Three decarbonization pathways for Pennsylvania: the good, the bad and the most likely – ugly | Opinion

There aren’t many historic parallels to efforts by the governor’s workplace, the legislature, trade, and advocacy teams to persuade the U.S. Division of Vitality to designate Pennsylvania and the larger Ohio Valley area a hydrogen and carbon seize hub. The trouble is grounded within the hope that hydrogen would be the gasoline of the long run as a result of it doesn’t emit carbon when combusted, the federal authorities is handing out billions of {dollars} for its deployment, and hydrogen may be produced from the area’s most ample useful resource, pure fuel.

That’s the impetus behind the governor’s and legislature’s latest passage of a $2 billion financial improvement package deal the advantages of which might movement principally to the pure fuel trade. And it’s the imaginative and prescient that gave rise to the not too long ago launched “Street Map on Hydrogen and Carbon Seize Growth” from Crew Pennsylvania.

However the proposed hydrogen hub suffers from three flaws.

First, it’s horrifically costly.

Second, it gained’t ship the financial and environmental advantages its boosters declare.

And third, like one other equally hailed and closely sponsored financial improvement shiny object – the Appalachian Petrochemical Cluster – it’ll nearly actually by no means come to fruition.

The hydrogen hub would price at the very least $1,000 per 12 months per family in Pennsylvania and doubtless twice that a lot when all prices are accounted for. It will double the price of producing electrical energy at gas-fired energy crops and triple the fee at coal crops. In reality, for many who discover Pennsylvania’s participation within the Regional Greenhouse Gasoline Initiative objectionable, the hydrogen hub would drive up the price of fuel and coal energy by 5 occasions as a lot as RGGI.

Nor would the prices be offset by will increase in jobs and reduces in carbon emissions. The presumed job will increase are supposed to return largely from expanded pure fuel manufacturing. However a decade of knowledge, to not point out empty storefronts and declining populations, present that pure fuel improvement has led to zero job progress within the counties the place it’s concentrated and has, if something, accelerated inhabitants loss.

Alternatively, an power transition that depends on renewable sources, together with wind, photo voltaic, power effectivity, and legacy nuclear, would price much less, get rid of extra emissions, and create extra jobs, significantly in small cities and rural counties the place tons of of HVAC, door and window, electrical, insulation, residence photo voltaic, and development and reworking companies would profit from investments in power effectivity whereas additionally driving down residents’ utility payments and growing their disposable earnings.

Politically, this renewables-based decarbonization pathway might not appear doubtless. However the fossil gasoline pathway promoted by Crew Pennsylvania isn’t doubtless both. That’s as a result of, though fossil fuel-based decarbonization has a political tailwind, its destiny will depend upon markets and the willingness of buyers to threat their cash on uneconomic applied sciences like carbon seize. They in all probability gained’t achieve this since nearly 90% of capturable level supply emissions in Pennsylvania come from coal and gas-fired energy crops, which even earlier than the added price of carbon seize, are struggling to compete with lower-cost renewable power.

Traders confronted a equally uneconomic alternative when the Commonwealth was throwing cash at petrochemical firms to assemble a fleet of ethane crackers within the area, a proposal that each one however Shell declined, shattering the imaginative and prescient of an Appalachian petrochemical cluster.

Nonetheless, renewables-based decarbonization gained’t be realized if political leaders gained’t pursue it. In the event that they don’t Pennsylvania could also be left completely tethered to uneconomic and polluting fossil gasoline sources amid ongoing job and inhabitants loss. That’s the ugly final result towards which hydrogen and pure gas-focused financial improvement efforts are heading.

The hydrogen hub is an answer that was embraced earlier than the salient query was even requested – How can the Commonwealth decarbonize most successfully, as a minimum expense, and with the best constructive influence on jobs and the economic system?

The excellent news is that there’s nonetheless time for policymakers to ask the query and to find {that a} clear power pathway is superior in each respect to the hydrogen hub and a fossil fuel-based pathway.

Sean O’Leary is Senior Researcher, Ohio River Valley Institute.