Court Opinion

ID: 9382146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 20:07:19.026529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.237876
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                           MIDDLE DISTRICT

BOWFIN KEYCON HOLDINGS, LLC;         :   No. 80 MAP 2022
CHIEF POWER FINANCE II, LLC; CHIEF   :
POWER TRANSFER PARENT, LLC;          :   Appeal from the Order of the
KEYCON POWER HOLDINGS, LLC;          :   Commonwealth Court at No. 247
GENON HOLDINGS, INC.;                :   MD 2022 dated July 8, 2022.
PENNSYLVANIA COAL ALLIANCE;          :
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA;      :
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF         :
ELECTRICAL WORKERS; AND              :
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF         :
BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS,    :
BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND             :
HELPERS,                             :
                                     :
                Appellees            :
                                     :
                                     :
          v.                         :
                                     :
                                     :
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF           :
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND         :
PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL           :
QUALITY BOARD,                       :
                                     :
                Appellants           :

BOWFIN KEYCON HOLDINGS, LLC;         :   No. 86 MAP 2022
CHIEF POWER FINANCE II, LLC; CHIEF   :
POWER TRANSFER PARENT, LLC;          :   Appeal from the Order of the
KEYCON POWER HOLDINGS, LLC;          :   Commonwealth Court at No. 247
GENON HOLDINGS, INC.;                :   MD 2022 dated June 28, 2022.
PENNSYLVANIA COAL ALLIANCE;          :
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA;      :
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF         :
ELECTRICAL WORKERS; AND              :
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF         :
BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS,    :
BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND               :
HELPERS                                :
                                       :
                                       :
          v.                           :
                                       :
                                       :
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF             :
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND           :
PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL             :
QUALITY BOARD                          :
                                       :
                                       :
APPEAL OF: CITIZENS FOR                :
PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE, SIERRA          :
CLUB, CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, AND           :
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,            :
                                       :
                Possible Intervenors   :
                                       :

BOWFIN KEYCON HOLDINGS, LLC;           :   No. 88 MAP 2022
CHIEF POWER FINANCE II, LLC; CHIEF     :
POWER TRANSFER PARENT, LLC;            :   Appeal from the Order of the
KEYCON POWER HOLDINGS, LLC;            :   Commonwealth Court at No. 247
GENON HOLDINGS, INC.;                  :   MD 2022 dated July 8, 2022.
PENNSYLVANIA COAL ALLIANCE;            :
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA;        :
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF           :
ELECTRICAL WORKERS; AND                :
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF           :
BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS,      :
BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND               :
HELPERS                                :
                                       :
                                       :
          v.                           :
                                       :
                                       :
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF             :
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND           :
PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL             :
QUALITY BOARD                          :
                                       :
                                       :

          [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022]
                                   2
 APPEAL OF: CITIZENS FOR                       :
 PENNSYLVANIA'S FUTURE, SIERRA                 :
 CLUB, CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, AND                  :
 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,                   :
                                               :
                     Possible Intervenors      :
                                               :

 BOWFIN KEYCON HOLDINGS, LLC; CHIEF                :   No. 89 MAP 2022
 POWER FINANCE II, LLC; CHIEF POWER                :
 TRANSFER PARENT, LLC; KEYCON                      :   Appeal from the Order of the
 POWER HOLDINGS, LLC; GENON                        :   Commonwealth Court at No. 247
 HOLDINGS, INC.; PENNSYLVANIA COAL                 :   MD 2022 dated July 8, 2022.
 ALLIANCE; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF                  :
 AMERICA;INTERNATIONAL                             :
 BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL                         :
 WORKERS; AND INTERNATIONAL                        :
 BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS,                      :
 IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS,                  :
 FORGERS AND HELPERS,                              :
                                                   :
                     Appellants                    :
                                                   :
                                                   :
              v.                                   :
                                                   :
                                                   :
 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF                        :
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND                      :
 PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL                        :
 QUALITY BOARD,                                    :
                                                   :
                     Appellees                     :

                   CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT

JUSTICE MUNDY                                                  FILED: March 24, 2023

      I join the Court’s action in submitting the appeal at 86 MAP 2022 on the currently-

filed briefs. My disagreement with the Court’s present disposition relates to its summary

              [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022]
                                       3
affirmance of the Commonwealth Court’s order in the appeal at 89 MAP 2022 and, by

extension, the dismissal as moot of the appeals at 80 MAP 2022 and 88 MAP 2022.

       In 89 MAP 2022, the plaintiffs challenge the Commonwealth Court’s preliminary

injunction order to the extent the court set bond at $100 million. This Court now summarily

affirms the Commonwealth Court’s order and dismisses the related appeals on grounds

of mootness, presumably because the preliminary injunction never went into effect.

Although Appellants did not post the bond and hence the injunction was never enforced,

if the bond amount was in error and thus void ab inito, the failure to post it could not have

validly impinged upon such enforcement. In my view, therefore, we may still address the

topic – and we should either remand for imposition of a nominal bond or permit oral

argument on the issue.

       I previously found the $100 million bond amount to be excessive and to represent

an abuse of discretion, particularly as the Commonwealth Court determined that

Appellants raised a substantial possibility that the actions of the Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) were unconstitutional, thereby resulting in per se

irreparable harm. See Bowfin Keycon Holdings, LLC v. DEP, 282 A.3d 688, 691-92 (Pa.

2022) (mem.) (Mundy, J., dissenting). Furthermore, and as Justice Brobson explained,

there was no evidence DEP would sustain any actual damages by delaying its

participation in the quarterly auctions involved until such time as the legality of its actions

could be tested in the courts. See id. at 693 (Brobson, J., dissenting). Rather, the

preliminary injunction would at most impose on the agency a temporary opportunity cost

which is “the price society is willing to pay to ensure the government acts within the

bounds of the law.” Id. at 691 (Mundy, J., dissenting); see also id. (“DEP is not a private,

profit-seeking entity; like all government agencies, it is an arm of the state tasked with

               [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022]
                                        4
fulfilling certain functions in the public interest with the public funds that have been

allocated for its use.”).

       Finally, I expressed that these opportunity costs were fictitious in any event. This

is because it was uncontested that DEP could not have participated in the September

2022 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) auction due to a preliminary injunction

issued in a separate matter where no bond was required. See Ziadeh v. Pa. Legislative

Reference Bureau, No. 41 M.D. 2022, Order (Pa. Cmwlth. July 8, 2022).                  As a

consequence, any harm to DEP did not arise “by reason of granting the injunction” in the

present matter, as is necessary to give rise to the bond requirement under Rule of Civil

Procedure 1531(b)(1). Because I did not previously elaborate on this latter point, I will do

so now.

       In its opinion in support of its prior order in this matter, the Commonwealth Court

acknowledged that, in light of the Ziadeh litigation, DEP could not have participated in the

September 2022 auction. Although this meant that, as a factual matter, DEP’s opportunity

costs were not “sustained by reason of granting the injunction,” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1531(b)(1),

the court justified its action on the basis that “each case stands on its own,” and hence, it

was required to “apply the applicable Rules of Civil and/or Appellate Procedure in each

case.” Bowfin Keycon Holdings, LLC v. DEP, No. 257 M.D. 2022, slip op. at 8 (Pa.

Cmwlth. Aug. 25, 2022). The court thus concluded there was “no relevance” to the fact

a preliminary injunction had been issued in the Ziadeh case. Id. In so holding, the court

did not deny that, factually speaking, Rule 1531(b)(1)’s precondition was not met.

       While it is certainly tempting to view each case in isolation, as the Commonwealth

Court chose to do here, a legitimate question arises whether there is any basis in Rule

1531’s text or in case precedent to support that approach.

               [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022]
                                        5
       This Court’s rules are interpreted by reference to the Statutory Construction Act.

See In re Carney, 79 A.2d 490, 505 (Pa. 2013). That enactment favors application

according to the statutory text where its meaning is plain. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a);

1921(b); see also Koken v. Reliance Ins. Co., 893 A.2d 70, 82 (Pa. 2006) (where statutory

language is plain it cannot be overridden in pursuit of a contrary spirit or purpose). As

applied presently, the question of whether the damages as asserted are “sustained by

reason of granting the injunction” is a factual one, and I am skeptical of the

Commonwealth Court’s resort to a legal fiction – that “each case stands on its own” – to

avoid ruling according to such facts. The court did not reference any interpretive principle,

case precedent, or other authority to support reading such a directive into the Rule, and I

am unaware of any. Perhaps the court’s stance can be justified on the basis that the

record before it related primarily to the instant matter and not the Ziadeh litigation. But

the court surely could have taken judicial notice of the record and its own rulings in the

parallel litigation before it.   See generally Pa.R.E. 201 (relating to judicial notice of

adjudicative facts).

       It is also possible, although the court did not articulate this, that the court was

concerned about the need for a substantial bond in the event the injunction in Ziadeh

were to be dissolved or overturned on appeal – and indeed this is the basis on which DEP

currently defends the court’s action for purposes of this appeal. See Brief at 20. If that

were to occur, however, the court could then have entertained a motion by DEP to modify

the injunction so as to change the amount of the bond, and any refusal to modify the order

would have been immediately appealable. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4).

       For my part, I would favor application of Rule 1531’s plain text unless and until this

Court is convinced otherwise through developed advocacy and sound interpretive

methodology. Such application would, in my view, have led the Commonwealth Court to

               [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022]
                                        6
impose a nominal bond in this case. I therefore respectfully dissent from this Court’s

present decision to affirm the Commonwealth Court’s order and to dismiss the related

appeals as moot.

      Justice Brobson joins this concurring and dissenting statement.

             [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022]
                                      7