State vs. Local Control Over Energy Siting Sparks Debate In Pennsylvania

Where new electrical generating installations get built has created political controversy ever since Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse first thought of the idea of an electrical grid. If they get built near cities, the distribution lines are short, which saves money. But most thermal generating stations don’t add much to the visual appeal of local communities. Supply lines are a big factor in energy siting decisions. Coal needs to be brought in by train or waterways. Methane requires pipelines and compressor stations. Despite the current craze for more nuclear and thermal generating stations, few people want them in their backyard or near their schools.

For the past decade, energy siting decisions have become hugely controversial as local communities have united in opposition to solar farms and wind turbines. People fear they diminish the look and feel of local communities, especially those in rural areas. One of the most contentious policies has been who should have the power to decide where new electrical generating facilities should be built. Local communities think they know best, and that is a powerful argument.

It is fair to say that much of the anger in the political space in the US today is a result of rural people feeling they are being dictated to by powerful interests in cities far away. None other than JD Vance has ridden that horse particularly hard to get where he is today.

Energy Siting Is Always Contentious

The energy siting controversy landed squarely in the state of Pennsylvania recently, where lawmakers are considering a plan to give the state the final authority to decide where new electrical power facilities get built. For years, renewable energy advocates have been supporting that idea as a way to short-circuit opposition to solar and wind installations.

So they should be happy, right? Actually, no. As the US rushes headlong into the brave new world of artificial intelligence, people are falling all over themselves to build new generating capacity. What supporters of renewables are concerned about is that this new state-level siting board will operate to push more thermal generation to meet a so-called “energy emergency” and leave renewables out of the picture.

According to Inside Climate News, the Reliable Energy Siting and Electric Transition Board, or RESET, would set statewide standards for the selection of sites for energy generation and storage. So far, so good. The proposed seven-member board would include three secretaries of state agencies, the chair of the Public Utility Commission, representatives of business and the building trades, and the chair of the state’s environmental justice advisory board. The RESET board would replace a patchwork of local regulations created by townships within Pennsylvania. Supporters of the new board say those land use regulations create delays, add to costs, or result in new power projects being rejected.

Local officials often lack the expertise to decide on power generation projects that may cost $1 billion or more, those in favor of the bill claim. But opponents fear the new board is a stalking horse for fossil fuel interests that want to increase the number of thermal generating facilities. If that happens, carbon and methane emissions in Pennsylvania will increase at a time when they need to be decreasing both locally and globally.

Evan Vaughan, executive director of MAREC Action, a trade group that advocates for clean energy infrastructure, told the legislature: “We are in a period when we need to be deploying more energy resources. We can’t afford to have good projects get stymied by not bad faith by localities, but by a myopic view of what a good energy project is. Localities are not bad guys, but they are not fundamentally set up to make judgments about energy projects that can be significant at the state or even the regional level.”

There are about 9 GW of solar, wind, and battery storage projects in Pennsylvania at the present time that are waiting for approval from grid operator PJM, but only about 20 percent will actually get approved, Vaughn told ICN, partly because some projects are denied by local governments. “You can be ready to go, but if your locality says no, your project doesn’t materialize,” he said.

Objections Are Raised

Predictably, local interests are opposed to the Pennsylvania RESET plan. They claim it forces the wants and needs of far distant officials on local communities and ignores the expertise of local officials. The RESET board would have the power to issue or deny certificates of reliable energy supply without clearly defined environmental standards, which “enables political favoritism, reduces transparency, and concentrates immense influence in the hands of a few,” according to a statement by Food & Water Watch that was signed by 24 other environmental and civic groups.

They accuse Governor Shapiro, who ran on a promise to be an environmental champion, of caving to fossil fuel interests. “This is not climate leadership. It’s a corporate giveaway,” the group said in their statement, “At a time when local governments are developing bold climate solutions, this bill cuts them off at the knees.”

Adam Walters, an advisor to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, said the proposal is part of Shapiro’s “Lightning Plan,” a multi-pronged energy effort designed to lower costs, create jobs, streamline permitting, and boost in-state energy production. For over 150 years, Pennsylvania has been a national energy leader, producing large quantities of oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. In fact, the first successful commercial oil well in the US was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, in 1859. But the state is in danger of losing its lead because of bureaucratic delays and high costs, some of which originate locally, Walters testified.

Brian Rengert, director of government relations with the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, disagreed. He blamed federal and state permitting delays, supply chain challenges, and construction holdups for the slow pace of power development. “HB 502 removes an important check and balance from the development process by local elected officials, who understand the uniqueness of their communities. It overrides the careful planning by local governments and strips communities of protections.”

Hiding In Plain Sight

Sharp-eyed readers will quickly identify why the environmental groups are opposed to the new energy siting board. They see the coded message behind the measure in the “all of the above” approach, which more often than not means a boon for fossil fuel and nuclear. It’s a sop to those who worship at the temple of spinning reserves and think renewables are just too “out there” to be taken seriously.

The proof of the pudding may be that Texas-based power company Vistra supports the bill because it would streamline permitting and help to create certainty for investors, according to spokesperson Kathy Dietz. Vistra has three methane thermal generators and one nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. “Regulatory complexity can add years to the amount of time required to develop a new power plant. In contrast, a stable state regulatory policy can significantly accelerate and de-risk the timeline for a project by providing predictability, clarity and coordination across the development lifecycle,” Dietz said.

Crisis Mode

The bill establishing the RESET board is sponsored by Democrat Mandy Steele, who predicts that Pennsylvania residents and businesses won’t be able to afford their electric bills unless supply rises to meet demand. “PJM is telling us that demand is rising and that we have to do something, or we are going to be in a full-grown crisis in Pennsylvania. What has worked in other states with a similar crisis is a state siting board. We’ve got to get this done fast.”

There is some merit to that argument, but we continue to point out the vastly different response to the so-called “energy emergency” when the goal is to power data centers and when the goal is to power electric vehicles. In the first instance, no stone must be left unturned to get enough electrons for all those AI chips needed to summarize our email. In the second instance, we must go slowly to avoid destabilizing the grid. One is an affectation; the other is essential to reducing the carbon emissions that are causing the planet to overheat. Is it possible we have our priorities reversed?