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.

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. 

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.

Click here for State by State data.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The November 2025 off-year elections confirmed that the cost of living is still top of mind for U.S. voters. High energy costs, for example, figured prominently in contests in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York. The issue affects all Americans, of course, but puts especially heavy financial burdens on low-income and working-class communities. Many urban Latino families, for example, pay higher energy costs than more affluent surrounding neighborhoods. This report, the second in a series of PPI studies of energy insecurity in America, examines the reasons for this disparity.

It finds that Latinos are twice as likely as their white counterparts to experience energy insecurity. This connotes difficulty in accessing or paying for energy, the hard choices they face between paying fuel bills and meeting other pressing needs, and consequently, the higher risk of utility cut-offs. As PPI has previously documented, working-class Black neighborhoods also face higher energy burdens than surrounding suburbs. We believe these disparities deserve more attention from U.S. energy policymakers.

Building on our study of high energy burdens in Black neighborhoods in Boston, this report explores the same phenomenon in working-class Latino communities of Massachusetts, including Boston, as well as the city of Los Angeles. We identify the lack of modern energy grid and pipeline infrastructure to supply all neighborhoods with affordable and abundant energy as the main cause of greater energy insecurity for working-class Latinos in Massachusetts and California.

These findings pose a challenge to “environmental justice” activists. While rightly stressing the health and environmental risks of pollution in low-income and minority communities, they have failed to focus on the economic costs and opportunities — job growth, innovation, investment, lower prices — of a balanced clean energy transition. What residents of low-income communities want most of all isn’t reparations for past injustice but equal access to affordable and reliable energy.

Latinos constituted 19.5% of the population and 10% of voters in 2024.1 They vary widely in national origin, socioeconomic status, and geographic distribution. A combination of low but rising average incomes and education levels, historical discrimination in employment and housing markets, and the lack of adequate electricity and energy infrastructure mean that many working-class Latino families have lower incomes, less efficient homes and appliances, and higher energy bills than college-educated Americans living in affluent suburbs. Barriers in language, limited financial resources, and poor infrastructure access mean that climate policies like the Inflation Reduction Act provided much less help to energy-burdened minority communities.

In PPI’s polling of working Americans, Latino voters broadly support action against climate change and a shift to clean energy resources, but make their decisions about energy based on cost. For them, high fuel bills are central to the broader cost-of-living crisis facing working Americans. To assuage this concern, U.S. policymakers should embrace smarter climate and energy policies that don’t threaten them with immediate fossil fuel bans that produce energy scarcity and higher prices.

Our report concludes with the following policy recommendations for shaping a new compact with working Americans on climate and energy, and ensuring that Latino communities don’t get left further behind:

• A Balanced, Technology-Neutral Approach: Instead of unpopular and premature fossil fuel bans, policymakers should support an energy mix of nuclear, renewables, batteries, carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), and low-methane natural gas to ensure both emissions reductions and affordable energy.
• Permitting Reform to Accelerate Clean Energy Deployment: Congress and state governments should streamline approval processes for renewable energy projects, grid expansion, and pipeline infrastructure to lower costs and improve reliability.
• Targeted Energy Assistance for Low-Income Families: Congress should expand and modernize programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) to better serve households struggling with high energy burdens.
• Community Energy Hubs: Establishing local government centers where citizens can get information on energy efficiency, clean energy options, and financial assistance programs, modeled on Colorado’s resilience hubs and the federal government’s American Jobs Centers.
• Affordable Housing and Improved Quality of Life: Many Latino households in urban, suburban, and rural communities across the country struggle to find affordable housing and are forced to settle for older, lower-quality housing options in polluted neighborhoods with inadequate power and clean water supplies.
• Providing neighborhood amenities like trees, solar shading, strengthened electric distribution grids, and space for a variety of transportation modes would improve the quality of life for Hispanic families currently exposed to disproportionate pollution burdens and extreme weather in unaffordable or overcrowded homes.
  • Better Jobs, Indoors and Out: Many non-college Latinos hold outdoor jobs and jobs related to energy technologies, including construction, agriculture, and delivery logistics. As the American West is already feeling the impacts of climate change, giving firefighters the permits and resources they need to conduct proactive fire prevention measures would reduce health and climate impacts on outdoor workers and nearby cities. Offering guidance and technology incentives to protect against extreme heat exposure and other climate adaptation challenges to address problems relevant to workers’ daily lives.

Read the full report in English and Spanish.

THE CHALLENGE OF BALANCING CLIMATE AMBITION WITH REALITY

Virginia’s energy policy is at a critical inflection point. The rigid, technology-specific mandates of the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which legally commits the state to a 100% carbon-free electricity grid by 2045, are on a direct collision course with the skyrocketing energy demand from its world-leading data center industry. In 2020, this landmark legislation was enacted by a Democratic legislative majority on a mostly party-line vote and signed into law by then-Governor Ralph Northam. The world has since shifted dramatically, redefined by a surge in electricity demand from an industry that is both a pillar of the modern economy and a monumental consumer of power.

This conflict poses a risk to the Commonwealth’s energy future. Unless Virginia adopts a more pragmatic approach that prioritizes reliable, clean firm power, i.e., sources that are both lowcarbon and available on demand, it risks severe grid instability. Such a crisis would not only jeopardize the state’s long-held advantage of affordable energy but could also paradoxically undermine its own climate goals by forcing reliance on less clean measures like prolonged coal generation and fuel oil peaker plants to maintain grid integrity.

To navigate this challenge, policymakers must first recognize the foundations of the state’s prior success. Understanding Virginia’s impressive pre-VCEA decarbonization achievements is crucial to charting a sustainable path forward that aligns its climate ambitions with the realities of its growing energy needs.

It is also important to note that while the VCEA primarily addresses carbon emissions from electricity generation, the largest source of emissions in Virginia is the transportation sector at 53%, followed by electricity generation at 23%.

Read the full report.

New Jersey’s official narrative on climate action highlights “remarkable progress” toward the legislated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. However, a closer inspection of the data reveals that the state’s low per-capita emissions are fundamentally tied to its unique demographic and economic profile rather than a transition to a carbon-free energy grid.

New Jersey has some of the lowest emissions per person and relative to the size of its economy in the nation, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (see Fig. 1). The state is by far the most densely populated (see Fig. 2), transit use is high, and car use below average, limiting transport emissions. Coal-fired generation has been phased out, and nearly all electricity comes from gas and nuclear, cutting emissions from the power sector (see Fig. 3). Electricity and gas prices are well above average (see Fig. 4), but consumption is low, ensuring total energy spending is among the lowest in the country (see Fig. 5). But like other states in the PJM Interconnection, New Jersey’s power prices have climbed significantly in 2024 and 2025 to the highest in real terms for six years, with further increases expected in 2026, driven by capacity shortages and growing demand from data centers.

Furthermore, the state’s economic output is dominated by professional services and finance, sectors that are not energy-intensive compared to heavy manufacturing. New Jersey’s emissions per $1 million of output (137 tons) are the seventh-lowest in the nation and 35% below the national average (See Fig. 6).

The state has been more successful than most in lowering emissions. Emissions were cut to 91 million metric tons in 2023 from 130 million in 2005. The decline was much faster (2.0% per year) than across the country as a whole (1.2% per year), as gas replaced coal and oil-fired generation and heating systems, while population growth has been slow.

Because of the successful coal generation phaseout and the demographic and economic efficiencies that are already in place, deeper emission reductions are inherently more challenging. The low-hanging fruit, in decarbonization terms, has already been picked. Accordingly, the state’s mandated energy transition is now on a direct collision course with working families’ need for affordable fuel and a reliable grid. Most critically, the transition is increasingly straining energy affordability for residents, as evidenced by a historic electricity rate increase of nearly 20% in 2025, fueled by surging demand from data centers and a constrained regional power market.

Read the full report.