Union Leaders Push Clean Energy Jobs Agenda in Pennsylvania

For generations, union members have mined Pennsylvania’s coal, run its power plants, and built its energy infrastructure, helping make the state a top fossil fuel producer and electricity exporter. Now, renewable energy offers the promise of growth, but questions remain about the long-term jobs it will provide.

In 2024, the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO and the Building and Construction Trades Council formed Union Energy, with support from the Climate Jobs National Resource Center. The coalition was launched to leverage the Inflation Reduction Act to ensure new clean energy investment creates good-paying union jobs and broad community benefits.

But with federal funding being pulled back, state policy is now central. In Pennsylvania, where clean energy targets haven’t been updated in two decades, Governor Josh Shapiro has proposed a “Lightning Plan” with new standards, a cap-and-invest program, and streamlined permitting. Union Energy wants to help shape what comes next.

On the podcast, Union Energy’s leaders—Angela Ferritto, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, and Robert Bair, president of the Pennsylvania Building Trades—discuss the impact of recent policy shifts on their members, policies to expand clean energy with strong labor standards, and their vision for Pennsylvania’s energy future.

Full Transcript

Andy Stone: Welcome to the Energy Policy Now podcast from the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. I’m Andy Stone. Labor unions have long been central to Pennsylvania’s energy economy. Union members mine coal, operate power plants, and build pipelines and industrial facilities. Now in the shift toward clean energy, unions see both opportunity and challenge. Renewable projects bring major construction work, but may not deliver the same kind of steady jobs that fossil power traditionally has. That tension between short term opportunity and long term security has become a central question for labor in the transition. Recognizing this and related challenges, in 2024, the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO and the Building and Construction Trades Council came together to form Union Energy with support from the Climate Jobs National Resource Center.

The coalition was launched to seize labor opportunities from the Inflation Reduction Act and to help shape policy to ensure that the transition delivers good paying union jobs that benefit communities statewide. But much of that federal support has since been rolled back, placing greater weight on states such as Pennsylvania, which is both a top fossil fuel producer and one of the country’s largest electricity exporters. It is also a state where the clean energy framework hasn’t been updated in nearly two decades. To fill that gap, the state’s governor, Josh Shapiro has proposed his Lightning Plan to modernize state energy policy.

On today’s podcast, we’ll explore the union perspective on clean energy policy and the energy transition with Angela Ferritto, President of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, and Robert Bair, President of the Pennsylvania Building Trades. Together, they lead Union Energy. We’ll talk about their vision for Pennsylvania’s energy future, the policies they support, and the impact of current federal and state policy on their members. Angela and Robert, welcome to the podcast.

Angela Ferritto: Thanks for having us.

Robert Bair: Thank you.

Stone: Angela, I want to start with you. Union Energy is a coalition of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO and the Building Trades Council, and it was created in 2024, not that long ago. What was the impetus for creating Union Energy last year? And if you could boil it down for us, what is the primary goal of the coalition?

Ferritto: The reason that we decided to form Union Energy was really because we saw ourselves in a position where, you know, we were losing the fossil fuel industry jobs that had once really fueled huge parts of Pennsylvania. And at the same time, we saw investments being made into a new energy economy, where at the time, you know, unions weren’t necessarily part of the bigger conversation around that. And so as we saw these investments being made, we knew that we had to be at the table so that workers could have a voice in this new economy that was being lifted, and really to ensure that the jobs that were being created were being created with a focus of good union family sustaining jobs and jobs that would support our communities and support families in Pennsylvania.

Stone: So at the center of this is what’s called the Climate Action Plan, is that right? That’s part of the Union Energy focus?

Ferritto: Yes, so we worked with the Climate Jobs National Resource Center in Cornell University, and you know, Rob and I teamed up together, and then we reached out to all of our affiliates to be part of the conversation in building this plan, and what we came up with was a 200 and some page plan that was crafted at Cornell University, and it’s really a plan for Pennsylvania to show how Pennsylvania can reach its sustainable energy goals, and do so while lifting workers and ensuring that workers are part of that conversation. We created this to share with legislators, to share with the governor’s office, to share with environmentalists and faith leaders and students. And so it’s really sort of our roadmap to how we approach this work.

Stone: So before we’re going to go any further, I want to make sure that our listeners understand exactly who you represent. Rob, I’ll direct this one to you. What kind of workers fall under the Building Trades as well as the AFL-CIO’s umbrella? And what are their interests generally in energy, fossil, clean, both?

Bair: I represent 15 international unions, about 113 individual local unions, construction unions. The Building Trades were the guys that build your roads, build your bridges, build your hospitals, build your coal burners, build your chemical factories, build your nukes, build your schools. If it’s construction, we build it. And on Angela’s side of the house, we have all the other affiliates of the AFL-CIO. So all in, what, Ange, 750,000 union workers in Pennsylvania we cover?

Ferritto: Yes, that many members, and it’s 54 affiliate unions that belong to the AFL-CIO in Pennsylvania.

Bair: And one of the things that we did that was a little different than some of the other states with climate jobs was we saw what was happening at the federal level under President Biden, but we also saw there was, you know, going to be a big need, specifically in Pennsylvania, PGM, grid for additional power. And when Ange just talked about bringing the environmental community, everyone on board, for a long, long time, the only — you know, everybody wanted to attack the power industry, and I said, “Well, if we’re going to do this and work with Cornell, let’s identify all sources of carbon and methane. Let’s have Cornell do the white papers. Let’s identify the percentages. Let’s lay out a roadmap to how we lower our carbon emissions while we still continue to generate. And how do we parlay that roadmap into continuing to employ my building trades guys? And on reverse side of the coin, how do we keep our other union members in those permanent jobs we’re creating?”

Because one of the things that I’ve always said in policy in PA, people that have good paying jobs with living wages, healthcare, retirements, they’re not a burden on society. They pay their bills, they pay their taxes, they spend their money in their community. So creating long term, sustainable union jobs after my guys build them, that’s where this collaboration between the AFL-CIO, the Pennsylvania Building Trades comes into play as Union Energy. And we’re looking at all factors across Pennsylvania, saying, “What is the roadmap for fixing transportation, for fixing energy, for fixing agriculture, for fixing our schools, our buildings? How do we lower our carbon footprint, but at the same time, having reliable generation, expanding our footprint, keeping us number two in exports in the country for energy, and creating a whole bunch of good paying union jobs while we’re doing this?”

Stone: So thinking about the climate crisis, which you point out in Union Energy literature right up top, that the climate crisis is acknowledged and it has to be addressed, talking about these clean energy opportunities, how do you reconcile the fossil fuel component of all this, again, with the need to address climate change? What does that solution look like that provides jobs, ensures jobs, and addresses the climate component?

Bair: From the policy side and from a guy that spent last 38 years being a pragmatist and building energy, you’re going to have to continue to use some of your fossils to meet the energy demands. But we also know that natural gas is quite a bit cleaner than coal. We also know that in Pennsylvania, having the toughest drilling requirements in the country, our wellhead emissions on methane or the lowest in the country, we know that we can also continue, as we use our fossils, and we’re shifting away from coal, that we can still provide base load generation.

You saw the governor and his announcement where we’re restarting TMI, the Crane Clean Energy Center. I’ve had meetings with Senator McCormick, Mitsubishi, General Electric on the SMR technology that’s coming. We have in that Cornell report a really good section on small scale hydro, and we have Voith manufacturing one megawatt small scale hydro turbines. We have 350 low head dams in Pennsylvania that should be using for hydro. We had Google make the announcement of $2 billion to rebuild two major hydroelectric stations on the Susquehanna River.

So, you know, when President Biden in 2020 was running, he had a goal of, I believe it was 2050 for net neutral. We didn’t get a whole lot accomplished in those first four years, because we sat and argued and fought and labeled ourselves, and nobody said, for right now, in the immediate next five to seven years, this has to be in all the above energy policy. You can’t pick and choose because we will run out of power. And then fast forward four years, and now we have this AI boom. And everybody loves having their computers. Everybody loves their internet. We don’t want China to be controlling AI. But at the end of the day, we still have to provide base load generation and a whole lot more of it, and it is complicated.

But by taking these steps and using them responsibly, and then using a carbon sequestration, one of the things that’s interesting, we have our mock two hydrogen hub proposed for Philadelphia. Now, hydrogen has always had a challenge. Who’s going to be your off takers? What’s going to be your price point? But one of the things that we’re looking at is, GE can build us hydrogen ready blended turbines, so even though I’m burning natural gas, the minute I have scalable hydrogen, I can start mixing in and continue to lower my greenhouse gas emissions. And the Philly hub, the mock hub, is a pink and green hub. So it’s not just taking natural gas and turning it into hydrogen.

Stone: Pink being the nuclear generated, right?

Bair: Yeah, and solar. You can use your solar. So you know, when you look at this as an overall picture of where we are today, where we’d like to be by 2050, and we actually say we’re going to take these measured steps, I truly believe that using an all above energy policy will not just address the climate crisis that’s before us, but we have the ability to start shaping in Pennsylvania, which will also reverberate around the world. And there’s a realistic factor here. You know, we talk about liquefied natural gas. Look at how much dirty coal was being burnt in Europe because they tried their green energy policy. What they didn’t do was they didn’t put a good plan in place.

There’s a lot of coal being burned in Europe. Why? Because they don’t want to import Russian natural gas. But if I’m providing clean liquefied natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, and I’m taking coal burners offline in Europe and burning natural gas, I’ve lowered greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent by one simple thing. Now, is that a panacea and fix all? No, but is it a start? Yes. And the Building Trades, we like to say, “Look, the journey of 1000 miles starts with the first step.” So there is no magic bullet here.

Stone: I know that the building trades does support the development of an LNG export terminal in the area south of Philadelphia, and I want to get to that. But I also want to jump into something here that you spoke about a moment ago, and I think it’s really important to emphasize this. You both have talked about it already. You are both umbrella organizations that represent workers in many, many different fields. And if we talk about energy specifically, we have the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and United Steel Workers, right? Who obviously would have a lot of interest in the development of new grid infrastructure. Power lines, the steel that goes into it, all this to support new clean generation.

On the other side, you’ve also mentioned this, we’ve got pipe fitters, we’ve got refinery workers, we’ve got operating engineers who work within for, say, power plants, okay, traditional power plants, that also have, you know, their own perspectives. How do you reconcile these two different industries? Because there has been a lot of tension, right, between the sides. How do you reconcile that within your membership? Are there tensions, or is there enough opportunity for everyone? Let me direct that to you, Angela.

Ferritto: The approach that we’ve taken is really an approach of understanding and everybody being at the same table, having the conversations of the impacts that they’re feeling as a specific affiliate, and in really taking the time to, you know, talk through and understand what each different union is experiencing. And then being oftentimes creative with sort of what the future looks like for those unions, and how we can all, you know, band together and find a point that we can agree on to make it our mission to move forward on that.

So it’s been a process. I know that you had mentioned Union Energy being created in 2024, but we started these conversations, and we really started the work of building Union Energy in 2022. And so it took us about two years in the background of this exact thing, sitting down, having conversations, affiliates doing interviews, and just trying to find this sort of common ground between us that we can push forward on.

Stone: There is a relatively low level of unionization in the clean energy industry, much lower than there is for the oil and gas workers, and much, much less than for the coal industry. So when we’re looking at the opportunity that the clean energy transition provides and the opportunity to build new infrastructure, wind farms, solar farms, whatever, I would imagine a major focus of your work is to increase the amount of union labor in those fields. Why is there not so much union labor? Are there any barriers that need to be taken into consideration or overcome?

Ferritto: It’s always our mission to increase union membership, right? I think that one of the reasons is we’re seeing some new economies emerging, right? We’re seeing new jobs emerging. And so one of the goals of Union Energy was to be out ahead of this. You know, throughout history, when you look at all of the industries that now have, you know, high unionization rates, you sort of have to think about how that came about. And it was normally, you know, workers rising up against poor working conditions or unfair pay, or, you know, ungodly working hours, and rising up and banding together and in demanding that voice on the job.

And so that’ll happen naturally in some of these new sectors too. But that wasn’t lost on us. We understood that, and that’s one of the reasons that we’re doing the work we’re doing with Union Energy, is to ensure that, you know, these new jobs that are being created aren’t low road jobs, but they are jobs that people can build a career, and, you know, support a family, and you know, communities will grow, and just really be more prosperous, you know, when unions are in play. So that’s one of our goals of Union Energy is to ensure that

Stone: One of the other issues here is that many of the jobs in the clean energy space, particularly jobs around wind and solar developments, those jobs are heavily focused on construction, but not so much on ongoing operations and maintenance that you would commonly see in a coal or a natural gas plant or a nuclear plant. So the question is, are the jobs and the job opportunities really equivalent between these two industries?

Bair: The answer is no, they’re not equivalent. You can’t compare what it takes to operate a coal fired powerhouse running at 3.5 gigawatts to the jobs created after you put in 100 megawatt solar field. They’re not the same, and they’ll never be the same. And that’s why we’re also, from the building trade side, being realistic, saying, “Okay, with an all the above energy policy, there is going to be a solar component.” Wind, on the other hand, a lot of maintenance on wind turbines, okay? Hydro, a lot of maintenance on hydro. Geothermal, especially deep well geothermal and the heating plants. There’s a lot of opportunities there. SMRs, a ton of opportunities there to continue to employ our members in the construction and in the long term maintenance and operation of the plants.

And, you know, one of the things that was pretty interesting from the Energy Summit in Pittsburgh was Westinghouse at that summit said they committed to building 10 new AP-1000 reactors for deployment across the United States. And those are base load. Well, if you want to talk about an industry that needs a lot of full time workers, it’s the nuclear industry, because the amount of people you have on first shift, you need on second shift, and you need on third shift. I needed them 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

So even though you’re making these transitions, when you look at all the different possibilities of cleaner energy, you might be losing some where you’re building your solar, your long term jobs, but you’re picking them up on the other sides, you know? And that’s one of the things that the discussions had to be. How do we continue to build how do we continue to create jobs? What industries give us those opportunities?

You know, and it all comes down to the economy of scale and also being realistic. People say to me, “I can deploy solar much quicker than gas.” Well, maybe, but let’s actually talk about it. If I’m doing an 800 megawatt solar field that’s covering 8,400 acres, it’s probably going to take me 24 to 36 months. If I’m putting in an 800 megawatt natural gas plant, once my turbines there, 24 months. So it’s about the same timeframe. Probably close the same amount of manpower to build it. But when you look at the end result, which one has the most permanent job? So of course, it’s going to be gas compared to solar, right? That’s just the reality of where we are. But there’s other opportunities, and that’s what has to be taken into account.

Stone: I would imagine manufacturing is an opportunity as well, right? The clean energy supply chain.

Bair: Interesting enough, Friday there is a small modular reactor supply chain summit in Pittsburgh. And you know, one of the things that you looked at in the Cornell jobs report was the supply chain. Pennsylvania is uniquely positioned. We have Westinghouse and Curtis Ray, which builds most of what we need for an AP-1000. We have General Electric whose partnership with Mitsubishi is going to be at the forefront of our SMRs. So there is a huge manufacturing component that we can push inside the borders of the Commonwealth to spur manufacturing again and bring more jobs in those sectors.

And you know, when you start talking 10 AP-1000s, it’s more than just a reactor vessel, a generator, some cooling towers, and you know, couple steam generators and condensers. You’re talking massive amounts of steel, massive amounts of concrete, massive amounts of electrical equipment, massive amounts of cable. That all has to be manufactured and brought on site. So the supply chain can also be a very critical area to continue to expand and create more union jobs, and most of those are then union jobs on Ange’s side of the house. You know, whether it be steelworkers, teamsters, you know, UFCW, whoever, that is organizing and creating those union jobs at those permanent plants. You know, IBEW has some. But it’s a huge opportunity for Pennsylvania, and it’s pretty exciting knowing that these are not pipe dreams. These are in the pipeline. These jobs are coming. And we’re remiss if we’re not doing what we’re doing getting out ahead of this.

Stone: Let’s talk about what it’s going to take to prepare workers for these jobs. So right now, there are approximately 50,000 fossil fuel workers working in the state of Pennsylvania. What does up skilling, or, you know, new training for these workers look like? I mean, obviously some would come from the fossil fuel industry, some would be new to the industry overall. But Angela, what’s in place to make those workers ready?

Ferritto: Well, I think what’s in place for a big part would be the Building Trades Apprenticeship Programs. You know, these programs are built around skills, right? And so, you know, somebody learning to install solar panels is already equipped as an electrician to just add a new skill to the bucket of work that they’re already doing. And so when I think about workforce and workforce development, and in some of the new technologies, you know, there is opportunity there for potentially new apprenticeship programs.

You know, one of the ones that comes to mind quickly is the the capping orphan wells, right? And this work that is currently being done throughout Pennsylvania at sort of a snail’s pace, but you know, it’s currently being done, there is opportunity there for a new apprenticeship program that will train a skilled workforce to do this work and ensure the safety and ensure standards of it, and really, I guess, birth a new career. That’s one of the things in western Pennsylvania that, you know, we have a big focus on, because that’s where we’ve lost a lot of the fossil fuel industry jobs, and we’ve had a lot of communities left behind, a lot of devastation.

You know, you look at generations of people who worked in the mines, and there’s an entire generation right now that is sort of left in limbo by the closing of the mines, because, you know, their great grandfather all the way to their father worked in the mines, and the mines shut down, and that’s where they thought they were going to go. And so it’s looking at these areas and thinking about, okay, how can we sort of recreate and really give people this idea of a just transition?

And that is by looking at the work, slotting it into current, already existing, and madly successful Building Trades Apprenticeship Programs, which, you know, people earn while they learn. There’s no cost to people going through those programs. They come out highly skilled with a, you know, transferable skill. So it’s not on the job training in the sense that they’re learning a specific job, but it’s really they’re learning a trade. And so there’s an addition to those with some of these technologies, and then there’s the creation of new with some of the other ones. And so I think that’s a huge opportunity, and I think it’s exciting when you think about workforce development and the potential that we have to impact that.

Stone: Well, you just mentioned the term just transition, right? And that major concept there is to make sure that, in the case of workers from the fossil fuel industry in Western Pennsylvania that you just mentioned, have good opportunities through the transition in these new energy industries as well. And that brings me up to the next question is, what does real wage parity mean in this transition? Again, you’re taking maybe coal mining jobs or jobs running fossil fuel power plants, which are good, long term, well paying jobs with good benefits, and then you’re going to the clean energy industry. And Rob has just talked about this, right? But there are a lot of different types of jobs that will be developed in manufacturing as well as in project development. But again, are we looking at one to one comparisons for the jobs and the benefits that existed in the fossil fuel industry? Will those be available in renewable energy and associated to, say, supply chains or something else?

Bair: I truly believe they will be, and that has been one of my primary focuses, because people that have good paying jobs now are going to have to be transitioned to the same type of job, right? People build their lifestyles around their career. When you’re a good middle class worker, whether you’re a coal miner, whether you’re a power plant worker, you’ve got a home, you’ve got a wife, you’ve got your children. You’re living a comfortable, middle class lifestyle. I would be remiss if I accepted anything less if I’m training somebody into a new clean energy job.

And you know, when you look at, say, going from coal to gas or from coal to SMRs, those are still going to be jobs that are going to be repurposed by the coal plants, by those workers, into those unions, into that new skillset. And most of the skills they have are completely transferable. If you’re going from coal to nuke, yes, there’s going to be up skill that you have to do, because it’s a different industry, but maintenance is maintenance, conduit and wire is conduit and wire, you know? Big steam fitting pipe is big steam fitting pipe. Air is air, right?

So we have the ability to retrain people. We have the ability to move them into those new jobs, at those wages, at those benefits, and continue that middle class lifestyle. You know, there’s been some hurdles in the solar industry, because the solar industry, for years, has been running amok. It’s wild. There was no prevailing wages. There was no requirements. It was low road, throw it in as cheap as you could get. That’s always been a problem. It’s been a problem for the building trades from day one.

Stone: What concrete steps have been taken to address that?

Bair: So there’s been bills introduced, that if you’re getting your tax credits, you should be paying prevailing wage. Whether you’re a union worker, non union worker, if you’re spending funds of a public body, be it through a tax credit or direct pay, probably see prevailing wage, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Stone: Now, those who are in the IRA. Are those — you say they’ve been introduced in Pennsylvania. Are they in the state legislature at this point, waiting? What’s the status?

Bair: They’re being introduced. They died last session because they never made it through the Senate. They’re going to be reintroduced. And you look at like House Bill 1260, which is Josh Siegel’s bill, which is the solar owned warehouses, which incentivizes covering the million square foot warehouses with solar. People don’t want it on your farm ground. Okay, here’s an alternative. But if you’re going to be giving tax credits and tax breaks, Siegel’s bill says, “If you want the tax credits, the tax breaks, the job has to be done at prevailing wage.”

Now, it’s a sensible piece of legislation from my side of the desk. I know there’s going to be some people in Pennsylvania that don’t agree with me, and that’s okay. But from the Building Trade side, yeah, that’s very important to us, because that also assures high road jobs, skilled jobs with benefits, with wages, with pensions, with healthcare. And if it’s an open shop person working on that project, he’s still getting that too. We’re not in a race to the bottom industry.

Stone: Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro responded to recent federal energy policy. For example, the rollback of incentives for clean energy development and manufacturing from the IRA. He responded with what he calls the Lightning Plan, and it has several elements which are meant to accelerate the energy transition here in the state of Pennsylvania. These include an update to Pennsylvania’s renewable portfolio standard, which has not been updated since 2004, a potential cap and trade program if Pennsylvania does not end up entering the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, cap and trade program, and as well as what he calls the Reset Board to speed permitting and the siting of new infrastructure.

I just want to kind of run through these briefly with you and get your perspectives on them. On this renewable energy standard that is now, I think, before the State Senate, which would set a 35 percent renewable energy target for the year 2035, what is your view on the types of resources that should qualify for that target?

Bair: So redoing AAPS, one, stands a ton of challenges.

Stone: And AAPS is the old renewable portfolio standard in the state?

Bair: Yes. Putting a target in at 35 percent is very ambitious. The Building Trades. we’re not going to say we’re against that, but you know, from our aspect also, and I’ve talked to the governor, and I’ve talked to his team, we would probably want to see some of the borders closed on tier one if you’re going to do that so that we’re buying jobs from Pennsylvania and incentivizing building those jobs in Pennsylvania.

Stone: Explain that. What do you mean by closing the borders on tier one? Tier one being kind of the renewables?

Bair: Correct. So an EDC can go buy tier one alternative energy credits from a solar developer, say, in Indiana to meet his AAPS standards. It doesn’t say you’re purchasing them in PA. Now, I would think that we want to create as many of those jobs in PA. You know, I support the Lightning Plan in a lot of it’s — what’s there. You know, I told the governor personally, we wrote it out. It’s not a bad plan. I love about half, and the environmentalists love about half. And when we each love half and don’t like the other half, it’s probably a pretty good start, right? And myself and LCVPA and NRDC, you know, Pat Cicero, our former consumer advocate, we all had some input on there.

And like any other piece of legislation, it’s a work in progress. You know, there’s parts in there, do I think the AAPS should be redone? Yes. Would I maybe want to see it a little lower than 35 percent realistically? Yeah, I think we probably to be truly realistic about it. Yeah. Do the environmentalists want 50 percent? Well, I’m sure Katie and her people do want 50 percent. But the question is, if we put a standard in, do we stifle economic development and workforce development for a standard that we’re not going to hit anyhow, or do we work together to figure out what the final reiteration looks like? The reset board. There again, you know, you had Senator — you all had a plan. The governor had a plan. Liz Fiedler had a plan to modernize the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority, which would allow them to actually tap more federal funds.

So in amongst those three, I think there’s a place to land the plane. Do I think the governor’s Lightning Plan as he proposed it would pass? No. But with some modifications, with input from both sides, and as somebody that deals with the governor a lot, he’s very, very reasonable. I like to call our governor the king of compromise, which is refreshing in this day and age. So there is potential there. One of the other things, right now our nukes operate under — you know, with somewhat of a backstop at the Fed’s Federal Production Tax Credit. But maybe we should look at putting nuclear into one of those higher tiers with the caveat, you’re not going to get the AAPS as long as you’re getting your federal PTC, but if the federal PTC goes out the window, to help our fleet operators, having them have the ability to be in AAPS in a bigger way.

Stone: So the state would be a backstop if those federal subsidies go away, or when they go away, is that it?

Bair: Yeah, because you know, when you really drill down to it, what’s the most expensive power to produce? Well, of course, it’s going to be nuclear. I mean, I need 750 people to run that plant right? And I’m operating in an industry that has absolutely no room. It has to be a zero mistake industry. It’s expensive, but it’s also 100 percent carbon free, you know? So it is probably the preeminent carbon free source of base load electricity out there.

But we also have to be cognizant of, can we produce it? Can it be done at an effective rate? Can it be sold at a rate that the consumers can afford in this Commonwealth? And is there meat on the bone in margins? Now, one of the things that has changed this landscape dramatically in PA is the data center race, right? That that has been a big, big player. That’s going to reshape the energy market. There’s — we can’t ignore that. But it’s time, early on, to get our arms around building out new generation, building out multiple sources of generation, looking at that AAPS, saying, “What can we do knowing where we are today, and can we realistically extrapolate where we’re going to be in five years and 10 years, so that we have this prepared, right?” And the governor’s looking at that. The House is looking at that. The Senate’s looking at that. Everybody, I think, is looking at the pretty much the same end goal. It’s what path do we take to get there?

Stone: So going back to the Union Energy aim, is to address the climate crisis and make sure that well paying, secure, community supporting jobs are created in the process. Looking at that climate element as well, the state of Pennsylvania is waiting to see if it will join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The whole issue is before the state Supreme Court. And just so our listeners have a little bit of context, the question here is, does this joining of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative constitute a tax or a fee?

Former Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, through an executive order, directed the state to join RGGI, I think, in 2019 was when this all happened. The pushback is that the governor cannot impose a tax, only the legislature can do that and the Supreme Court, we’re waiting to see — the state Supreme Court, we’re waiting to see what the outcome of that will be. But there is an alternative plan, part of this Lightning Plan, that actually predates the Lightning Plan that the governor’s put forward, which is called PACER. That’s the acronym. And that is kind of a single state cap and trade program that potentially could go into effect if the state does not go into RGGI. The arguments for that is, you know, obviously, it is a way to address climate and to join, particularly if it’s RGGI, this larger resource base to decarbonize the grid as cheaply as possible. The counter argument is that that would raise costs here on the electricity industry and industry and cost jobs. What is the Union Energy stance on either of those cap and trade programs?

Bair: In the interest of complete and full disclosure, I actually filed a lawsuit with the Senate Republicans against Tom Wolf as an IBEW business manager, and when I took over as the president of the Building Trades, I also did it from the president of the Building Trades. I did not support RGGI in its reiteration where it was. It was a very flawed attempt to erroneously penalize the industry. When power is selling for 25 to $30 a megawatt hour, it had a massive amount of potential to cause a loss of generation. It was just not a good idea, and I’m still in that mindset.

Now, you also have to be cognizant of where we were in ’19, where we are today, where the price of power is, and when the governor floated the idea of an in-house, that was a novel approach that I’m still looking at. Because there is two schools of thought to how do we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And one of the things that I have always said was, “You can implement a policy and even pass it, but if all you’re doing is saying to people, ‘You’re going to pay me this if you’re going to continue to pollute,’ we’re still not accomplishing lowering greenhouse gas emissions.”

So I like the idea of the all the above, transitioning to our new technologies, investing in more clean energy while we’re using our fossils, while we’re keeping our grid up and running, and we have the benefit of seeing this. And you know, this is a multi-pronged approach. Because if you really want to talk about what’s harmful, one of the things that gets missed in this conversation is methane. And let’s not kid ourselves. We have 28,000 identified abandoned wells that are just spewing methane in the environment all day, every day, and we don’t really have a plan to fix it. And Ange will tell you, her and I were in a meeting with DEP, and that number is probably somewhere, realistically, between 150 and 200,000. We have only identified 28,000.

So to just say the only way we lower greenhouse gasses is in the energy production space, I don’t agree with that. I think there’s a big need to lower methane emissions. I think that one of the other things we really need to look at is, and I believe the Cornell report said it, Pennsylvania has the sixth most public school per square foot space out of 50 states. Our schools have a D rating. And when you look at the emissions from our failing school buildings, it’s a big number. We have issues with transportation in PA. We have a ton of warehouses, and we have a ton of short term trucks that are creating a problem. We know that.

Stone: You mentioned on the orphan wells, that one of the key legislative initiatives of Union Energy is to cap those orphan wells. And there also is — another one is Solar for Schools. Tell me a little bit about that.

Bair: So the Solar for Schools started out the day after election, day 2022 in Philadelphia with Representative Fiedler. And when I first took over, Representative Fiedler and I were probably as far apart on the political spectrums as you could imagine. She called, I drove to Philly, we had a three hour conversation, and said, “Where can we work together? What would be something that the unions and labor could work with in the environmental space? And what would this look like?” And to Rep Fiedler’s credit, that’s when Solar for Schools was born. And you know, she worked her butt off for 18 months building a coalition of unions, environmentalists, Republicans, Democrats, school boards, school directors, school administrators, and she worked very hard to get that original block of funding.

And we had a very successful program, that there was 25 million put up. I think there was 80 applicants. The money was — the first round, the money was gone. But one of the keys to her whole thing was, we can create jobs. We can give school districts a positive return on investment. The taxpayers can see an immediate return on investment, because if the school district’s buying the system, they’re getting the grants, it’s helping them purchase it, and they’re getting the full return on not paying the electric bill or selling the power back, that could possibly negate if you need a new roof on your high school, a tax increase at your local level.

You’re spending funds of a public body that actually have a return that’s positive. You know, it’s not just money going out the door for a project. These projects generate income over 25, 30 years. It was a tremendous program, tremendously good program. So those are the things that the legislature understands. They shouldn’t be partisan issues. When we work together on a piece of legislation like that, that benefits every red school district, that benefits every blue school district. And oh, gee, by the way, yeah, we’re getting the benefit of clean energy coming back onto the grid. We’re giving our kids an opportunity into school districts to see installed. Some of them now are using their vo-tech kids, learning how to maintenance it, right?

So there’s a workforce development component into that. It’s an amazing program. I can’t say enough about the hard work that Rep Fiedler put in to get that bill across the finish line, right? But we need more bills like that. You know, the Solar for Warehouse is a bill similar to that. I’ve had some people now looking at saying, “Look, can we do this with Class C municipalities, giving them the opportunity in your rural counties?” Well, of course, you can. Pass the legislation, fund the program, they get the buyback. It’s a direct benefit to the taxpayers. And we get the benefit of adding more clean energy to the grid all day long.

Ferritto: I just want to add one comment. As far as Union Energy is concerned, and as far as the governor’s Lightning Plan is concerned, we do support market based approaches to reducing carbon emissions, but really only if they come with real commitments for labor protections, reinvestment in the affected communities, and strong job standards. Like, that is really our northern light there when it comes to Union Energy and how we approach, you know, supporting these policies.

Stone: Well, I believe the governor has framed the PACER as a cap and invest program, is that correct?

Ferritto: Yes.

Stone: You know, let me go to one last issue surrounding this Lightning Plan, and then we’ll move on. But I wanted to ask you about this. Rob. I’m going to direct this one back to you. You mentioned earlier the Reset Board, and to refresh on that one, that would be kind of a one stop shop in Pennsylvania, where all your infrastructure, siting and permitting, as I understand it, could get done. Obviously, there are a lot of concerns from communities when any new type of infrastructure is sited and built in their midst. What is your view on this reset board? And if it should go forward, what are the guard rails protecting or taking into account community needs and interests that should be taken into account by that board?

Bair: I truly believe that the actual overall premise and the intent of the Reset Board was to, one, give a one stop shop for a developer that meets all the current DEP guidelines, all the current DCNR guidelines, and if they meet the guidelines as written in those local municipalities, the idea was they should be able to come in and have an expedited fast track permit. I’m good with that. Where things kind of have gotten off the rails is you have some people that say we want more local control. The Reset Board was there to design, to give developers a pathway to get a permit and not take three years.

Do I think it’s needed as somebody that builds a lot of stuff? Yes, I do. Do I think the guardrails that are currently in place are good from a developer aspect? Sure. Do. I think maybe the municipalities may have a few more concerns? Yes, and I think they can be addressed. There again, what the governor proposed, what Senator proposed, what Rep Fiedler proposed, they all want to accomplish same goal. It’s how do we get there and how do we get that legislation across the finish?

And one of the things that I see daily is, like, now I — because I live in a very rural area, I’m involved in energy projects, I see a huge push for municipalities to write ordinances to prevent large scale solar farms to be able to be built on a Class A farm ground. It’s happening all over PA as we speak. Now, let’s talk about two sides of a coin. If I have a 70 year old farmer who doesn’t have any family and wants to farm his farm, and somebody comes in and offers him a whole lot of money to cover in solar panels, who are we to tell him he can’t as long as all the environmental controls are in place and he’s met all the permitting requirements, you know?

And the Reset Board was kind of, I believe, to prevent that type of thing from happening. And we fought the NIMBY forever. Not in my backyard. We did it with landfills. We did it with trash to steam. My god, we did it with nuclear in the ‘70s. There comes a point where, if you truly want to have a speed up program, the state does have to have more oversight, and that is what the Reset Board was designed. It wasn’t to circumvent, it wasn’t to prevent local ordinances, but it was to say, “Look, if this guy meets all these requirements, he deserves to get this done.”

Stone: So Rob, earlier in our conversation, we touched briefly on the issue of LNG export terminals. And the Building Trades, as we said earlier, have supported the proposal to build an LNG export terminal in a neighborhood that is south of Center City of Philadelphia. But that area is already host to quite a lot of industrial development. It’s a residential area. There’s a lot of industrial development in its midst. It is home to the nation’s largest trash incinerator. And some studies, including one from the University of Pennsylvania, shows higher cancer and asthma rates in this area. So I want to ask you, in supporting the LNG terminal, how do you reconcile that push for union jobs with the environmental justice concerns of a community that is already carrying quite a number of burdens?

Bair: First off, the LNG would not be built in Chester. They have selected a new site.

Stone: Which site is that? Is that Eddystone?

Bair: Yes, and I have sat with the Eddystone mayor.

Stone: That is a close by neighborhood.

Bair: It is. One of the things that I struggle with, but what makes these projects a little different, is now I have a developer that is willing to engage the community. He’s willing to put a large equity stake in the community. He’s going to be bringing millions of dollars a year to those communities so that we can build out the school districts, we can build out fire, we can build out ambulance, we can build out police. We have a ton of potential.

The bottom line is, if we want to help facilitate our neighbors to the north and our European neighbors, LNG is going to be a big part of that. That’s also an anchor project for the southeast. And one of the other things that projects like that bring also is, and this is upstream communities, when I’m using 1.5 billion cubic feet a day and I am liquefying it, I’m bringing that gas out of the ground in Pennsylvania, and my drillers are paying impact fees to every one of those local communities where the gas is coming from. So I’m not just helping one area by building these projects. This, again, becomes supply chain management. And if you’re combining that with Homer City, with Bruce Mansfield, with more generation, also with blending hydrogen, our impact fees in Pennsylvania continue to go up to feed the Commonwealth.

Now, I do have to have a river port somewhere, and you’re not going to, partially, in the political climate we’re in, given the state of some of our environmental and social justice communities, there’s no appetite to give them money from the legislature. There’s people there that want to do it. But is it a reality of getting it done? Not in this political climate it’s not. But bringing those projects and that type of money to those communities is a good way to start fixing them. Because at the end of the day, what don’t they have? They have no revenue stream in that community. These bring them that.

 

They also bring a ton of permanent jobs when they’re done. And one of the things that is critical is, when you’re building projects like this, the community benefit agreement that a developer agrees to and puts in writing, that they’re going to set up training programs, they’re going to hire people from the community, they’re going to be union jobs. They’re going to be permanent, good, middle class paying jobs, which is another thing that didn’t happen over in the Chester area. And that trash to steam was built in 1987, I believe, is when Bogan built that. So that thing’s been there a long time. They’ve had plenty of opportunities to get it right, and they’ve never gotten it right.

With these new projects, having us helping and building the safety standards in that the communities want, which hasn’t been done in the past, I truly believe that we can build these projects. We can do them safely. We can have much less of an environmental impact. And we can bring a lot of prosperity to those communities. People that live in those communities and are building those communities and building those jobs, there’s no corners cut. If I’m a guy, that my kids are 50 feet away at that school bus, you can bet that everything I do is going to be 100 percent right and tight. So when you employ local workers, you employ union local craftsmen, you give people good, permanent union jobs, and you have your developers sign those Community Benefit Agreements, agreeing to what they’re going to do for that community for the next 35 to 40 years, now we’re laying the groundwork to prevent what happened with that trash to steam.

Ferritto: If I could just jump in quick to add to what Rob is saying, when he’s talking about Community Benefit Agreements, it really sort of highlights the way that we approach our work at Union Energy. And again, you know, it’s bringing people from within our communities together to the same table so that, you know, when Community Benefit Agreements being worked up, it’s being worked up with the input from the faith institutions, inputs from students in the area, inputs from politicians in the area, environmentalists in the area. Just advocacy groups, in general, all coming to the table to say, you know, “We’ve seen this before, and here’s what we feel like the guardrails need to be in order to protect our community and in order to ensure that our community will indeed benefit from this new industry or this new facility.”

And so it’s giving the community real stock in some of these projects, and to Rob’s point, where, they didn’t have that. You know, back in the ‘80s, people weren’t sitting down having these conversations and formulating these agreements to get, you know, investors and builders to agree to follow. So I just wanted to highlight that, because I do think it’s a really important part of sort of how we frame our workout here.

Stone: Angela, I’d like to go ahead and jump from that to kind of a national perspective for a moment, and then we’re going to zoom back into the local and to your membership. This year, the Department of Energy canceled $3.7 billion worth of clean energy and industrial decarbonization projects. And last week, this is now October 1 we’re recording this, DOE moved to claw back about $13 billion in funding for clean energy and EV projects. I want to ask you a very straightforward question here. How do those decisions affect your members day to day?

Ferritto: Well, I mean, I think that sort of the uncertainty obviously has a big impact on people. This idea that something that was promised as part of the IRA is now sort of being pulled out from under us. This idea that, you know, this healthy future that we were looking towards and thinking about, you know, being part of building for generations to come is under threat. And so I think just that feeling of, you know, being unstable has a big impact on people.

I’m not sure what’s going to end up happening at the federal level. I know that the cuts have been made, and maybe at some point the realization will come to light that, you know, this is inevitable. This is not something that we have any more time to debate. It’s been debated. It’s been decided. And it also was promised to us. And so I think that taking away sort of this opportunity that we saw, this sort of hope that we saw, you know, it feels terrible. And I think that our members feel that and can relate to that.

And, you know, oftentimes people don’t see things directly in the moment they’re in. And so I think there were a lot of people that didn’t understand. You know, when the IRA was put into law, they didn’t understand exactly what was coming, because they couldn’t see it right in front of them. And then as we were able to have more conversations, and people, you know, were able to start seeing like, “Oh, these big jobs are going to happen. Oh, we’re going to be sort of changing this in our communities,” and really giving us a chance to have a future here on Mother Earth, while doing all of this and enhancing our communities and sort of rebuilding our infrastructure, and people started seeing that. And now all of a sudden, you know, when these jobs should start taking off, and shovels should be hitting the ground, the funding gets pulled. And you know, it leaves you feeling somewhat defeated, but nonetheless, you know, ready to keep fighting. And I think that that’s where our people are.

Stone: Well, looking forward, what would you say are the most important federal fixes that would be helpful for Pennsylvania workers? Or is it simply restoring the clean energy tax credits, funding industrial decarbonization, that type of thing, or something else?

Ferritto: I think that both of those are very important. I think that taking serious look at hydrogen production would be very meaningful to a lot of Pennsylvania communities. And really just refocusing sort of on building the new, and, you know, thinking about how to clean up sort of the situation we’re in within the environment. And so just reinstating, I guess, the promises that were made, and giving us a fair shot at, you know, fixing what is really wrong.

Stone: Well, maybe that happens at the state level. Coming back to this Lightning Plan that we talked about, you know, quite a bit, part of that is the Edge 2.0 Tax Credit overhaul, which would provide additional monies for clean hydrogen development along the lines of what you just mentioned.

Ferritto: Yeah, well, I think a lot of the governor’s plan is really a way for Pennsylvania to stay part of this conversation and to think into the future. You know, I think that it was — it is really encouraging that we do have a governor who sees the importance of this and who is willing to sort of put the investment, make the investment himself into Pennsylvania, you know, without looking for or depending on, I guess, the investment from the federal government. Because there’s so much uncertainty right now at the federal level, which is another note, but we’re just now experiencing the federal shutdown, and who knows where this is all going to go and how long it’s going to go, and sort of the impact that’s going to be felt reverberated, really, across the country from the lack of leadership at the the federal level.  And so I’m grateful for Governor Shapiro and and his sort of futuristic outlook on things, to be able to to make these investments at a state level and ensure that, you know, Pennsylvania is not going to get left behind, and Pennsylvania is going to keep moving forward, and keep being the leader in energy production and energy export in in the country.

Stone: Let me ask you two a couple final questions here, and I really appreciate the time that you’ve given to this podcast, because we’ve covered a lot of ground. But there’s a couple things I want to ask. And one, I want to go completely to the world of politics here for just a moment, okay? So the AFL-CIO and the Building Trades both endorsed the Harris Walz campaign in 2024, supported Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Governor of the state, as well as Democratic Senator Bob Casey, who lost his re-election campaign here in Pennsylvania last year.  Also in 2024, union households in Pennsylvania backed Kamala Harris over Donald Trump by about five points, which was a flip from 2020 when those same households narrowly supported Trump over Joe Biden. What is your sense of what caused this shift, and what does it say about where your members are today?

Bair: I think one of the big things was the campaign did not do a good job on spelling out what the IRA would do for all our members. There wasn’t a lot of discussion on kitchen table issues during the campaign.

Stone: Was this ’24 or ’20?

Bair: ’24, where, from the Building Trades aspect, it’s all about the jobs. It’s about policy that’s going to put members to work. And if you’re going to make a promise, that you’re going to live up to them. We as union leaders, myself included, I think, maybe in hindsight, debriefing, I should have been much more vocal in what was going to happen that we are now seeing happen. One of the things that also probably hurt, and you kind of touched on it, you know, we’re seeing a lot of things get pulled back at the federal level. Well, there’s some projects in PA that aren’t being funded. But keep in mind that, from the time the IRA was passed to the election in 2024, I only had, like, maybe three small Building Trades projects that were funded by the IRA totally out of that $1.9 trillion.

So Pennsylvania wasn’t seeing this grand benefit from my side of the house on the IRA. And then when you compound that with the other side telling you, “I’m going to support jobs, I’m going to create jobs.” Well, it was a pretty big uphill hurdle. The reverse side is now people are seeing the pain. One of the things that Angela touched on that we’re blessed with is a governor who is forward thinking. And do I think Josh has a ton of Building Trade support and a ton of union support? Well, I know he does, because he has taken the position in Pennsylvania that we’re going to try and circumvent the noise in Washington. We’re going to put a Pennsylvania first policy in place. We’re going to tackle these big issues. And we’re going to continue to build.

And we’re going to find out next year, right? Because he’s going to be up for re-election. One of the things that separates him from other politicians, at least from my side, in all my dealings that I’ve had with him and his administration, when he tells you he’s going to do something, he doesn’t make a promise and go back on it. If he’s going to do something, he is upfront and honest. And that is so refreshing for somebody that deals in politics every day.

I tell everybody, I have done this for a long time. I’ve worked with good governors. I’ve worked with bad governors. I’m working with a great governor. I’m working with a governor that cares about Pennsylvania. He cares about every county in this Commonwealth. He is going to move the ball forward for Pennsylvania. And, as you’re well versed, there’s always naysayers. It’s going to happen. There’s always going to be people don’t like him. There’s going to be people that don’t like other side of the aisle. But at the end of the day, it comes down to, what are you actually doing to move Pennsylvania forward?

And in the 2024 Presidential election, we didn’t really explain to a lot of our members what we thought was going to happen. You know, we just assumed that they knew. And probably one of the things that I should have been more vocal about as a union leader was, “Hey, that IRA, even though it was passed, that’s not a guarantee. It has to be renewed each year. And if you get another president, he can start pulling it back.” And that’s what we’re seeing.

Stone: Let me ask the final question directed to you, Angela. Let’s look out to 2030. And I want to ask you, what does success look like for Union Energy? How will you know, for example, if Pennsylvania’s energy transition has worked for your members, their families, and for their communities?

Ferritto: Well, I think, to me, five years from now, success is really about building a network across the state that includes, you know, members of the community in real relationships with them, where we’re all sharing our input and insight, and coming together on issues that we can work together on. And then also fighting for policies that are having a real benefit to our communities and to the people living in them with, you know, strong labor standards, and you know, really this sort of world where people don’t have to, you know, worry about where their next paycheck is coming from, or whether or not they can go to the doctor or pay their light bill, or thinking about, you know, retirement, and actually having a goal in the future of being able to retire with dignity. And, you know, just sort of a world where people are collaborating and fighting for policy to protect people and to enhance and help our communities become more prosperous.

Bair: Before we leave, I want to say one of the things that I think makes Union Energy so effective is the collaboration that I am blessed with, with having Angela as a partner in this. Because I am a policy guy. I’ve always been a policy guy. Angela has this innate ability to bring all these communities together. The Labor and the Pulpit Initiative. Reaching out to all these interesting stakeholders. Being able to sit down and bring the building trades in with the AFL-CIO, which hadn’t been done, really, in my lifetime.

So, you know, I’m extremely blessed to be part of this, but I’m extremely blessed to have Angela as the president, and, you know, working with her daily. I like to tell people, “Her vision is looking out through the whole windshield. Mine is that tunnel vision on the policy.” And I think that’s really what makes this effective and one of the things that has been a benchmark. The union density did increase, albeit small, in Pennsylvania due to Angela’s leadership, due to the organizing, the effort, the getting the word out there, the getting people involved and getting them energized. So you know, before we leave, I want everybody to know how important Angela has been in this whole process. It’s not — this isn’t something that happened overnight. She’s been working at this for literally three and a half years, getting this done.

Stone: Angela and Rob, thank you very much. It’s been great having you.

Ferritto: Thanks, Andy.

Bair: Thank you. Anytime we get an opportunity to address people, to show them that we’re not living in a silo, that this affects every aspect and every facet of this Commonwealth. And we’re all in this together, right? It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican, a Democratic, a union member, a non-union member. As a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if we don’t attack this and lay the groundwork to actually fix this, we are leaving this planet in a whole lot worse shape for our children and our grandchildren. And we can do this without costing people jobs, without costing people careers, without low wage, low rent jobs, but it’s got to be out there every day that we need everybody in Pennsylvania aware of what the hell is going on.

Stone: Today’s guests have been Angela Ferritto, President of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, and Robert Bair, President of the Pennsylvania Building Trades. Visit the Kleinman Center’s website for more podcasts as well as energy policy research and blog posts from experts in the field. To keep up with the latest from the center, subscribe to our monthly newsletter on our website. Thanks for listening to Energy Policy Now and have a great day.