Climate 411

Seven Senate Republicans join growing momentum to support struggling clean energy industry

By Chris Worrell / Published: July 30, 2020

Last week, a group of Republican Senators pushed Congress to support relief for the clean energy industry, even as several of their colleagues from fossil fuel producing states pushed back against these efforts.

The clean energy sector has been hit especially hard during the COVID-19 crisis. According to an analysis of Department of Labor data, more than 620,000 workers in these occupations have been laid off since March, with most of those continuing to seek unemployment. Those numbers account for 15% of the clean energy workforce and are more than double the number of clean energy jobs created since 2017. This loss is a significant change from the pre-COVID economy where clean energy was one of the nation’s strongest sectors, growing 70% faster than the economy as a whole.

The clean energy sector plays a critical role in U.S. energy independence,is a powerful economic tool to reduce climate pollution, and has wide bipartisan support. Read More »

Also posted in Green Jobs, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Jobs, Policy / Comments are closed

The broad coalition defending America’s state and national clean car standards in court

By Jim Dennison / Published: July 21, 2020

(Correction: This blog previously referred to a Blue Green Alliance estimate that the Clean Cars rollback would cost 200,000 jobs. That estimate was for the proposed rollback. We have now included the Trump administration’s own analysis of the final rollback, which found it would cost as many as 140,000 job-years.)

The legal battle over America’s Clean Car Standards is now in full swing.

EDF and a broad coalition that includes 23 states from all regions of the country recently filed court documents defending both state and national clean car standards against attacks from the Trump administration.

23 states from across the country have joined the coalition defending our nation’s Clean Car Standards.

The Trump administration recently finalized a rule that would roll back our national Clean Car Standards. This rollback would cause more than 18,000 premature deaths, cost Americans $244 billion at the gas pump, and produce as much climate pollution as running 68 coal plants for five years. The administration has also launched an unprecedented attack on states’ long-standing authority to protect people from vehicle pollution.

EDF and a group of public health and environmental groups, state and local governments, and businesses from across the economy have filed petitions challenging the rollback in court. And we recently filed a brief in a separate lawsuit arguing against the administration’s attack on state authority to limit vehicle emissions.

The broad coalition litigating to defend clean car standards includes:

  • 23 States and several cities that comprise a majority of America’s population and represent every region, from Michigan to North Carolina, Colorado, and California (seen in the map above)
  • Three Air Quality Management Districts responsible for maintaining safe, healthy air in their regions
  • 12 Public Health, Consumer, and Environmental Organizations including EDF, Center for Biological Diversity, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Communities for a Better Environment, Conservation Law Foundation, Consumer Federation of America, Environment America, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists
  • Dozens of Major Businesses from across the economy, including Advanced Energy Economy (whose more than 70 members include Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Lyft, Cummins, Bloomberg Energy, Comcast, Trane, and Apex Clean Energy), National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (whose 17 participating members include Tesla, Rivian, Chargepoint, and Plug In America), and 20 major power companies

In litigation over the attack on state clean car standards, our coalition has been joined by a dozen amici curiae, who have filed briefs as “friends of the court” in support of state authority. These amici include:

  • 147 Members of Congress from 32 states and the District of Columbia
  • Five Former Department of Transportation Secretaries and Four Former EPA Administrators from both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as former EPA officials Michael Walsh and Margo Oge and Clean Air Act architect Thomas Jorling
  • Leading Researchers and Professors including University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman, New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, and seven climate science professors at California universities
  • Five Major Medical and Public Health Organizations including the American Thoracic Society, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, and California Medical Association
  • Four State and Local Government Organizations including the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and International Municipal Lawyers’ Association, as well as the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
  • Two National Parks Organizations including the National Parks Conservation Association and Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
  • Edison Electric Institute, the trade association representing all U.S. investor-owned power companies
  • Lyft, which has recently committed to providing 100% of its rides using electric vehicles by 2030

Additionally, six major automakers – Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW, Rolls Royce, and Volvo – have independently entered into voluntary frameworks with California for continued nationwide pollution reductions from their vehicles, in recognition of California’s authority under the Clean Air Act and the continuing need for state leadership.

Protecting well-established state authority

Last September, the Trump administration purported to withdraw California’s authority to set vehicle pollution standards at a more protective level than the federal government, as well as other states’ authority to adopt these California standards. The Clean Air Act has always recognized California’s authority, which is based on the state’s historic leadership in setting vehicle standards and the need to address its serious pollution problems.

California has used this authority to set pathbreaking standards like its Zero Emission Vehicle standards, which 11 other states have adopted. Most recently, Nevada has joined New Mexico and Minnesota in announcing its plans to adopt these standards. This is just one recent example of states and businesses leading the way to lower transportation emissions. Others include California’s ongoing work to develop Advanced Clean Car 2.0 standards, its recently-finalized Advanced Clean Trucks standards (which will lead to electrification of all new medium- and heavy-duty trucks in the state by 2045), a clean trucks agreement by 15 states representing 35% of the national truck fleet (which aims to electrify 30% of new trucks in these states by 2030 and all of the states’ new trucks by 2050), and Lyft’s announcement that, in partnership with EDF, it will reach 100% electric vehicles by 2030. Defending California’s authority will be key in maintaining this momentum.

EDF and our allies have brought a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s attack on state authority. We recently filed briefs arguing that the administration’s reckless departure from longstanding precedent is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to applicable law. The dozen amicus briefs added further breadth and depth to our coalition’s legal support for state authority.

Defending the Clean Car Standards from a rollback that harms public health, the economy, and the environment

On April 30, the Trump administration finalized a rollback that would eviscerate the national Clean Car Standards, cutting the required annual reduction in fleetwide climate pollution from about 5% to just 1.5%. Analysis by EDF shows that the rollback will result in an additional 1.5 billion tons of climate pollution, cause more than 18,000 premature deaths, and cost Americans $244 billion at the gas pump. The Trump administration’s own analysis shows that the rollback will cut as many as 140,000 job-years from the automotive sector (see page 24,988 of the Final Rule). That’s the amount of work that would employ 140,000 people full-time for one year.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel told the New York Times that the rollback will be especially harmful to auto industry jobs in her state, so it’s no surprise that many automakers disagree with the administration’s approach. Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW, and Rolls Royce have declined to defend the rollback in court and reaffirmed their voluntary frameworks with California. And electric vehicle manufacturers Tesla and Rivian are among the businesses challenging the rollback.

The rollback is based on massive technical and economic errors and fails to meet core statutory requirements to reduce pollution and maximize fuel economy. In fact, by the Trump administration’s own analysis, the rollback will result in net harm to Americans.

Protective clean car standards deliver critical climate, health, and consumer benefits, and EDF – along with our many partners and allies – will continue working to defend them.

You can find all the legal briefs in the cases on our website.

Also posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, EPA litgation, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, Jobs, News, Partners for Change, Policy / Comments are closed

Setting the Record Straight on the Benefits of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

By Mandy Warner / Published: June 26, 2020

(Image from EDFCC jobs report)

Protecting Pennsylvanians from COVID-19 and addressing the systemic racial injustices that plague our communities must be the top priorities of our elected officials right now. However, it’s critical lawmakers don’t lose sight of the escalating threats to our health and economy, including the pollution that impacts the safety and well-being of our families and communities.

In fact, this pandemic has made the urgency of proactive, science-based policy solutions all the more evident.

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have a real opportunity to combat the looming and likely most extreme public health crisis of our generation, climate change, while rebuilding a stronger economy in the wake of COVID-19. Linking to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a flexible and proven cap-and-invest program that allows member states to reduce carbon emissions, is a simple, cost-effective way to do so. Pennsylvania’s power sector, currently the fifth dirtiest in the nation, can achieve significant emission reductions through RGGI while creating value in myriad ways by driving investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, including targeted efficiency for low-income consumers. Presently, ten Northeastern states are reaping the benefits of RGGI – New Jersey joined the program this year and RGGI’s eleventh state, Virginia, will be joining next year.

With a vote from the state’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB) expected in September, a candid assessment of what RGGI can offer Pennsylvanians, especially in the context of COVID-19, is warranted.

Rebuilding a Stronger and Cleaner Economy

RGGI is consistent with strong and sustainable economic growth — a direction Pennsylvania was already headed in before COVID-19 struck. Although some have blamed RGGI and other environmental regulations for the loss of coal jobs — and some legislators have even proposed bills to stop this crucial rulemaking during the pandemic, when it is needed more than ever — the coal industry has been in decline for decades largely as a result of market forces that prioritize the lowest-cost electricity generation and attendant lower electricity costs to ratepayers. Nationally, more than 100,000 coal mining jobs have been shed since 1985 and hundreds of coal-fired power plants have closed in the last decade, with the declining costs of natural gas and renewables largely fueling this shift.

Pennsylvania knows this better than any state as it has been at the heart of unconventional natural gas development. Coal power generation in Pennsylvania has dropped from 57% of total generation in 2010 to 25% in 2018, while natural gas has increased its market share from 18% to 43% in that timeframe, effectively replacing the bulk of coal-fired electric generation.

Percent of total generation from coal (all sectors)

Generation from coal has declined in the United States and Pennsylvania.

Market forces suggest that natural gas will continue to replace coal as a low-cost energy source into the next decade. RGGI can help ensure we lock in and deepen emissions reductions while creating value that drives targeted investments in job-creating energy efficiency, renewables and more. Therefore, a program like RGGI can lead to the expansion of Pennsylvania’s 90,000+ clean energy jobs, which have grown to outnumber jobs in the fossil fuel industry, and position the state as a leader in the clean energy economy.

Flexibility to Re-Invest in Pennsylvania

The beauty of a cap-and-invest program like RGGI? Its flexibility. Regulators set a firm, declining pollution limit (or cap), and then facilitate compliance with this limit by issuing a finite number of “allowances” that are required to be held by any polluting companies to account for every ton of carbon dioxide pollution emitted. The volume of allowances available for compliance is equivalent to the annual pollution limit, and this budget shrinks over time, guaranteeing pollution will go down.

Regulated companies can make the business decision of how best to meet the pollution limit—such as improving efficiency or reducing utilization of dirty energy sources— and can buy and sell allowances if lower cost reductions are available. This flexibility ensures that the cap is met cost-effectively, thereby enabling greater reductions at lower cost. Under existing law, the revenues from the program can go toward activities that reduce pollution, including through targeted investments in at-risk and vulnerable communities. Energy efficiency measures are just one example of cost-saving and pollution-reducing activities that could be leveraged in the RGGI program in Pennsylvania, as has been done to great effect in other RGGI states. Revenue could also be directed toward investment in things like on-bill consumer assistance and facilitating fairness for fossil fuel workers and communities who have been – and will be — affected by the long-term and inevitable energy transition.

So far, states participating in RGGI have returned over $2 billion in proceeds. Maryland, for example, has used its more than $500 million in proceeds to strategically invest in energy efficiency upgrades for low- to moderate-income households, improving energy efficiency for small businesses and more, as a way to drive energy costs even lower. As Pennsylvania recovers from the economic downturn brought on by COVID-19, there will undoubtedly be needs that these proceeds can address via strategic investment in pollution-reducing activities and advancing equitable outcomes for workers and communities.

A Proven Track Record of Results

RGGI has a 10-year history of delivering health and climate benefits to participating states. Residents in the Northeast are now experiencing significantly fewer premature deaths, heart attacks, and respiratory illnesses. And it’s particularly important to note that the health burdens of dangerous air pollution, like soot and smog, fall most heavily on communities of color.

The potential soot and smog pollution reductions generated is great news for Pennsylvania, which has some of the worst air quality in the nation. A new study published in the journal Environmental Health estimates that about 40% of air pollution-related coronary heart disease deaths in Allegheny County occur in environmental justice communities, even though these communities represent just 27% of the county’s total population.

And if there’s one thing on which the Republican and Democratic governors of RGGI states can agree, it’s that the program is incredibly effective at tackling climate pollution. RGGI states have reduced power plant carbon emissions by 47% since 2009, which outpaces other states’ reductions over the same time. Multiple analyses looking at Pennsylvania affirm that RGGI can significantly reduce climate pollution in a cost-effective manner, demonstrating that this proven program can help the state achieve its bold climate goals and protect our children and grandchildren from the worst impacts of climate change. Despite claims from some that emissions will just move to other states (i.e. “leakage”), EDF and M. J. Bradley & Associates modeling analysis presented to PJM last year shows that PA linking with RGGI will lead to net emissions reductions when looking at Pennsylvania, the RGGI region, and nationally. This analysis also shows that Pennsylvania can maintain its current role as a net energy exporter (slide 13) as it links with RGGI and in fact increases its net exports from current levels in 2030. This is due in part to the fact that Pennsylvania is an energy-rich state that helps power the region.

With all of these benefits in mind, Gov. Tom Wolf is doing the right thing in charting a course for RGGI pursuant to the authority granted to him by the state legislature under Pennsylvania’s Air Pollution Control Act.

What’s Next?

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is proposing its draft rule to the Environmental Quality Board at its meeting in the coming months. Lawmakers shouldn’t stand in the way and must seriously consider the overwhelming evidence in support of RGGI along with the strong public support for climate action in Pennsylvania. This market-based solution can offer the economic opportunities, health benefits and flexibility that Pennsylvanians will desperately need on the other side of COVID-19 — and in the long-term fight against climate change.

As Governor Wolf reminded us all in a recent announcement, “Addressing the global climate crisis is one of the most important and critical challenges we face. Even as we continue work to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, we cannot neglect our responsibility and our efforts to combat climate change.” Governor Wolf is showing strong leadership in Pennsylvania – it’s time for lawmakers to heed the wishes of their constituents and step up for the future of all Pennsylvanians.

Also posted in Carbon Markets / Comments are closed

The Trump administration’s air toxics loophole would intensify environmental injustice

By Taylor Bacon / Published: May 11, 2020

(Some statistics in this post were corrected on June 24, 2021)

One of the most disturbing aspects of the new coronavirus crisis is that people already struggling with underlying respiratory conditions seem to be at greater risk. This means that vulnerable communities already bearing the brunt of the health harms from dangerous pollution may suffer even more.

Yet the Trump administration has spent the last few weeks racing to roll back policies that safeguard the air we breathe. These rollbacks often impact vulnerable communities the most as well.

One such roll back is the proposed air toxics loophole, which would allow thousands of large industrial facilities nationwide to evade pollution controls and emit more toxic air pollution. In a previous post, we presented analysis of EPA’s own data indicating that the loophole could lead to an increase in emissions of hazardous air pollutants like benzene and mercury by over 49 million pounds across 48 states. We’ve now done further analysis and found that the facilities likely to increase toxic air pollution under this loophole are disproportionately located in vulnerable communities – leading to increased exposure to these dangerous pollutants for heavily minority and low-income neighborhoods.

Read More »

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Health, Policy / Comments are closed

California must defend rules to protect health, especially now

By Katelyn Roedner Sutter / Published: April 30, 2020

This post was coauthored by Katelyn Roedner Sutter, Pablo Garza and Lauren Navarro.

A man walks his two kids along the road during San Francisco Bike & Roll to School 2018. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition via Flikr.

A public health emergency is precisely the wrong time to undermine measures meant to improve air quality, address environmental health disparities, or ensure the sustainability of our common resources. In fact, the COVID-19 public health crisis makes it more essential that California upholds its bedrock environmental and health rules, and ensures clean air and water for all.

A preliminary nationwide analysis by Harvard University shows COVID death rates are higher in counties that had higher levels of air pollution in advance of the pandemic. This underscores the vital importance of pollution protections for human health, both during and after the COVID-19 crisis.

Understanding the importance of having rules to protect California’s health, environment and natural resources, 37 California legislators, led by Assembly Member Eloise Gomez Reyes, have called on Governor Gavin Newsom to “resist efforts to roll back any current protections” and to focus on the health and environmental impacts in the state’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities. They know that weakening these safeguards will mean more cancer, more asthma attacks, more heart and lung problems, and more loss of life for Californians.

The following summarizes some key programs and protections that appear to be under threat, and where California should heed the call of these legislators to stand firm:

Read More »

Also posted in California, Cars and Pollution, Health / Comments are closed

Two new analyses: significant benefits for Pennsylvania from historic move to limit carbon pollution

By Rama Zakaria / Published: November 21, 2019

(This post was co-written by Mandy Warner)

Two new analyses show significant opportunities for Pennsylvania under environmental protections that are compatible with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – commonly known as RGGI.

RGGI is a collaboration of nine northeast states that is designed to lower carbon pollution from the power sector. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed an historic executive order last month directing the state’s Department of Environmental Protection to develop a regulation that is compatible with RGGI. That order followed Wolf’s commitment to reducing Pennsylvania’s climate pollution by 26 percent by 2025 and 80 percent by mid-century, compared to 2005 levels.

Pennsylvania has the fifth dirtiest power sector in the nation, and the power plants operating in Pennsylvania emit more carbon pollution than all the other power plants in the nine northeastern states in RGGI combined. A binding, declining limit on carbon pollution is a necessary element of any strategy to address this problem.

Two studies underscore the value of Pennsylvania’s actions:

  • EDF and M. J. Bradley & Associates released a new analysis that found there could be significant economic and emissions reduction benefits for Pennsylvania from setting a binding, declining limit on power sector carbon pollution, and creating a flexible, market-based mechanism to achieve that limit. The analysis was based on policy specifications, inputs, and assumptions developed by M.J. Bradley & Associates at the direction and on behalf of EDF, with feedback from participating stakeholder companies.
  • A recent report by Resources for the Future had similar findings.

Here are five key takeaways from both of these analyses.

  1. Pennsylvania has a significant opportunity for cost-effective pollution abatement by limiting carbon pollution and linking with RGGI

While carbon pollution from Pennsylvania’s power sector has declined in recent years, driven primarily by market trends including cheap natural gas prices, it is projected to start increasing again. By mid-2020, under business-as-usual forecasts with no carbon limits, both analyses found Pennsylvania’s power sector carbon pollution would be more than 30 percent higher than current levels.

By setting a binding, declining limit on power sector carbon pollution and creating a flexible, market-based mechanism to achieve that limit, Pennsylvania can significantly reduce its carbon pollution at low cost.

The EDF and M.J. Bradley & Associates analysis found that linking with RGGI and designing the program in a way that ensures all electric power used in Pennsylvania is covered under the cap could lower carbon pollution by more than 35 percent and produce roughly $200 million in net savings for Pennsylvania in 2030. That’s compared to business-as-usual scenarios with no carbon limit.

The lower costs are due to reduced need for capital expenditures like building new power plants, and to declining fossil fuel costs – both driven by more of the existing nuclear fleet remaining in operation.

Resources for the Future’s analysis similarly found that linking with RGGI could lead to significant carbon pollution reductions in Pennsylvania with no observable increases in electricity prices.

Earlier studies have also demonstrated the benefits of RGGI. By driving investments in energy efficiency, RGGI has already reduced consumer energy bills, generated net economic benefits for participating states, and has  produced enormous public health benefits. RGGI has helped save hundreds of lives, prevented thousands of asthma attacks, and saved billions of dollars in health-related economic costs.

According to electricity bill modeling by the Analysis Group, the average residential electricity bill in RGGI states will be 35 percent lower in 2031 than it is today, due to investments in energy efficiency.

Linking Pennsylvania with RGGI could offer further benefits – including allowing for emissions trading, which can lower total costs and make Pennsylvania’s program resilient to unexpected changes in weather or other events that could affect electricity markets while still preserving state autonomy and programs.

  1. Limiting carbon pollution and linking with RGGI provides support for existing and new zero-emission generation

Placing a binding, declining limit on carbon pollution – and then letting the carbon pollution limit drive a price in the energy market – provides Pennsylvania with a technology-neutral approach that ensures the most cost-effective deployment of zero-emission resources to meet the state’s climate goals.

The EDF and M.J. Bradley & Associates analysis found that under business-as-usual scenarios using EDF’s reference natural gas price assumptions, all nuclear capacity in Pennsylvania retires by 2030.

According to the analysis, linking with RGGI and designing the program in a way that ensures all electric power used in Pennsylvania is covered under the cap can help support the state’s existing nuclear fleet – retaining roughly 50 percent of the fleet in 2030.

Resources for the Future similarly found that limiting carbon pollution and linking with RGGI would forestall expected nuclear retirements, increasing Pennsylvania’s nuclear generation by up to 280 percent in 2026 relative to business-as-usual scenarios.

The natural gas prices used by Resources for the Future for their analysis are higher than currently observed, which would allow nuclear capacity to remain profitable with greater ease than may be possible with lower natural gas prices. But the preservation of existing nuclear capacity is a robust result under all scenarios that limit carbon pollution across both analyses, providing valuable insight into the role a limit on carbon pollution can play in preserving assets that are zero-emitting.

The EDF and M.J. Bradley & Associates analysis also found that linking with RGGI can increase wind and solar generation in Pennsylvania by almost 75 percent in 2030 compared to current levels. Resources for the Future found that limiting carbon pollution and linking with RGGI could generate up to 25 percent more wind and solar generation in Pennsylvania by 2026 compared to business-as-usual scenarios.

  1. Pennsylvania can reduce carbon pollution while increasing net exports from the state

The EDF and M.J. Bradley & Associates analysis shows that limiting carbon pollution and linking with RGGI would enable Pennsylvania to achieve its environmental objectives at low cost while at the same time increasing net exports from the state at least nine percent in 2030 compared to current levels.

Pennsylvania can also design its program to shift allowance value to producers with updating output-based allocation, which can increase gas and nuclear generation and energy exports in the state. According to Resources for the Future, the production incentive from output-based allowance allocation can increase exports from Pennsylvania above business-as-usual levels by 2026. Most of these exports are to other RGGI states so the overall pollution in the region is unaffected.

Resources for the Future also finds that using an output-based allowance allocation to non-emitting producers can provide incentives to shift generation in Pennsylvania from fossil fuel to zero-emitting sources, further decreasing carbon pollution in Pennsylvania and nationally.

  1. Smart policy design can amplify these benefits and further lower overall pollution

When a state or group of states puts a limit on carbon pollution, particularly in states that are served by a multi-state wholesale electricity market, emissions leakage to emitting sources that are not covered under the program is always a concern.

While both analyses demonstrate clearly that such leakage will not even come close to dwarfing the significant climate benefits of Pennsylvania’s program, it may partially erode the potential for greater pollution reductions. Linking programs can help reduce leakage but is not sufficient to fully mitigate it.

The EDF and M.J. Bradley & Associates analysis finds that an effective leakage mitigation mechanism, such as putting emissions associated with imported power under the cap, can lower overall carbon pollution – driving 75 percent more reduction in pollution in the Eastern Interconnect in 2030. The analysis also shows that leakage mitigation can help provide more support for Pennsylvania’s existing nuclear fleet and lower overall system costs, more than doubling nuclear generation in the state and lowering system costs by roughly $330 million in 2030 compared to no leakage mitigation.

Pennsylvania has options available today to mitigate leakage concerns and ensure that the state is not disadvantaged in the broader marketplace relative to other states that choose not to control carbon pollution. Resources for the Future has shown that an output-based allowance allocation to producers has the potential to result in negative leakage.

Regional transmission organization PJM Interconnection is also looking into ways to enhance technical capabilities to support state policy choices such as carbon limits. As part of its Carbon Pricing Senior Task Force, PJM is actively exploring with its stakeholders what data needs and frameworks can best support state carbon outcomes in the context of a regional market. They are also considering ways to ensure that states that are controlling carbon are seeing those policy choices accurately reflected.

This PJM stakeholder process provides an important opportunity for Pennsylvania to engage to ensure the state has the information it needs to deploy the policy frameworks that can effectively mitigate leakage.

  1. More ambitious carbon pollution limits can provide even further benefits

The EDF and M.J. Bradley & Associates analysis also finds that more ambitious carbon pollution limits (in line with deep decarbonization trajectories) with leakage mitigation can accelerate pollution reductions, retain all of the state’s existing nuclear fleet, and incent new clean energy resource builds – all at lower system costs compared to business as usual scenarios with no carbon limit.

According to the analysis, more ambitious carbon pollution limits can increase solar capacity in Pennsylvania by more than 10 times, leading to an increase in renewable generation of more than 130 percent in 2030 compared to business-as-usual scenarios.

Public support for concrete climate policy is sky-high in Pennsylvania

There is strong support in Pennsylvania for moving forward to reduce carbon pollution.

A poll conducted by EDF Action earlier this year found that 79 percent of Pennsylvania voters support regulations to reduce carbon pollution. That includes 66 percent of state Republicans polled.

Major Pennsylvania power companies, including Exelon and FirstEnergy, applauded Governor Wolf’s executive order. The Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce noted that “climate change is real” and that the business community needs to be “at the table to discuss solutions.”

The time for action is now

It is becoming increasingly urgent to address climate change. That means it is critical for Pennsylvania to move forward without delay, and put in place an ambitious program to secure carbon pollution reductions and lock in public health benefits at the lowest cost.

The good news is that Pennsylvania can build on planning it has already completed as part of previous compliance work. Governor Wolf’s executive order sets a deadline of July 31, 2020 for a proposed rule to cut carbon emissions to be presented to the Environmental Quality Board. But there’s no reason not to move forward more quickly.

We urge Governor Wolf to develop a proposed rule to submit to the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee at its February meeting. That would help create certainty about the state’s emissions trajectory on a short-term time horizon, including creating regulatory certainty for affected industries.

Also posted in Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Comments are closed