State Sen. Carolyn Comitta\u2019s remarks on the Senate floor last Wednesday may speak more to the nature of compromise than they do a grave concern for the future of Pennsylvanians. Rest assured, though, that concern should be considered especially pressing.<\/p>\n
The Democrat from Chester County cast one of the upper chamber\u2019s 43 yes votes to pass the $50.1 billion spending plan that helped end a grueling, more-than-four-month-long impasse and threatened the financial stability of our most necessary public institutions and services. Because of votes like hers and the overwhelming passage in the state House of Representatives, public schools, social services and county governments that went without state funding since July 1 avoided any more consternation and pain than they already suffered.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s no question the resolution is long overdue.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s also no doubt that the biggest concession Democrats like Comitta made to get that deal done \u2014 essentially agreeing to pull the state away from a years-long commitment to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative<\/a> \u2014 opens up questions about the state\u2019s environmental future that are important for anyone in the commonwealth. Especially the ones who call Northeast Pennsylvania home.<\/p>\n \u201cI fought for RGGI for years. I support RGGI. I still think RGGI would be a good idea for Pennsylvania,\u201d Comitta, the minority chairperson on the Senate\u2019s Environmental Resources & Energy committee reminded her fellow legislators<\/a>. \u201cBut I\u2019m also realistic, and I\u2019m willing to vote \u2018yes\u2019 to end this impasse.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, the commonwealth now has a budget, which is vital. But it now has no significant climate policy, which is also pretty important to have.<\/p>\n Then-Gov. Tom Wolf put Pennsylvania on course to join RGGI in 2019 as a feature of his long-term environmental policy to counter climate change\u2019s effects. In it, Pennsylvania would have joined what is now a consortium of 10 other states in the Northeast, from Maine through Maryland, in an effort to make it the nation\u2019s lone major fossil-fuel producing state to put a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide its energy producers could emit.<\/p>\n It is a cap-and-invest program proponents insist is both healthy for the environment and financially lucrative. States participating in the initiative can set a cap on CO2 emissions from power plants, which must purchase credits for every ton of CO2 they emit through quarterly auctions. States then invest the money made from these auctions in programs that promote clean energy innovation and efficiency, job creation and, conceivably, even lower rates for energy consumers in the state.<\/p>\n Perhaps just as important, the impetus for the power plants to become more energy efficient and reduce CO2 emissions rises as available credits decline.<\/p>\n On paper, as Comitta said, RGGI was a good idea for Pennsylvania. It was also an idea top state Republicans opposed practically since Wolf introduced it. They saw it as overly restrictive for the state\u2019s energy industry, potentially a cost burden on families that use fossil fuel-generated energy in their homes, and considered the credits an \u201celectricity tax\u201d<\/a> on energy producers.<\/p>\n Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, a group that advocates for environmental issues in Harrisburg, countered in a statement that leaving RGGI takes away what it estimates to be \u201c$1 billion annually to lower electricity prices through investments in clean energy.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n