At the end of a rather lengthy July 2019 Congressional Research Service (CRS) study of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Jonathan L. Ramseur, a specialist in environmental policy for the nonpartisan group, concludes:

“From a practical standpoint, the RGGI program’s contribution to directly reducing the global accumulation of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in the atmosphere is arguably negligible.”

So, why allow government to seize control of the Keystone State’s energy marketplace and risk destroying the commonwealth’s economy?

It’s a fact and a question that Pennsylvania state legislators and, ultimately, the courts will have to reconcile.

As the Allegheny Institute described it (in Policy Brief Vol. 19, No. 37):

“RGGI is the first mandatory ‘market-based’ program in the United States to implement a cap-and-trade regimen aimed at decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Initially 10 states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Jersey—joined in January 2009. New Jersey left the cooperative in 2011 but (rejoined) in 2020. The RGGI sets the emissions cap for all states within the cooperative.”

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf is adamant that Pennsylvania should become a signatory. And he believes he has the power to do so on his own – effective in January 2022 — citing state environmental laws. State legislators, however, disagree, vehemently, citing both the principle of separation of powers and the deleterious ramifications of RGGI itself.

To that end, the state Senate this month voted to mandate that the decision whether to join what is nothing more than an environmental cartel/cabal rests with the Legislature.

Again, it’s pretty obvious that the matter will end up in the courts. But with a decidedly left-leaning Pennsylvania Supreme Court in place – one that has, at times, made rulings not based on any laws but out of whole cloth — RGGI could end up being the tragic law of the commonwealth.

Wolf touts that RGGI’s carbon tax initially will produce $550 million a year, the lion’s share of the money going to subsidize “green” energy and to help mitigate the economic fallout such a transition would produce.

That’s “green” energy that, as proven repeatedly, comes at an exceptionally high cost for electricity consumers while threatening the safety of the already-fragile power grid, not to mention the macro economy.

“What happens under RGGI is that we take more than a half-billion dollars from the pockets of local Pennsylvania employers and citizens every year based on policies and prices set by other New England and Mid-Atlantic states,” said Carl A. Marrara, vice president of government affairs for the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association.

“Entire communities will be decimated because they can’t afford Gov. Wolf’s tax, yet state government will take the proceeds and prop-up the Chinese-backed solar industry at the expense of our commonwealth’s workforce.”

And then there’s this, as Elizabeth Miller, a research associate at the Allegheny Institute, and Frank Gamrat, its executive director, concluded in October 2019:

“Pennsylvania has experienced an impressive reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in recent years without joining RGGI. Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, has largely replaced coal as the leading fuel for electricity generation in the state.

“The EPA’s data for Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Pennsylvania showcases the extraordinary results: carbon dioxide emissions in the state from 2000 to 2016 fell by 26 percent,” the think tank researchers said.

And they remind that Pennsylvania has reduced carbon dioxide emissions through bona fide market solutions – not the faux government market — and without the tax burden that RGGI would impose.

“The increased energy prices for taxpayers, loss of jobs due to mounting energy costs and second-order effects resulting from higher electricity costs are strong arguments against joining RGGI,” Miller and Gamrat said.

“Joining RGGI would be an ill-advised decision that would undermine much of the economic and environmental success the state has enjoyed in the last decade thanks to natural gas production in the electricity market,” they concluded at the time.

That assessment remains unchanged.

Thus, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative hardly is sound public policy. It is, rather, a special interest hijacking of the real energy marketplace that will cause grave economic damage for negligible environmental benefit.

Back to that Congressional Research Service’s assessment:

The CRS’s Ramseur rationalizes that even though RGGI shows no appreciable reduction in greenhouse gases, its “activities may stimulate action in other states or at the federal level.”

“When business and industry have confronted a growing patchwork of state requirements, these sectors have historically preferred a national policy,” Ramseur said at the time. “RGGI and other state programs … may have some influence on federal policymakers.”

Let’s hope not. For the mistake that RGGI is on a regional level would only be compounded on a national scale. Bad law is bad law. And bad public policy certainly does not magically become “good” public policy when enlarged.

Those claiming otherwise are delusional.

Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).