By Christen Smith

A dozen testifiers told a Pennsylvania legislative panel last week that joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) undermines the state’s energy production dominance and does nothing to accelerate CO₂ emission reductions in line with national and global targets.

The House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee fielded comments from researchers, trade groups and labor unions about House Bill 2025, a proposal that delineates a legislative process for joining RGGI.

Noticeably absent, however, was anyone in favor of the program – an unusual occurrence for legislative hearings on proposed bills.

“We were not invited to testify,” said Julian Boggs, policy director of the Keystone Energy Efficiency Alliance. “It would be nice if we could have a constructive conversation in the legislature and say, ‘Hey this is what’s happening, what should we do with the proceeds?’”

Mark Szybist, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the hearing a “staged burlesque.”

“I don’t know how you can have a fair hearing if you’re not even bringing in the state agency that’s working on this regulation,” he said. “There’s no way you can look at this and say it was a fair and balanced hearing or a hearing that was even intended to deliver facts or truly honest discussions about RGGI.”

One-track Hearing

HB 2025 is a result of Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf stunning the Republican majority in both chambers in October when he directed the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to join the regional emissions reduction program. (See Pennsylvania Governor Signs RGGI Executive Order.) Delaware, Maryland and New Jersey are the only three PJM states currently involved in the program, with Virginia in line to join next.

According to a RGGI report released in October, participating states reduced their power sector carbon emissions by more than 50% between 2005 and 2017 despite an increase in their GDP. The nine participating states – either through regulation or legislation – cap power plant emissions on a quarterly basis and auction off credits to generators, who then purchase the allowances as proof of compliance. The proceeds return to participating states for reinvestment.

Majority Committee Chairman Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R) told RGGI’s Executive Committee in a Jan. 16 letter that Wolf “simply and unequivocally” lacks the unilateral authority to join the program and that bipartisan and bicameral talks “are already underway” to stop it.

“Welcoming Pennsylvania into your ranks without legislative approval would be foolish and harmful both to RGGI and our commonwealth,” he said. “This will leave both RGGI and Pennsylvania in an unwelcome state of limbo. It will complicate RGGI’s administration and likely take years to resolve. You will not be able to count on Pennsylvania’s participation in RGGI, but you will have to expend time and resources planning for it, nonetheless.”

Metcalfe’s office did not respond to RTO Insider’s request for comment on Wednesday regarding the hearing’s slate of witnesses.

Minority Committee Chairman Rep. Greg Vitali (D) said the tenor of the meeting disappointed him, as comments from his caucus members were routinely shut down to keep the hearing agenda on track.

“Most of the testifiers had a vested financial interest in the fossil fuel plants that would be targeted by RGGI,” he said. “It’s relatively safe to say that no pro-RGGI groups were invited and that was entirely Chairman Metcalfe’s decision.”

Vitali said Democrats and other RGGI supporters also believe the federal Clean Air Act gives Wolf and the DEP the power to join the program without the support of the Senate or the House of Representatives – though lawmakers would likely challenge that authority in court. Notably, other RGGI states have moved forward with the blessing of their respective legislatures, except Virginia.

“Even if the bill passes, the governor will almost certainly veto it,” Vitali said. “Even so, our committee will most likely vote on this bill.”

Rep. Jim Struzzi (R) introduced HB 2025 in November, with Reps. Pam Snyder (D) and Donna Oberlander (R) as co-sponsors.

“I’m trying very hard not to let my emotions or my bias into this because we are talking about the bill today,” Struzzi told the committee. “I represent hard-working Pennsylvanians who will suffer dearly if RGGI is implemented.”

No Apologies Necessary

Indeed, Struzzi’s concerns about RGGI’s impact on the state’s fossil fuel power generators were echoed again and again by testifiers who said the program produces no real benefits and will diminish energy production, force coal plants into early retirement and increase leakage throughout PJM.

“If you want to spend $5.5 billion per year with no significant reduction in emissions, by all means join RGGI,” said David Stevenson, policy director for the Caesar Rodney Institute’s Center for Energy & Environmental Policy. “But I don’t see this as a good idea for Pennsylvania.”

Stevenson said he’s spent nearly a decade studying RGGI impacts and argues that when comparing results from participating states to five who do not participate, emissions reductions are “exactly the same.”

Since 2005, per capita emissions reductions in both groups of states is 40%, according to Stevenson’s research. Coal production in both groups decreased 16%, while natural gas production increased 10%. GDP grew in both by 7.2% and electricity prices rose 50% slower in non-RGGI states. Stevenson concludes that pushing the state into the program will curtail energy-intensive businesses, further dragging down its economy.

It makes little sense then, Stevenson argued, to join RGGI when Pennsylvania’s booming natural gas exports have reduced carbon emissions nationwide by 308 million tons, far exceeding the 215 million tons it produces.

“Pennsylvania doesn’t owe anybody an apology about carbon dioxide emissions,” he said. “It’s done more than any other state in this country to reduce carbon emissions.”

Democrats on the committee challenged Stevenson’s research, insinuating that it was shaped by the Caesar Rodney Institute’s conservative donors. Vitali also pressed Stevenson to vocalize his opinion on climate change.

Stevenson said that donors don’t impact his research and some have even forgone financial support because of his conclusions.

“It is a certainty that carbon dioxide is rising in the atmosphere,” he said. “We have the ability to adapt and to use things that actually work, and one of those things that actually works is switching from coal to natural gas. I agree that it’s an issue, but I don’t agree that it’s a crisis.”

Szybist said Stevenson’s suggestion that RGGI doesn’t drive emission reductions was nonsensical. He cited a Duke University study from 2015 that found while not all emissions reductions were attributable to RGGI, the program was still the single biggest factor, accounting for more than half.

“The fact that emissions went down under RGGI due to factors other than RGGI – the Great Recession and the boom in gas-fired generation due to fracking – isn’t evidence that cap-and-invest doesn’t work,” he said. “Had the start of RGGI not coincided with the Great Recession and the fracking boom, RGGI would have ensured that emissions went down anyway.”

Szybist also pointed out that RGGI “was never intended as an all-encompassing emissions-reduction policy.”

“It was intended as a way to ensure emissions reductions and generate funds to invest into other decarbonization strategies,” he said.