If the 50 dirtiest US power plants were a country, it would be the world’s seventh-largest polluter

That’s one takeaway from a new ranking of power plants released by Environment America. The list comes ahead of next week’s expected carbon pollution limits on new plants, to be proposed by the U.S.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


That’s one takeaway from a new ranking of power plants released by Environment America. The list comes ahead of next week’s expected carbon pollution limits on new plants, to be proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

There are over 6,000 power plants in the United States, but a majority of the carbon pollution comes from only a handful of the plants. According to Environment America, “about 30 percent of all power-sector carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 came from the 50 dirtiest power plants; about half came from the 100 dirtiest plants; and about 90 percent came from the 500 dirtiest plants.”

Other findings include:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


  • Texas, Ohio and Florida lead the nation for most carbon pollution from power plants.

  • The top five most polluting power plants are Georgia Power Co’s Plant Scherer, Alabama Power Co’s James H Miller Jr. Plant, Luminant’s Martin Lake in Texas, Ameren’s Labadie in Missouri, and NRG Energy’s W A Parish in Texas.

  • America’s power plants are its single largest source of carbon pollution - responsible for 40 percent of emissions nationwide.

Power plants are the largest source of global warming pollution in the United States, responsible for 41 percent of the nation’s production of carbon dioxide pollution, the leading greenhouse gas driving global warming.

The Obama Administration has set a timeline for proposing limits on carbon carbon pollution for existing power plants by June 2014, with rules being finalized by the following June.

David Wogan is an engineer and policy researcher who writes about energy, technology, and policy.

David's academic and professional background includes a unique blend of technology and policy in the field of energy systems. Most recently, David worked at Austin Energy, a Texas municipal utility, implementing a Department of Energy stimulus grant related to energy efficiency. Previously, David was a member of the Energy & Climate Change team at the White House Council on Environmental Quality for the Obama Administration.

David holds two Master's degrees from The University of Texas at Austin in Mechanical Engineering and Public Affairs. While at UT, David was a researcher in the Webber Energy Group, where his research focused on advanced biofuel production to offset petroleum use in the transportation sector. David holds a Bachelor's of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from The University of Texas at Austin, where he researched nuclear non-proliferation measurement technology.

David is a 2013 Aspen Institute Journalism Scholar, joining a select group of journalists from Slate, ABC News, and The New York Times.

David lives in Austin, Texas. Follow along on Twitter or email him at david.wogan@me.com.

More by David Wogan

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe