State Supreme Court will hear arguments over Pa.'s membership in Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Pennsylvania's long-delayed membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that would require fossil fuel burning power plants to pay for carbon dioxide emissions will be the subject of arguments Tuesday before the state Supreme Court.
The program, known as RGGI, established a carbon credit auction for electricity producers in 11 northeast states to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide. The money received would go to each state for uses, ranging from utility assistance and energy efficiency projects to subsidies for alternative energy.
Gov. Tom Wolf entered the compact in 2022 over the objections of Republican state lawmakers. They raised concerns it would increase electricity prices, hasten the closing of the commonwealth's remaining coal power plants, and not reduce carbon emissions overall, but simply force them into other states.
In a legal challenge to the program's constitutionality, GOP leaders in the House and Senate contended the requirement to buy carbon credits was an impermissible tax. A Commonwealth Court panel of five judges agreed.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
In its decision, the appellate court said that Pennsylvania's participation in RGGI must be approved through the General Assembly and that the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not have the authority to impose a tax.
Gov. Josh Shapiro's administration appealed, with the DEP, arguing that the commonwealth's membership in RGGI is authorized by the state's Air Pollution Control Act (APCA). The law empowers the state to enact rules and regulations to reduce pollution, including establishing fees used to eliminate air emissions.
Several nonprofit citizens rights and environmental groups including Penn Future, the Sierra Club, the Clean Air Council and the Environmental Defense Fund moved to intervene in the appeal. They argue the Commonwealth Court wrongly decided the case because it failed to consider the DEP and Environmental Quality Board's obligations under the Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA) to the state constitution. The groups also back the DEP's argument that the agency is empowered to establish fees to enforce the APCA.
Adopted in 1971, the ERA requires the commonwealth to preserve public natural resources for the benefit of all people. It's considered one of the strongest such constitutional protections in the nation, according to PennFuture.
Since the Commonwealth Court's decision in 2023, Shapiro has introduced a Pennsylvania-focused alternative to RGGI called the Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction Act (PACER) that he said would leverage the commonwealth's status as an energy exporter to fund carbon-neutral energy development.
Sen. Carolyn Comitta (D-Chester) who plans to introduce legislation to establish PACER, said Shapiro's alternative was developed in collaboration with Republican lawmakers and energy companies. Comitta said the Supreme Court case and RGGI would make the Supreme Court case moot, but GOP lawmakers have said the plan falls short of their goals to reduce energy costs and ensure reliable electricity supplies.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday in Harrisburg. An audio stream of the proceedings is available on YouTube.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. Advertisement The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. Advertisement However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Advertisement Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. Advertisement The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Advertisement Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions.
New York Post
22 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trouble-packed NYC animal shelters land another $1M in taxpayer funds — GOP's Sliwa slams as ‘drop in the bucket'
The city is dumping another $1 million into its troubled jam-packed animal-shelter system to hire and train 14 new staffers, City Hall said Friday. The Animal Care Centers of New York City — a nonprofit with a $1.4 billion contract to run the Big Apple's animal-shelter system for 34 years — recently announced it was suspending its intake of dogs and cats because of 'critical' overcrowding. The move came days after a Post expose revealed ongoing sickening conditions at ACC's new $75 million city-funded shelter in Queens. Advertisement 5 Anna Garguilo, an adoptions counselor with Charmy, 4, an Akita mix. Stephen Yang 'ACC's work to ensure no animal is left behind is essential to protecting animals across New York City, and our administration is proud to invest $1 million in additional funding to support the work ACC does and boost their capacity to better care for animals,' Mayor Eric Adams said in a statement. 'I also urge New Yorkers looking for a pet addition to their families to adopt, so we can ensure that every animal can find a loving home.' Advertisement But GOP mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa slammed the funding announcement as a piecemeal solution to the larger problem of animal welfare in Gotham. 'The city has completely ignored animal welfare,' Sliwa wrote on X. 'Today's $1M for ACC is a drop in the bucket. ACC has a 34-year contract worth over $1B—and yet our shelters are overcrowded, surrenders are paused, and animals are suffering.' 5 New York City mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa holds a campaign event outside of an Animal Care Center on 110th street in East Harlem in Manhattan. Stephen Yang 5 'ACC has a 34-year contract worth over $1B—and yet our shelters are overcrowded, surrenders are paused, and animals are suffering,' Sliwa said. Stephen Yang Advertisement The red-beret-wearing Republican, who shares an apartment with six rescue cats, earlier this week called for the city to end its contract with ACC and replace it with a city-run overhaul that would include a 'quasi-private public partnership' to shift the cost away from taxpayers. A new animal welfare agency would be created in the 'basement' of City Hall and all shelters would be kill-free and offer free spay and neuter programs under a Sliwa administration. The ACC has three active sites across the five boroughs with more than 1,000 animals in its care. 5 New York City Mayor Eric Adams speaks at a press conference to announce that 200 rescues have been made through the NYPD's drone and enforcement operations targeting subway surfing on July 21, 2025 in New York City. Andrew Schwartz / Advertisement 5 A new animal welfare agency would be created in the 'basement' of City Hall and all shelters would be kill-free and offer free spay and neuter programs under a Sliwa administration. Stephen Yang While the ACC is mandated to have a location in each of the five boroughs, the Brooklyn location is currently closed till 2026 for renovations, and the Bronx resource center has been 'temporarily' closed since May. Another $92 million facility in The Bronx is still under construction even though it was slated to open in the spring. The ACC did not respond to a Post request for comment. Adams' campaign did not respond to a request for comment, either.
NBC News
23 minutes ago
- NBC News
A global HIV/AIDS program that saved millions of lives faces cuts under the Trump administration
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering a dramatic cutback and eventual phasing out of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the U.S. program to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries that has been widely credited with saving 26 million lives since its inception in 2003, according to multiple congressional and administration officials. Created during the George W. Bush administration, PEPFAR was launched with star-power support from U2 frontman and advocate for developing countries, Bono, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank. In the two decades since, it enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress. But as the Trump administration has sought to cut costs across the U.S. government, particularly for global aid programs, PEPFAR has come up on the chopping block. The administration initially proposed a cut of $400 million from next year's budget, but that funding was restored at the last minute by the Republican-led Senate last week, keeping it going in the short term. Four congressional aides told NBC News that the program was virtually frozen, along with most funding for USAID, in early February. Contracts with providers were put on hold and funding was reduced to what they called a 'trickle.' They said that most promised State Department waivers for critical care did not materialize, and that 51% of current PEPFAR appropriations were either terminated or were not functional. 'They're sitting on the money,' congressional officials said. 'We're not seeing it in the field.' According to the aides, in April, the State Department's then-director of the Office of Foreign Assistance, Peter Marocco, working with Elon Musk's DOGE team to dismantle foreign aid, briefed Congress that PEPFAR would refocus on maternal and child HIV transmission, excluding LGBT individuals and most preventative care that the program has done for decades. Earlier this month, a senior State Department official told reporters, 'The program was actually drowning in too much money, in some cases, you know, sort of going beyond its core mandate.' The official said, 'So instead, we're going to focus on that lifesaving care' and 'work with countries on self-reliance' to ensure there is not a gap in coverage. The senior official said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is drawing a distinction between people who have HIV and need lifesaving direct treatment, and preventative care for sex workers as well as bisexual and gay men. The State Department official also said, 'It doesn't mean that the United States has to pay for every single thing around the world." "A lot of these countries, they've graduated to the point where their HIV rates are low enough and their economy is healthy enough that they can continue to pay for some of these things. We can get in, make positive change and then get out rather than paying forever so that every sex worker in Africa has PrEP," the official said, referring to HIV medication. Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Michael Rigas testified to Congress last week that, overall, in the administration's budget request for the next fiscal year there is a 54% cut in PEPFAR's administrative, nondirect care funds. That is in addition to a 15% cut in the department's budget request for direct care in the same budget request. A global health staff of 700 people plus contractors in the field prior to President Donald Trump taking office has been reduced to 80 people after recent firings. Last month, White House budget director Russell Vought told a Senate committee, without providing evidence, that PEPFAR spent $9.3 million 'to advise Russian doctors on how to perform abortions and gender analysis.' Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee and former chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, told NBC News that PEPFAR had always planned to get countries that had developed their own hospitals and health care systems, such as South Africa, to take over funding the program by 2030. According to Coons, that transition is already underway. But he and other critics of the current budget cuts said that it is not possible in low-income conflict zones, such as South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Haiti, to replace the U.S program anytime soon. Still, according to a draft planning memo reported by The New York Times, the State Department would shut down U.S. support in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Vietnam within two years. Nations with high HIV infection rates, including Kenya, Zimbabwe and Angola, would get three to four years, the Times reported, while lower-income countries would get up to eight years under the proposal. NBC News has not viewed the draft plan and a State Department official told NBC News it has not been finalized. Dr. Robert Black, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who evaluated PEPFAR for Congress, told NBC News, 'I think two years for a number of countries, for many countries in Africa, would be too short,' adding, 'I just can't imagine two years would be an effective transition.' Black also said maintaining prevention is 'clearly important" and that withdrawing funding for prevention, which is contemplated under the Trump plan, would increase HIV rates and expand the burden. Rubio, who as a senator supported PEPFAR and other foreign aid, defended $20 billion in overall proposed budget cuts to the Senate Foreign Relations committee in May, citing 'duplicative, wasteful and ideologically driven programs.' Asked last week about the PEPFAR cuts, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served in the Bush administration when PEPFAR was launched, told NBC News at the Aspen Security Forum, 'I do think PEPFAR is going to not only survive, I think it's going to be just fine. ... There will be some scaling back, and it's probably worth it to take a look at focusing on what we really need to focus on. We've become pretty dispersed and diffuse in the kinds of programs that we were running.' But, she added, 'what makes America different as a great power is that we have not led just with power, but we've also led with principle.' Later at the conference, Rice said launching PEPFAR was 'the proudest moment' in all of her government service. But she added that the U.S. also wants to build other countries' capacity and health care systems to sustain themselves. Former President Bush, in rare criticism of Trump's policies, praised fired foreign aid workers in a video last month. He told the State Department employees who had been fired, 'You've shown the great strength of America through your work, and that is our good heart.' Citing PEPFAR'S lifesaving work, Bush said, 'Is it in our interest that 25 million people who would have died, now live? I think it is. On behalf of a grateful nation, thank you for your hard work, and God bless you.' In a video, Bono told the foreign aid staff in verse, 'They called you crooks — when you were the best of us, there for the rest of us. And don't think any less of us, when politics makes a mess of us. It's not left-wing rhetoric to feed the hungry, heal the sick. If this isn't murder. I don't know what is.'
