Shaprio's renewable energy plan advances as Trump administration keeps Pa. fossil fuel plant online

The Blue Creek wind farm in Ohio, consists of 152 wind turbines with a total capacity of 304 megawatts. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has finalized new rules that are expected to help ease the backlog of new wind, solar and battery storage projects awaiting regulatory approval. (Robert Zullo/ States Newsroom)
Days before Pennsylvania lawmakers advanced Gov. Josh Shapiro's plan to expand the commonwealth's renewable energy resources, the Trump administration ordered a fossil fuel-fired power plant outside Philadelphia to keep running past its planned retirement date.
The U.S. Department of Energy on Friday ordered Pennsylvania's electricity grid operator PJM Interconnect and owner Constellation Energy to keep the Eddystone Generating Station in Delaware County ready to meet peak power demands. It was scheduled to cease operations Saturday.
The order highlights challenges facing Pennsylvania policymakers as they work to ensure there's enough electricity for industry and residents while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Legislation that would set a more ambitious goal for renewable energy production in what Shapiro describes as an all-of-the-above approach to meeting demand passed a state House committee on Monday.
House Bill 501 would enact the Pennsylvania Reliability Energy Sustainability Standard (PRESS), which is part of Shapiro's broader energy policy dubbed the Lightning Plan. It would require 35% of the state's energy to come from clean sources including solar, wind, nuclear and other emerging technologies by 2040.
Other aspects of the plan would provide tax credits for renewable energy development and establish a dedicated board to streamline energy permitting to incentivize developers to prioritize clean energy.
While President Donald Trump has backed the oil, gas and coal industries since he campaigned for his first term in 2016, the DOE order to keep the Eddystone Generating Station online cited an 'emergency situation' as PJM warned that electricity demand in the 13 states it serves could soon outpace the opening of new power plants.
PJM projects its peak demand will grow by about 70,000 megawatts to 220,000 megawatts by 2040. The growth is being driven by the increased electrification of transportation and industry and the proliferation of data centers to satisfy the demand for computing power from artificial intelligence and other technologies.
PJM's process to authorize new power plants to connect to the grid faces a backlog including hundreds of gigawatts of renewable energy while about 20% of its existing generating capacity is expected to retire in the next five years.
Starting this month, consumers in Pennsylvania and the rest of PJM's footprint will see electric bills increase by 10% to 20% as a result of soaring prices in last July's capacity auction, in which electricity generators bid to provide generating capacity.
Pennsylvania, meanwhile, lags behind most of the nation in renewable energy development. An analysis of federal energy data by PennEnvironment put the commonwealth behind all but Washington and Alaska, which tied for last place.
Debate on the renewable energy legislation Monday in the House Environmental and Natural Resources Committee demonstrated the tension between Pennsylvania's energy future and its past.
Republicans argued the goal of obtaining 35% of the state's energy from clean sources by 2035 is unrealistic. Natural gas and coal provide reliable electricity while helping to drive Pennsylvania's economy, they said.
Rep. Tim Twardzik (R-Schuylkill) said renewable energy sources including solar and wind power would take up too much land. And subsidizing them at the expense of established fossil fuel sources would hurt workers and consumers by taking away jobs and increasing prices.
'It's just going to waste money and not solve our problems,' Twardzik said.
Democrats said diversifying the state's energy portfolio is essential to staving off an energy crisis.
'We are at a crossroads,' Rep. Chris Pielli (D-Chester) said. 'I think that we should be looking at many forms of energy, nuclear, geothermal, and even using our gas and our oil.'
Pielli rebutted claims by Republicans that the renewable energy legislation would create winners and losers. He argued Pennsylvania's gas industry benefitted from a subsidy when lawmakers chose not to impose an excise tax on gas production, forgoing billions in revenue.
Deeply conservative Texas, Pielli noted, leads the nation in both natural gas production, wind and solar energy.
'Let's look at that … recognizing that this bill is an opportunity that we can fine tune, where we can use any and all of these resources to protect our consumers going forward when it comes to our power,' he said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next

President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.

NBC Sports

2 hours ago

• NBC Sports

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro says there will be no state money for sports venues

Two NFL teams call Pennsylvania home. Neither should consider calling Pennsylvania when it's time to finance stadium renovation or construction for their home stadiums. Via the Associated Press, Governor Josh Shapiro made it clear on Sunday that state money will not be available to sports teams. 'I'm very worried about the overall budget,' Shapiro said Sunday before a NASCAR Cup Series event at Pocono Raceway. 'I'm very worried about the overall economic situation given the federal cuts. You want to balance investing in tourism, investing in sports, investing in great arenas and facilities, with making sure that you're also investing those dollars in things that Pennsylvanians need most.' And, in Shapiro's view, Pennsylvanians don't have a pressing need for sports. He nevertheless wants sports — and more of them — in Pennsylvania. 'I will tell you that we want to make sure the Steelers, we want to make sure the Eagles, and all of our pro teams have outstanding places to play,' Shapiro said. 'That are welcoming for fans. That generate revenue. We're going to continue to dialog with them about what they need and what's possible.' There's been a presumption for years that, because members of the public attend sporting events, there's an obligation by their state and local governments to help pay for the venue. Does that happen when someone builds a store that members of the public? A theater? The key words Shapiro used are 'generate revenue.' Sports stadiums generate plenty. More than enough to pay for themselves. Sure, that might result in less profit. But so what? If there's enough profit to justify the investment, that should be good enough. Sports teams aren't entitled to unlimited profit via taxpayer subsidies. The Steelers, who opened their current stadium in 2001, aren't currently angling for a replacement. The Eagles have begun the process of considering whether to renovate Lincoln Financial Field or to replace it. Whatever the approach on either side of the Commonwealth, the two teams have one thing in common. State money won't be available, for as long as Shapiro is in office. Elected in 2022, Shapiro can run again in 2026. So it's possible that the policy won't change before 2030. At the earliest.

NBC Sports

2 hours ago

• NBC Sports

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro says there will be no public money for sports venues

Two NFL teams call Pennsylvania home. Neither should consider calling Pennsylvania when it's time to finance stadium renovation or construction for their home stadiums. Via the Associated Press, Governor Josh Shapiro made it clear on Sunday that state money will not be available to sports teams. 'I'm very worried about the overall budget,' Shapiro said Sunday before a NASCAR Cup Series event at Pocono Raceway. 'I'm very worried about the overall economic situation given the federal cuts. You want to balance investing in tourism, investing in sports, investing in great arenas and facilities, with making sure that you're also investing those dollars in things that Pennsylvanians need most.' And, in Shapiro's view, Pennsylvanians don't have a pressing need for sports. He nevertheless wants sports — and more of them — in Pennsylvania. 'I will tell you that we want to make sure the Steelers, we want to make sure the Eagles, and all of our pro teams have outstanding places to play,' Shapiro said. 'That are welcoming for fans. That generate revenue. We're going to continue to dialog with them about what they need and what's possible.' There's been a presumption for years that, because members of the public attend sporting events, there's an obligation by their state and local governments to help pay for the venue. Does that happen when someone builds a store that members of the public? A theater? The key words Shapiro used are 'generate revenue.' Sports stadiums generate plenty. More than enough to pay for themselves. Sure, that might result in less profit. But so what? If there's enough profit to justify the investment, that should be good enough. Sports teams aren't entitled to unlimited profit via taxpayer subsidies. The Steelers, who opened their current stadium in 2001, aren't currently angling for a replacement. The Eagles have begun the process of considering whether to renovate Lincoln Financial Field or to replace it. Whatever the approach on either side of the Commonwealth, the two teams have one thing in common. State money won't be available, for as long as Shapiro is in office. Elected in 2022, Shapiro can run again in 2026. So it's possible that the policy won't change before 2030. At the earliest.