South Carolina and coal

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's research on climate change.

This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy. See here for help on adding material to CoalSwarm.

South Carolina had 36 coal-fired generating stations in 2005. In 2009 South Carolina had total installed electricity generation summer capacity of 23,971 megawatts of which 7210 was from coal-fired plants.[1] South Carolina ranks 15th out of the 50 states in terms of coal energy production.[2]

In 2009, South Carolina's coal-fired power plants produced 38.1 million tons of CO2, 105,134 metric tons of sulfur dioxide, and 24,280 tons of nitrogen oxide;[3] power plants were responsible for 47.2% of the state's total CO2 emissions. The state's rankings for 2008, when emissions were higher, was17th for sulphur dioxide, 30th for nitrous oxides and 23rd for carbon dioxide.[2]

In 2005, South Carolina emitted 18.6 tons of CO2 per person, slightly less than the U.S. average.[4] This lower level of CO2 emissions is due in part to the fact that nuclear power represents 28.2% of the state's generating capacity.[5] However, the Energy Information Administration notes that per capita electricity use in South Carolina is higher than the nationwide average, "due in part to high air-conditioning demand during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating in winter."[6] The South Carolina Energy Office stated in 2008 that the state ranked 5th highest electricity consumption per capita in the U.S.[7]

Legislative issues

In February 2009, South Carolina state legislators presented a report to Congress suggesting that strict cap and trade regulations could have a damaging effect on the state, causing brownouts by 2016 and making electricity unaffordable for many South Carolinians. The state lawmakers, including Sen. Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston), argued that because 61 percent of South Carolina's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, the state would bear a larger burden under new regulations of CO2 emissions than states that use less coal. Combined with its higher-than-average dependence on coal, South Carolina has one of the largest carbon footprints per person in the country.[8]

United States Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that if states like South Carolina want to convince Congress they deserve special consideration, they have to show they are willing to reduce energy consumption. "They need to come up with a statewide plan to help on the consumption area. It’s tough for us to go to our colleagues and say we have a unique situation here, when South Carolina has such a large carbon footprint," he said. Instead, however, South Carolina utility Santee Cooper pushed ahead with plans to the coal-fired Pee Dee Generating Facility. Environmentalists say the state should be putting more emphasis on renewable energy sources.[9]

On March 8, 2010 it was announced that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control agreed to eliminate arsenic limits in a wastewater discharge permit for South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's (SCE&G) Wateree Station. SCE&G needs State approval for its coal ash ponds because wastewater from the site runs directly into the Wateree River. The ponds take waste from the company's 40-year-old coal-fired plant. Since the 1990s, high levels of arsenic, a carcinogen, have been found in groundwater and in seepage to the Wateree River from coal ash ponds at the power plant. Sierra Club and other environmental groups are posing to fight the permit on the grounds that arsenic ought not be eliminated.[10]

History

There is no history of coal mining in South Carolina; the state has insignificant coal reserves. The state's coal power plants were largely built in the 1960's and 70's, by South Carolina Electric & Gas (a private corporation) and Santee Cooper (a public utility).[5] The U.S. Energy Information Administration states that "coal-fired power plants rely on supplies shipped from Kentucky, and, to a lesser extent, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Tennessee."[11]

A review of the origin and transportation of coal, the Energy Information Administration stated that South Carolina consumed 10.1 million short tons of coal in 2005, of which 8.2 million came by rail from Kentucky. All but 66,000 tonnes was delivered by rail from Eastern Kentucky. The administration also stated that none came from Pennsylvania. It also reported that 136,000 short tones from Virginia, all delivered by rail, and 955,000 short tons from West Virginia. Of the latter 945,000 short tons was delivered by railways and 10,000 short tons by river.[12]

Proposed coal plants

There are currently no active proposals for new coal fired power stations. The two most recent proposals were the Marion City Project in Marion City, which never progress beyond a notional proposal, and the Pee Dee Generating Facility in Kingsburg, which was cancelled following public opposition.

Pee Dee Generating Facility proposal

The Pee Dee Generating Facility was proposed in April 2006 by Santee Cooper, a state-owned electric and water utility. The utility proposed that a 600 megawatt pulverized coal-fired power station costing $984 million be built near the Great Pee Dee River in Florence County, South Carolina, near Kingsburg.[13] It was proposed that the plant would draw cooling water from the nearby Pee Dee River for its supercritical boilers; this river drains into the Waccamaw National Wildlife Reserve.

Following sustained community opposition (see below) to the project, on February 11, 2009, Governor Mark Sanford came out against the project. In announcing his decision, the governor cited expectations of tougher environmental regulations, rising coal prices, and a weak economy. Sanford said the cost of the plant could double because of restrictions on mercury emissions and expected caps on carbon dioxide emissions.[14][15]

Despite Gov. Sanford's position, the state Department of Health and Environmental Control upheld Santee Cooper's air quality permit on Thursday, February 12, 2009.[16]

Despite this approval, in August 2009 the company announced that the project had been suspended.[17] On August 24, 2009, the board voted to suspend plans for the plant. As reasons for the cancellation, Santee Cooper CEO Lonnie Carter cited a decrease in electricity demand related to the economic downturn and pending cap-and-trade legislation that could greatly increase the operating costs of coal-fired power plants.[18]

Citizen activism

My Children Don't Want a Coal Plant

November 18, 2008: Activists protest Santee Cooper

Student activists gathered outside Johnsonville High School during a public hearing to protest the proposed Pee Dee Generating Facility. Sponsored by Santee Cooper, the project would include two 600MW pulverized coal-fired power plants along the Great Pee Dee River in Florence County, South Carolina. The activists brought with them a black inflatable coal plant similar to a jump castle, with a sign saying "CLEAN UP DIRTY COAL PLANTS NOW." The public hearing concerned water quality.[19] Santee Cooper's environmental impact study for the plant acknowledged that despite the utility's best efforts, some toxic materials will end up in the river.[20]

Coastal Conservation League: Santee Cooper Coal Plant

February 12, 2009: Residents protest proposed Santee Cooper Plant: Florence County, SC

More than 100 residents of Florence County, SC brought an inflatable smokestack to the courthouse to protest the permit that was granted to Santee Cooper to build the Pee Dee Generating Facility on the banks of the Great Pee Dee River. The plant would emit over 11 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, as well as 60 different toxic pollutants, including arsenic, dioxins, heavy metals, mercury, and selenium.[21]

Existing coal plants

South Carolina had 36 coal-fired generating units at 12 locations in 2005, with 6,469 MW of capacity - representing 26.8% of the state's total electric generating capacity.[5][22]

Here is a list of coal power plants in South Carolina with capacity over 300 MW:[5][23][24][25]

Plant Name County Owner Year(s) Built Capacity 2007 CO2 Emissions 2006 SO2 Emissions SO2/MW Rank
Winyah Georgetown Santee Cooper 1975, 1977, 1980, 1981 1260 MW 8,586,000 tons 42,709 tons 85
Cross Berkeley Santee Cooper 1984, 1995, 2007, 2008 2390 MW 15,000,000 tons 9,411 tons 231
Wateree Richland SCANA 1970, 1971 685 MW 4,664,000 tons 32,797 tons 44
Williams Berkeley SCANA 1973 633 MW 3,566,000 tons 28,147 tons 65
Canadys Colleton SCANA 1962, 1964, 1967 490 MW 2,948,000 tons 22,984 tons 37
Cope Orangeburg SCANA 1996 430 MW 3,776,000 tons 2,603 tons 244
Jefferies Berkeley Santee Cooper 1970 346 MW 2,224,000 tons 26,299 tons 13

These nine plants represent 81.5% of South Carolina's coal energy generating capacity, 51.5% of the state's total CO2 emissions, and 61.9% of its total SO2 emissions.[4]

For a map of existing coal plants in the state, see the bottom of this page.

Proposed coal unit closures

Duke might close seven coal units in the Carolinas

In September 2010, Duke Energy said it might close seven coal-fired units at its Carolinas power plants within five years as environmental regulations intensify. It may retire by 2015 all coal-fired units for which it's not economical to install sulfur dioxide controls called scrubbers. That would increase by 890 megawatts the coal plants Duke had planned to retire in 2009. The retired units would be at Duke's Riverbend Steam Station in Gaston County, Buck Steam Station in Rowan County, and Lee Steam Plant in Anderson County, S.C. Duke said it might convert Lee from coal to natural gas fuel.[26]

Duke has already agreed to retire 800 megawatts of older coal units as part of an N.C. permit to build a new 825-megawatt unit under construction at the Cliffside Plant in Rutherford County. That will shutter four old units at Cliffside, two at Buck, three at Dan River Steam Station, and two at Riverbend.[26]

Duke's projections show the amount of its electricity generated with coal falling from 42 percent in 2011 to 29 percent in 2030. The share from nuclear power, in contrast, stays steady at 51 percent. The utility continues to plan for a new nuclear plant, its first since the mid-1980s, to open in Gaffney, S.C., in about 2020. Duke is also building two gas-fired power plants, to open at Buck in late 2011 and at Dan River in late 2012.[26]

SCE&G announces retirement and fuel conversion plans at Canadys, McMeekin, and Unuhart Stations

On May 30, 2012, SCE&G announced plans to retire up to six coal-fired generating units at three locations by the end of 2018. The units range in age from 45 to 57 years and are the utility's oldest and smallest coal-fired units. The announcement included the following:[27]

  • Retirement of Unit 1 at the Canadys Station by the end of 2012
  • Switching Unit 3 at the Urquhart Station from coal to natural gas by the end of 2012
  • Planned switching of Units 1 and 2 at the McMeekin Station (both units) and Units 2 and 3 at the Canadys Station from coal to natural gas by 2015
  • Planned retirement of the remaining two units (Units 2 and 3) at Canadys by the end of 2017
  • Planned retirement of both Units 1 and 2 at the McMeekin Station by the end of 2018
  • Planned retirement of Unit 3 at Urquhart by the end of 2018

Coal power companies

  • Santee Cooper
    • Headquarters in Moncks Corner, SC
    • 33rd biggest coal energy producer in U.S.
    • Controls 4 coal-fired generating stations with 4043 megawatts installed capacity;[28]
  • SCANA
    • Headquarters in Columbia, SC
    • 34th biggest coal energy producer in U.S.
    • Controls 18 coal-fired generating stations with 2882 MW total capacity
  • Duke Energy
    • Headquarters in Charlotte, NC
    • 3rd biggest coal energy producer in U.S.
    • Controls 68 coal-fired generating stations with 18,579 MW total capacity
    • Active proposals: Cliffside Plant, Edwardsport Plant
  • Progress Energy
    • Headquarters in Raleigh, NC
    • 15th biggest coal energy producer in U.S.
    • Controls 23 coal-fired generating stations with 7925 MW total capacity

Duke proposes merger with Progress Energy

On January 9, 2011, Duke Energy said it agreed to buy Progress Energy for $13.7 billion in stock, creating the largest U.S. power company if it wins approval from regulators in North and South Carolina. The transaction would create an industry giant with approximately 7.1 million electricity customers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, and 57,000 megawatts of generating capacity. State regulators have sought concessions from large power companies planning to merge, such as rate reductions.[29]

If the deal is approved by regulators, the combined companies would form the single largest utility in the United States.[30] In hearings before the NC Utilities Commission in September, 2011, a variety of organizations objected to the merger.[31] The merger would mean "increased emissions from coal-fired generation" with an increase of 9.5 million MWH of coal-fired generation over the first five years after the merger, according to testimony on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, the SC Coastal Conservation League, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. The merger as currently structured would also result in the creation of a dominant procurer of renewable energy that would limit the pool of renewable energy developers. [32]

Coal exports

With coal exports increasing along the US East Coast, the Charleston, SC Shipyard River Terminal coal export facility, owned by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, is in the process of expansion. In May, 2011, CSX railroads confirmed plans to expand export facilities by 7 million short tons per year, probably in Philadelphia starting in 2011 and in South Carolina by 2013. [33]

Coal ash

Overview of coal ash in South Carolina

SC generates almost 2.2 million tons of coal ash per year, ranking 21st in the country for coal ash generation.

The U.S. EPA has not yet gathered information on coal ash disposal in landfills, so a detailed breakdown is not yet available. However, according to a 2007 EPA risk assessment, six ponds and landfills are unlined, and one is clay-lined. Of these sites, six do not have a leachate collection system.

There are 22 ponds at nine plants. Fifteen ponds are over 30 years old, and two of those are over 40 years old. The age of these ponds makes it unlikely that they have safeguards like liners and leachate collection systems.

SC has six significant hazard-rated ponds. In fact, over 50% of the ponds in SC are large-capacity or have dam heights above 25 feet. The EPA surface impoundment database indicates that the total storage capacity data of SC ponds is 15.52 million cubic yards. The ponds cover in total an area of 1,223 acres. One of the ponds at the Winyah Creek Power Station experienced a wastewater leak in 2008.[34]

Regulation

The 2011 report, "State of Failure: How
 States
 Fail 
to 
Protect 
Our
 Health
 and 
Drinking
 Water
 from 
Toxic
 Coal
 Ash" by Earthjustice and Appalachian Mountain Advocates, looked at EPA data and found that state regulations are often inadequate for protecting public health. South Carolina has more than 50 percent of its 22 ash dams classified as large capacity impoundments or with dam heights above 25 feet, yet does not require groundwater monitoring or protective liners, and allows coal ash landfills to be constructed near water tables.[35]

In November 2010, the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) said it wanted the state to retain responsibility of regulating the disposal of coal ash. The state's position, outlined in a Nov. 17 letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), came in response to ongoing EPA proposals to reclassify coal ash as a hazardous waste, which would set federal standards for regulating how the material is disposed of. DHEC "believes that its existing regulatory programs adequately address the management and disposal of coal [ash] and that additional regulation by the EPA is unnecessary," the letter said. Supporters of the EPA proposal, including environmental advocates at the Coastal Conservation League, say the EPA could offer stricter regulation of the ash, which can contain arsenic, selenium, cadmium, chromium and other heavy metals and potentially toxic metals. If the ash contaminates the water supply, it could cause cancer, neurological damage and other illnesses, they said. Their support for strict regulation intensified following 2009 reports that a local water supply near the company's Canadys Station in Colleton County allegedly had been tainted with coal ash residue.[36]

State laws are deficient when it comes to inspection and oversight of dams. Annual geotechnical inspections are not required of the operators, nor is the state required to even inspect the dams. With so many large dams in the state, it is imperative that regulators beef up both the contents and application of dam safety regulations. South Carolina regulations also fail to impose basic operating safeguards on both ponds and landfills. The state fails to require composite liners, groundwater monitoring, financial assurance for ponds, and fails to prohibit the placement of ash into the water table. [37]

Contamination

In May, 2011, South Carolina Electric & Gas agreed to pay $3.8 million to settle an environmental cleanup case in Charleston near the South Carolina Aquarium. The contaminated area was the site of a coal gas plant (also known as a manufactured gas plant) that operated until 1957 and left the ground polluted with liquid coal tar. [38]

In July, 2011, South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control dropped plans to study mercury contamination in the state's waters and the effect mercury has on people due to budget cuts. [39][40]

Earthjustice cites five coal ash contamination damage cases in SC:[41]

Arsenic disposal at Wateree Station On March 8, 2010 it was announced that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control agreed to eliminate arsenic limits in a wastewater discharge permit for South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's (SCE&G) Wateree Station. SCE&G needs State approval for its coal ash ponds because wastewater from the site runs directly into the Wateree River. The ponds take waste from the company's 40-year-old coal-fired plant. Since the 1990s, high levels of arsenic, a carcinogen, have been found in groundwater and in seepage to the Wateree River from coal ash ponds at the power plant. Sierra Club and other environmental groups are posing to fight the permit on the grounds that arsenic ought not be eliminated.[10]

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's Canadys Station Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: Scientific - There are exceedances of the health-based standard for arsenic at this site. While there are no known human exposure points nearby, some recent exceedances have been detected outside an established regulatory boundary.

U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Project Basis for Consideration as a Proven Damage Case: EPA has categorized this case as a proven ecological damage case for the following reasons: (1) Scientific evidence of impacts on several species in a nearby wetland caused by releases from the ash settling ponds.

South Carolina Electric & Gas, Urquhart Station Groundwater contamination has been reported at a coal ash landfill and two ash settling basins adjacent to the Urquhart Station. The landfill is located approximately 300 feet from the Savannah River, and the ash basins are located approximately 100 feet from the river. Arsenic and nickel concentrations have been greater than their South Carolina drinking water standards and the federal MCL for arsenic in at least one well at the coal ash landfill, and arsenic concentrations greater than the state drinking water standard and federal MCL in one well at the ash basins.

Santee Cooper, Grainger Generating Station Leachate from fly ash ponds used by the Grainger Generating Station contaminated groundwater near the Waccamaw River with arsenic at up to 91 times the drinking water standard.

Water use from coal

A 2011 Union of Concerned Scientists report, "Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants: Electricity’s Thirst for a Precious Resource," calculated the available water in every major watershed in the U.S. and measured that against the water used by power plants in each watershed. The report found that South Carolina's Seneca and Cooper Rivers were stressed due to the vast amounts of local water used for power plant cooling purposes. Plants in the East generally withdrew more water for each unit of electricity produced than plants in the West, because most have not been fitted with recirculating, dry cooling, or hybrid cooling technologies.[42]

Coal and jobs

Study questions coal-fired power plant job numbers

In a report released in late March 2011 by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies in Chattanooga, Tennessee shows that coal-fired power plants often do not reach predicted counts of construction and permanent jobs.

The Center analyzed the largest coal-powered plants that became operational between 2005 and 2009. At those six locations -- in Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, South Carolina and Wisconsin -- analyses of employment data and labor retention rates showed that only the plant in Iowa had an increase in construction employment that matched the predicted level. The others did not reach the numbers predicted.[43]

Citizen groups

Resources

References

  1. U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capability", January 2011.
  2. 2.0 2.1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Selected Electric Industry Summary Statistics by State, 2008", U.S. Department of Energy, March 2010.
  3. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Estimated Emissions for U.S. Electric Power Industry by State, 1990-2006, U.S. Department of Energy, accessed April 2011.
  4. 4.0 4.1 South Carolina Energy Consumption Information, eRedux website, accessed June 2008.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States, 2005, Energy Information Administration, accessed April 2008.
  6. Energy Information Administration, "South Carolina", U.S. Department of Energy, accessed April 2011.
  7. Trish Jerman, "Energy and South Carolina", South Carolin Energy Office, September 2008, page 8.
  8. Yvonne Wenger, "Lawmakers defend coal power in S.C.: Environmentalists take aim at bipartisan group's report", The Post and Courier, February 5, 2009.
  9. Sean Mussenden, "S.C. lawmakers seek special treatment on global warming", Media General News Service, February 4, 2009.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Sammy Fretwell, "Critics: DHEC arsenic limits weak" The State, March 10, 2010.
  11. U.S. Energy Information Administration, "South Carolina: Analysis", U.S Department of Energy, accessed April 2011.
  12. U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Domestic Distribution of U.S. Coal by Destination State, Consumer, Origin and Method of Transportation, 2005", U.S. Department of Energy, May 2007, page 46.
  13. Santee Cooper, "Santee Cooper board approves new generating station in Florence County to meet state’s growing energy needs", Media Release, April 21, 2006.
  14. Jim Davenport, "SC governor: Proposed power plant too expensive," Associated Press, February 11, 2009.
  15. "S. Carolina Gov. opposes $2 bln coal power plant," Reuters, February 11, 2009.
  16. Mike Fitts, "DHEC approves permit for coal-fired electric plant," Charleston Regional Business Journal, February 12, 2009.
  17. Molly Parker, "Santee Cooper board suspends coal plant plans," Charleston Regional Business Journal, August 24, 2009.
  18. Molly Parker, "Santee Cooper board suspends coal plant plans," Charleston Regional Business Journal, August 24, 2009.
  19. "Young activists fired up in fight against coal," Post and Courier, November 19, 2008.
  20. "Utility's plan stirs coal-ash debate: Some say new Santee Cooper plant on Great Pee Dee River will bring toxic pollution despite safeguards," Post and Courier, October 28, 2008.
  21. Jeff Biggers, "Takes a Village to Stop Razing Appalachia: Power Past Coal Fights Back," Power Past Coal, March 12, 2009.
  22. Dig Deeper, Carbon Monitoring for Action database, accessed June 2008.
  23. Environmental Integrity Project, "Dirty Kilowatts: America’s Most Polluting Power Plants", July 2007.
  24. Dig Deeper, Carbon Monitoring for Action database, accessed June 2008.
  25. "SCE&G Fossil Fired plants" SCE&G Website, accessed April 2011.
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 Bruce Henderson, "Duke considers closing old coal plants" Charlotte Observer, Sep. 2, 2010.
  27. "SCE&G Announces Plans to Retire a Portion of its Coal-fired Generation," SCE&G press release, May 30, 2012
  28. Santee Cooper, "Finger Tip Facts 2009", Santee Cooper website, accessed March 2011, pages 10-12.
  29. Matt Daily, "Duke Energy to buy Progress Energy for $13.7 billion" Reuters, Jan. 10, 2011.
  30. "Coal's Dim Future" Steve LeVine, Foreign Policy, January 10, 2011.
  31. Docket Search, NCUC North Carolina Utilities Commission.
  32. Testimony of Richard H. Hahn, Docket No. E-2, Sub 998 / E-7, Sub 986, Sept. 8, 2011.
  33. "US East Coast coal exports surge in May,"Argus, June 28, 2011.
  34. "South Carolina Coal Ash Factsheet" Earthjustice, accessed December 14, 2011.
  35. Raviya Ismail, "Tr-Ash Talk: State of Failure" Earthjustice, August 17, 2011.
  36. Renee Dudley, "S.C. seeks to retain oversight of coal ash" The SunNews.com, Nov. 27, 2010.
  37. "South Carolina Coal Ash Factsheet" Earthjustice, accessed December 14, 2011.
  38. "SCE&G to pay $3.8M settlement: Payment linked to cleanup of site near S.C. Aquarium" Charleston Post & Courier, May 12, 2011.
  39. Lisa Edge "DHEC ends mercury contamination study due to budget cuts " WPDE Television, July 1, 2011.
  40. Doug Pardue "Budgets cripple tests for mercury" Charleston SC Post-Courier, July 1, 2011.
  41. "South Carolina Coal Ash Factsheet" Earthjustice, accessed December 14, 2011.
  42. Averyt, K., J. Fisher, A. Huber-Lee, A. Lewis, J. Macknick, N. Madden, J. Rogers, and S. Tellinghuisen, "Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants: Electricity’s Thirst for a Precious Resource," The Union of Concerned Scientists' Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative, November 2011 Report.
  43. "Study questions coal-fired power plant job counts" Associated Press, March 31, 2011.

Maps

Existing coal plants in South Carolina

Loading map...

Related SourceWatch articles

Alabama and coal Alaska and coal Arizona and coal Arkansas and coal California and coal Colorado and coal Connecticut and coal Delaware and coal Florida and coal Georgia and coal Hawaii and coal Idaho and coal Illinois and coal Indiana and coal Iowa and coal Kansas and coal Kentucky and coal Louisiana and coal Maine and coal Maryland and coal Massachusetts and coal Michigan and coal Minnesota and coal Mississippi and coal Missouri and coal Montana and coal Nebraska and coal Nevada and coal New Hampshire and coal New Jersey and coal New Mexico and coal New York and coal North Carolina and coal North Dakota and coal Ohio and coal Oklahoma and coal Oregon and coal Pennsylvania and coal Rhode Island and coal South Carolina and coal South Dakota and coal Tennessee and coal Texas and coal Utah and coal Vermont and coal Virginia and coal Washington State and coal West Virginia and coal Wisconsin and coal Wyoming and coal Delaware and coal Maryland and coal New Hampshire and coal New Jersey and coal Massachusetts and coal Connecticut and coal West Virginia and coal Vermont and coal Rhode Island and coalMap of USA with state names.png
About this image

External resources

External links