- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Pennsylvania
- /
- Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau
Geography
Year
2022
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2022
Status
Concurring and dissenting opinion issued.
Geography
Docket number
85 MAP 2022
Court/admin entity
United States → State Courts → Pa.
Case category
State Law Claims → Other Types of State Law Cases
Principal law
United States → Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control ActUnited States → State Law—Air Statutes
At issue
Proceeding concerning the publication of Pennsylvania regulations to implement the State's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
07/18/2024
Concurring and dissenting opinion issued.
Decision
07/18/2024
Concurring opinion issued.
Decision
07/18/2024
Denial of application to intervene reversed.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the denial of nonprofit organizations’ application to intervene in litigation challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) regulation implementing Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multistate cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The organizations sought to defend the RGGI regulation under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA). The Supreme Court first concluded that it had jurisdiction over the organizations’ appeal and that the appeal was not moot. On the merits, the Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth Court that the nonprofit organizations established “a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation” entitling them to intervention based on alleged harms to the interests of their members that would be addressed by the RGGI regulation. Unlike the Commonwealth Court, however, the Supreme Court further concluded that PADEP did not adequately represent the organizations’ interests. The Supreme Court found that the Commonwealth Court’s analysis of the adequate representation issue unreasonably omitted the fact that PADEP “never once invoked the ERA in support of the RGGI Regulation.” The Supreme Court found that, “whatever its ultimate merit,” the ERA defense “presents a salient and nonfrivolous argument regarding the central question in this litigation of whether the RGGI Regulation is an unconstitutional tax.” The Supreme Court dismissed the organizations’ separate appeal of the Commonwealth Court’s granting of a preliminary injunction of the RGGI regulation. The Supreme Court said the Commonwealth Court’s subsequent permanent injunction rendered the appeal moot.
Decision
07/18/2022
Concurring and dissenting opinion issued.
Decision
Summary
Proceeding concerning the publication of Pennsylvania regulations to implement the State's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.