很明显,GGPPA允许那些已经建立自己的定价系统(如不列颠哥伦比亚省碳税)的省继续实施,只要它们满足联邦基准并容留Quebec决定继续参与加利福尼亚联通碳市场ahrfs/www.canada.ca/en/encern-climate-changes/climate-crap-thow-it-will-work.html#toc2联邦系统下收到的所有收益都返回产生收益的省对于那些未承诺计费排放的省,政府将在提交报税表时以支付形式向个人退还大约90%的燃料收费收益i/p>
/p>Alblict先前与加利福尼亚州和魁北克省联手建立区间交易程序,2018年新政府当选时突然退出跨边界市场萨斯喀彻温省、安大略省和艾伯塔省质疑GGPA合宪性萨斯喀彻温省上诉法院和安大略上诉法院分判该判决合宪性艾伯塔法院判定它不是.
它还指出,温室气体排放就其性质而言,对省际协调构成具体挑战。The Court observed that, absent a federal pricing floor, any province's failure to implement a sufficiently stringent pricing mechanism could undermine the efficacy of GHG pricing everywhere due to the risk of carbon "leakage," i.e., that emissions reductions occurring in any given province would be offset, as emissions and business activity migrate to provinces implementing weaker programs.
Responding to arguments that the GGPPA amounted to federal infringement upon traditional provincial arenas, including a province's control over its natural resources, the Court emphasized the law's design as a "backstop." It noted that the GHG pricing floor is not imposed on provinces with established, "sufficiently stringent GHG pricing system[s]." By virtue of this design, the GGPPA affords provinces "the flexibility to design their own policies to meet emissions reductions targets." Moreover, to the extent the GGPPA infringes upon traditional provincial arenas, the majority viewed this "limited constitutional impact" as "justified" in light of the irreversible harms posed by climate change, which will be "borne disproportionality by vulnerable communities and regions."
Finally, the Court held that the GGPPA's fuel and excess emission charges are "constitutionally valid regulatory charges," not taxes.3位持异见法官均对GGPPA造成政府内部不平衡表示担忧。科泰大法官同意多数人的意见,即气候变化构成国家关注问题,但认为议会-非行政部门-应负责处理该问题。布朗大法官与罗大法官同意省政府GPA构成联邦超量他们解释说,法律威胁加拿大联邦体系结构,允许国家政府做出更宜留待各省作决定。
pem>Upshot :美国企业和决策者注意到这项决定有几个原因: