Governor Josh Shapiro’s alphabet soup of big-government initiatives threatens the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians.
Josh Shapiro’s alphabet soup of big-government initiatives threatens the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians.
I n efforts to keep the war drums of climate alarmism beating, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro is employing one reckless acronym after another: RGGI, PACER, and PRESS. This alphabet soup of big-government initiatives, however, threatens the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians and the economic vitality of one of the nation’s largest energy-producing states.
Shapiro’s green gambit starts with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, or “Reggie”). RGGI is a multistate cap-and-tax program that sets strict emission standards on member states and imposes a tax on carbon-emitting power generators. RGGI sycophants refer to these taxes as, in true Orwellian euphemism, “allowances,” creating a “market” for generators to buy and sell units of carbon dioxide.
Shapiro entered the governor’s office with Pennsylvania’s RGGI membership tied up in the courts. RGGI’s legality in the Keystone State was problematic from Day One because of Shapiro’s predecessor, former governor Tom Wolf, and his use of executive power. Wolf leapfrogged the legislature and unilaterally entered Pennsylvania into RGGI via executive order.
Fortunately, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the executive branch (i.e., the governor) lacked the constitutional authority to levy the carbon tax necessary to participate in RGGI.
For Pennsylvanians, the ruling protects pocketbooks and jobs. Pennsylvania’s Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) estimates that the state would collect about $800 million in carbon taxes to redistribute as a smorgasbord of corporate welfare for renewable energy companies and to produce more progressive environmental regulatory schemes.
With increased taxes, utility costs would follow suit. RGGI would result in an estimated 30 percent increase in residential electricity bills. Even worse, RGGI also threatens to cut 22,000 energy jobs and siphon off $7.7 billion from the state’s economy. As the only energy-exporting state in the RGGI region, Pennsylvania would face severe disadvantages from overtaxing and overregulating its leading employer and economic driver.
Oddly, Shapiro opted to double down on RGGI. The governor, originally a RGGI skeptic, surprised many when he appealed the court’s rejection of RGGI.
Interestingly, Shapiro’s sue-till-green legal strategy has little to do with the environment. The appeal, according to the governor, was “limited to questions of executive authority” and his administration’s need to “protect that important authority for this Administration and all future governors.” Shapiro is more concerned with maintaining his unilateral power and stealing the power of the purse away from the state legislature.
Following RGGI’s return to litigious limbo, Shapiro presented two new initiatives: the Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction Act (PACER) and the Pennsylvania Reliable Energy Sustainability Standard (PRESS).
PACER is ostensibly RGGI 2.0, and the governor has said he would stop his RGGI legal battle if the Pennsylvania General Assembly passes PACER. Shapiro’s rebranded cap-and-tax program is his attempt at “thinking locally.” Rather than allowing eleven other states to run roughshod on Pennsylvania’s energy markets, PACER provides only self-inflicted wounds.
Much like PACER is a rebranded RGGI, PRESS is Shapiro’s effort to repackage Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act (AEPS). Initially codified in 2004, AEPS requires energy suppliers to provide 18 percent of total electricity sales from alternative energy sources as defined in statute. PRESS raises the benchmarks of AEPS and adds additional layers by increasing the amount of intermittent renewable sources to 35 percent, 10 percent to things such as battery storage, and 5 percent to “ultra-low emission” fuels.
Simply put, PACER and PRESS taken together is a progressive central-planning scheme to lift up the renewable energy industry that would deliver the goods to green-lobby donors. Shapiro’s overzealous approach to energy presents a political liability for the governor. Polling finds that RGGI and RGGI-like policies are wildly unpopular among Pennsylvania voters. Nearly two out of three voters oppose RGGI.
Driving this opposition is consumer anxiety over increased electricity bills: Eight in ten voters said their utilities increased in the past two years, and 70 percent said they are deeply concerned with energy affordability in Pennsylvania. Comparatively, only 33 percent of voters prioritized combatting climate change.
Though Shapiro won’t, or can’t, admit that increased utility bills loom on the horizon, voters and taxpayers can read the tea leaves. According to Shapiro’s proposal, 70 percent of PACER revenue would fund $250 million in consumer rebates. By proposing rebates, the governor casually concedes the point that his policies act to jack up prices.
Meanwhile, the other 30 percent of PACER revenue would finance a slush fund for renewable-energy projects. Champing at the bit for these government handouts, in the name of environment, social, and governance investing, are the renewable-energy companies and left-wing climate nonprofits, who, of course, applaud Shapiro’s proposals.
And the Shapiro administration isn’t even hiding its allegiance to these green lobbyists: A press release, posted on the governor’s official website, highlights the rave reviews by the Sierra Club, the Clear Air Council, the National Resources Defense Council, and several other “green” organizations prepping for PACER handouts.
Instead of taxing and regulating Pennsylvania’s robust energy markets and redistributing taxpayer dollars to environmentalist donors and lobbyists, Shapiro can chart a different course — one that reduces emissions and creates jobs, all while employing a hands-off strategy.
Pennsylvania managed to reduce its carbon footprint without RGGI or PACER. Recent IFO data shows that, over the past decade, Pennsylvania has reduced its carbon emissions while increasing energy production. This economic growth has resulted in more than 424,000 direct and indirect jobs statewide — all thanks to the commonwealth’s energy sector.
Driving this mutually beneficial trend of reduced carbon and increased economic growth is the transition to natural gas. Carbon Brief, a website funded by the European Climate Foundation, called the shift from coal to natural gas “the largest driver” for reduced greenhouse emissions. Between 2001 and 2022, U.S. gas generation “more than doubled” while emissions plunged 38 percent, according to the International Energy Agency.
Pennsylvania would benefit from source-neutral policies that prioritize reliability and affordability. In lieu of arbitrary energy quotas, Pennsylvania should follow North Carolina’s lead and legislate a triage of “reasonable” emissions goals, grid-reliability standards, and least-cost procurement. By not capriciously picking winners and losers, North Carolina has incentivized energy producers to provide more reliable, lower-cost, and increasingly clean power to consumers and businesses.
Shapiro’s new tax and regulatory schemes threaten to undermine his state’s most important economic sector, punishing the industries delivering the emissions reductions he claims to desire. The current proposals on the table — RGGI, PACER, and PRESS — are solutions in need of a problem, threatening an industry that already delivers clean, reliable energy and well-paying jobs. Moreover, these policies and programs only jeopardize grid reliability and affordability.
Does the governor care about creating jobs, improving the environment, and reducing costs for Pennsylvania taxpayers and consumers? Or is he more concerned about delivering the goods to his radical environmentalist donors and supporters?
These are the questions Shapiro must ponder while waiting for his bowl of alphabet soup to cool.