The Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations v. New York State Department of State, 28 N.Y.3d 279

Entergy operates Indian Point Units 2 and 3 under original 40-year NRC licenses issued in the 1970s and applied in 2007 for 20‑year federal license renewals under NRC Part 54.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires federal license applicants affecting a state's coastal zone to certify consistency with the state's federally approved Coastal Management Program (CMP); New York's CMP is administered by the Department of State (DOS).
New York’s CMP lists nuclear operating license issuance and renewals as reviewable activities and contains two narrow exemptions (SEQRA-grandfathered projects and projects with a final EIS prepared before DOS Part 600 regulations took effect).
Entergy initially acknowledged potential CMP review, later sought rulings that the renewal applications were exempt (arguing SEQRA grandfathering and pre‑Part 600 FEIS), and requested determinations from both the NRC and DOS.
DOS concluded the renewals were not exempt and thus subject to federal consistency review; Supreme Court upheld DOS as rational, Appellate Division reversed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, sustaining DOS.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Entergy’s NRC license renewal applications are subject to New York CMP federal consistency review	Entergy: Renewals are exempt because the projects were grandfathered under SEQRA at enactment	DOS: SEQRA grandfathering exemption requires affirmative identification/listing by agencies; Indian Point 2 was not listed and Indian Point 3’s 1978 listing did not cover operation	Held: DOS rationally interpreted “identified as grandfathered” to require agency identification; first exemption inapplicable
Whether the CMP exemption for projects with a final environmental impact statement before Part 600’s effective date applies (i.e., do pre‑1976 federal NEPA EISs qualify)	Entergy: Prior NEPA final EISs satisfy the exemption; SEQRA allows use of NEPA statements	DOS: Exemption intended to cover state SEQRA EISs and state‑agency projects reviewed under Part 600; Part 600 context ties exemption to state SEQRA reviews, not federal NEPA EISs	Held: DOS rationally read the exemption to require SEQRA/state‑agency context; second exemption inapplicable
Whether license renewal is a new federal action requiring consistency review despite earlier EISs	Entergy: Past EISs mean no new CMP review required	DOS: Renewal is a new federal action with different impacts; CZMA and regulations require consistency review for renewals	Held: DOS reasonably concluded relicensing triggers consistency review; renewals not permanently exempt

Matter of Terrace Court, LLC v NYS DHCR, 18 N.Y.3d 446 (2012) (agency interpretation of its plan/regulation entitled to deference if rational)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 25 N.Y.3d 373 (2015) (courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations when administering statutes/regulations)