Washington DC: Lowest in Carbon Emissions, Highest in Increased Costs

Washington, D.C., has the lowest carbon emissions per capita of any state in the U.S. at less than 4 metric tons per person (See Fig.1). That is the good news. The bad? Its rate of increase in the cost of energy is also the highest in the country at over 93% over the last 5 years.

This drastic increase in cost is due to several factors, including inflation, increased wholesale prices from PJM, and, crucially, local green energy mandates. Ratepayers around the country are facing increasing prices from inflation. But Maryland and New Jersey, also in the PJM service area, faced just 50% increases in cost over the same period. By trying to squeeze out the relatively small amount of carbon in its electricity grid, DC has chosen a policy path to meet its ambitious net zero goals in the most expensive way. Some estimates put the city’s implied cost of carbon, the price tag for abating a single metric ton of CO2 emissions, at $750 to $870. The next closest states are Massachusetts and New Jersey, both of which are at $300 to $400 per metric ton (Implied cost of carbon is the calculated financial cost per metric ton of greenhouse gas reduced by a specific policy or technology mandate).

It must be noted that carbon emissions are a global problem. The reality is that abating small amounts of carbon from the lowest-emitting state adds tremendous burdens on low-income residents while achieving no measurable impact on global climate change.

Read the full report. 

Senate Permitting Deal Tracks Closely With PPI Blueprint for Democratic Permitting Reform

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today applauded the introduction of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. The bill is a major bipartisan breakthrough that would help America build faster and more cheaply, lower energy costs, and strengthen its competitive edge. The bill delivers on Congress’s promise to reduce costs for working Americans and advance environmental justice by accelerating the infrastructure needed to deliver reliable, cleaner power to communities that have long borne the brunt of high bills and pollution.

Introduced Wednesday by Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the bill unites the Republican chairs and Democratic ranking members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works committees behind a plan to speed federal environmental reviews, give approved projects certainty that their permits will stand, and require data centers to pay all of their associated transmission costs.

The bill closely tracks the agenda in “Bureaucracy Blocks Green Progress: 9 Ideas for Democratic Permitting Reform,” authored by Colin Mortimer, Senior Director of Partnerships at PPI. Released in November 2025, the report argued that Democrats have much to gain by engaging in the permitting debate and set out to expand the proposals they could bring to negotiations with Republicans, warning that durable reform could not happen through one-party action.

“Permitting reform has stalled for years because Democrats feared losing environmental protections and Republicans feared a deal that would only help renewables. Sens. Heinrich, Lee, Capito and Whitehouse have shown there is a bargain that works for both sides,” said Mortimer. “This bill would get power lines, clean energy and critical infrastructure built faster and lower costs for families while keeping strong safeguards in place.”

The report documented the toll of the current system. According to the American Clean Power Association, permitting delays have cost more than $100 billion in lost investment, 150,000 U.S. jobs and 550 million metric tons of additional carbon emissions this decade, and the Business Roundtable estimates that about $1.5 trillion in investment is awaiting federal permits. Major clean energy projects such as the SunZia transmission line have taken nearly two decades to move from conception to construction.

“Permitting reform is an affordability issue and an environmental justice issue. Black and Hispanic families, including many in communities represented by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus, spend a larger share of their income on energy and shoulder the cost when energy supplies do not meet demand,” said Neel Brown, Managing Director at PPI. “Building more supply and new transmission faster means lower bills and lower emissions. That is why getting this bill across the finish line matters.”

The bill reflects the report’s recommendations in seven areas:

  1. Environmental review shot clocks: PPI’s report called for strict enforceable deadlines for completing environmental reviews, after which a decision must be issued, citing models such as Washington state’s two-year deadline for environmental impact statements. The bill would strengthen enforcement of the existing one-year deadline for environmental assessments and two-year deadline for environmental impact statements, and require agencies to decide on outstanding permits within set windows once reviews are complete.

  2. Limits on the scope of review: The report urged Congress to codify the Supreme Court’s 8-0 ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, which held that agencies need not analyze upstream or downstream impacts of activities they do not directly regulate, and to further define reasonable limits on the scope of review. The bill would require courts to give substantial deference to agencies on the scope and contents of their environmental reviews.

  3. A 150-day statute of limitations: Because lawsuits under the National Environmental Policy Act can be filed up to six years after a final agency decision, the report recommended extending the 150-day window Congress set for surface transportation projects to all major federal permitting decisions, providing predictable timelines while preserving judicial review. The bill would set a 150-day deadline for challenges under environmental review, clean water, endangered species, and historic preservation laws, and for challenges to energy, mining, and forest restoration approvals under any federal law.

  4. A “single front door” for federal permits: Drawing on reforms in New South Wales, Australia, and the Netherlands, the report called for a lead agency and coordinator responsible for one consolidated timetable, one environmental record and one final decision, with agency reviews conducted in parallel rather than in sequence. The bill would require concurrent agency reviews, a single environmental document and binding resolution of interagency disagreements.

  5. Federal authority over power lines: The report recommended expanding FERC’s backstop siting authority to approve interstate transmission projects when states are slow to act or deny approval, preventing single-state vetoes of regionally necessary energy projects. The bill would strengthen federal transmission approval authority, including by dropping the requirement that lines sit in a federally designated corridor, and allow federal and state reviews of major lines to proceed simultaneously.

  6. Resources and shared data for faster reviews: Arguing that permitting reform only works if agencies have the people and tools to carry it out, the report called for added review capacity and a centralized permitting repository of environmental data and past reviews, an idea the Department of Energy has begun to explore. The bill would authorize a $20 million annual permitting fund from 2027 to 2033, $150 million a year through 2031 for endangered species consultations, and shared data systems to help agencies reuse information from previous reviews.

  7. Protection for approved projects: Pointing to presidents of both parties who have halted projects after approval, from the Keystone XL pipeline to the Revolution Wind offshore wind farm, the report called for preventing the unilateral revocation of duly approved projects. The bill would protect existing permits from cancellation or interference, with defined exceptions for court orders, violations of law, fraud, and urgent harm supported by new information.

The report also recommended two reforms the bill does not adopt: a “loser-pays” rule requiring unsuccessful plaintiffs to cover litigation costs, and revenue-sharing arrangements, like those in France and North Dakota, that deliver direct benefits such as property tax relief to towns and cities that host energy infrastructure. The bill does advance the report’s broader goal of reducing litigation delays by limiting who can sue and barring courts from halting projects over NEPA paperwork errors.

Read and download the November 2025 report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Soaring Costs and Grid Strain Put Maryland’s Climate Goals in Doubt

WASHINGTON (August 27, 2026) — A new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) finds that Maryland has built one of the country’s most energy-efficient, lowest-emitting economies, but warns that the state’s sweeping climate agenda is increasingly out of step with soaring electricity prices, shrinking federal support, and a widening capacity gap on the regional grid.

Authored by Neel Brown, Managing Director at PPI, and John Kemp, an internationally recognized energy markets expert, “Maryland’s Climate Goals Facing a New Reality” examines the state’s path toward the targets set under its 2022 Climate Solutions Now Act, including a 60% cut in greenhouse gas emissions below 2006 levels by 2031 and net-zero emissions by 2045.

Maryland’s energy-related emissions per person are the lowest of any state, just 55% of the national average, thanks to a power mix dominated by zero-emission nuclear and lower-emission gas that has largely displaced coal. Total emissions have fallen more than twice as fast as the national rate since 2005. But like other states inside the PJM Interconnection, Maryland is now being squeezed by explosive data center growth in Northern Virginia, which is driving up regional wholesale power costs. Residential electricity prices climbed at an average annual rate of 2.4% between 2019 and 2024, nearly two-and-a-half times the national rate, and PJM wholesale prices jumped 47% in 2025 alone.

“Maryland has proven that a state can cut emissions faster than the rest of the country while keeping electricity bills manageable,” said Brown. “But the easy wins from switching off coal are behind it. Lawmakers should prioritize the programs that deliver real emissions reductions, protect the grid, and keep costs in check for ratepayers, rather than mandating an outcome the state’s own numbers say isn’t achievable on this timeline.”

The report notes that Maryland’s climate plan spans 21 separate initiatives, from EV charging expansion to farmland conservation to building electrification, at an estimated combined cost of $1 billion a year. That price tag is complicated by federal funding cuts under the Trump administration, which have put much of the financing Maryland officials were counting on in doubt. A January 2026 analysis from the University of Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability projects the state will reach only a 42% emissions cut by 2031, far short of the 60% statutory goal.

Polling shows broad public support for expanding natural gas and nuclear generation to meet rising demand, while local measures such as Montgomery County’s push to ban natural gas appliances face strong public opposition. To keep the grid stable, Maryland has already had to delay retirement of its last coal-fired plant, Brandon Shores, from 2025 to 2029, and fast-track two new natural gas units in Harford County.

To keep the state’s climate strategy on solid footing, the authors make three key recommendations:

  1. Rank the state’s 21 climate initiatives by cost-effectiveness rather than pursuing all of them at once, and focus funding on the programs that cut the most emissions per dollar spent.
  2. Preserve firm baseload generation, including nuclear and natural gas, rather than retiring capacity ahead of proven, reliable sources of energy.
  3. Replace blanket mandates, such as natural gas appliance bans, with targeted, means-tested incentives that protect low- and middle-income ratepayers.

The authors conclude that Maryland can remain a national climate leader without sacrificing the affordability and reliability gains that have made it a model for other states, but only by anchoring its strategy in today’s cost and capacity realities rather than a deadline set before the current price pressures emerged.

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Maryland’s Climate Goals Facing a New Reality

Maryland has established some of the most aggressive and ambitious climate goals of any state in the US. Under its 2022 Climate Solutions Now Act, it aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% below 2006 levels by 2031 and reach net-zero by 2045.

In addition to these ambitions, policymakers must now contend with spiking electricity demand and some of the country’s highest energy prices. Ratepayers have seen increases at an average annual rate of 2.4% between 2019 and 2024, two-and-a-half times the average national rate of 0.9% after adjusting for inflation. This dramatically complicates the prospect of quickly achieving net-zero while keeping electricity reliable and affordable for Marylanders.

Read the full report

 

Malec for 535 News: Advanced Recycling Can Save American Families Millions, Congress Should Help Scale It

Every week, millions of Americans do their part to recycle: they rinse their plastic containers, sort them, and put them in recycling bins. It’s a simple routine built on the belief that small actions make a difference. But this good-faith effort from the public can only get us so far.

Today, less than 10 percent of plastic waste gets recycled. The rest goes to landfills.

The problem isn’t effort. It’s the system those efforts depend on. Traditional recycling systems were never designed to handle many of the complex and mixed plastic products we use today, including shopping bags, bottle caps, and food containers. As a result, most plastic waste still ends up in landfills, and every ton of it comes with hefty costs on everyday Americans.

Read more in 535 News

Brown on Powering America Podcast: Unlocking America’s Advanced Recycling Potential Through Policy

In the latest episode of the Powering America Podcast, Neel Brown, Managing Director of the Progressive Policy Institute, discusses the potential of advanced recycling to address America’s plastic waste crisis. Brown explains how advanced recycling differs from traditional methods by breaking down contaminated plastics at a molecular level, allowing for the recycling of materials that are typically sent to landfills. He emphasizes the need for supportive policies and public awareness to enhance recycling rates and reduce landfill waste.

Listen to the podcast

Michigan’s Net-Zero Deadlines Threaten Reliability and Manufacturing Jobs, PPI Finds

WASHINGTON (July 2, 2026) — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) this week released a new report, “Michigan’s Climate Goals at a Crossroads,” warning that the state’s 100% clean energy mandate is on a collision course with rising electricity demand and could jeopardize grid reliability and the state’s manufacturing base unless paired with firm, carbon-free power. Authored by Neel Brown, Managing Director at PPI, and John Kemp, an internationally recognized expert on energy markets and systems, the report calls on policymakers to shift from rigid fuel-mix mandates to a pragmatic, outcomes-based approach centered on emissions per capita.

Michigan’s Clean Energy Future Plan, signed into law in 2023, mandates 60% renewables by 2030 and 100% clean generation by 2040. But renewables currently supply just 7% to 11% of the state’s power, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) has warned of insufficient regional generation capacity as soon as 2028. Motor vehicle and parts manufacturing accounts for nearly two-fifths of Michigan’s GDP, making the state especially exposed to reliability disruptions or price spikes from premature retirement of firm gas generation.

The report finds Michigan has cut carbon emissions by two-thirds since 2005, faster than the national average, largely by switching from coal to natural gas. Per-capita emissions now sit at 14 metric tons, slightly below the U.S. average, and total energy spending per person is 11% below the national average. The planned 2026 restart of the Palisades nuclear power plant is expected to add 800 megawatts of firm, carbon-free generation, while the state’s EV mandate of 2 million vehicles by 2030 remains far out of reach, with just under 121,000 registered as of November 2025.

To sustain Michigan’s emissions progress without risking reliability or industrial competitiveness, the report recommends three priorities:

  • Maintain natural gas generation for critical reliability rather than retiring efficient plants ahead of adequate replacement capacity
  • Leverage firm baseload power, including the Palisades restart and development of small modular reactors, to support continued renewable growth
  • Re-evaluate the EV mandate timeline to align with actual adoption while sustaining investment in charging infrastructure

“Michigan has real climate progress to show for the last two decades, but holding onto mandates the grid cannot support is a recipe for blackouts, higher bills, and job losses,” said Brown. “The state has a legislative off-ramp available, and pragmatic policymakers should use it.”

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Michigan Climate Goals at a Crossroads

Many states have had great early success in cutting their carbon emissions since enacting ambitious net-zero targets at the start of the 2020s. The declines occurred thanks mostly to the switch from coal to natural gas, though heavy investments in solar, driven by Biden-era tax credits, also played a role.

Today, those states are now grappling with rising demand, rising prices, and the Trump administration’s hostility to renewable development. This is necessitating a fresh look at the climate goals set in a much different economic and political time.

Passed and signed into law at the end of 2023, Michigan’s Clean Energy Future Plan mandates 100% clean energy by 2040. This aggressive timeline in the face of increasing load demand and rising costs now risks energy reliability and economic repercussions in a state whose energy-intensive automotive manufacturing industry makes up two-fifths of the state’s GDP. 

By switching from coal to gas generation, Michigan has cut carbon emissions by two-thirds since 2005. This rate was faster (1.6% per year) than across the country as a whole (1.2% per year). Cool summers increase residential efficiency, lowering the state’s per capita energy consumption to 9% below the national average. Michigan’s total per capita energy spending is 11% below the national average. 

Michigan is the country’s eleventh-largest electricity generator and exports surplus power to neighboring states. Fossil fuels accounted for 67% of in-state generation in 2023, and the proportion had decreased only slightly from 70% in 2005. Coal-fired generation has been cut by two-thirds, mostly replaced by gas, which has increased fourfold. Non-fossil generation comes mostly from nuclear, but the share from wind and solar has grown fast. Nuclear generation has fallen in recent years following the shutdown of the Palisades nuclear power plant for decommissioning in 2022. But plans to re-open Palisades are at an advanced stage. The facility has received new fuel assemblies, and the main turbine generator and cooling systems are being refurbished. Reopening the Palisades nuclear power plant, targeted for 2026, promises 800MW of new, carbon-free firm generation.

Despite these positive developments, Michigan faces a looming supply-demand collision. As demand grows through data center development and policy-driven electrification efforts for EVs and heat pumps, firm supply must keep pace with the growth. Advocates of closing firm and efficient natural gas generation in the face of rising demand are ignoring the looming economic and climate ramifications. 

Policies that accelerate reductions in firm generation without replacements make energy more expensive, threatening the core manufacturing base of the state. This is neither economically nor politically wise. Driving jobs from the state to areas with more affordable energy is a recipe for disaster for the climate and for the economy.

Fortunately, there is an off-ramp. The Clean Energy Plan offers a mechanism to delay closures of needed generation if it is required to meet demand. Michigan can take this offramp while continuing to reduce carbon emissions through coal-to-gas switching and accelerating renewable development. To ignore this opportunity risks political blowback that only worsens the likelihood of reducing emissions. 

Read the full report.

Net-Zero Deadlines Could Cost New Mexico Families, PPI Finds

WASHINGTON (June 4, 2026) — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a new report, “The New Mexico Dilemma: Balancing Net-Zero Ambitions with Energy Realities,” warning that the state’s aggressive net-zero timeline could undermine grid reliability and energy affordability unless it is paired with firm, fully-scaled, carbon-free power. Authored by Neel Brown, Managing Director at PPI, and John Kemp, an internationally recognized expert on energy markets and systems, the report calls on policymakers to prioritize technology-neutral, outcome-based strategies over fixed net-zero dates.

New Mexico is the nation’s second-largest oil producer and fourth-largest gas producer, and the oil and gas industry is the state’s largest private-sector funder and a major driver of state budget revenues. The state is pursuing a 100% clean grid by 2045 and net-zero emissions by 2050, goals set by executive order in 2019 but never codified by the legislature. Unlike energy-producing peers such as Pennsylvania and Illinois, New Mexico has no nuclear generation and very little hydropower to supply carbon-free baseload, raising the risk that retiring gas generation too quickly could create capacity shortfalls, price spikes, and lost industrial investment.

The report finds the state has cut carbon emissions by 21% since the goals were set, primarily by switching from coal to natural gas, far short of the 45% reduction targeted for 2030. New Mexico also maintains some of the strictest methane rules in the country, requiring operators to capture 98% of natural gas waste and banning routine venting and flaring. Its emissions intensity is half that of Texas.

The authors note that New Mexico is not facing the demand surges and price shocks straining other states. Both grids serving the state, the Southwest Power Pool and WECC-Southwest, hold ample reserve margins expected to remain healthy through 2030. Residential electricity prices have fallen in real terms since 2019 and have risen just 3.7% over the past year, less than half the national average increase.

To protect that advantage, the report recommends three priorities:

  1. Adopt technology-neutral, outcome-based policies focused on reducing atmospheric carbon rather than banning specific fuels
  2. Invest in clean firm power such as geothermal, battery storage, and advanced nuclear to backstop wind and solar
  3. Protect consumer affordability by using the newly established $210 million Community Benefit Fund to keep transition costs from falling on rural and low-income ratepayers

“New Mexico has a rare opportunity to cut emissions without sacrificing reliability or affordability, but only if policy follows the realities on the ground,” said Neel Brown. “Arbitrary deadlines are not a substitute for firm, carbon-free power that is actually built and running.”

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

The New Mexico Dilemma: Balancing Net-Zero Ambitions with Energy Realities

New Mexico is the nation’s second-largest oil producer and fourth-largest gas producer. The oil and gas industry is the state’s largest private sector funder and a massive driver of state budget revenues. Currently, the state is pursuing an aggressive 100% clean grid by 2045 and net-zero emissions by 2050. These goals were established by executive orders in 2019, but not enacted by the legislature. Unlike other energy-producing states like Pennsylvania and Illinois, New Mexico has no nuclear generation and very little hydropower for carbon-free baseload generation. The state’s push for retiring gas generation without firm-power replacements that are fully scaled risks capacity shortfalls, price spikes, and driving industrial investments to other states.

The good news is that New Mexico is not facing the dramatic spikes in energy demand and prices that many other states are experiencing. However, doubling down on climate goals without regard for the on-the-ground realities could throw the state into a world of energy scarcity and high prices.

A reasoned and pragmatic approach to lowering carbon emissions should take precedence over arbitrary net-zero dates that do not prioritize the realities of New Mexico’s economic drivers, jobs, energy costs, and grid reliability.

Read the full report

Advanced Recycling Could More Than Double U.S. Plastic Recycling Rates, New PPI Report Shows

WASHINGTON (May 12, 2026) — A new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) finds that expanding advanced recycling at existing oil refineries and new standalone facilities nationwide can more than double the U.S. plastic recycling rate from 9% to between 19-23%.

Authored by Stuart Malec, PPI’s Vice President of Public Affairs, “The Waste Diversion Benefits of Expanding Advanced Recycling,” outlines how traditional mechanical recycling is limited due to its inability to recycle ‘flexible plastics’ such as shopping bags and plastic films or plastics contaminated by food or oil residue. Advanced recycling, which uses chemical processes like pyrolysis to break plastics down to the molecular level, can fill in the gap and convert plastic waste into raw materials that can be used to make new products.

“Scaling up advanced recycling efforts will lead to significant environmental and economic benefits,” said Malec. “Increasing the amount of  plastic waste that can be successfully recycled will not only benefit the planet, but will also collectively save communities across the country millions of dollars in their waste disposal budgets.”

Key findings from the report include:

  • Short-term deployment of advanced recycling could raise the nationwide plastic recycling rate from 9% to 19% while potentially reaching 23% in the long-term.
  • Local municipalities could save between $229.7 million-$327.5 million per year in avoided landfill tipping fees, defined as charges per ton to dispose of waste.
  • States with historically low recycling rates can use existing oil refineries to implement advanced recycling technology, raising their landfill diversion rates.

While advanced recycling can curb dangerous environmental effects and benefit local economies, Malec argues that there needs to be a regulatory framework that strengthens the economic incentives to collect plastic waste.

“Clear policy is essential for this innovative technology to achieve its full potential in waste diversion and economic impact,” said Malec. “Without a clear policy framework, more and more plastic waste will continue ending up in landfills instead of being reused in the economy.”

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

The Waste Diversion Benefits of Expanding Advanced Recycling

Advanced recycling offers a unique potential solution to the problem of plastic waste. Conventional mechanical recycling is limited by technological and logistical issues, particularly the inability to process plastic waste contaminated by food or oil residue. Mechanical recycling is also not designed to recycle the millions of tons of flexible plastics (e.g., shopping bags and plastic films) generated each year, which means those plastic products must be sent to landfills. Existing recycling initiatives have shown promise, but not at the scale required to meaningfully reduce the amount of plastic waste that ends up in landfills.

A distinct advantage of advanced recycling over mechanical recycling is that, through chemical processes like pyrolysis, advanced recycling facilities can reduce plastics down to the molecular level. This means that a broader range of plastics, including flexible plastics, can be recycled at advanced recycling facilities compared to mechanical ones. Advanced recycling facilities are complementary to existing mechanical recycling facilities: together, both types of facilities form an “all-of-the-above” solution to recycling plastic waste.

In addition to broadening the types of plastic materials that can be recycled, advanced recycling expands the geographical extent of recycling efforts. Advanced recycling technology can be added to oil refineries, integrating plastic waste into their processes as a feedstock. Many existing oil refineries are located in states that historically have had low recycling rates, such as Louisiana, which currently has an estimated total plastic recycling rate of just 6%.

Advanced recycling could deliver economic benefits to municipalities beyond the benefits of plastic waste diversion. Landfills charge a “tipping fee” per ton of waste collected. Because recycling diverts plastic waste away from landfills, advanced recycling could save between $230 million and $328 million in tipping fees per year for municipalities across the U.S. For example, Los Angeles County, CA, could save between $3 to $6 million in tipping fees while Harris County, TX, could save up to $22 million.

Despite the potential environmental and economic benefits of advanced recycling technology, the advanced recycling industry lacks the regulatory framework necessary for a robust market for plastic waste to form. Absent strong economic incentives to collect, sort, and transport waste to advanced recycling facilities, the scale of the industry and its realized benefits will be constrained.

Read the full report.

Illinois’ Energy Leadership at Risk Without a Pragmatic Climate Strategy, New PPI Report Warns

WASHINGTON (April 21, 2026) — A new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) finds that Illinois has built one of the nation’s cleanest and most affordable energy systems, but warns that calendar-driven mandates to phase out natural gas generation could undermine grid reliability, drive up costs, and push investment to neighboring states.

Authored by Neel Brown, Managing Director at PPI, and John Kemp, an internationally recognized energy markets expert, “The Illinois Challenge: Balancing Decarbonization with Economic Reality,” outlines a strategy grounded in reliability, technological maturity, and economic competitiveness.

Illinois has reduced emissions faster than the national average, driven largely by its dominant nuclear fleet and a steady, market-led shift from coal to natural gas. Emissions fell 2.1% annually between 2005 and 2023, compared to 1.2% nationwide, and the state now emits 188 tons of carbon dioxide per $1 million of economic output, more than 10% below the national average and well below every other Midwest state. Household energy spending is nearly 12% below the national average, underscoring the affordability gains that have sustained public support for continued climate progress.

“Illinois’ progress shows that durable emissions reductions come from markets, innovation, and firm low-carbon generation, not from rigid calendar deadlines,” said Brown. “The state already leads the country in clean nuclear power. The next phase requires a pragmatic strategy that protects reliability and affordability while continuing to drive emissions down.”

The authors note that the 2021 Climate and Equitable Jobs Act mandates a full phaseout of natural gas generation by 2045, a timeline that the state’s own 2025 Resource Adequacy Study warns could open significant capacity gaps just as electricity demand is surging. Illinois is currently the country’s fifth-largest electricity generator and a net exporter, but eliminating in-state gas generation is projected to turn it into a net importer reliant on the PJM and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) regional grids, both of which are expected to face capacity shortfalls by 2030.

Upward pressure on prices is already emerging. Wholesale electricity costs in the PJM region serving northern Illinois surged more than 40% in 2025 amid rapid data center growth, and residential rates jumped 11% in a single year. The authors caution that retiring firm generation before proven replacements are in place will pull energy-intensive industries to higher-emission states such as Indiana and Ohio, exporting both jobs and carbon emissions. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has taken a constructive step by committing to two gigawatts of new nuclear generation and lifting the state’s longstanding moratorium on new reactor construction, reflecting the kind of pragmatic, state-specific policymaking the report recommends.

To navigate this transition, the authors outline three core principles for policymakers:

  1. Embrace new nuclear as the foundation of a clean, firm electricity system capable of supporting 24/7 industrial loads and backstopping intermittent renewables.
  2. Reform gas transition timelines so infrastructure retirements are aligned with the proven readiness of replacement technologies rather than calendar deadlines.
  3. Prioritize grid reliability by heeding regional capacity warnings and avoiding policies that risk blackouts, price spikes, or the loss of in-state generation.

The authors conclude that Illinois’ path to decarbonization must reflect its unique position as the nation’s top nuclear producer and a major electricity exporter. A successful strategy will build on the state’s market-driven progress while avoiding mandates that risk destabilizing the grid, raising costs for households and businesses, or pushing investment across state lines.

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us at @PPI.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

The Illinois Challenge: Balancing Decarbonization with Economic Reality

A LEGACY OF PRAGMATIC SUCCESS

Historically, Illinois has operated from a position of strength in the energy market with a low-carbon foundation that other states are only beginning to strive toward. However, policies that are aimed at abolishing current dispatchable generation to meet climate goals set in 2021 threaten to undermine the state’s energy and economic successes.

Illinois’ per-person energy consumption is close to the national average (see fig. 1), but greenhouse gas emissions are well below (see fig. 2) thanks to its status as the country’s top generator of nuclear power — the state’s largest source of electricity. Coal use has gradually shrunk; gas overtook it as the second-largest source of power in 2023 (see fig. 3) while wind generation has doubled in just seven years and is on course to move up to third place. Total spending per person on electricity, gas, and gasoline is among the lowest in the country, at almost 12% below average (see fig. 4). Economic output per person is high, and as a result, total energy spending accounts for just 4.7% of state output, more than 16% below average.

Illinois has also been more successful than most other states at lowering emissions in recent decades, cutting them 2.1% per year between 2005 and 2023, compared to 1.2% for the country as a whole. The state achieved this speedy reduction mostly because gas replaced coal-fired generation while its population stayed flat.

Compared to the size of its economy, Illinois’ carbon emissions are now the 18th-lowest in the U.S.; it produced 188 tons for every $1 million of output in 2023 (see fig. 5), down 42% since 2005 after adjusting for inflation, and more than 10% below the national average. Illinois emits much less CO₂ per $1 million of output than other Midwest states, including Minnesota (207 tons), Wisconsin (250 tons), Michigan (255 tons), Ohio (260 tons), Missouri (291 tons), Iowa (337 tons), and Indiana (381 tons). It performs well on this measure thanks to the local dominance of high-value-added, low-energy-use industries such as finance and insurance, as well as significant nuclear output.

Illinois is the country’s fifth-largest electricity generator and exports surplus power to neighboring states. In 2024, it was by far the country’s largest nuclear producer (99 billion kilowatt-hours), well ahead of second-place Pennsylvania (75 billion kWh). Nuclear accounted for more than half of in-state generation. Fossil fuels accounted for 31% of generation in 2023, down from 51% in 2005. Coal generation has been cut by two-thirds, mostly replaced by equal amounts of wind and gas. As a result, its energy mix has the country’s fifth-lowest carbon intensity (see fig. 6). Nonetheless, residual coal generation is among the highest in the country, which explains why Illinois has not made even faster progress reducing emissions.

Read the full report. 

After Early Emissions Gains, Pennsylvania Faces Tough Tradeoffs on Climate, Cost and Reliability, PPI Finds

WASHINGTON — A new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) finds that Pennsylvania has made significant progress reducing carbon emissions while maintaining energy affordability, but warns that the next phase of decarbonization will be more complex, costly, and politically challenging. Authored by Neel Brown, Managing Director at PPI, and John Kemp, an internationally recognized energy markets expert, “Pennsylvania’s Energy Crossroads: Charting a Pragmatic Path to Decarbonization,” outlines a strategy grounded in economic reality, technological flexibility, and energy reliability.

Pennsylvania has reduced emissions faster than the national average, largely due to a market-driven shift from coal to natural gas. Emissions fell from 276 million metric tons in 2005 to 201 million in 2023, a decline of 1.9% annually compared to 1.2% nationwide. At the same time, energy costs for residents remain below the national average, underscoring the importance of affordability in sustaining public support for climate action.

“Pennsylvania’s progress shows that durable emissions reductions are most effective when driven by markets and innovation, not rigid mandates,” said Brown. “The state has already captured the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of decarbonization. The next phase will require a more pragmatic strategy that balances climate ambition with economic competitiveness.”

The authors highlight that Pennsylvania’s emissions profile has shifted significantly. The industrial sector is now the largest source of emissions, followed by transportation and then electric power, which has already seen substantial reductions. This shift requires policymakers to rethink priorities and focus on sectors that are harder to decarbonize.

The authors also note that Pennsylvania’s electricity system remains heavily dependent on natural gas and nuclear power, which together provide a stable and affordable energy foundation. However, rising demand from data centers and capacity constraints in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland region are beginning to put upward pressure on electricity prices, signaling new challenges ahead. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has proposed ambitious legislation to continue reducing emissions, but on a path that is more suitable to Pennsylvania’s unique energy profile. This approach reflects the kind of pragmatic, state-specific policymaking the report recommends.

To navigate this transition, the authors outline three core principles for policymakers:

  1. Leverage existing energy assets by maintaining and optimizing natural gas and nuclear power as foundational sources of reliable, dispatchable energy
  2. Focus on outcomes rather than mandating specific technologies, encouraging innovation across a range of low-carbon solutions
  3. Ensure climate policies do not undermine economic competitiveness or increase costs for households and businesses
The authors conclude that Pennsylvania’s path to decarbonization must reflect its unique economic structure as a major energy producer and industrial state. A successful strategy will build on past market-driven successes while avoiding policies that risk destabilizing energy prices or grid reliability.
Read and download the report here.
Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @ppi.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Pennsylvania’s Energy Crossroads: Charting a Pragmatic Path to Decarbonization

BALANCING INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE WITH CLIMATE AMBITION 

Pennsylvania stands as a pivotal state in the American energy landscape, defined by a deep heritage as a major producer and consumer of fossil fuels. This legacy has powered its industries and communities for generations, but it also presents a formidable challenge in an era of accelerating climate change. Pennsylvania is therefore confronted with a defining question:  how to reconcile its climate ambitions with the economic realities of its industrial base and the affordability needs of its citizens, a tension that can only be resolved through pragmatism. 

ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS 

Pennsylvania’s energy consumption and emissions per person are close to the national average, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (see Fig. 1). Coal fired generation has been cut by 90% since 2005, with nearly all electricity now coming from gas  and nuclear, reducing emissions from the power sector (see Fig. 2). Residential electricity prices are slightly above average, but consumption is well below, keeping bills in check. Total energy  spending per person on electricity, gas, and gasoline is about 5% below the national average  (see Fig. 3). But like other states in the PJM Interconnection, growing demand from data centers  and capacity shortages are putting upward pressure on power prices. 

Pennsylvania’s total emissions rank in line (4th) with its population (5th) and the size of its economy (6th). But the state has been more successful than most in lowering them: Emissions were cut to 201 million metric tons in 2023 from 276 million in 2005. The decline was significantly faster (1.9% per year) than the country as a whole (1.2% per year), mostly because gas has replaced coal-fired electricity generation while population growth has been slow.  

Emissions are relatively high given the size of the economy. Pennsylvania’s principal economic activities are finance, insurance, real estate, and professional and business services, which are not energy intensive. But chemicals, oil and gas extraction, mining, food manufacturing, metals,

and machinery are also significant and use far more energy. The state emitted 251 tons for  every $1 million of output in 2023, down from 450 tons in 2005, after adjusting for inflation.  Emissions per $1 million of output were the 23rd highest in the country and well above the  

national average (211 tons). Pennsylvania emits almost three times as much CO₂ as New York and twice as much as Connecticut to produce the same amount of economic output.  

The state has made slightly faster progress than most others in reducing the carbon intensity of its energy system (see Fig. 4). Fossil fuels accounted for 78% of primary energy consumption in  2023, down only marginally from 81% in 2025, but there has been a shift to lower-emission gas from oil and especially coal. As a result, Pennsylvania emitted 46 metric tons of CO₂ for every 1  

billion British thermal units of energy supplied in 2023, down from 61 tons in 2005. Carbon  intensity was well above low-carbon leaders Vermont (38 tons), New Hampshire (39 tons), and  South Carolina (40 tons), but 9% below the national average (51 tons). 

Pennsylvania is the country’s third-largest electricity generator (after Texas and Florida), and it  exports more surplus power to neighboring states than any other. Fossil fuels accounted for  65% of generation in 2023, a slight increase from 63% in 2005. But coal-fired generation has  been slashed by 90%, replaced by lower-emission gas. Fossil fuels retained their market share for two reasons: First, while the state remains the second-highest nuclear generator in the country after Illinois, production from that source has remained flat over time. Meanwhile,  renewable growth has been slow: The state uses little hydro, wind, or solar power, with them  accounting for just 4% of its electricity generated in 2023.  

Pennsylvania’s energy consumption is in line with the national average, making the state something of a bellwether. Consumption per person (277 million BTUs) was indistinguishable from the national average (278 million BTUs) in 2023. But energy efficiency is low. Energy consumption per $1 million of output was 9% above the national average. Since 2005, the state  has been falling further behind, with consumption per unit of output declining more slowly (1.9%  per year) than across the country as a whole (2.2% per year).  

Read the full report.