Frustrated environmental and clean-energy advocates say after four long years of debate and compromise, regulators sent Arizona back to the starting line with their rejection of a clean-energy plan.

The Arizona Corporation Commission voted down a proposal this week which would have, through interim steps, required energy producers to be 100% carbon-free by 2050. The measure had drawn widespread support from community and environmental groups, local governments, power companies and faith leaders.

Amanda Ormond, director of the Western Grid Group, said the vote leaves critical clean-energy advancements on the table.

"By not passing this comprehensive rule, there now is no direction to utilities on what to do for energy efficiency and low-income customers, what to do related to clean energy and many other aspects," Ormond pointed out.

The five-member panel voted 3-to-2 in favor of the plan last fall, but this week, Republican member Jim O'Connor backed away from an earlier compromise and voted against the final measure. He said the plan would cost the state's utilities too much to implement.

Proponents of the plan countered the setback puts Arizona years behind other states in implementing a clean-energy plan.

Ormond contended the move further delays economic and environmental justice for Arizona's marginalized groups, including communities of color and native tribes.

"The comprehensive package included energy efficiency and would have extended and made sure that the utilities were thinking about people who couldn't pay their electric bills well," Ormond noted. "Now, the state has no policy on that."

Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter, said failure to implement the plan tosses years of work out the window and shifts power back to the utilities and away from Arizona ratepayers.

"The Commission did nothing to protect our houses, not to conserve water, give us cleaner air, nothing to help provide additional jobs and reduce carbon emissions, nothing to put our state on track for a clean-energy future," Bahr outlined.

A recent study showed in addition to the environmental and climate benefits, Arizona energy users would have saved more than $2 billion under the new regulations.

New York state lawmakers are weighing two bills which would grant utilities more vertical market power, a move proponents argued will help the state meet its clean energy goals. But one advocacy group said it would grant utilities too much control.

Essentially, the measures would let private utility companies and the New York Power Authority construct and own clean energy projects.

Anne Reynolds, executive director of the Alliance For Clean Energy New York, contended it is unwise to let utilities, which already own the wires delivering the electricity, develop wind and solar projects.

Reynolds pointed out it would put independent power projects like the ones they represent at a real disadvantage.

"They would then sell the power to themselves and decide for themselves what price they're going to pay for it," Reynolds noted. "We have a lot of pressure to keep the price as low as possible, and the utilities wouldn't have that pressure."

Costs for the utilities are automatically passed on to ratepayers, but independent projects cannot do the same. The bill's authors said the proposals would streamline clean energy production, although Reynolds countered most of the holdup is in the permitting and planning process, not construction.

New York aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2040, with a midrange goal of 70% renewable energy by 2030. The state's Public Service Commission has previously advised against permitting utility-owned clean energy projects, agreeing with Reynolds' argument.

She added the biggest barrier to new clean energy production is often connecting to the power grid, which is largely up to utility companies and grid operators.

"So our worry is that the utilities building wind and solar projects, they will give themselves a break when deciding which interconnection request to process first or how much to charge for an interconnection request," Reynolds explained.

The Public Service Commission has reopened public comment on the issue until August 10, but those comments will be moot if the bills pass before then.

Neither bill has been voted on by either house. The legislative session is set to end June 2.

Gov. Tom Wolf announced Pennsylvania is moving forward with plans for industrial-sector decarbonization, with a proposal to the federal government for the state to host a hydrogen and carbon capture hub.

The hub would include the creation of hydrogen from natural gas, along with a large pipeline network which would carry captured carbon emissions from factories to areas where the carbon would be injected underground for permanent storage.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality estimates the hubs would cost between $170 billion and $230 billion to construct.

Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, said the cost of such a project outweighs the benefits.

"Developing the hydrogen hub and using the carbon capture equipment in factories, in power plants, wouldn't actually do anything to increase their output or the value that they're delivering to the economy," O'Leary argued. "It would simply increase their cost of doing so."

He added it is a cost we would see in our taxes and electric bills. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included $8 billion to create four hydrogen hubs nationwide. Critics of carbon-capture technology contended it is untested at a large-scale level, is expensive, and does not reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

Joanne Kilgour, executive director of the Ohio River Valley Institute, said the governor and some state lawmakers are proposing a number of subsidies and regulations related to the hub. She added as the project moves forward, state officials must be transparent with the public.

"This is fundamentally about spending public money on decarbonization solutions that are supposed to be helping to improve public health and address the climate crisis," Kilgour stated. "And yet the public has largely not had a way to get involved."

Wolf emphasized pursuing the hub will promote the creation of clean jobs in Pennsylvania while supporting the Biden Administration's commitment to significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.

Pennsylvania is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the country.

New York elected officials are calling on the General Assembly to pass legislation to transition new buildings off fossil fuels, saying it would make the state cleaner and healthier.

The All-Electric Building Act would require new buildings to have all-electric appliances for space and water heating and cooking by 2023. It also would mandate state agencies to identify policies to make electricity more affordable and accessible for low-income residents.

Dominic Frongillo, co-Founder of Elected Officials to Protect America, said it is about saving lives and money.

"Right here in New York, air pollution from burning gas and buildings leads to about 1,000 deaths a year and most of those are in communities of color," Frongillo reported. "It's a real, real harm to our public health."

New York burns more fossil fuels in its buildings than any state in the country. Research shows an all-electric home in New York City would save households $6,800 over the course of 15 years.

The bill received a hearing last week and must be passed by the end of the legislative session June 2.

William Reinhardt, an Albany County legislator, and a former professional energy analyst with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, said in the long run, it makes the most sense economically to introduce new technologies through new construction.

"If you compare an all-electric building, new construction now, to a fossil-fuel building with central air conditioning, again new construction, so we are comparing apples to apples, the all-electric building is actually cheaper," Reinhardt pointed out.

Under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, New York is mandating 70% of all electricity generated in New York be from renewable sources by 2030. Officials say getting all newly-constructed buildings to be fossil fuel-free is key to achieving the goal.