As the former Chief Economist at the PJM Interconnection, PA is a key state not just for marchas but also power production. PA is a net exporter of power to the rest of the footprint which runs from the Jersey Shore to Chicago and down through VA into NC. The Marcellus shale has resulted in huge emissions reductions across this 13 state (plus DC) area based solely on economics. Has fired generation technology has made huge improvements in efficiency over the past 15 years adding to emissions reductions.
Going forward gas will play a pivotal role in the energy transition allowing for the reliable integration of variable and intermittent resources (wind, solar, batteries) in real time operations that will further reduce emissions.
Totally agree Harris needs to embrace fracking and articulate clearly the jobs issue and energy centrality of PA while pointing out these features of the shale gas revolution.
And by the way changing one’s view on crucial policy matters in the face of rethinking and evidence is not flip flopping or weakness or cynical, but a sign of an open mind and drawing conclusions based re-evaluation is something we need more of.
I agree, but the Democratic Party's views on fossil fuels derive from ttheir belief that CO2 emissions are destroying the Earth, and I see no evidence that Biden or Harris or the Democratic Party have altered this belief. Thus any attempt to claim they are now "in favor of hydrocarbons" appears blatantly hypocritical.
If she really wants credibility, refute her global warming stance. It doesn't have to be a complete 180: "CO2 emissions are a serious concern, but the safety of Americans being able to heat their family homes in winter comes first. The prosperity of Americans being able to feed their family on petroleum jobs comes first. I remain completely committed to the green movement, but the well-being of our own citizens must be strongly considered in any green policies."
That would have credibility. That would also cause a complete blow-up of the Democratic coalition (because the Dems need the greenies who hate fossil fuels and pretty much all energy generation) which is why she won't do it.
Has anyone asked her exactly which of the dozen anti-fossil fuel exec orders and regulatory decisions taken under Biden/Harris that she opposes and now pledges to reverse?
I love how she is threatening to overrule New England’s opposition to a pipeline that could bring gas to New England and reduce heating oil consumption and truck traffic.
You hit the nail on the head. She's walked back a lot of statements over the past 4 years and seems at the very least pragmatic. She also has a pretty good view of how important gas is to Europe right now as well as energy costs for the average American. Her pivoting on this is the right stance and she's shown by her words and actions over the last 4 years that she isn't going to try and harm or hurt the fracking industry. I do agree she needs to be more vocal about it though.
Don’t you love the new Tide? New formula! And I love the new packaging. Seems strangely like the old Tide, though, as much I love to believe all adverts and spin.
Meanwhile, the other tribe is taking to heart Walter's quote from "The Big Lebowski": "I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
No one will be paying attention becasue the media are focused like a laser on Trump's cynical reversal on abortion and demands that he sit down to explain how he arrived at the philosophical reversal. :)
I think you have a point. Seems to me that her message ought to be the straight forward honest one that the Biden-Harris administration has been extremely supportive of fracking, and this will continue to be the case.
You write that the estimate is 123,000 "directly" employed by fracking, but if you bother to click through the links to the actual report you're discussing, you'll find the following: "Table 1 shows that the industry supported 123.1 thousand jobs in 2022 ... These jobs include those directly supported by the industry and those generated through the supply chain and employee spending across different sectors of the economy. These jobs include those directly supported by the industry and those generated through the supply chain and employee spending across different sectors of the economy." https://ourtime.substack.com/p/noah-smith-watch-double-counting
Noah, your disinformation that Biden is some huge oil champion is tiring. From the article you linked saying (correctly but grossly misleadingly) that Biden issued oil and gas permits faster:
"Biden came into office pledging to end federal oil and gas leasing, but he has been forced by court order to hold a few lease auctions. ... [T]here have been only six on-shore drilling lease sales since Biden took office, compared with 65 in Barack Obama’s first two years in office. ... The reason for the fast pace of approvals is that the BLM streamlined the permit application process under Trump."
Yeah, the cherry picking by Biden proponents drives me a little nuts. The Democratic Party hates fossil fuels, which makes total sense if you really believe CO2 emissions are going to destroy the Earth. Trying to turn that around with "Biden opened more natural gas fields than Trump!" is just dumb.
They temporarily halted issuing new permits for LNG export terminals at a time when there were several permitted but unbuilt terminals already in the pipeline that were going to take years to finish, which is to say it was a PR move that didn't delay any actual project by any amount of time.
It is interesting, though probably not surprising, that environmentalists seem to ignore national security- and geopolitical-related issues about fracking.
That tiny group of angry Progressives who think the world is ending, we shouldn't have kids, and that the US is responsible for all bad things in the world today lose all leverage the second they say "I'm not doing X!" and being a rational partner in a coalition. I'm a conservative: I have no leverage in this coalition, and I completely understand that, and have kept my mouth largely shut the past eight years waiting for the Republican Party to come to its senses.
Noah, listen to yourself: "Harris needs to say 'X' to get elected."
This is cynical politics at its worst. Biden and Harris both think fossil fuels are destroying the Earth. They've been clear about this for years. But you want her to "become a PA fracking champion" simply to win the election?
This is one of the reasons people support Trump: they perceive him as having beliefs and sticking to them. I'm not sure that's really true; he's more transactional than principled. But that's the perception. And while voters may not like all of his beliefs, the fact that he sticks by them (unlike most other politicians) counts for something with them.
Harris doesn't need to win by blatantly buying votes with policies she clearly doesn't believe in. She wins by making the case that the policies she DOES believe in are good for America and good for PA.
There is nothing cynical about it at all. Global warming is real. It is a problem. It isn't a problem that is solved by reducing US production of natural gas. As Noah said, it is probably worsened by this as some will be replaced by coal. And it is worse for the U.S. because it won't be sold by us. We should continue to invest in changes that make solar and wind so much more economical that it's difficult for anyone in the world not to make use of it. Meanwhile, we should produce and sell natural gas and petrol because, if we don't somebody else will. I believe that Noah has repeatedly stated in the past that this is his general position.
Ref, you're missing my point. Noah saying that Kamala Harris, the leader of a party that has spent decades demonizing oil companies and fossil fuels, should suddenly do a 180 and become a cheerleader for fracking is just absurd. She should obviously lie about her views just to win a handful of votes in PA... because... Trump is the Antichrist? (The New Republic actually wrote an article with that title a few days ago.) That's what's cynical; thinking the American voters are dumb enough to fall for such a radical about-face with no precipitating event or policy evidence. And maybe they are; in which case they deserve what they get.
In a functional republic, you win by convincing people that your ideas are good for the country, not by lying about your ideas until the day after the election.
Noah is obviously not arguing that Harris should lie about her position to win the election and then on day 1 reverse her perspective immediately. He is saying that she should be for fracking before, during, and after election day and the inauguration.
What subsidies? There aren't any direct ones and you'd have to stretch to find any indirect ones. If "I would like to tax oil and gas much higher than they are right now" is a subsidy then many industries are subsidized.
It's particularly rich to complain about subsidies for fracking, when its competitors (wind, solar, hydrogen, etc.) have unbelievably massive subsidies.
I wasn’t complaining, I was asking. I have rethought… the real question is, how much does gas have to cost for fracking to be economically viable? I am not against fracking, I just like to know things
"Estimates of this effect for shale gas and similar industries range from 1.3 to 2, meaning that for every job shale gas creates, there are 1.3 to 2 other jobs created locally."
Isn't the multiplier generally quantified in dollars, rather than jobs? Jobs have varying wages associated with them. Usually we say something like $1 of export income (or $1 injected by Keynesian stimulus) ends up adding <multiplier> dollars to aggregate local income in the end, after it's spent and respent in the local economy, becoming income for various different people.
If anything, I'd expect that the jobs directly in fracking are relatively well paid, compared to local service jobs -- waiters, barbers, whatever other jobs you have on Main Street in the exurbs and rural towns where the fracking workers are spending their wages. A single $100k fracking job could easily be supporting three or four $40k service workers.
Nothing “boosts” fracking like killing pipelines, slow walking LNG projects, restricting LNG exports, limiting or banning drilling on federal lands, converting productive BLM lands into untouchable national monuments (Utah) and the EPA making up rules requiring carbon capture (talk to some utilities, gas turbine manufacturers about this). Obviously some of this is just virtue signaling to keep donations coming in and lawfare/intimidation to cow the industry while they await the measures to be laughed out of court years later on appeal, but these are Dem policies backed by major donors and activist groups, enacted by executive orders Biden signed or regulators Biden appointed. Loyal party members should take pride in them rather than trying to misdirect us. It is an important part of what one gets for voting Dem.
If your contention is that Biden “boosted” fracking while actually taking many steps and appointing regulators with the intent of harming the fossil fuel industry, simply because prices went up, then you must also believe that Biden “boosted” inflation. Indeed his support of profligate fiscal policies and demand-inducing handouts combined with supply-limiting regulations like school closings (keeping parents our of the labor force), vaccine mandates, and appointing a treasury sec and Fed vice chair with a “run the economy hot” bias argues more strongly for Biden’s complicity in the latter boost.
We know exactly which sort of policies Harris/Biden favor and what kind of regulators they will appoint (look at exec orders, DOE, Interior, DOJ and EPA actions and rules) and also how important anti-fossil fuel policies are to the activists as well as billionaire donors (Steyer on down). Moreover, there is a decent overlap between the young pro-Hamas activists and the young green activists. Unless you think Israel policy is going to change, expect more anti-fossil fuel actions to keep young activists happily frothing. There is already plenty of campaign spin out there trying to gloss over the reality, but Harris was literally appointed as presidential candidate by the same activists, donors and party elders that have been setting Biden’s domestic agenda, recommending appointees and crafting exec orders to put in front of his nose. Do you think Biden chooses EPA appointees and writes executive orders himself? Do you think Harris will? She’s essentially a candidate of the machine that chose her and is now running her campaign. We all can extrapolate. There is no evidence from her interviews or her speeches as VP that she has much in the way of independent policy ideas (nor deep thoughts generally).
I can see why people might prefer her to Trump, but fossil fuel friendliness aint one of those reasons!
If the Times article cited more than once here is correct, the solution to Pennsylvania’s fracking industry is more pipelines. The bold move from Harris could be a super aggressive permitting bill that overcomes barriers to building transmission lines, including major limits on NEPA in exchange for more support for fossil fuel pipelines. Environmentalists are going to have to reconcile that clean energy isn’t coming fast enough and fossil gas is probably the best alternative. The faster clean energy grows, the faster fracking becomes uneconomical. Let’s face it, clean energy isn’t growing fast enough to keep up with existing demand let alone new growth.
I think it's telling that there isn't a graph of natural gas production in this article (either U.S. or PA). I'm not opposed to fracking in PA or anywhere else, but my understanding from having some real life encounters with it is that it's economics that are the main limiter and have been for a while. For instance, I have a family friend that owns a few hundred acres on the PA / NY border that he mostly uses for hunting etc. (I think he leases some out to be farmed as well) and 10-15 years ago he signed a lease for natural gas production on his land--they paid him a few hundred thousand dollars up front and would have paid a royalty if they had ever gone into production. But the thing is, they never did. It was great that he got a windfall (that basically paid off his mortgage), but the project never penciled. I know a lot of people in PA who have had similar experiences--they support fracking in theory, but in reality it's been a lot of "you'll all get rich... next year maybe, or the year after that."
Noah, she came out and said she won’t ban fracking and called out “good paying jobs in Pennsylvania” ( several weeks before the debate and repeated during the debate) - please pay attention.
No only for Pennsylvania. Being pro fracking (actually, "anti-anti fracking;" we should not be "pro" any specific technology) is also important in showing that she has moved away from the restricting supply to reducing demand as the way to address net zero goals.
As the former Chief Economist at the PJM Interconnection, PA is a key state not just for marchas but also power production. PA is a net exporter of power to the rest of the footprint which runs from the Jersey Shore to Chicago and down through VA into NC. The Marcellus shale has resulted in huge emissions reductions across this 13 state (plus DC) area based solely on economics. Has fired generation technology has made huge improvements in efficiency over the past 15 years adding to emissions reductions.
Going forward gas will play a pivotal role in the energy transition allowing for the reliable integration of variable and intermittent resources (wind, solar, batteries) in real time operations that will further reduce emissions.
Totally agree Harris needs to embrace fracking and articulate clearly the jobs issue and energy centrality of PA while pointing out these features of the shale gas revolution.
And by the way changing one’s view on crucial policy matters in the face of rethinking and evidence is not flip flopping or weakness or cynical, but a sign of an open mind and drawing conclusions based re-evaluation is something we need more of.
I agree, but the Democratic Party's views on fossil fuels derive from ttheir belief that CO2 emissions are destroying the Earth, and I see no evidence that Biden or Harris or the Democratic Party have altered this belief. Thus any attempt to claim they are now "in favor of hydrocarbons" appears blatantly hypocritical.
If she really wants credibility, refute her global warming stance. It doesn't have to be a complete 180: "CO2 emissions are a serious concern, but the safety of Americans being able to heat their family homes in winter comes first. The prosperity of Americans being able to feed their family on petroleum jobs comes first. I remain completely committed to the green movement, but the well-being of our own citizens must be strongly considered in any green policies."
That would have credibility. That would also cause a complete blow-up of the Democratic coalition (because the Dems need the greenies who hate fossil fuels and pretty much all energy generation) which is why she won't do it.
You may have noticed there is a campaign on.
Has anyone asked her exactly which of the dozen anti-fossil fuel exec orders and regulatory decisions taken under Biden/Harris that she opposes and now pledges to reverse?
THAT would only happen if we had a media that wanted to inform the citizenry!
They are far more interested in hiding the sausage in order to support anyone running against Trump.
I love how she is threatening to overrule New England’s opposition to a pipeline that could bring gas to New England and reduce heating oil consumption and truck traffic.
Oh wait…..😂🤪
Would anyone believe her?
She has 50 days.
Wouldn't the story also be "Harris's cynical reversal on fracking?"
Many people have talked about this before, but flip-flopping to the popular position is popular.
All the coverage would be, "can you believe Kamala wants to do {popular thing}?"
You hit the nail on the head. She's walked back a lot of statements over the past 4 years and seems at the very least pragmatic. She also has a pretty good view of how important gas is to Europe right now as well as energy costs for the average American. Her pivoting on this is the right stance and she's shown by her words and actions over the last 4 years that she isn't going to try and harm or hurt the fracking industry. I do agree she needs to be more vocal about it though.
Don’t you love the new Tide? New formula! And I love the new packaging. Seems strangely like the old Tide, though, as much I love to believe all adverts and spin.
Meanwhile, the other tribe is taking to heart Walter's quote from "The Big Lebowski": "I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
Clearly she didn’t do much over the past four years, for good or ill, in that she was not a significant player in the administration
No one will be paying attention becasue the media are focused like a laser on Trump's cynical reversal on abortion and demands that he sit down to explain how he arrived at the philosophical reversal. :)
I think you have a point. Seems to me that her message ought to be the straight forward honest one that the Biden-Harris administration has been extremely supportive of fracking, and this will continue to be the case.
When reality bites you in the ass, deny that reality exists?
Standard postmodernist, Democrat playbook.
Supportive by cancelling the Keystone XL and West Virginia gas pipelines and pausing all LNG export terminal permits?
The pause on permits is six months, and it's for new construction. LNG exports remain at four-year highs.
You write that the estimate is 123,000 "directly" employed by fracking, but if you bother to click through the links to the actual report you're discussing, you'll find the following: "Table 1 shows that the industry supported 123.1 thousand jobs in 2022 ... These jobs include those directly supported by the industry and those generated through the supply chain and employee spending across different sectors of the economy. These jobs include those directly supported by the industry and those generated through the supply chain and employee spending across different sectors of the economy." https://ourtime.substack.com/p/noah-smith-watch-double-counting
Noah, your disinformation that Biden is some huge oil champion is tiring. From the article you linked saying (correctly but grossly misleadingly) that Biden issued oil and gas permits faster:
"Biden came into office pledging to end federal oil and gas leasing, but he has been forced by court order to hold a few lease auctions. ... [T]here have been only six on-shore drilling lease sales since Biden took office, compared with 65 in Barack Obama’s first two years in office. ... The reason for the fast pace of approvals is that the BLM streamlined the permit application process under Trump."
Yeah, he's a real champion for oil and gas.
Yeah, the cherry picking by Biden proponents drives me a little nuts. The Democratic Party hates fossil fuels, which makes total sense if you really believe CO2 emissions are going to destroy the Earth. Trying to turn that around with "Biden opened more natural gas fields than Trump!" is just dumb.
The Biden administration also halted approvals for new LNG projects in January 2024, to the celebration of environmentalists.
https://open.substack.com/pub/billmckibben/p/um-i-think-we-all-just-won?r=bw6f8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.
This action was reversed by a federal court in July.
They temporarily halted issuing new permits for LNG export terminals at a time when there were several permitted but unbuilt terminals already in the pipeline that were going to take years to finish, which is to say it was a PR move that didn't delay any actual project by any amount of time.
Permits require exports to begin 7 years after they are issued, so a delay can result in a failure of the projects and their exports.
https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/bidens-pause-on-us-lng-export-approvals-four-questions-answered/
It wasn’t a temporary ban, it was overturned by a federal district court in Louisiana, that the administration challenged.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/judge-overturns-bidens-lng-export-pause/
It is interesting, though probably not surprising, that environmentalists seem to ignore national security- and geopolitical-related issues about fracking.
You could say the same thing about free-trade absolutists in the 90s and early aughts.
That tiny group of angry Progressives who think the world is ending, we shouldn't have kids, and that the US is responsible for all bad things in the world today lose all leverage the second they say "I'm not doing X!" and being a rational partner in a coalition. I'm a conservative: I have no leverage in this coalition, and I completely understand that, and have kept my mouth largely shut the past eight years waiting for the Republican Party to come to its senses.
Might be a longer wait before we see much sense from either party
Noah, listen to yourself: "Harris needs to say 'X' to get elected."
This is cynical politics at its worst. Biden and Harris both think fossil fuels are destroying the Earth. They've been clear about this for years. But you want her to "become a PA fracking champion" simply to win the election?
This is one of the reasons people support Trump: they perceive him as having beliefs and sticking to them. I'm not sure that's really true; he's more transactional than principled. But that's the perception. And while voters may not like all of his beliefs, the fact that he sticks by them (unlike most other politicians) counts for something with them.
Harris doesn't need to win by blatantly buying votes with policies she clearly doesn't believe in. She wins by making the case that the policies she DOES believe in are good for America and good for PA.
There is nothing cynical about it at all. Global warming is real. It is a problem. It isn't a problem that is solved by reducing US production of natural gas. As Noah said, it is probably worsened by this as some will be replaced by coal. And it is worse for the U.S. because it won't be sold by us. We should continue to invest in changes that make solar and wind so much more economical that it's difficult for anyone in the world not to make use of it. Meanwhile, we should produce and sell natural gas and petrol because, if we don't somebody else will. I believe that Noah has repeatedly stated in the past that this is his general position.
Ref, you're missing my point. Noah saying that Kamala Harris, the leader of a party that has spent decades demonizing oil companies and fossil fuels, should suddenly do a 180 and become a cheerleader for fracking is just absurd. She should obviously lie about her views just to win a handful of votes in PA... because... Trump is the Antichrist? (The New Republic actually wrote an article with that title a few days ago.) That's what's cynical; thinking the American voters are dumb enough to fall for such a radical about-face with no precipitating event or policy evidence. And maybe they are; in which case they deserve what they get.
In a functional republic, you win by convincing people that your ideas are good for the country, not by lying about your ideas until the day after the election.
Noah is obviously not arguing that Harris should lie about her position to win the election and then on day 1 reverse her perspective immediately. He is saying that she should be for fracking before, during, and after election day and the inauguration.
putin is against fracking
Ok, I agree with all of that. One question: is fracking *economically* viable without subsidies?
What subsidies? There aren't any direct ones and you'd have to stretch to find any indirect ones. If "I would like to tax oil and gas much higher than they are right now" is a subsidy then many industries are subsidized.
It's particularly rich to complain about subsidies for fracking, when its competitors (wind, solar, hydrogen, etc.) have unbelievably massive subsidies.
I wasn’t complaining, I was asking. I have rethought… the real question is, how much does gas have to cost for fracking to be economically viable? I am not against fracking, I just like to know things
"Estimates of this effect for shale gas and similar industries range from 1.3 to 2, meaning that for every job shale gas creates, there are 1.3 to 2 other jobs created locally."
Isn't the multiplier generally quantified in dollars, rather than jobs? Jobs have varying wages associated with them. Usually we say something like $1 of export income (or $1 injected by Keynesian stimulus) ends up adding <multiplier> dollars to aggregate local income in the end, after it's spent and respent in the local economy, becoming income for various different people.
If anything, I'd expect that the jobs directly in fracking are relatively well paid, compared to local service jobs -- waiters, barbers, whatever other jobs you have on Main Street in the exurbs and rural towns where the fracking workers are spending their wages. A single $100k fracking job could easily be supporting three or four $40k service workers.
Nothing “boosts” fracking like killing pipelines, slow walking LNG projects, restricting LNG exports, limiting or banning drilling on federal lands, converting productive BLM lands into untouchable national monuments (Utah) and the EPA making up rules requiring carbon capture (talk to some utilities, gas turbine manufacturers about this). Obviously some of this is just virtue signaling to keep donations coming in and lawfare/intimidation to cow the industry while they await the measures to be laughed out of court years later on appeal, but these are Dem policies backed by major donors and activist groups, enacted by executive orders Biden signed or regulators Biden appointed. Loyal party members should take pride in them rather than trying to misdirect us. It is an important part of what one gets for voting Dem.
If your contention is that Biden “boosted” fracking while actually taking many steps and appointing regulators with the intent of harming the fossil fuel industry, simply because prices went up, then you must also believe that Biden “boosted” inflation. Indeed his support of profligate fiscal policies and demand-inducing handouts combined with supply-limiting regulations like school closings (keeping parents our of the labor force), vaccine mandates, and appointing a treasury sec and Fed vice chair with a “run the economy hot” bias argues more strongly for Biden’s complicity in the latter boost.
We know exactly which sort of policies Harris/Biden favor and what kind of regulators they will appoint (look at exec orders, DOE, Interior, DOJ and EPA actions and rules) and also how important anti-fossil fuel policies are to the activists as well as billionaire donors (Steyer on down). Moreover, there is a decent overlap between the young pro-Hamas activists and the young green activists. Unless you think Israel policy is going to change, expect more anti-fossil fuel actions to keep young activists happily frothing. There is already plenty of campaign spin out there trying to gloss over the reality, but Harris was literally appointed as presidential candidate by the same activists, donors and party elders that have been setting Biden’s domestic agenda, recommending appointees and crafting exec orders to put in front of his nose. Do you think Biden chooses EPA appointees and writes executive orders himself? Do you think Harris will? She’s essentially a candidate of the machine that chose her and is now running her campaign. We all can extrapolate. There is no evidence from her interviews or her speeches as VP that she has much in the way of independent policy ideas (nor deep thoughts generally).
I can see why people might prefer her to Trump, but fossil fuel friendliness aint one of those reasons!
If the Times article cited more than once here is correct, the solution to Pennsylvania’s fracking industry is more pipelines. The bold move from Harris could be a super aggressive permitting bill that overcomes barriers to building transmission lines, including major limits on NEPA in exchange for more support for fossil fuel pipelines. Environmentalists are going to have to reconcile that clean energy isn’t coming fast enough and fossil gas is probably the best alternative. The faster clean energy grows, the faster fracking becomes uneconomical. Let’s face it, clean energy isn’t growing fast enough to keep up with existing demand let alone new growth.
I think it's telling that there isn't a graph of natural gas production in this article (either U.S. or PA). I'm not opposed to fracking in PA or anywhere else, but my understanding from having some real life encounters with it is that it's economics that are the main limiter and have been for a while. For instance, I have a family friend that owns a few hundred acres on the PA / NY border that he mostly uses for hunting etc. (I think he leases some out to be farmed as well) and 10-15 years ago he signed a lease for natural gas production on his land--they paid him a few hundred thousand dollars up front and would have paid a royalty if they had ever gone into production. But the thing is, they never did. It was great that he got a windfall (that basically paid off his mortgage), but the project never penciled. I know a lot of people in PA who have had similar experiences--they support fracking in theory, but in reality it's been a lot of "you'll all get rich... next year maybe, or the year after that."
Noah, she came out and said she won’t ban fracking and called out “good paying jobs in Pennsylvania” ( several weeks before the debate and repeated during the debate) - please pay attention.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kamala-harris-donald-trump-debate-fracking-oil-gas-joe-manchin-inflation-reduction-act-96c8ee37
No only for Pennsylvania. Being pro fracking (actually, "anti-anti fracking;" we should not be "pro" any specific technology) is also important in showing that she has moved away from the restricting supply to reducing demand as the way to address net zero goals.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/market-forces-are-not-enough-to-halt
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change
If she wants to make a credible commitment, she should go to Uniontown and drive a pressure pumping truck around for the afternoon, Dukakis-style