U P D AT E
Burning Coal, Burning Cash
Consumers Energy’s
Dependence on Imported Coal
T
he cost of importing coal is a drain on Michigan’s economy,
which currently relies heavily on coal-fired power. Paying
for coal from out of state each year comes directly out of
the pockets of ratepayers. This November, voters can help keep more
of that money in state by passing a 25 percent by 2025 renewable
energy standard, proposed via ballot initiative.
Consumers Energy, the state’s second-largest provider of electricity services, relied on coal for about half of its power supply in 2010.
All the coal its power plants burned that year was imported, mainly
from mines in Wyoming and West Virginia. To pay for those imports, the utility sent $441 million out of Michigan—more than
a third of the state’s total expenditures on coal imports, and second
only to Detroit Edison. The J.H. Campbell power plant, a 50-year
old coal facility located along the Lake Michigan shoreline near the
city of West Olive, is Consumer Energy’s most import-dependent
power plant and the second most dependent plant statewide, having spent $199 million in 2010 to purchase out-of-state coal.
Despite having no in-state coal supplies, Michigan as a whole
relied on coal for 58 percent of its in-state electricity generation in
2010. To supply that power, all Michigan power producers collectively paid nearly $1.3 billion to import coal. From 2002 to 2010,
their cumulative purchases of imported coal reached nearly $10.4
billion. About 30 percent of this total—$3.2 billion—was spent
by Consumers Energy, while during those years the price the utility
paid for coal increased by 119 percent.
Grand Rapids, Michigan. The cost of importing coal is a drain on Michigan’s
economy, which relies heavily on coal-fired power. For example, Consumers
Energy, the state’s second largest power provider, sent $441 million out of
Michigan in 2010 to pay for the coal its power plants burned. Investments in
homegrown renewable energy can help stimulate the economy by redirecting
funds into local economic development—funds that would otherwise leave
the state.
Money Leaving Michigan to Pay for Consumers Energy’s Imported Coal
Consumers Energy:
$41.4m
$237m
• Imported 9.5 million
tons of coal in 2010
• Spent $441 million on
coal imports in 2010
$
$134m
$28.4m
m=million
Photos (top to bottom): Thinkstock; iStockphoto.com/Henryk Sadura; Photodisc
• Cumulatively spent $3.2 billion on coal
imports from 2002 to 2010
Note: Not all these funds will necessarily land in
the state where the mining occurs. Mine owners
may divert the profits to parent companies in
other locations, for example. Amounts also
include the cost of transportation.
c o n s u me r e n e r g y ’ s d epe n d e n ce o n imp o r t e d c o a l
Michigan’s Mix of Electricity
Sources (2010)
Hydroelectric
1.1%
Natural
Gas
10.9%
Coal
58.3%
Nuclear
26.3%
Other*
0.9%
Non-hydro
Renewables
2.5%
Despite having no in-state coal supplies,
Michigan relies on coal for 58 percent of its in-state electricity generation.
Consumers Energy depended on coal
for about half of its power supply.
* “Other” includes oil, municipal solid waste,
tires, propane, or other manufactured and
waste gases from fossil fuels.
Clean Energy Solutions Can Boost Michigan’s Energy Independence
Investing in homegrown renewable energy is a smart and responsible solution to reducing Michigan’s
dependence on imported coal and keeping more money in the local economy. Michigan has a wealth
of renewable energy resources like wind, solar, and bioenergy; yet these resources supplied just
2.5 percent of the state’s power in 2010 and 3.8 percent in 2011. Utilities are already required by
state law to produce at least 10 percent of the state’s power needs from renewable energy by 2015;
but the state can reap significant benefits from doing more. This November, Michigan voters will
be offered a ballot proposal to boost the state’s renewable energy requirement to 25 percent
by 2025. Doing so would spark $10 billion in new investment and create thousands of Michiganbased jobs. More than 30 states have adopted such renewable energy policies, with a dozen states—
including Illinois and Minnesota—having similar or higher targets.
Increasing renewables in Michigan to 25 percent by 2025 is an achievable goal that will curb coal
use and help keep energy dollars local. For Consumers Energy, a 25 percent renewable energy standard could help keep as much as $1.1 billion from leaving the state to import coal cumulatively from
2016 through 2025.
Investing in energy efficiency is another quick and affordable way to replace coal-fired power while
boosting the local economy. Michigan took an important first step to tap into its tremendous energy
efficiency potential in 2008 by requiring utilities to reduce electricity use, ramping up to an annual
savings of 1 percent by 2012. The policy has been a success—in 2010, electric utilities exceeded their
annual target by nearly 50 percent and avoided $554 million in energy costs, a savings of $4.88 for
every dollar invested in energy efficiency. Twenty-two other states have adopted such power-saving
targets, with several committing to annual savings of 2 percent or more.
Michigan has excellent
potential for developing
in-state wind power and
other renewable energy
resources, which can help
reduce the state’s dependence on imported coal
while creating jobs and
other economic benefits.
Photos (top to bottom):
Photodisc; © iStockphoto.com/
Steve Baxter
Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions
This fact sheet is an update of Burning Coal, Burning Cash: Michigan’s Dependence on Imported Coal, a 2010
analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists. More information about our methodology and assumptions,
as well as the Michigan renewable energy ballot initiative, is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org/
michigan25x25. The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a
healthy environment and safer world.
Printed on recycled paper
using vegetable-based inks.
© September 2012
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
Washington, DC, Office
West Coast Office
Midwest Office
Two Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02238-9105
Phone: (617) 547-5552
Fax: (617) 864-9405
1825 K St. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006-1232
Phone: (202) 223-6133
Fax: (202) 223-6162
2397 Shattuck Ave., Suite 203
Berkeley, CA 94704-1567
Phone: (510) 843-1872
Fax: (510) 843-3785
One N. LaSalle St., Suite 1904
Chicago, IL 60602-4064
Phone: (312) 578-1750
Fax: (312) 578-1751