PA’s economic crossroads — Will Gov. Shapiro choose the right path?
Pennsylvania is struggling economically, but business could be booming if Harrisburg was just willing to get out of the way. Thankfully, some Democrats are starting to see the light: their party’s energy policies are not aligned with the needs of Pennsylvanians or public sentiment.
Earlier this year, for instance, congressional Democrats joined congressional Republicans in voting to end an electric vehicle mandate in California, signaling that an increasing number of those on the left are recognizing the limits of heavy-handed green mandates.
Even Gov. Josh Shapiro seems to be coming around or, at the very least, is talking as if he might be on the verge of making the right choice on Pennsylvania energy. Following his recent attendance at the GOP-led Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit, he touted our Commonwealth as “a national leader in Economic Growth, AI Innovation, and Energy.”
He’s inching close to the truth. We could be a national leader in economic growth if we become a leader in energy.
Unfortunately, the governor and House Democrats seem very reluctant to do what is necessary to unleash Pennsylvania’s energy economy. Shapiro’s actual energy policy threatens Pennsylvania’s potential to lead as an artificial intelligence and energy powerhouse.
Shapiro’s “Lightning Plan” would burden taxpayers by increasing energy costs and stifling our ability to power the very AI data centers Shapiro claims to champion.
The plan “will add about $157 billion in statewide electricity costs by 2035” when in the first quarter of the year “wholesale [energy prices] in Pennsylvania were [already] up 44 percent.” This isn’t a recipe for growth because it puts more strain on both the taxpayer and our energy grid.
Tech giants are looking to meet the AI boom by locating centers in states that have access to inexpensive, reliable energy. That could be Pennsylvania if our governor scraps his Lightning Plan.
Pennsylvania must prioritize energy production, and it must do so by establishing reasonable, predictable regulations for the natural gas industry. We already produce more than 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. Getting this resource to the market responsibly and efficiently requires a significant investment in infrastructure. The pipelines, processing facilities and power plants necessary to turn natural gas into electricity aren’t cheap, but natural gas companies will make those investments if they can be certain they know what the regulatory climate will be in the future. No one wants to invest billions of dollars in a pipeline that becomes unusable if regulations are constantly being changed by politicians who are worried about appeasing environmentalists.
Less investment means less opportunity; more investment means more opportunity. It really is as simple as that.
After all, the MIT Technology review tells us that “it’s likely that our AI footprint today is the smallest it will ever be” and that by “2028 more than half of the electricity going to data centers will be used for AI. At that point, AI alone could consume as much electricity annually as 22 percent of all US households.”
Our thirteen-state power grid is already strained. PJM Interconnection has said “state energy policies … closed fossil fuel power plants prematurely,” losing “more than 5.6 net gigawatts in the last decade as power plants shut faster than new ones enter service.” This is because green ideology has prevailed over prosperity and practicality.
We cannot ignore the unflinching reality of supply and demand. If demand goes up (it is) and supply goes down (it is), then prices will climb (they are) for our homes and businesses.
A green energy mandate – whether that’s through the existing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or other aspects of Shapiro’s Lightning Plan – isn’t going to help us meet this growing demand and the resulting higher costs of energy that will cripple our economy.
To address this problem, Shapiro should follow the advice of my Republican colleague, Rep. Martina White, who rightly urged at July’s tech summit that the governor “should take the recommendations of today’s business and public policy leaders — don’t over tax, don’t overregulate and don’t over litigate [the energy sector.]”
Shapiro has shown us glimpses that he understands that an improved regulatory climate means more investment. His Streamlining Permits for Economic Expansion and Development (SPEED) program has begun the promising goal of fast tracking some energy projects that require a permit.
But much more must be done. Shapiro should join those of us with common sense in focusing on energy policies that prioritize affordability, reliability and unleashing Pennsylvania’s energy potential — not far-fetched climate goals that even Democrats themselves have sometimes deemed unreasonable.
Representative Scott Barger represents the 80th district in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
