Why the judges you elect this November matter

WHY JUDGES MATTER

Elections for seats on Pennsylvania's highest courts tend to lack the urgency of other races, as those courts seem to operate far from our everyday lives.

But judges in these positions hold an immense amount of power, and make decisions that profoundly impact some of the most pressing and hot-button issues of our time.

That’s why Spotlight PA has launched a new voter tool ahead of this November’s judicial contests to illustrate how the courts in recent years have affected the policies you care about most.

Also this week, a working group convened by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro agrees that a cap-and-trade policy would help Pennsylvania achieve its climate goals — but much like the governor himself, it isn't sure exactly what to do next. 

Keep reading to learn more about the RGGI memo and the secretive group that put it together. 

And finally, Spotlight PA State College's Marley Parish has two dispatches from rural Pennsylvania: One examines the hardships of a borough that's finally getting needed attention from Harrisburg; the other examines what this year's state budget means for shrinking rural communities. 

"We've hoped somebody would come here to try to do something."

—Rodney Preslovich, chair of the Snow Shoe Township Board of Supervisors, on new attention from Harrisburg that's helping the struggling borough

A Q&A with the head of Shapiro’s secretive RGGI working group

A working group formed by Gov. Josh Shapiro has released its long-awaited recommendations on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, though it failed to reach a consensus on the best way forward. 

Shapiro has been noncommittal about continuing with the program — a multistate effort to fight climate change that his Democratic predecessor entered into — and asked a working group to examine its merits. The group found that cap and trade is an “optimal” way to achieve Pennsylvania’s climate goals, but couldn’t agree to endorse RGGI specifically. 

The group's deliberations were opaque. Its meetings were closed to the public, and the names of all of the members weren’t released until the memo was published. 

Jackson Morris, who works on clean energy policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, co-chaired the group. He spoke to Spotlight PA's Kate Huangpu about the deliberations, the secrecy involved, and what's next for climate policy in Pennsylvania.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Spotlight PA: The work group concluded that a cap-and-invest program is the “optimal approach” to meeting Pennsylvania’s climate goals, but didn’t recommend joining RGGI. The memo included some alternatives, like some kind of collaboration with all the states that use the grid overseen by PJM. 

How did you approach these discussions? What was on the table?

Morris: The driver of the whole conversation that the group undertook was always linked back to the charge that was provided to us from Gov. Shapiro. And that charge was to discuss and deliberate how RGGI could potentially be implemented in a manner that passed his three-part test, which was to meaningfully reduce emissions, create good family-sustaining jobs, and to provide affordable power. That really was kind of the North Star that guided the entire process.

We never got in-depth into a conversation about an explicit policy framework that would have delivered or could deliver comparable reductions in carbon emissions from the power sector [to RGGI] while also creating jobs and investing in Pennsylvania's economy.

There's other policies that are important to look into. There's obviously a ton of federal tax breaks right now to drive down the cost of renewable energy. There are tons of programs to do really important things like capping orphan wells.

All of those are really important programs, but incentives alone don't give you the certainty that the climate science says we need to get the emissions reductions we need and meet the targets. There's limits to how far you can get with incentives.

Do you feel the level of secrecy aided discussions?

I fully recognize the concerns about transparency that had been raised by various folks over the course of the working group process. And those are valid concerns and I totally understand where people are coming from. First of all, that wasn't the decision of Mike [Dunleavy, co-chair of the working group] or myself. It was the governor and his team who structured it that way. 

But I was able to experience firsthand that the nature of the conversation was entirely different because it was behind closed doors. I don't think there's any way we would have reached the level of consensus, albeit imperfect consensus, that we did if these had been public meetings where people felt like they needed to, kind of, perform for the public or for different interests.

I can't say for sure what would have happened, but I can say what did happen. And what did happen is the tenor of these conversations were completely different than the tenor of the conversations that have been happening in the hallways of Harrisburg for years, and for far too long. 

Pennsylvania’s been a member of RGGI since 2019, but has yet to participate in the coalition’s carbon credit auctions due to lawsuits making their way through the Commonwealth and Supreme Courts.

What was the attitude toward those pending cases while writing the memo?

We intentionally structured the conversations in the working group to not delve into legal issues and the litigation around the RGGI regulation, because it wouldn't be productive and it's kind of irrelevant because it's already being litigated. 

We've definitely worked to not get hung up on those questions because the working group shouldn't really impact the litigation one way or the other. It really wasn't the role of the charge of the group.

What do you think is the likeliest path forward for Pennsylvania on energy?

As you mentioned already, it really is going to come down to the courts. And I don't want to begin to read tea leaves about litigation. 

But what I would say is that in a world where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania were to uphold the RGGI regulation, I do firmly believe that at that point, the tenor of the conversation and the nature of that conversation from all stakeholders is going to shift significantly. 

I, personally, am hoping we can get to that point in the conversation. There's going to be revenue. And there's going to be really important priorities and input from a bunch of different diverse stakeholders that are going to need to be incorporated in the decisions that the state makes on how to invest that revenue. 

Read more about the working group and the future of RGGI here.

UNACCOUNTED FOR: 

» AP: State subsidies won’t make Pa. universities more affordable

» PENNLIVE: HACC faculty push for contract despite arrest of union reps 

» REUTERS: Hydrogen hubs located in Pa. will get federal grants