, the operations at Indian Point support an additional 9,700 jobs in the surrounding counties, New York State, and the United States.6 Beyond its substantial contribution to employment on a local, statewide, and national level, Indian Point is a major contributor to the local, regional, and national economy through its stimulus of manufacturing and other economic sectors. Each year, Indian Point spends hundreds of millions of dollars on building and maintenance projects, purchasing motors and generators needed to maintain the plant's power generators, materials, engineering and other consulting services, 4 Nuclear Energy Inst., Economic Impacts of the Indian Point Energy Center at 5, 8-9 (2015) (Amici Curiae Appendix, Attachment 1) ("Impact Analysis"); see also Nuclear Energy Inst., Economic Benefits oflndian Point Energy Center at 5, 12-13 (2003) (Amici Curiae Appendix, Attachment 2) ("Benefits Study"). 5 Impact Analysis, supra note 4, at 5; see also Benefits Study, supra note 4, at 12-13. 6 Impact Analysis, supra note 4, at 8. 7 and utility expenses.7 In 2014 alone, Indian Point contributed $800 million to New York's gross state product and an additional $500 million to the United States GDP, as well as an estimated $2.5 billion dollars to the total economic output of the United States. 8 Indian Point also provides extensive tax support to local, state, and federal governments. Indian Point is one of the largest taxpayers in Westchester County, directly paying about $30 million in property taxes to the state and local governments. In total, Indian Point's operation results in over $340 million in tax revenue to local, state, and federal govemments.9 Indian Point also contributes to the local community through its various philanthropic endeavors. For example, Indian Point's operator, Entergy, awards more than $1 million each year to charitable organizations in the lower Hudson Valley, which support local initiatives to help create and sustain thriving communities near their plants. In the communities surrounding Indian Point, dozens of educational, environmental and other community organizations have benefited from the company's philanthropic engagement. Additionally, Indian Point employees are active in the communities in which they work and live, 7 Benefits Study, supra note 4, at 17-20. 8 Impact Analysis, supra note 4, at 7-8. 9 !d. at 4, 8. 8 volunteering thousands of hours each year to organizations that help better the community. Finally, Indian Point plays an important role as a leader in emergency preparedness and training for regional emergency management professionals and volunteers. This training and education helps prepare professionals and volunteers to develop the skills necessary to respond to all types of emergencies, many of which are much more likely to occur than a commercial nuclear power event. 10 While a shutdown of Indian Point would strip the local, state, and national community of the great and valuable benefits discussed above, there would be additional negative ripple effects to the local economy caused by the likely migration of workers and families away from the area in search of new jobs, resulting in even further negative impacts to local businesses and government functions that depend on local taxes. 11 B. Indian Point Provides Low-Cost, Reliable, and Emission-Free Electricity Not only does Indian Point contribute to the community through its role as an economic driver, employer, taxpayer, and through its charitable contributions, but for over forty years the Indian Point facility has provided reliable and emission-free electricity to the community as one of the largest power plants in New York State. Specifically, Indian Point generates approximately 10 percent of 10 !d. at 14. 11 See id. at 10. 9 New York State's electricity and plays a vital role in helping to meet the energy needs of downstate New York, providing over 40 percent of the peak demand for the Lower Hudson Valley region. 12 As a result of its great contribution to the local energy supply, the Indian Point facility helps to keep energy prices affordable. 13 Studies have estimated that electricity prices locally and statewide would increase dramatically if Indian Point's output is lost, with average annual electric expenditures in New York State increasing by $1.5 to $2.2 billion over the 15-year period from 2016 to 2030, or a 10% per year increase to all New York electricity bills. 14 Increases to energy costs in Westchester County, already among the highest in the nation, would be even more extreme. 15 As bluntly stated in a Westchester Business Alliance study, "Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are vital current and future electricity resources for 12 Impact Analysis, supra note 4, at 3, 17; The Bus. Council of Westchester, The Effects of Closing Indian Point on Westchester Electric Rates 2 (2008) (Amici Curiae Appendix, Attachment 3) ("Westchester Council Report"). 13 Jonathan A. Lesser, Ctr. for Energy Policy and the Env't at the Manhattan Inst., The Economic Impacts of Closing and Replacing the Indian Point Energy Center 18 (2012) (Amici Curiae Appendix, Attachment 4) ("CEPE Report"). 14 See id. at 17-18; Charles River Assocs., Indian Point Energy Center Retirement Analysis at 11 (20 11) (Amici Curiae Appendix, Attachment 5) ("CRA Report"). The CRA Report was prepared for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 15 Westchester Council Report, supra note 12, at 2. 10 Westchester County." 16 Studies indicate that electricity prices in Westchester County could increase 150% in a matter of years if the Indian Plants were retired, with a typical residential customer's annual electricity bill rising from $1,000 to over $2,500. 17 A typical small business owner could see her annual electricity bill increase from $11,000 to $27,500. 18 Ultimately, Indian Point's closure would drive electricity prices in Westchester up to $0.50 per kilowatt-hour, over three times the national average, thereby significantly impacting businesses resulting in additional job losses, thus compounding the negative effects of a shutdown. 19 Replacement options for lost electricity output from Indian Point are limited and would have substantial negative costs to the community. As reported in a June 2006 study by the National Research Council titled "Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs," combined cycle natural gas plants are the only practical replacement option that could offset the loss of Indian Point's power in the near-term.20 New York's taxpayers and electricity consumers would ultimately bear the burden of paying for the 16 Dr. Howard J. Axelrod, Westchester Bus. Alliance, An Assessment of Energy Needs in Westchester County: The Economic Impact of Rising Energy Prices and Shortages in Supplies at 20 (2008) (Amici Curiae Appendix, Attachment 6) ("WBA Report"). 17 !d. at 11-12. 18 !d. at 11-12. 19 !d. at 3-4, 11. 20 Nat'1 Research Council, Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs at 40 (2006) (Amici Curiae Appendix, Attachment 7) ("NRC Report"). 11 construction of at least four to five combined cycle natural gas plants, which would be needed to replace Indian Point.21 Not only would New York's taxpayers be faced with the immediate cost of building these replacement plants, but natural gas is also subject to severe price fluctuations, exposing consumers to the potential for great fluctuations in energy costs in the future.22 Unlike the nuclear energy produced by IJ1dian Point, natural gas would also increase the region's greenhouse gas emissions, making it extremely challenging to reach the carbon emissions elimination targets New York State agreed to as a partner in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI").23 Currently, Indian Point's emission-free electricity annually prevents the release of 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 4,500 tons of nitrogen oxide, and 4,000 tons of sulfur dioxide.24 Closing Indian Point would immediately undo a decade's worth of renewables investment made by New York in an effort to comply with the RGGI.25 Finally, Indian Point's nuclear facilities are essential to meeting New York's balanced and reliable electricity needs. Nuclear energy produces approximately 30 percent ofNew York's electricity, and, as a result, Indian Point plays an important 21 Westchester Council Report, supra note 12, at 4. 22 Id. 23 Id.; see also Impact Analysis, supra note 4, at 5. 24 Impact Analysis, supra note 4, at 5 ("Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide are precursors to acid rain and urban smog."). 25 Id. at 3. 12 role in maintaining a balanced energy portfolio in the state. Currently, New York's energy is generated through a number of sources, and New York policy leaders have expressed concerns regarding relying too heavily on any one source of energy production. 26 Closing Indian Point would mark a significant step away from maintaining New York's diversified energy portfolio. Furthermore, nuclear energy's important role as a reliable part of the national electricity portfolio was made clear in the winter of 2014. Just as record cold temperatures gripped the United States and forced other sources of electricity off the grid, nuclear power plants nationwide continued to function, operating at an average capacity factor of 96 percent during the period of extreme cold temperatures. During that same time, volatility in the supply of natural gas drove prices in many markets to record highs as much of that gas was diverted from use in the electric sector so that it could be used in home heating. 27 * * * The immense benefits Indian Point provides to the local community, the State of New York, and the nation are exactly why the plants were constructed at great expense to the taxpayers. The CMP was not meant to act as a tool to reassess that decision nearly half a century later. 26 !d. at 4. 27 !d. at 17. 13 II. THE CMP WAS NOT INTENDED TO ACT AS A TOOL FOR REEVALUATING EXISTING FACILITIES LIKE INDIAN POINT As explained in the Petitioners-Respondents' brief, the CMP expressly exempts certain pre-existing facilities, including Indian Point. This exemption is reflective of the long development of the CMP by many different stakeholders, and the intent behind the CMP to pragmatically balance economic and preservation interests concerning New York coastal areas. Federal law permits states to develop CMPs under the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1454-1464 (the "CZMA") as a means for helping federal decision-makers consider local and state interests when making decisions impacting a state's coastal areas. The CZMA requires that a CMP be developed with the full participation of all stakeholders, including "relevant Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties and individuals, public and private." !d. § 1455(d)(l). New York's legislature asked the NYSDOS to develop a CMP for New York pursuant to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act, N.Y. EXEC. LAW §§ 910-923 (1981) (the "WRCRA"). Consistent with the CZMA, the NYSDOS did not develop the CMP alone, but worked with local, state and federal government agencies, as well as groups representing environmental, labor, business, and other interests to develop the CMP over many years. (R. 52, 332- 339.) In fact, the NYSDOS made "a deliberate attempt to involve people and 14 groups who are interested in and potentially affected by the [CMP]" and organized "over one thousand meetings ... during the [CMP's] development." (R. 71.) The CMP itself recognizes that it was "shaped by ... a wide variety of interest groups." Id As directed by the New York legislature under the WRCRA, the CMP reflects "a balance between economic development and preservation." N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 912; see also (R. 70) ("The [WRCRA] establishes a balanced statewide approach for encouraging development in the coastal area while protecting natural coastal resources.") With regard to energy facilities in particular, the CMP acknowledges that such facilities "have certain positive and negative aspects." (R. 129.) Striking a sensible balance between economic and preservation interests, the CMP exempts from review existing facilities "for which a substantial amount of time, money and effort" had already been expended. (R. 276.) Indian Point clearly meets this exemption as the cost and effort spent to build the facilities were extraordinary, with construction lasting many years at a cost of $2.45 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars). (R. 3130.) Additionally, when the CMP was developed, both Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 had already received final Environment Impact Statements. (R. 506, 1412.) As such, the Indian Point 15 facilities clearly meet the CMP's specific exemption for projects "for which a final Environmental Impact Statement" had already been prepared.28 (R. 276.) The existing facilities exemption and the development of the CMP make clear that the CMP was not intended to be a tool for reevaluating existing facilities, like Indian Point. This does not mean, however, that the Indian Point nuclear power facilities are not regulated; in fact, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation both regulate the facilities as intended by the federal and New York legislative bodies. III. THE NYSDOS' PURPORTED AUTHORITY TO REEVALUATE EXISTING FACILITIES UNDER THE CMP WOULD INTRODUCE GREAT UNCERTAINTY The appellants' purported power to reevaluate existing facilities under the CMP would introduce great uncertainty to the public and businesses that depend on existing facilities located in coastal areas. As set forth in the CMP, the nation and the public have a strong interest in energy facilities "already located in or planned for New York's coastal area," including the Indian Point facilities. (R. 278.) Moreover, businesses and the public need consistent and predictable rules and laws in order to facilitate the planning of and investment in future business 28 As explained in the Petitioners-Respondents' brief, the Indian Point facilities also meet the criteria for exemption under the CMP as projects grandfathered pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act of 1976. (Respondents' Br. at 35-40.) 16 ventures. In particular, local businesses in Westchester rely on the relatively lower electricity prices made possible by the Indian Point facilities. Appellants' effort to reevaluate Indian Point under the CMP creates great uncertainty for the future of all energy facilities because, over time, all energy facilities undergo changes. The NYSDOS' s asserted power to reevaluate facilities based on "material chaJ?.ges" to the facilities' operations effectively eliminates the exception built into the CMP for existing facilities. This exemption provision was intended to create stability and avoid the exact type of uncertainty advocated for by the current NYSDOS administration. This grandfathering exemption, which was built directly into the CMP, is a commonplace regulatory device and represents an effort by lawmakers to "mitigate[] the disruption of settled arrangements caused by [a] change in the law." In re Megan-Racine Assocs., Inc., 102 F.3d 671, 676 (2d Cir. 1996). As another court explained: "Governments enact laws which invite citizens to invest their money and time and to arrange their affairs in reliance upon those laws," and the protection of those who relied on prior laws "is a matter of simple fairness." Sklar v. Byrne, 727 F.2d 633, 641-42 (7th Cir. 1984). Consistent with this policy, the Amici respectfully request that the Court enforce the CMP's exemption provision. 17 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Petitioners-Respondents' Brief, the Court should affirm the decision of the Appellate Division. Dated: September 1, 2016. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP James J. Brennan Nicholas G.O. Veliky 500 Fifth A venue New York, New York 10110 (212) 382-3300 Attorneys for New York State Senator Kevin S. Parker, New York State Assemblyman J Gary Pretlow, the Business Council of Westchester, the Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce, Teamsters Local #456, and UWUA Locall-2 18 SECTION SOO.ll(m) CERTIFICATION DAVID H. WOLLMUTH, attorney for New York State Senator Kevin S. Parker, New York State Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow, the Business Council of Westchester, the Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce, Teamsters Local #456, and UWUA Local1-2, hereby certifies pursuant Section 500.1l(m) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals for the State of New York that the word count for the foregoing amici curiae brief is 3,928 words. This amici curiae brief therefore complies with Section 500.ll(m), which limits the body of amici curiae briefs to 7,000 words, exclusive of the information required by Subsections 500.1(f) and 500.11(h). This document was prepared using Microsoft Word 2013, and this is the word count Microsoft Word generated for this document. Dated: September 1, 2016. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP David H. W ollmuth 500 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10110 (212) 382-3300 Attorneys for New York State Senator Kevin S. Parker, New York State Assemblyman J Gary Pretlow, the Business Council of Westchester, the Hudson Valley Gateway Chamber of Commerce, Teamsters Local #456, and UWUA Locall-2