On Tuesday, our primary election ballot will contain questions about whether two proposed amendments to the Pennsylvania constitution should be approved.
These two amendments, if approved, would effectively give control of the state s disaster emergency response to the General Assembly. As we prepare to vote on these amendments, how can we judge whether they should be approved?
One way is to imagine how Pennsylvaniaâs General Assembly might perform in the face of a real-world disaster emergency, had these amendments been the law when the novel coronavirus hit last year.
Gov. Tom Wolf declared a state disaster emergency on March 6, 2020, and directed many actions by his administration to fight the coronavirus. Under existing law, his initial emergency declaration was in effect for 90 days, or until June 3, 2020.
Local health officers across the Hoosier State have lost their independent authority to impose emergency disease prevention measures on individuals and businesses that are more stringent than state rules.
On Monday, the Republican-controlled Indiana Senate voted 36-10, and the Republican-controlled House 59-30, to put Senate Enrolled Act 5 into effect immediately, notwithstanding Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb s May 4 veto of the proposal.
The new law mandates the local governing body overseeing a county or city health officer approve any health order whose provisions go beyond state requirements during an emergency, such as continuing a face mask mandate or business capacity restrictions amid the COVID-19 pandemic now that the governorâs directives on those issues have expired.
I recently read an article quoting the chief executive officer of a Pennsylvania-based company advocating for the implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) by saying he would be fine with paying higher energy costs to curb what he believes to be man-made climate change.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a proposed multi-state compact with the stated goal of cutting carbon emissions from power generators. This would somehow be accomplished by placing a tax on carbon-based energy providers including the coal-fired power plants that provide family-sustaining jobs to thousands of Pennsylvanians.
Of course, there is nothing to stop that CEO from having his company contribute financially to projects that cut CO2 emissions. But, to achieve his policy goal he would inflict higher energy costs on every manufacturer, business, and residential consumer in the commonwealth.
There are 10 state legislature bills concerning so-called “forever chemicals” that have contaminated North Carolina waterways. But who is supporting them has become a partisan issue.
I recently read an article quoting the chief executive officer of a Pennsylvania-based company advocating for the implementation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) by saying he would be fine with paying higher energy costs to curb what he believes to be man-made climate change.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a proposed multi-state compact with the stated goal of cutting carbon emissions from power generators. This would somehow be accomplished by placing a tax on carbon-based energy providers including the coal-fired power plants that provide family-sustaining jobs to thousands of Pennsylvanians.
Of course, there is nothing to stop that CEO from having his company contribute financially to projects that cut CO2 emissions. But, to achieve his policy goal he would inflict higher energy costs on every manufacturer, business, and residential consumer in the commonwealth.