By now, we have all heard Gov. Josh Shapiro complain that he is tired of getting his “ass kicked” by other states. He has opined that Pennsylvania is losing out to economic development in Ohio.
Ask the authorities, planners and chambers of commerce in the western part of the state about the difficulties of enticing businesses to come to Pennsylvania, rather than Ohio.
Pennsylvania is also next in line to get an old-fashioned “whooping” by West Virginia, a state that not only actively supports the coal industry, but also the natural gas industry and the integrity of the electric grid. Recently, West Virginia landed a $3.3 billion combined cycle electric generation plant.
Ask the boilermakers in Pittsburgh where their members are working. Rather than packing their lunch boxes, it has been said they are packing their suitcases.
Pennsylvania has more natural gas than West Virginia, but our governor is more interested in solar panels. Recently, Shapiro announced an initiative that will provide 50% of the commonwealth government’s electricity from renewable sources. He wants to beat California in supplying more solar power for government operations.
How does any of this benefit Pennsylvania?
In May, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Order No. 1920, a sweeping agenda that supports climate goals never approved by Congress. The most liberal of states interpret this order as an avenue to socializing rates across the 13 states that make up our electric grid. This means that the cost of upgrades to transmission lines caused by Illinois’ decision to close all coal and gas-fired electric generation will be shared across the other states. Pennsylvania ratepayers will foot the bill for the “green” policy of Illinois.
Is this in the best interest of Pennsylvanians?
Joining the governors of New Jersey, Maryland and Illinois, Shapiro recently signed a joint letter to FERC supporting Order No. 1920. Once again, our governor fails to recognize Pennsylvania as an energy producer and ignores the benefits of producing low-cost electricity. Instead, he supports mandating that we share our good fortune with those who want to pursue a “green” agenda, but still accept the benefits of Pennsylvania energy production.
Shapiro has found himself at the forefront of the list of potential candidates for vice president of the United States, something that would normally be a real honor for Pennsylvania. The presidential candidate at hand, however, has a view of energy that is the antithesis of anything beneficial to Pennsylvania. She has publicly stated that, if elected, she will do two things: ban fracking and ban offshore drilling.
Since about 90% of oil and gas production in the U.S. involves some form of fracking, and since Pennsylvania produces about 20% of the natural gas consumed in the U.S., those statements are 100% contrary to the interests of Pennsylvania. If our governor is chosen for the second spot on the Democratic ticket, does that mean he will adopt the view of his running mate and support a ban on fracking?
So, while Ohio takes our economic development and West Virginia takes our experienced workforce, our governor is competing with California for solar panels. He supports the socialization of electric rates across the grid, and only time will tell if he supports his potential new boss in her push to ban fracking.
In the meantime, we find ourselves asking: how does this “leadership” benefit Pennsylvanians?
(State Sen. Gene Yaw represents the 23rd Senatorial District consisting of Bradford, Lycoming, Sullivan, Tioga and Union counties. He serves as chairman of the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.)
