Talking about all things energy, from clean tech, to biofuels, and policy.

Interactive Map Compares States’ Renewable Energy Goals

By Matt Zonis


Sun, water, waves, wind… no this isn’t the beginning to an episode of Captain Planet or a tour of power plants in Orbit City courtesy of George Jetson, but real sources of energy that are being harnessed and used to greater or lesser extent today. While it’s true that we still heavily rely on fossil fuels, renewable energy is on the rise, now accounting for almost 10 percent of US electricity generation. This number is only expected to increase, in part due to rising demand for renewable electricity from individual states in the absence of a national mandate. For many reasons, including a goal of encouraging economic development and the growth of the clean tech sector, many states have taken it upon themselves to increase their use of renewable energy by implementing policies known as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).

Simply put, an RPS is a goal set by an individual state that requires that a certain percentage of electricity sold to customers within that state be produced by renewable sources by a specified year. Currently, 36 states have an RPS. For instance, in Hawaii, which has the most ambitious RPS, 40 percent of electricity sold to customers must come from renewable sources by 2030.

While the basic idea of an RPS is the same throughout all of the states, no two states have the same exact RPS.

Some states, like North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia, have made their RPS goals voluntary, while the other 31 states with RPS goals instituted mandatory standards.

In some states, renewable energy technologies are not always treated equally. Some states have technology minimums, also known as “carve outs,” which require that a certain percentage of their energy come from a specific source, like wind or solar. In Maryland, for example, in addition to meeting their RPS of 20 percent by 2022, the state also has to ensure that at least 2 percent of its total comes from solar energy.  

Interestingly, the fact that many states are pursuing different RPS goals, while others are holding back from pursuing an RPS at all, is one of the main reasons many energy companies and policymakers say there needs to be a national energy policy to give companies more regulatory certainty to further encourage renewable energy production.

In most instances, states divide their renewable energy sources into separate tiers, with each one allowed to count for a certain percentage of the total RPS goal. Most states divide their tiers into ones that include already established renewables, such as solar and wind, along with other tiers that include a hodgepodge of unproven but promising technologies and more minor renewable energy sources.

As an example, let’s look at the way Connecticut’s RPS, which calls for 27 percent renewable electricity by 2020, breaks down.

Tier Eligible Technology Percent contribution
Class I Solar, wind, fuel cell, wave, tidal, biomass, certain new hydropower plants 20%
Class II Trash-to-energy facilities, existing hydropower plants 3%
Class III Combined heating and power (CHP) systems-installed after 2005. Waste heat recovery systems installed after 2006. 4%


Not all states allow the same energy sources to count towards their RPS goal. For example, some differentiate between large or small-scale hydropower plants, and at least one (Ohio) includes advanced nuclear power in its RPS.

In addition to getting to the RPS finish line, some states have annual or biannual checkpoints that need to be met along the way. Starting in 2009, Illinois made electricity producers begin supplying 2 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, gradually moving the bar higher each year until the goal of 25 percent is reached by 2024.

To help give you a better understanding of how states are doing on their RPS goals, we’ve made this interactive graphic profiling the RPS in each state and providing for comparison the fraction of electricity generated from renewable sources in the state in 2009 (the most recent data available at the time we produced the graphic). Some states have no RPS, but are still generating some of their electricity from renewable sources, as we show in the graphic. 

For all 50 states in the graphic you’ll find links to the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE),which is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The DSIRE is an ongoing project of the North Carolina Solar Center and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council.

« Charged


By Heather Goldstone (Woods Hole, MA)
on July 25th, 2011

First a nit-picky question: Why the down arrow on top of the current numbers?
What I’d love to see is a ranking of current generation and future goals.

Reply to this comment

By Andrew
on July 25th, 2011

Hi Heather,

I can’t answer the nit-picky question, but I think it was just a way to draw the eye to current generation vs. goals.

As for a ranking - I assume you mean a ranking of each state against other states, right? So you’d find out that, say, Pennsylvania currently ranks 10th in renewable electricity generation, or that their goal is the 15th-most ambitious in the country (note that I made both of those figures up).

We’re currently working on such rankings, to be presented in a more simple table format, as we’re also interested in seeing how they’ll turn out.



Reply to this comment

By E
on July 25th, 2011

Nice idea, I was all excited to look at this map, until I saw how completely user unfriendly it is. When you’re clicking around states you don’t want to wait over 5 seconds to watch a cute zooming/counting graphic each time. Ugh. Either turn off your cute graphics or find another way to do this. Unusable interface.  =(

Reply to this comment

By coal publications
on March 7th, 2012

The use of sophisticated software systems for coal mining that is mostly burnt for power generation and steel production and adds to the greenhouse effect is valid for western countries who may allocate resources and funds to alternative and more greener sources of power. Some of the alternatives may be “safer” than the traditional mines. Unfortunately, coal publications show developing economies are more likely to increase their use of thermal coal & metallurgical coal in coming years because of its affordability and to meet increasing demands for electricity and steel. Whether they will embrace and utilise sophisticated software systems that no doubt add to the cost of production is yet to be seen. Cherry of

Reply to this comment

By Thomas (Los Angeles, CA)
on February 5th, 2014

I know this is graph is old and found it useful at the time but my guess is that the “current percentage” needs to be updated. Where can I find the information of the current percentage for each state?

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.