Return to featured presentation
$1.39 billion to Kentucky
$513 million to Wyoming
$245 million to Virginia
$196 million to W. Virginia
$97 million to Colombia
$81 million to Alabama
$76 million to Tennessee
$17 million to Colorado
$9 million to Indiana
$2.6 Billion Sent Out Of State
$513 million to Wyoming
$245 million to Virginia
$196 million to W. Virginia
$97 million to Colombia
$81 million to Alabama
$76 million to Tennessee
$17 million to Colorado
$9 million to Indiana
$2.6 Billion Sent Out Of State
- Alabama Alabama spends more per person to import coal than any other state, sending $1.5 billion out of state in 2008—with nearly one-third going to Colombia. That’s about 600 times more than the state spent on utility-funded electricity efficiency programs in 2007—one of the most affordable ways to replace coal-fired power while creating local jobs.
- Arkansa All of Arkansas’ coal came from out of state in 2008, costing $463 million. That’s nearly 300 times more than the state spent on utility-funded electricity efficiency programs in 2007—one of the most affordable ways to reduce demand for coal-fired power while creating local jobs.
- Connecticut In 2008, Connecticut was more dependent on coal imported from Indonesia than any other state. Yet the state has the technical potential to generate more than one-third of its 2008 electricity needs from in-state land-based renewable resources while offshore wind projects could supply 24 times New England’s regional power needs.
- Delaware All of Delaware’s coal came from out of state in 2008, costing $161 million. Yet the state has the technical potential to generate nearly half of its 2008 electricity needs from in-state land-based renewable resources, while offshore wind could supply 4.4 times the Mid-Atlantic region’s power needs.
- Florida Florida imported all the coal its power plants burned in 2008, sending more than $1.5 billion out of state. Yet instead of tapping into its bioenergy potential for in-state use, the Sunshine State ships 560,000 tons of clean-burning wood pellets to Europe each year.
- Georgia With no in-state coal supplies, Georgia is the state most financially dependent on imported coal, sending more than $2.6 billion out of state in 2008.That’s 540 times more than the Peach State spent on utility-funded electricity efficiency programs in 2007.
- Iowa With no in-state coal supplies, Iowa spent nearly $500 million on coal imports in 2008 to generate more than three-quarters of its electricity. Yet the Hawkeye State has the technical potential to supply nearly 39 times its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
- Illinois Illinois sent $1.5 billion out of state to import coal in 2008. Yet the Prairie State has the technical potential to generate more than five times its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
- Indiana Indiana sent $1.3 billion out of state to import coal in 2008. Yet the Hoosier State has the technical potential to generate four times its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
- Kansas Kansas sent $518 million out of state to import coal in 2008 to generate nearly three-quarters of its electricity. Yet the Sunflower State has the technical potential to generate 79 times its 2008 electricity needs from in-state renewable resources.
- Massachusetts Massachusetts gets more of its coal from foreign sources than any other state, yet has the technical potential to generate 90 percent of its 2008 electricity needs from in-state renewable energy.
- Michigan Michigan sent more than $1 billion out of state to import all of its coal in 2008. Yet the state has the technical potential to generate twice its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
- Missouri Missouri imported more than 99 percent of the coal it used in 2008, sending more than $1.1 billion out of state. Yet the Show-Me State has the technical potential to generate nearly nine times its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
- Mississippi Mississippi sent more than $450 million out of the state to import coal in 2008. That’s 1,400 times more than the state spent on utility-funded electricity efficiency programs in 2007—one of the most affordable ways to reduce demand for coal-fired power while creating local jobs.
- North Carolina North Carolina was one of only two states to spend more than $2 billion to import coal in 2008, yet the state has the technical potential to generate more than 2.5 times its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources such as bioenergy and offshore wind.
- Nebraska Nebraska imported all of its coal from Wyoming in 2008, sending nearly $200 million out of state. Yet Nebraska neglects its technical potential to generate 100 times its 2008 electricity needs from in-state renewable resources.
- New Hampshire In 2008, New Hampshire was more dependent on coal imported from Venezuela than any other state. Yet the Granite State has the technical potential to generate 100 percent of its 2008 electricity needs from in-state renewable energy resources.
- New Jersey New Jersey imported all the coal it used in 2008—some from as far away as Indonesia. Yet the Garden State has the technical potential to generate nearly one-third of its 2008 electricity needs from in-state land-based renewable resources, while offshore wind could supply 4.4 times the Mid-Atlantic region’s power needs.
- New York New York imported all the coal it used in 2008—some from as far away as Venezuela. Yet the Empire State has the technical potential to generate more than 80 percent of its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
- Ohio Ohio sent $1.9 billion out of state to import coal in 2008. Yet the Buckeye State has the technical potential to generate 1.3 times its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
- South Carolina South Carolina sent more than $1 billion out of state to import all of its coal in 2008. That’s 120 times more than the state spent on utility-funded efficiency programs in 2007—one of the most affordable ways to reduce demand for coal-fired power while creating local jobs.
- Tennessee Tennessee imported more than 99 percent of the coal it used in 2008, sending $1.3 billion out of state. Yet Tennessee has the technical potential to generate nearly 60 percent of its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
- Texas Texas imported more coal than any other state in 2008, and spent $1.9 billion to do so. Yet the Lone Star State has the technical potential to generate more than 17 times its 2008 electricity needs from in-state renewable resources.
- Wisconsin With no in-state coal supplies, Wisconsin spent $853 million on coal imports to generate nearly two-thirds of its electricity. Yet the state has the technical potential to supply more than four times its 2008 electricity needs from renewable resources.
But many utilities—especially those in the Southeast—are neglecting these resources. Instead, they choose to spend billions of dollars importing coal from other states, and even other countries. Roll over a state to learn more about the poor energy decisions being made there.
It's shocking! And it gets worse! Take our quiz and learn more about the energy choices utility companies are making on your behalf.
It's shocking! And it gets worse! Take our quiz and learn more about the energy choices utility companies are making on your behalf.
Seriously?
Yes—mercury is a potent neurotoxin that threatens brain development in babies and young children. In 2005, coal plants caused $62 billion in health-related damages, according to the National Academy of Sciences, mostly due to heart and lung disease caused by sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and small particle pollution from coal plants. To top it off, coal plants are the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions—the leading cause of climate change—in the United States.
It gets worse. Our coal use nearly tripled from 1960 to 2008 and new plants are still being built, despite the high costs and risks. That means more deadly emissions, higher health costs, more climate change, and more money being sent out of state. States are importing more coal each year and we're paying for it in cash, with our health, and in environmental damage.
Seriously?
Well, sort of. U.S. power plants withdraw 143 billion gallons of freshwater each day, with some coal plants drawing from 20 to 50 gallons per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. Much of that water is returned to rivers and lakes, but at a substantially higher temperature, harming water quality and aquatic ecosystems.
Try again, silly.
Try again, silly.
Nope. In fact, Indiana is one of 11 states that spent more than $1 billion to import coal in 2008.
You got it. Can you believe that Wyoming produced 468 million tons of coal in 2008, 40 percent of the U.S. total—up from just 18 percent in 1990? In 2008, Wyoming also shipped coal to power plants in 34 states, some as far away as New York and Georgia—now that's a big carbon footprint!
Where else does the United States get its coal? Most comes from just three states: Wyoming,
West Virginia, and Kentucky. But many eastern and gulf states also import coal from
other countries, including Colombia, Venezuela, and Indonesia.
You're probably living in a tree house already if you haven't heard about the enormous improvements in performance and cost of renewable energy in the last two decades.
That's what some people would like you to believe, but in fact Union of Concerned Scientists researchers and other experts have repeatedly found that renewable energy can quickly, affordably, and reliably ramp up from today's levels. In fact, the wind industry alone installed more capacity in 2008 and 2009 than it did in the previous three decades! Care to take another shot?
That's right—renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, bioenergy, and geothermal are ready today to supply us with clean, reliable, and affordable power. In fact, they have the technical potential to generate more than 16 times the amount of electricity the nation now needs.
Did you know that aggressively pursuing both energy efficiency and electricity from renewable energy could net $80 billion in savings per year on Americans' energy bills?
And everyone else too. Some of the biggest companies and institutions in the United States already rely heavily on renewable energy to power their businesses.
Not even close
That's right—the Southeast harnesses only a small fraction of its renewable power potential, and some states actually ship their renewable energy resources, such as woody biomass, to Europe instead of using it themselves. Southern states are also far behind most other states on improving energy efficiency.
Studies show that there are sufficient renewable energy resources to meet as much as 30 percent of the Southeast's electric power needs within the next 15 years—that's six times more than today's renewable electricity generation.
Wait…what?
Good guess, but no. While the Southeast does have wind power resources that aren't being used to their fullest potential, there are efforts underway to expand wind power in the region, particularly off the coast.
That's right. Wood and plant waste and other sustainably-harvested woody biomass turn out to be a great source of clean electricity. It can even be used directly in coal plants to displace coal and reduce a range of harmful emissions. Unfortunately, some states are actually exporting their woody biomass to Europe instead of using it locally!
Did you know that one source of woody biomass is a natural byproduct from local sawmills and paper industries in the Southeast? Using it for heat and electricity is an ingenious way of making one industry's waste product another industry's clean energy source!
Wrong—on so many levels. Coal is far from renewable, and the Southeast is far from neglecting it. In fact, there are even proposals for new coal plants in Georgia—deepening dependence on a dirty, risky energy source whose price is rising.
Try again, Trekkie.
Now that's just silly.
Now that's just silly.
Yep. You've definitely been paying attention! Florida companies, for instance, have exported close to one million tons of biomass in the form of wood pellets to Europe, where demand is strong because of aggressive clean energy policies. Meanwhile, Florida utilities spend their customers' money to import nearly $1.6 billion in coal each year. And it's not just happening in Florida. All states have local clean energy resources and energy efficiency measures that they could more fully utilize.
Don't be such a Debbie downer.
Not quite, we can do better than that…
That's it! Union of Concerned Scientists experts predict that strong investments in energy efficient technologies and measures—which would reduce the amount of energy needed to run our appliances and heat or cool our buildings—could reduce energy use by 29 percent by 2030. Efficiency saves us money by shrinking our electric bills even while energy prices are rising.
What kind of measures could get us to a 29 percent reduction in energy use? One of the most successful strategies is instituting efficiency standards—a way of guaranteeing that new products, such as refrigerators and water heaters, achieve minimum levels of efficiency by a certain date.
No, but way to go with the wishful thinking!
So you see, many states' energy policies could be summed up as "Out with the good, in with the bad." Unfortunately, we're letting utilities decide for us where our money should be spent—and they're not making smart or clean decisions. They're sending our money out of state, buying dirty coal, and shipping off our clean energy resources overseas.
Ever wonder where your electricity comes from? The interactive slideshow above explains where your electricity is coming from and highlights
the states in the U.S. that aren't making use of our clean energy (and efficiency) resources.
