Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro recently made headlines by withdrawing from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program designed to limit carbon emissions from power plants in the Northeast. This move sent shockwaves through the RGGI system, as Pennsylvania is a major player in the program due to its high power sector emissions compared to other member states.
The RGGI program works by auctioning off credits each year that allow power plants to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide up to a set cap. The proceeds from these auctions are then reinvested by member states into clean energy and consumer affordability programs. The emissions cap gradually decreases over time to ensure that total emissions continue to decline.
Governor Shapiro’s decision to withdraw from RGGI was part of a compromise to pass the state’s budget, which had been delayed since June. This move was seen as a way to appease Republicans in the legislature who had been using RGGI as a reason to stall substantive energy conversations. Shapiro stated that it was time to focus on policies that create more jobs in the energy sector, incorporate more clean energy into the grid, and reduce energy costs for Pennsylvanians.
However, some Democrats and environmental advocates criticized Shapiro’s decision, arguing that he gave up a significant environmental victory. They believed that he missed an opportunity to claim credit for environmental progress, especially as he is rumored to be considering a presidential run. The move was seen as a political misstep that could have long-lasting consequences for Pennsylvania’s environmental policies.
Pennsylvania had initially moved to join RGGI in 2019, but faced immediate pushback from Republicans, leading to legal challenges and delays. Despite ongoing litigation and a pending decision from the state Supreme Court, Shapiro’s withdrawal from RGGI effectively ended the state’s participation in the program.
RGGI has generated billions of dollars for participating states and has been a successful tool in reducing carbon emissions. Virginia, for example, is looking to rejoin the program after being forced out by the current Republican governor. The state’s Democratic Governor-elect campaigned on returning to RGGI, highlighting the bipartisan support for the program.
While some experts remain cautious in their criticism of Shapiro’s decision, others see it as a missed opportunity for Pennsylvania to lead on climate action. Shapiro had previously unveiled a jobs-and-energy proposal that included a Pennsylvania-specific version of RGGI called the Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction program (PACER). This program aimed to reduce emissions, create tradable carbon credits, and reinvest profits into lowering consumer electricity costs. The future of Pennsylvania’s climate policies remains uncertain as the state navigates its withdrawal from RGGI and seeks alternative solutions to address carbon emissions. Pennsylvania, often referred to as an elephant compared to the rest of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), has chosen to create its own program instead of joining RGGI. According to Burtraw, this decision was made based on several reasons that align with the state’s goals and priorities.
“It would have been amazing to see Pennsylvania join RGGI,” Burtraw expressed. “But I think that we might be setting down a pathway that’s turned out for the better.” This suggests that Pennsylvania sees value in developing its own program that can be tailored to its specific needs and objectives.
However, not everyone is convinced of this approach. Some argue that joining RGGI was only possible because it was implemented through executive action. The chances of a similar program like PACER gaining approval in Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled senate are slim.
State Senator Saval emphasized the importance of implementing serious plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower energy bills, and generate revenue for Pennsylvanians. He criticized the lack of interest shown by senate Republicans in pursuing any meaningful efforts in these areas. Saval believes that abandoning RGGI would not encourage them to prioritize environmental issues.
As discussions continue around Pennsylvania’s decision to create its own program and potentially link it to RGGI in the future, it is clear that there are differing opinions on the best approach. While some support the state’s autonomy in developing a tailored program, others question the feasibility and impact of such a decision.
In conclusion, Pennsylvania’s unique position as an “elephant” in comparison to other RGGI states highlights the complexities and challenges of addressing climate change at a regional level. Whether the state’s decision to go its own way will lead to positive outcomes remains to be seen.
