State Energy Policies

A Comparative Analysis of California and

Pennsylvania
Aaron Elliott and Joseph Gadomski
12/1/2010

Electricity Production is the biggest producer of pollution in the United States. Individual states create
policies for the production of electricity. Some states, such as California, have begun to utilize
sustainable and renewable means of production including hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.
However, states such as Pennsylvania still rely on the heavily polluting coal-fired power plants and
nuclear power plants.
 Table of Contents

Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Air Pollution.................................................................................................................................................. 3
Water and Land Pollution ............................................................................................................................. 5
Case Studies .................................................................................................................................................. 6
California .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Comparison ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Contrast ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Recommended Actions ............................................................................................................................. 9
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 10

2
Introduction
State energy policies vary from state to state. The ability of a state to develop an effective and
sustainable plan is difficult to do. Thus, states have different plans in place for their energy production.
These plans, however, may not always be effective or could be outdated. These plans need to be
improved and developed around the present economy and more importantly, focus on the protection of
the environment.

The federal government provides little guidance in the production of electricity. This leaves the
states responsible for developing electricity generation plans, which only have to follow loose air and
water pollution regulations. Guidelines and regulations have been left up to the individual states
Environmental Protection Agencies and other state environmental planning and zoning divisions or
organizations.

The regulation of pollution within the United States is a unique political problem. Most countries
have a government which makes laws and regulations for the entire country. These laws are followed or
the citizens or companies can face steep fines or penalties. However, in the United States, the federal
government and state governments have separate law-making and regulatory powers. The federal
government does not have complete control over laws, but rather implements broader regulations that the
states should follow. The states have their own governing bodies which are then responsible for creating
and enforcing stricter laws within their state’s boundaries. The mindset that the United States is
independent and that citizens and companies have various freedoms can and has had a detrimental effect
on the ability to have uniform environmental laws and regulations from state to state.

Air Pollution
Air pollution from electric generation plants, especially coal-fired plants and natural gas plants, has
caused numerous environmental problems within the United States. These pollution problems can be
linked to cases of cancer, asthma, and death. No specific source can be pinpointed, however. Winds and
air currents can carry pollutants for hundreds or thousands of miles. This means that air pollution does
not only affect the local area, but can have a small effect on the entire planet. This also means that states
may not have to take complete responsibility for their pollution since they can have laws that differ from
neighboring states.

At the present time, Carbon Dioxide is a toxic greenhouse gas that is contributing greatly to the
phenomena called Global Warming. Carbon dioxide is in the Earth’s atmosphere and absorbs radiation
from the sun. In turn, the atmosphere of the Earth continues to increase in temperature and cause global
warming, which can have numerous unknown environmental impacts in the future. The largest sector
that emits carbon dioxide is the industry of producing electricity. The carbon dioxide emissions from the
production of electricity in the United States make it the largest emitter in the world at approximately
2,790,000,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide per year. (Development, 2007). This statistic shows that the
Federal government along with the individual state governments are doing little to decrease their
environmental impacts.

Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides are also pollutants that are emitted from electricity producing
power plants in the United States. These chemicals can cause environmental problems, most notably,
acid rain. Acid rain can have a negative effect on agriculture, leading to poor crop yields or problems
with the soil. Acid rain can also cause problems within ecosystems. It can affect numerous animals and
can have a large impact on hydrological areas. Acid rain can cause problems with fish and other species
which live in or around bodies of water. These chemicals can also adversely affect humans. They can
cause respiratory problems and other medical problems in sensitive groups.

3
 Most states utilize the highly polluting coal-
fired power plant for the bulk of their electricity
needs. These plants produce approximately 2,249
lbs/ Megawatt hours of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh
of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.
(Agency, Clean Energy: Coal). These numbers are
incredibly high. Coal plants create the highest
amount of pollutants out of any source of electricity
generation. In addition, mining coal and transporting
it, also creates emissions indirectly. Methane gas,
which is 23 times more harmful than carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere, is usually found in the coal
mining process and is released, which creates more
air pollution.

When looking at the air pollution in yearly statistics, the numbers are staggering. The average U.S.
coal-fired electric power plant will produce 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide, 10,000 of sulfur dioxide,
720 tons of carbon monoxide, and 500 tons of other small particulates. (Scientists, Environmental
Impacts of Coal Power: Air Pollution) Most of these chemicals are carcinogens and are responsible for
numerous cases of cancer and can result in death.

Some states rely on natural gas power plants, which produce much less emissions at about 1,135
lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen dioxide.
(Agency, Clean Energy: Natural Gas). These numbers are much lower than coal-fired plants. As with
coal burning plants, the extraction and transportation of natural gas to these plants creates additional
emissions.

Still, other states are dependent on nuclear power reactors, which do not create emissions. These
nuclear reactors can have various other environmental ramifications in the mining and milling processes.
(Agency, Clean Energy: Nuclear Energy). Emissions can result from mining and transportation of the
radioactive energy source.

Some states have begun the process of implementing the use of renewable energy sources. These
sources can include hydroelectric power, wind power, and solar or photovoltaic power. These renewable
sources do have some limitations, though. The availability of rivers or reservoirs limits hydroelectricity
productivity. Winds and sunlight can vary from state to state, making it unsuitable for some areas. This
can have an effect on the productivity of that source to the area or region in question. The percentage of
renewable electricity sources is still very low, but future environmental factors will have to dictate the
need to bring more renewable generation source online. As for air pollution, renewable energy sources
generally produce no pollution from electricity generation, but rates of 1.22 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide
and 0.06 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides from the transportation and manufacturing processes can be
assumed. (Agency, Clean Energy: Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy) Also, hydroelectric power can
indirectly cause methane gas releases as a result from decaying plant material below the surface of
reservoirs. These releases are very minimal, though. (Agency, Clean Energy: Hydroelectricity)

4
Water and Land Pollution
Water and land pollution are also problems associated with electricity generation and its related
practices. Water pollution can cause cancer, skin diseases, infections, and mortality. The pollution of
land results from toxic heavy metals being absorbed into the ground and can be harmful to animals,
plants, and humans alike.

The average coal burning power plant will generate about 170 pounds of mercury, 225 pounds of
arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, along with other heavy metals. (Scientists,
Environmental Impacts of Coal Power: Air Pollution). Most of these chemicals can be lethal in small
doses. Also, only very small amounts of these chemicals are needed to contaminate bodies of water.

“Roughly 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury can make fish in a 25-acre lake unsafe to eat.”
(Scientists, Environmental Impacts of Coal Power: Air Pollution). This is a very small amount and the
170 pounds of mercury produced has the possibility to contaminate an entire aquifer or regional
watershed. Again, it is difficult to determine the sources of water pollution due to runoff and tributaries
running into large rivers that can pass through multiple states.

Land pollution can occur from illegal dumping or discharge of materials from power plants. This
land pollution, similar to water pollution, can spread throughout the soil of a region and make it harmful
for living creatures. Land pollution can cause regions to have very contaminated soils which make
agriculture difficult or impossible. Also, the land pollution can cause water pollution if the water table or
rainwater causes the chemicals to leach deep into the soil.

Along the same lines of land pollution is the problem of land destruction by mining materials
used for electric generation. The pollution created is not directly related to the power plants themselves,
but rather the materials they burn. Coal mining can be destructive, especially if the technique of
mountaintop removal mining is practiced. This process means that the top of a mountain or hill is rigged
with explosives that turn the hill into large rock parts with the coal exposed. These parts are collected and
the coal is removed, which is then burned for electricity. This process causes destruction of ecosystems.
It also can cause water degradation through heavy metals related to coal being released into the ground
and watershed.

As for nuclear power, numerous problems occur. Water is used to cool the reactor during
operation. This heated water is discharged back into rivers or lakes and can affect the chemistry of the
water and the habitat in which animals may live. Also, some heavy metals can be released in the
discharge water, which can degrade the water quality of the region. Mining the radioactive material used
in a nuclear reactor can cause the release of heavy metals and affect water quality and pollute the land.
The toxic waste disposal is also a related environmental problem. The nuclear plant becomes irradiated
during production time, which makes the decommissioning process difficult and hazardous. Also, the
spent nuclear fuel rods have to be stored and can become a nuisance.

Renewable energy sources have little effect on water quality except for some minor metals that
may enter the hydrologic cycle during the manufacturing processes. Hydroelectric dams may have a
slight effect on water temperatures of the reservoir or river, can affect migratory patterns of fish, and the
movement of silt into floodplains. However, they do not pollute the water bodies or land in any way.

5
Case Studies
The following case studies provide data about two states, California and Pennsylvania.
California’s government has adopted numerous sustainable initiatives and has been a model in the use of
renewable resources for electric production. Pennsylvania is still lagging behind, like most other states,
and relies mostly on coal and nuclear power plants for their electric generation.

California
California is currently ranked 13th in producing emissions from electricity generation at
79,200,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. However, they have numerous plans and projects that have
been completed or are on the drawing board for sustainable energy production. California has one highly
productive nuclear power plant in the top 25 carbon dioxide free plants in the United States.

The graph shows the breakdown of electricity producing sources in California for the year 2005
as compared to the national breakdown. (California Energy Summary)

One can see that California has gone

against the grain of most of the country. They
have gone to great extremes to avoid using the
polluting coal power plant for electrical needs.
They have invested greatly in renewable and
natural gas power plants.

California’s net electricity production

is 20,588,000 MWh per year. California
primarily relies on natural gas turbine plants
for electricity generation at about 10,696,000
MWh per year. Remember that these plants
produce about half the emissions produced
from traditional coal-fired plants, which only
account for 1% of electricity production in
California, or roughly 183,000 MWh per year.

California is second to Washington

State in terms of hydroelectric generation in
the United States, producing 3,525,000 MWh
per year. Renewable electricity sources such
as solar, wind, and biomass account for nearly
20% of electricity generation (2,452,000 MWh per year), which accounts for about 19% of all non-hydro
renewable energy sources in the country. Together hydroelectric and other renewable energy sources
account for 40% of California’s energy production capacity. (Administration)

6
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has the fourth highest production of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity
generation in the United States at 136,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Pennsylvania currently
has 7 of the top 100 highest carbon dioxide emitting coal-fired power plants in the United States.

In contrast, though, Pennsylvania also has 3 of the

top 25 most productive and carbon dioxide free
nuclear power plants in the country.
(Development).

The graph shows the breakdown of electricity

production by source of Pennsylvania in 2005 as
compared to the national averages. (Pennsylvania
Energy Summary)

Pennsylvania has followed the national averages

for energy production. This is one reason that the
United States of America is the most polluting
country on the planet. Little consideration is being
given to the environment and producing cheap
energy is the goal of the government.

Pennsylvania generates about 21,536,000 MWh of

electricity each year. Of that amount, 10,344,000
MWh are produced from coal-fired plants.
Nuclear reactors account for about 6,843,000
MWh of production, which ranks second in
capacity, to Illinois, in the United States. Natural
gas power plants are third in generation at 3,810,000 MWh. Renewable energy sources only account for a
combined 381,000 MWh of production per year, which is about 3 percent of their energy needs.
(Administration).

7
Comparison
There is little to be compared, in terms of electricity production, of California and Pennsylvania.
The best comparison to be made is that both states produce roughly the same amount of electricity in a
given year, around 21,000,000 MWh.

Both states use minimal amounts of petroleum burning power plants in terms of percentages at
three percent and five percent, respectively. The actual production numbers vary greatly, however.
California produces 3,000 MWh per year of electricity and Pennsylvania produces 66,000 MWh per year
of electricity from these heavily polluting facilities.

Contrast
There are numerous differences between these states electricity generation methods. The first
aspect that must be accounted for is the population. California has a population of 37 million people.
Pennsylvania has one-third of that population at 12.6 million people. However, the carbon dioxide
emissions would not say that. Pennsylvania creates 136,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year to
California’s 79,200,000 tons per year. California has three times the amount of people living in its state,
yet produces half as much carbon dioxide emissions. This means there are some major regulatory
differences and plans in place for generating electricity.

The primary sources of energy

production could not be more different.
California relies on cleaner burning
natural gas power stations, and non-
polluting renewable energy to produce
about 75 percent of their electricity,
while Pennsylvania uses the heavily
polluting coal burning plants to create
over 50 percent of their electricity.

As the graph shows, California

utilizes much more power from
renewable resources. Pennsylvania
generates only 281,000 MWh of
electricity per year from renewable
energy, while California produces
2,452,000 MWh per year, or about eight
times as much electricity from
renewable like solar power, wind power,
and biomass. (Administration)

8
Recommended Actions
California is on the way to reducing emissions from electricity generation. They can continue to
increase their renewable capacity and reduce their use of nuclear and try to completely eliminate the small
amounts of coal and petroleum plants that they have.

California, being on the West coast near the ocean and getting a decent amount of sunshine, can
continue to utilize renewable energy. The coastal winds still have incredible potential for wind power and
the sun and good weather have the possibility for great amounts of solar energy to be harvested.

Pennsylvania can learn a lot from California’s government and their environmental agencies. In
order to protect the environment and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Pennsylvania must stop or reduce
their dependence on coal-fired electric power plants. These plants pollute both the air, water, and land.
California has turned towards natural gas turbine plants and renewable energy.

Pennsylvania has been said to have high amounts of hydroelectric capabilities due to the vast
amount of river systems with the state, especially the Susquehanna River. Wind power is said to be a
viable alternative due to the windy conditions present in the Appalachian Mountain and Allegheny
Mountain ranges, along with the shoreline on Lake Erie. The phasing out of coal-fired power plants
needs to begin. These power plants are very polluting and there are better alternatives which are more
efficient and less harmful to the environment.

Pennsylvania does not necessarily need to turn directly to renewable electricity producing
sources, however. The use of natural gas turbines can reduce emissions greatly. Using these types of
power plants can cut emissions in half.

Pennsylvania has started an initiative to have electricity generating companies produce 18.5
percent of the state’s electricity needs by renewable sources by 2020. (Administration). This is a good
start, but the coal plants, must begin to be decommissioned rather than stay operation and have their
pollution offset by renewable sources.

9
Bibliography
Administration, U.S. Energy Information. U.S. State Energy Profiles. 24 November 2010. 26 November
2010 <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/index.cfm>.

Agency, Environmental Protection. Clean Energy: Coal. 28 December 2007. 26 November 2010
<http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html>.

—. Clean Energy: Hydroelectricity. 28 December 2007. 26 November 2010

<http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/hydro.html>.

—. Clean Energy: Natural Gas. 28 December 2007. 26 November 2010

<http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html>.

—. Clean Energy: Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy. 5 August 2010. 26 November 2010

<http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/non-hydro.html>.

—. Clean Energy: Nuclear Energy. 10 March 2010. 26 November 2010

<http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html>.

California Energy Summary. 5 June 2010. 26 November 2010

<http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/energy_summary.cfm/state=CA>.

Cardenas, Daniel. Electricity Generation by Source. 19 january 2010. 26 November 2010

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html>.

Development, Center for Global. Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Power Plants Rated Worldwide. 15
November 2007. 26 November 2010
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114163448.htm>.

Duhigg, Charles. "Clewaning the Air at the Expense of Waterways." New York Times 12 October 2009.

Pennsylvania Energy Summary. 10 June 2010. 26 November 2010

<http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/energy_summary.cfm/state=PA>.

Scientists, Union of Concerned. Environmental Impacts of Coal Power: Air Pollution. 2009. 26 November
2010 <http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#>.

—. The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels. 2010. 26 November 2010

<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-
fossil.html>.

10