logo
Pa. justices ask in oral arguments: Is RGGI a tax, a fee, or something completely different?

Pa. justices ask in oral arguments: Is RGGI a tax, a fee, or something completely different?

Yahoo14-05-2025
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court July, 2024 (Jen Barker Worley/ Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts)
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative could put fossil fuel-burning power plants out of business and significantly increase energy costs for consumers, electricity producers and Republican opponents of the program said Tuesday in state Supreme Court.
They argued the state Department of Environmental Protection overstepped its authority and violated the constitution by imposing an impermissible tax on electricity generators who release climate-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro's Department of Environmental Protection says that's not the case, because lawmakers decades ago gave it broad authority to control air pollution. Its lawyer, Thomas Hazlett, argued before the court that requiring power producers to pay for allowances to release climate-warming carbon dioxide is within that authority.
'The policy choice that the legislature made and the duty that it imposed … is to prevent, control, reduce and abate air pollution,' Hazlett said. 'Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant.'
Environmental groups argued the state constitution guarantees the protection of public resources including clean air and that the DEP's plan to limit carbon emissions is constitutional because it is part of its program to protect the public's environmental rights.
'Air is a public trust resource, and the department and other trustees have to act to protect it,' Jessica O'Neil, who represented Penn Future, the Sierra Club, the Clean Air Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
But Brigid Landy Khuri, representing Senate Republican Leader Joe Pittman, President Pro Tempore Kim Ward and Energy Committee Chairman Gen Yaw, said the agency overstepped its authority by joining 11 other northeast states in the carbon credit exchange.
'If the purpose is just to cap and regulate CO₂, that's one thing,' Khuri said. 'If the purpose is … to change the entire dynamic of our electric generation system, that's absolutely a policy decision that must be made in the General Assembly, that was not made here.'
Pennsylvania joined the program, known as RGGI, in 2022 under Gov. Tom Wolf's administration.
RGGI requires power plant operators to bid for the rights to emit quantities of carbon dioxide as a byproduct of burning coal, oil and natural gas to make electricity. It's designed to reduce emissions by gradually decreasing the number of credits over several years and investing the auction proceeds in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies in each state.
In more than two hours of arguments the justices questioned the extent to which the DEP can regulate other sources of greenhouse gas emissions from cars, or even cows.
But the main question before the court was whether the lower Commonwealth Court incorrectly determined the requirement to buy carbon credits was an illegal tax.
In its 2023 decision, the appellate court said that Pennsylvania's participation in RGGI must be approved through the General Assembly and that the Department of Environmental Protection does not have the authority to impose a tax.
Hazlett said the DEP contends that the requirement to purchase carbon credits is actually a fee, but the justices asked whether there is a third option.
Justice David Wecht suggested the creation of a marketplace for carbon credits is more like the state is selling a product or an asset.
'It's like environmental Bitcoin,' Wecht said, noting that the credits are different from licenses for which the DEP charges fees because they can be sold on a secondary market.
'What authority does DEP have to create a product that the General Assembly has not authorized them to create … and then reap the profits from the sales, whatever they may be, along with its brothers and sister states who agree to enter into this conglomerate?' Wecht asked.
The legislature created the authority for the DEP to regulate the burning of fossil fuels and the emission of pollutants in the Air Pollution Control Act, which was first passed in 1959. The sale of carbon credits was determined to be an efficient way to exercise that authority, Hazlett said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
He added that controlling industrial emissions with credits that can be traded has been around since the 1980s, when the state sought to control acid rain emissions. Hazlett said the intent of the program is not to put the fossil fuel industry out of business.
'The idea of the regulatory regime is to allow the regulated entities to manage their business in the most efficient way,' Hazlett said, noting that generators could reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by improving technology or using other fuels.
David Fine, who represents a consortium of generating companies that use fossil fuels, said the case before the court is not about whether RGGI is a good program, but rather, whether the executive branch has the authority to implement such a program.
Responding to the court's inquiry about how much RGGI would generate in auction proceeds, Fine said that based on an auction for the other states last year, Pennsylvania would have received $2 billion in costs that electricity producers would pass on to consumers. He argued the court should conclude a cost of that magnitude should not be implemented without legislative approval.
'That's multiple times the entire DEP budget,' Fine said. 'All of that without the General Assembly voted in favor of it. This will cripple an industry. This will imperil jobs, and it will also imperil investment in Pennsylvania business.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

James Carville Gives Fox News Viewers An Uncomfortable Reminder About Jeffrey Epstein
James Carville Gives Fox News Viewers An Uncomfortable Reminder About Jeffrey Epstein

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

James Carville Gives Fox News Viewers An Uncomfortable Reminder About Jeffrey Epstein

Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville on Thursday reminded Fox News viewers of a name that's rarely heard on the right-wing network: Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted sex offender who was once close with President Donald Trump. Fox News host Jesse Watters asked Carville if Democrats would consider Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, as a possible presidential candidate. 'You know, everybody in the world is talking about Epstein, and Fox is still talking about Biden's memory,' Carville said. 'That's so long ago I can't even remember it.' 'Well, do you want to talk about Epstein?' Watters asked. 'I don't mind talking about Epstein,' said Carville. Carville's reminder comes as a new report found that Fox News has indeed shied away from Epstein coverage ― just as Trump has asked. The report by Media Matters for America finds that on Monday, for example, Fox News mentioned former President Barack Obama 117 times and Epstein just twice. Carville and Watters resumed talking about the Bidens but returned to Epstein later in the segment. 'I wasn't even going to bring Epstein up,' Watters said. 'But because you did, do you, James Carville, a Clinton guy, think that the Democrats should be begging for the release of the Epstein files?' Like Trump, former President Bill Clinton was also once close with Epstein, who was convicted of sex crimes in 2008. He was arrested again in 2019 and died in custody later that year, apparently of suicide, while awaiting trial on allegations of trafficking underage girls and other charges. Carville said he didn't know what was in the files. 'I suspect that they'll come out. I don't know what they are, but the story is not going away,' he said. 'That's pretty clear. It's just not going anywhere.' Trump has been facing new questions over his ties to Epstein after the Justice Department said it would not release any new material related to the case despite Trump's promises to do so. When asked about the case, Trump has deflected and complained about Obama instead. See the full segment below:

What James Carville doesn't get about voter priorities
What James Carville doesn't get about voter priorities

Fox News

time24 minutes ago

  • Fox News

What James Carville doesn't get about voter priorities

Writing in the New York Times on Monday, longtime Democratic political strategist James Carville outlined a compelling message for Democrats to unite around ahead of the 2026 midterms. Carville urged Democrats to delay the "civil war" that will eventually erupt between the party's moderate and progressive wings, and to coalesce around a single "oppositional message" focused entirely on repealing President Donald Trump's agenda. With all due respect to Mr. Carville, his myopic focus on a strategy of resisting Trump above all else is simply too narrow to be truly effective. Put another way, a Democratic agenda built entirely around repealing the Republican agenda may be enough for 2026, but it falls far short of what Democrats must do if they hope to take back the White House in 2028. Indeed, nowhere in the Times piece is any description of actual policies that Democrats should advance as an alternative to what Republicans are offering, either next year or in three years. There are no calls for an entirely new economic agenda, one that replaces Democrats' tendency for profligate spending with a more fiscally conservative plan focused on managing the debt while also protecting the social safety net. In many ways, Democrats today should look to former President Bill Clinton, who was able to reduce the debt, leave a budget surplus and still protect vital social programs. Moreover, the word "immigration" is not even mentioned. This comes despite 2024 election polling showing that immigration was a top issue for voters, and exit polls showing voters trusted Trump over former Vice President Kamala Harris by a 16-point margin (52% to 36%), per Fox News. To that end, if Democrats hope to take back more than just one chamber of Congress, the party needs an agenda that prioritizes securing the border, combined with a pathway to citizenship for legal migrants and Dreamers. And, while I do agree with Mr. Carville that the midterms will be decided based on kitchen table issues rather than foreign policy, that does not mean Democrats can afford to ignore this issue. As a party, Democrats must advance an agenda that positively asserts democratic values at home and abroad. This entails rejecting the belief of the far left – and increasingly the far right – that any use of American power is inherently bad. To be sure, formulating an entirely new Democratic agenda takes time. And it will require the emergence of moderate candidates at a time when Zohran Mamdani's win in New York City has energized the progressive wing of the party. Nevertheless, as the 2024 election made clear, Democrats cannot afford to run from the center toward the far left. What the party needs is a candidate who can win, not one chosen because they passed progressives' ideological purity test. Interestingly, Carville cites former President Clinton as a figure who emerged as Democrats' "savior" in 1992. But Clinton was able to do so because, at a time when the party was moving further to the left, Clinton dragged the party toward the middle on the economy and crime. Finally, the crux of Carville's message – "we demand a repeal" of Trump's agenda – overlooks the core factor behind who Americans cast a vote for. Voters choose candidates who have plans and policies that will improve their lives. Slogans, no matter how catchy, may work for the midterms, but if Democrats then fail to deliver actual change between 2026 and 2028, its unlikely voters will trust them. Quite simply, voters want a strong economy, safe streets, a government that is not excessively bloated and secure borders, not candidates whose only agenda is resisting the president. Now, this is not to say that the agenda outlined by Carville will not be successful next year – it very well may. Rather, it is to point out that even if it helps Democrats reclaim the House of Representatives, it will not be enough to take back the White House in 2028. For that, the party needs to advance its own agenda, one that addresses the above issues and actually provides a real, viable alternative to the Trump-GOP agenda.

Trump, Obama and the Question of Treason
Trump, Obama and the Question of Treason

New York Times

time24 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Trump, Obama and the Question of Treason

President Trump believes that President Barack Obama committed treason, a crime that may be punishable by death. Seeking a distraction from his current political travails, Mr. Trump is attempting to relitigate the nearly decade-old controversy over Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump is wrong on the facts and the law, and his sensational allegation serves only to demonstrate how completely he has degraded contemporary political discourse. Mr. Trump denounced Mr. Obama after Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, asked the Justice Department to investigate whether intelligence officials in the Obama administration faked evidence of Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. When the question of who should be targeted in the investigation was posed at an Oval Office press availability, Mr. Trump said: 'It would be President Obama. He started it. … This was treason. This was every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined, even in other countries.' Mr. Trump also mentioned former President Joe Biden, former F.B.I. Director James Comey, the former director of national intelligence James Clapper and former C.I.A. Director John Brennan as other possible defendants. President Trump's history of intemperate remarks has earned him a perverse kind of immunity; the more outrageous his statement, the faster it is often dismissed. But Mr. Trump doesn't deserve this bloviator's privilege. He's not just the president, but, more to the point, he's the overseer of an unusually compliant Justice Department, and his offhand condemnation of his predecessor is as significant as it is chilling. Indeed, Mr. Trump made sure that the investigation of purported treason swiftly took on a life of its own. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that a Justice Department 'strike force' would investigate the allegations against Mr. Obama and the others, and a pair of Republican senators, Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn, have called for the appointment of a special counsel to lead the inquiry. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and it's set out there, in relevant part, as giving 'aid and comfort' to our enemies. Regurgitating a claim that Mr. Trump and his allies have made for years, Ms. Gabbard said that President Obama, after Hillary Clinton was defeated by President Trump in the 2016 election, 'directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store