2
States spend big on importing coal
The smoke stacks at American Electric Power's Mountaineer coal power plant in New Haven, W.Va.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
by Sarah Gardner
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 11 states each spend more than a billion dollars a year importing coal from other states or abroad. Georgia, North Carolina and Texas are the biggest spenders. Some Midwestern states import too.
Barbara Freese co-authored today's report.
"In Ohio, nearly three quarters of the coal they burn in their power plants came from elsewhere," she says.
Freese contends importers should invest some of that money instead on energy efficiency and renewables.
Mark Durbin at Ohio's First Energy says his utility is starting to do that. They plan to convert one of their six Ohio coal plants.
"Our goal is to have that plant burn 100 percent biomass," says Durbin. "And we're working to make that happen."
First Energy has no choice. Ohio is now demanding that 12 percent of the state's energy come from renewables by 2025. And half the renewable sources must come from Ohio.
The issue could be a deeper one of perverse incentives. There may be comparative advantage due primarily to legislation. If people cannot cheaply produce coal close at home, arguably because there's no coal nearby, but potentially as a result of legislation (potentially environmental) then people are going to be spending money importing coal from other states As long as the energy/cost used in gathering, transporting and dispersing the coal, the transaction is efficient but if laws are artificially inflating prices, then there is an artificial profit to be made and a deadweight loss to society as a result of using the coal.
If the reporter had learned anything about comparative advantage (taught in the first few weeks of the introductory microeconomics class here at University of Texas), she would know how ludicrious this story is. Wealth is created when people or states create what they're good at and trade it for what they need. I'm sure Ms. Gardner uses power - is she poorer because she has to pay someone else to produce it for her?
One of the roles of journalists is to filter subject matter so that the public is not subjected to absurd arguments, which, when reported, are elevated to a state of undeserved reasonableness. In this case, you have failed.
