Resource Rich Colorado (Full Report)

COLORADO’S NATIONAL AND GLOBAL POSITION IN THE ENERGY ECONOMY | THIRD EDITION, DECEMBER 2011

Resource Rich Colorado, Third Edition Figures

Figures Natural Resources 1 Natural Gas: Reserves and Production 2 Natural Gas Production 3 Lower 48 States Shale Plays 4 Shale Gas Production 5 Wind: Installed Capacity and Net Generation 6 Solar: Installed Capacity and Generation 7 Coal: Reserves and Production 8 Coal Production 9 Crude Oil: Reserves and Production 10 Crude Oil Production 11 Rotary Rig Counts 12 Drilling Leases on Public Lands: Number of Leases 13 Drilling Leases on Public Lands: Acres Leased 14 Natural Gas Prices 15 Coal Prices 16 Crude Oil Prices 17 Overnight Capital Cost Estimates for Electric Generation Plants 18 Severance Tax Revenues 19 Net Generation by Resource 20 Average Capacity Factor by Energy Source 21 Energy Consumption per Capita 22 Energy Consumption/Real Dollar of GDP 23 Emissions per Capita (CO2, SOx, and NOx) 24 Residential Avg. Retail Electric Price 25 Commercial Avg. Retail Electric Price 26 Industrial Avg. Retail Electric Price Energy Policies and Programs

27 Energy Efficiency Policies 28 Renewable Energy Standards 29 Demand Side Management Policies Narrative: Incentives, Regulatory Policies, and Taxes Intellectual Resources

30 Highest ACT and SAT Scores per 1,000 High School Graduates 31 Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 32 Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders as a Percentage of the Workforce 33 Science and Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25‐34 Years Old Employment

34 Cleantech Employment Concentration: Number of Firms 35 Cleantech Employment Concentration: Number of Employees

36 Fossil Fuel Employment Concentration: Number of Firms 37 Fossil Fuel Employment Concentration: Number of Employees Innovation

38 State Innovation Index 39 Entrepreneurial Activity Index 40 Venture Capital Investments/$1,000 of State GDP 41 Small Business Innovation Research Grants 42 Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions per Capita 43 Number of Patents Granted to Colleges and Universities 44 State Technology and Science Index 45 High‐Tech Employment per 1,000 Workers 46 Clean Energy Leadership Index The Global Energy Economy

47 Natural Gas Producers 48 Net Exporters of Natural Gas 49 Net Importers of Natural Gas 50 Coal Producers 51 Net Exporters of Coal 52 Net Importers of Coal 53 Crude Oil Producers 54 Net Exporters of Crude Oil 55 Net Importers of Crude Oil 56 Electricity Generated by Resource 57 Power Consumption per Capita 58 CO2 Emissions per Capita 59 Retail Gas Prices for Unleaded Premium

C

Metro D

ResT

A

Competiti

J

Denver Ec

source Third Editio

Acknow

ve Analy

ohn ArmstronBeth Cha

ChrisRich Rinehar

conomic D

MaTJ

JillKi

Rich Con, Decemb

wledgem

ysis Comm

ng, Enserca Lacon, Xcel Ens Hansen, IHSrt, Bentek Ene

Developm

ary Jeffreys Tom Clark Janet Fritz Altenhofen im Zeschin

Coloradber 2011

ments

mittee Me

LLC, Chair nergy S ergy LLC

ment Cor

do

embers

rporation Staff

ResourceColorado,Toward a states. It eeconomicand infras The third all cases, DecembeEnergy Co Select chapublicatiooriginal foRich Colocharts frostates’ ran Resourceresourcesare evaluasection counderlying For the firenergy in energy ecChina, GeFederatiosection coand pricinaccompan Graphs anindustry sgeneratiolong tons

e Rich Colorad, published byMore Compe

evaluates a hc vitality, innovstructure.

edition of Resthe data inclu

er 2011. Wheroalition began

arts from the n as well. The

ormat that comorado charts am Toward a Mnk from one to

e Rich Colorads, energy policated for each overs the top g data for all 5

rst time, Resothe global en

conomies, it eermany, Indian due to its p

ompares counng. Each grapnied by a tabl

nd tables in Rsuch as barreln. Wherever converted to

ResTh

do is a compay the Metro Detitive Coloradost of economvation, busine

source Rich Cuded in this prever possiblen collecting d

seventh editioese charts hampared Colorare based on More Competo 50.

do evaluates cies and progdata point, e10 ranked sta50 states, wh

ource Rich Conergy economevaluates the , Japan, Mexosition as a mntries in termsph in this sectie that provide

Resource Richls, cubic feet, possible, inteshort tons).

source ird Edition

Methanion report toenver Econodo is an annumic rankings tess costs, tax

Colorado inclupublication is te, data is benata.

on of Towardave been modrado to the topraw data suctitive Colorado

Colorado’s cograms, and intxcluding Wasates and Coloere available

olorado also emy. This sectio

United Statesxico, South Komajor produces of productioion compareses the underly

h Colorado rashort tons fornational met

Rich C

n, Decem

hodologo the seventhmic Developm

ual study of Coto describe C

xes, livability,

udes data frothe most recechmarked to

d a More Comdified to displap five and both as actual pro utilize data

ompetitive potellectual resoshington D.C.orado, and is .

evaluates the on not only cos vis-à-vis its orea, and the er and exporteon, exports, ims the United Sying data.

ank states andor production; trics were con

Coloradber 2011

gy h edition of Toment Corporaolorado’s com

Colorado’s oveK-12 educatio

m a variety ofent public info2007, the firs

mpetitive Coloray the top 10 ttom five stateroduction numthat has been

osition amongources for the. and U.S. teraccompanied

United Stateompares the Utop trading pUnited Kingder of natural g

mports, generStates to othe

d countries byand megawa

nverted to mo

do

oward a Moreation in Novemmpetitive posierall competiton, higher ed

f public and pormation availst year for wh

rado are inclustates and C

es. In most cambers, or rotan analyzed to

g the 49 othere energy indurritories. Eachd by a table th

s’ competitiveUnited Statesartners—Braz

dom—and to tgas, crude oilration by resoer countries, a

y metrics knoatts and kilowore familiar U.

e Competitivember 2011. ition among thtive position inucation, heal

private sourcelable as of ich the Colora

uded in this Colorado, fromases, Resourary rig countso identify the

r states in natustry. All 50 sth graph in thishat provides t

e position for s to the large zil, Canada, the Russian l, and coal. Th

ource, emissioand is

own to the enewatt hours for

.S. metrics (e

e

he 50 n th,

es. In

ado

m the rce . The

ural tates s the

his ons,

ergy

.g.

The CCorpo2009, In thethe Ureservmanystates Color

•

• •

• •

Colorand inSince$1 bilcompmanutechn

Colorado Eneoration (Metro as its annua

e third edition nited States. ves, productio

y states are eis that have em

ado’s resourc

The Niobrastates andThe PiceaReserves omixed withExcellent sExcellent w

ado’s energy nvestment to e that time, Velion, and creaany, PrimeStfacturing planology jobs at

ReT

Ergy Coalition o Denver EDCl analysis of C

of RRC, we cColorado conon of fossil fuether consider

mbraced a ba

ce mix include

ara Shale, a c is thought tonce Basin, a of supercomp

h coal from otsolar resourcewind resource

industry beneColorado. Ve

estas has conated more thatar Solar, in 20nt in Aurora. Sthis facility in

esourceThird Editio

Execut(CEC), an aff

C), published Colorado’s co

can report thansistently rankels, installed red “fossil” or alanced energ

es:

complex geoloo contain mastight-shale fiepliant coal wither regions, aes in south-cees along Colo

efits from maestas located nstructed threan 2,000 jobs.011 and annoSet to open inn the next thre

e Rich on, Decem

tive Sufiliate of the Mthe first editio

ompetitive pos

at Colorado’s ks in the top 1capacity, and“cleantech” s

gy philosophy

ogical formatsive reserves

eld with estimh the lowest sallowing thoseentral Coloradorado’s easter

ny competitivits first North e additional m. Most recentlounced its den 2012, GE exee to five year

Coloramber 201

mmaryMetro Denver on of Resourcsition in the n

energy econo10 or higher id generation ostates, Coloray.

ion that stretcs of natural gaated reservessulfur, mercue regions to mdo. rn border.

ve advantagesAmerican fac

manufacturingly, GE Energy

ecision to locaxpects to crears.

ado 1

y Economic De

ce Rich Colornational energ

omy is amongn terms of naof renewable ado is a leade

ches across sas and oil. s of 1.5 trillionry, and ash c

meet air qualit

s that attract ctory in Colorg plants in Coy acquired a C

ate a new thinate 355 new,

evelopment rado (RRC) ingy economy.

g the strongeatural resourcresources. W

er among the

several Weste

n barrels of oicontent, whichty standards.

major job grorado in 2008. olorado, invesColorado-gro

n-film advanced-

n

st in e

While

ern

il. h is

owth

sted own

Among Colorado’s strongest assets in the energy industry is its climate of innovation and entrepreneurship, which are enhanced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Colorado’s top-ranked research universities. NREL is the only U.S. Department of Energy laboratory dedicated to the research, development, commercialization, and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Proximity to NREL provides partnership and subcontractor opportunities for companies on research and development projects, as well as access to NREL research facilities. NREL also engages in research partnerships with the Colorado School of Mines, the University of Colorado Boulder, and Colorado State University through the Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory and through a network of partnerships between the universities and private industry. Colorado’s low taxes, moderate business costs, and progressive industry policies also help attract and retain businesses in the energy industry. Nearly 70 energy-related pieces of legislation have been adopted in Colorado since 2007. The state’s 30 percent Renewable Energy Standard is one of the most aggressive in the United States. Also, the Colorado Bioscience and Clean Technology Reinvestment Act was passed in 2011 to provide a dedicated source of grant funds for cleantech and bioscience. In spite of its many competitive advantages, Colorado’s energy companies do face regulatory and political uncertainties at the federal level that could slow business investment and new job creation. The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for renewable energy projects is scheduled to expire at the end of 2011, and the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) is set to expire for wind projects at the end of 2012. The pending expiration of the PTC for wind, in particular, has resulted in the delay or abandonment of projects, and the resulting loss of investment and job creation in this sector. Whether these credits will be extended is not known at the time of this report’s publication. At the same time, Congress is debating whether to eliminate certain long-standing tax credits for the oil and gas industry. The questions being raised are whether the nascent cleantech industry needs tax credits to grow, and whether the oil and gas industry should continue to be granted subsidies since the industry is well established. Before any of these tax credits are eliminated, a cost-benefit analysis across all energy-related tax credits is required to strike the right balance and support job growth and investment in both fossil fuels and cleantech. Regulations being proposed at the federal level also impact how natural resources are developed. Hydraulic fracturing is a good example of federal ydraulic fracturing is a process that stimulates the flow of oil and natural gas to the wellhead. In hydraulic fracturing, water, mixed with sand and chemicals, is pumped down the wellbore at high pressure to break apart tight formations and free trapped oil and gas. While it has been an accepted practice for more than 40 years, hydraulic fracturing has recently come under fire from environmental interests due to potential contamination of drinking water aquifers. In response, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Interior have proposed new regulations. This practice has traditionally been regulated at the state level. Some states, including Colorado and Texas, are enacting new, stricter rules on hydraulic fracturing to pre-empt federal oversight. Colorado adopted new rules in December 2011, that require oil and gas operators to publicly disclose all chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing of wells, while still recognizing and protecting trade secrets. The new rules are endorsed by industry and environmental groups and were approved by the nine-member Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. State oversight of hydraulic fracturing is appropriate

and should be supported based on local regulators’ understanding of local regulatory and geological realities. Additional issues being debated at the federal level without a clear resolution include:

• Proposed rules on emissions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would apply to oil and gas productions sites, power plants, and oil refineries.

• Constrained access to federal lands and waters for drilling by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management.

• Delayed review of the application for the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring oil from Canadian tar sands through the United States to Gulf Coast refineries.

Volatile commodity prices also pose a challenge to industry. Natural gas prices in the last decade have fluctuated wildly, with record-low prices reining in industry growth for the last two years. With more interest in natural gas as a bridge fuel, the market may drive prices up, but potentially at the expense of coal production rates and commodity prices. Crude oil prices are also volatile, plummeting in 2009 in part due to the global recession, but also due to competition from imports and constraints on domestic drilling. The incentives Colorado offers to lure companies are based on tax credits with almost no cash incentives. Tax credits may be appealing to companies that are well established, but they are meaningless to early-stage, pre-profit—and pre-tax—companies. The recent expansion of the Colorado Bioscience and Clean Technology Innovation Reinvestment Act is a step in the right direction. It is a cash incentive that provides up to $2 million per year (for 10 years) in grant funding for cleantech. Nonetheless, Colorado’s competitive advantage is diminished compared to other states that have begun to offer more cash incentives in lieu of tax credits. Finding more cash for incentives in Colorado requires a critical review—cost-benefit analysis of current incentive programs, evaluation of other states’ incentive programs, and the political will to change the state’s incentive structure. Colorado is highly regarded for its skilled workforce. It is ranked second-highest among the 50 states for residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher, eighth-highest in Ph.Ds, and 14th-highest in science and engineering graduate students. Partnerships among the state’s research universities and NREL are creating new centers of excellence and offering intellectual property to generate new companies. The fact remains that many of Colorado’s skilled workers come here from other states. In recent years, Colorado’s public education system has borne significant funding cuts as the state seeks to balance its budget. The conflicting resolutions of three constitutional provisions in Colorado’s constitution— TABOR, Amendment 23, and the Gallagher Amendment—create an intractable problem in resolving budgetary issues and the potential for more cuts to public education. Discussions must continue to either amend or eliminate these three provisions. In this report, we added a new section that compares the United States to select countries. These include other global energy economies and the United States’ top trading partners—Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and the United Kingdom—and the Russian Federation. The United States continues to be a top global producer and consumer of natural resources. It is a major producer and net importer of natural gas and crude oil. The United States is also a major

producer and exporter of coal, exporting 3.6 percent of its coal to countries in Asia and Europe. Domestic power consumption per capita is the second highest among countries in this study. Power generation globally includes a varied mix of resources. Every country in the study utilizes a broad mix of resources, in different proportions, to generate electricity. The United States uses coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy as its primary sources of power generation, while slowly building its renewable power base through the addition of wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric resources. The emerging economies of China and India are primarily fueled by coal, but China in particular is attempting to expand its renewable resource base to offset climate impacts from coal. Brazil and Canada rely heavily on hydroelectricity. One surprise finding is that U.S. gasoline prices are among the lowest in the world because the federal tax on gasoline is among the lowest compared to other countries in the study at 18.4 cents per gallon. The third edition of RRC demonstrates that Colorado’s energy economy is strong in spite of the state’s fiscal constraints and challenges from outside influences. The energy economies of Colorado and the United States could be strengthened by clear and consistent domestic policies. Finally, the United States needs to improve its competitive advantage in the global energy economy through sound policymaking that supports growth in domestic resource exploitation in order to reduce imports and increase exports.

Natural Resources

Natural Gas: Reserves and Production (2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Proved natural gas reserves are the estimated quantities that can be recovered with reasonable certainty from known reservoirs. With the application of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, recoverable reserves have increased in many states. Reserves for Texas and Louisiana include offshore reserves.

Fig. 1

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

TX WY CO OK LA NM AR AL UT KSProved Reserves Production

Bill

ion

Cub

ic F

eet

3rd Highest

Reserves

Natural Gas: Reserves and Production (2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Proved Reserves

(BCF) Production

(BCF)

Production as a % of Reserves

Texas* 80,424 7,624 9.48% Wyoming 35,283 2,240 6.35% Colorado 23,058 1,409 7.03% Oklahoma 22,769 1,621 6.37% Louisiana* 20,688 1,450 0.00% New Mexico* 15,598 1,371 8.79% Arkansas 10859 681 6.27% Alaska 9,101 397 4.36% Utah 7,257 390 5.37% Pennsylvania 6,985 274 3.92% West Virginia 5,946 264 4.44% Kansas 3,279 356 10.86% Virginia 3,091 141 4.56% Alabama* 2,871 226 7.87% Kentucky 2,782 113 4.06% California* 2,773 242 8.73% Michigan 2,763 159 5.75% North Dakota 1,079 59 5.47% Montana 976 294 30.12% Mississippi 917 97 10.58% Ohio 896 89 9.93% New York 196 45 22.96% Florida 7 0 4.29%

*Includes offshore reserves and production.

Natural Gas Production (2007-2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 2Shale discoveries in the Haynesville (TX, LA), the Marcellus (NY, PA), and the Niobrara (CO, WY) have impacted both United States reserves and regional resource development.

Mill

ion

Cub

ic F

eet

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

TX WY OK LA CO NM AR AK KS MT

200720082009

5th Highest

Natural Gas Production (2007-2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State 2007 2008 2009 Texas 6,454,249 7,483,842 7,623,747 Wyoming 1,916,238 2,116,818 2,239,778 Oklahoma 1,589,871 1,765,988 1,621,316 Louisiana 1,275,806 1,292,478 1,449,809 Colorado 1,280,638 1,436,203 1,409,172 New Mexico 1,495,615 895,675 1,370,727 Arkansas 269,886 446,551 680,613 Alaska 368,344 337,359 397,077 Kansas 366,859 375,314 355,675 Montana 110,942 802,619 293,941 California 268,016 263,107 241,916 Alabama 259,062 246,747 225,666 Michigan N/A 153,130 159,400 Mississippi 73,460 96,641 97,258 Ohio 88,095 84,858 88,824 North Dakota 54,745 52,469 59,369 New York 54,942 50,320 44,849 Tennessee 3,942 4,700 5,478 Indiana 3,606 4,701 4,927 Nebraska 1,555 3,082 2,908 Oregon 390 751 751 Arizona 634 503 695 Kentucky 95,437 114,116 N/A South Dakota 422 1,099 N/A U.S. Total Production 15,938,902 17,915,864 18,375,905

Fig. 3

Shale Gas Production (2007-2011) IHS Wellhead Data

Fig. 4Increased application of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have opened up tight shale plays for natural gas production. Recoverable reserves in the Niobrara Shale, an emerging play in Colorado and Wyoming, are being evaluated through test wells.

Barnett

WoodfordFayetteville

Haynesville

Eagle FordMarcellus

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000Ja

n-07

Apr

-07

Jul-0

7

Oct

-07

Jan-

08

Apr

-08

Jul-0

8

Oct

-08

Jan-

09

Apr

-09

Jul-0

9

Oct

-09

Jan-

10

Apr

-10

Jul-1

0

Oct

-10

Jan-

11

Apr

-11

MM

cfpe

r Day

Shale Gas Production (2007-2011) MMcf per Day

IHS Cera, Wellhead data

Date Barnett

Shale (TX) Woodford

(OK) Fayetteville

(AR)

Haynesville

(LA, TX) Eagle Ford

(TX) Marcellus (PA, NY) Total

Jan-07 2,331 136 99 86 4 0 2,657Mar-07 2,577 173 139 85 4 0 2,977May-07 2,828 179 171 84 4 0 3,266

Jul-07 3,062 218 227 82 4 0 3,593Sep-07 3,362 268 288 85 5 0 4,009Nov-07 3,628 306 377 86 6 0 4,403Jan-08 3,835 354 437 88 5 0 4,719Mar-08 4,042 413 565 88 4 40 5,152May-08 4,285 495 634 107 4 67 5,592

Jul-08 4,478 568 738 113 4 83 5,984Sep-08 4,659 619 875 156 7 79 6,395Nov-08 4,901 691 954 263 8 82 6,900Jan-09 5,001 784 1,110 431 10 104 7,440Mar-09 5,147 845 1,198 631 15 161 7,997May-09 5,006 855 1,345 959 24 191 8,379

Jul-09 4,877 889 1,385 1,289 40 225 8,704Sep-09 4,736 852 1,141 1,723 65 295 8,811Nov-09 4,748 875 1,775 2,313 131 395 10,237Jan-10 4,806 914 1,813 2,610 142 622 10,908Mar-10 4,959 939 1,900 3,210 161 837 12,005May-10 5,087 942 2,031 3,537 223 1,028 12,848

Jul-10 5,195 937 2,143 4,227 292 1,335 14,129Sep-10 5,434 937 2,262 4,687 374 1,630 15,325Nov-10 5,500 938 2,319 5,147 443 1,800 16,147Jan-11 5,419 940 2,384 5,597 589 1,935 16,865Mar-11 5,482 940 2,400 6,006 634 2,048 17,510

Wind: Installed Capacity & Net Generation (2010)American Wind Energy Association; SNL

Fig. 5

Of the 50 states, 36 have developed wind projects. Colorado currently has 1,246 MW of wind online with an additional 501 MW under construction and 16,602 MW in planned wind projects.

Inst

alle

d C

apac

ity: M

egaw

atte

s

Cap

acity

Fac

tor

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

TX IA CA MN WA OR IL OK ND WY CO

Installed Capacity (MW) Capacity Factor

12th Highest

Wind: Installed Capacity & Net Generation (2010)

American Wind Energy Association; SNL

State

Installed Capacity

(MW) Generation

(GWh) Capacity

Factor Texas 10,085 26,132 30% Iowa 3,675 8,800 27% California 3,177 6,614 24% Minnesota 2,192 5,231 27% Washington 2,104 4,652 25% Oregon 2,104 3,919 21% Illinois 2,046 4,492 25% Oklahoma 1,482 3,701 29% North Dakota 1,424 4,175 33% Wyoming 1,412 3,197 28% Indiana 1,339 2,930 25% Colorado 1,299 3,430 30% New York 1,275 2,750 25% Kansas 1,074 3,456 37% Pennsylvania 748 1,846 28% South Dakota 709 849 14% New Mexico 700 1,826 30% Wisconsin 469 1,093 27% Missouri 457 927 23% West Virginia 431 939 25% Montana 386 935 28% Idaho 353 485 16% Maine 266 486 21% Utah 223 453 23% Nebraska 213 432 23% Michigan 164 352 25% Arizona 128 119 11% Maryland 70 1 0% Hawaii 63 239 43% Tennessee 29 41 16% New Hampshire 26 63 28% Massachusetts 18 18 11% Ohio 11 15 16% Alaska 9 13 16% New Jersey 8 21 30% Vermont 6 14 27% Delaware 2 2 11% Rhode Island 2 N/A N/A

Solar: Installed Capacity & Net Generation (2010)SNL

Fig. 6

Of the 50 states, only 14 have developed utility-scale solar energy projects. Colorado has excellent solar resources, particularly in the San Luis Valley. Through 2011, Colorado has 58.8 MW of installed solar, with an additional 60 MW planned in 2011—placing it among the top four states for installed capacity.

Inst

alle

d C

apac

ity: M

egaw

atts

Cap

acity

Fac

tor

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

CA NV FL CO NM NJ AZ TX OH NC

Installed Capacity (MW) Capacity Factor

4th Highest Capacity

Solar: Installed Capacity & Net Generation (2010)

SNL

State

Installed Capacity

(MW) Generation

(gWh) Capacity

Factor California 466 977 24% Nevada 137 218 18% Florida 51 80 18% Colorado 35 41 13% New Mexico 30 9 3% New Jersey 19 20 12% Arizona 16 17 12% Texas 14 8 7% Ohio 13 12 11% North Carolina 10 10 11% Illinois 9 14 18% Pennsylvania 6 7 13% Hawaii 1 2 23% Washington 1 0.4 5%

Coal: Reserves & Production (2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig.7Coal from the North Fork region of Colorado is "super-compliant" coal as defined by the federal 2005 Energy Policy Act. Colorado's coal is valued highly because of its ability to blend well with other coals to meet environmental standards.

Thou

sand

Sho

rt To

ns

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

WY WV KY IL ND MT TX PA IN NM CO

Reserves Production

10th Highest

Reserves

Coal: Reserves and Production (2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State

Reserves (Million

Short Tons)

Production (Million

Short Tons)


Wyoming 6,917,000 431,107 16.04% West Virginia 1,738,000 137,127 12.67% Kentucky 1,303,000 107,338 12.14% Illinois 1,244,000 33,748 36.86% North Dakota 1,208,000 29,945 40.34% Montana 855,000 39,486 21.65% Texas 775,000 35,093 22.08% Pennsylvania 553,000 57,979 9.54% Indiana 403,000 35,655 11.30% New Mexico 380,000 25,124 15.12% Colorado 314,000 28,267 11.11% Virginia 294,000 21,019 13.99% Ohio 291,000 27,501 10.58% Alabama 286,000 18,796 15.22% Utah 201,000 21,718 9.25% Oklahoma 94,000 956 98.33% Maryland 20,000 2,305 8.68% Tennessee 13,000 1,996 6.51% Alaska W 1,860 N/A Arizona W 7,474 N/A Arkansas - 5 N/A Mississippi W 3,440 N/A Missouri W 452 N/A Washington - - N/A Kansas W 185 N/A Louisiana W 3,657 N/A

W: Data withheld to avoid disclosure. -: No data reported.

Coal Production (2007-2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 8Coal production is relatively flat and is beginning to decline based on proposed emissions regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the emergence of natural gas as a “bridge” fuel. Coal exports to countries in Asia and Europe are increasing.

Thou

sand

Sho

rt To

ns

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

WY KY PA MT IN TX IL ND CO

200720082009

10th Highest

Coal Production (2007-2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Thousand Short Tons State 2007 2008 2009 Wyoming 453,568 467,644 431,107 West Virginia 153,480 157,778 136,971 Kentucky 115,280 120,323 107,338 Pennsylvania 65,048 65,414 57,979 Montana 43,390 44,786 39,486 Indiana 35,003 35,893 35,655 Texas 41,948 39,017 35,093 Illinois 32,445 32,918 33,748 North Dakota 29,606 29,627 29,945 Colorado 36,384 32,028 28,267 Ohio 22,575 26,251 27,501 New Mexico 24,451 25,645 25,124 Utah 24,307 24,365 21,718 Virginia 25,346 24,712 21,175 Alabama 19,327 20,611 18,796 Arizona 7,983 8,025 7,474 Louisiana 3,127 3,843 3,657 Mississippi 3,545 2,842 3,440 Maryland 2,301 2,860 2,305 Tennessee 2,654 2,333 1,996 Alaska 1,324 1,477 1,860 Oklahoma 1,648 1,463 956 Missouri 236 247 452 Kansas 420 229 185 Arkansas 83 69 5 U.S. Total Production 1,147,486 1,172,408 1,074,242

Crude Oil: Reserves & Production (2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Fig. 9

Proved crude oil reserves are the estimated quantities of oil that are reasonably certain to be recovered from known reservoirs. The EIA does not include Colorado’s crude oil reserves in the Piceance Basin, which are estimated at 1.5 trillion barrels, nor recent discoveries in the Niobrara.


Thou

sand

Bar

rels

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

TX* AK* CA* ND NM OK WY UT LA* MT COReserves Production

11th Highest

Reserves

Crude Oil: Reserves & Production (2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State

Reserves (Thousand

Barrels)

Production (Thousand

Barrels)


Texas* 5,006,000 417,555 12.0% Alaska* 3,566,000 467,440 7.6% California* 2,835,000 216,858 13.1% North Dakota 1,046,000 111,998 9.3% New Mexico 700,000 62,250 11.2% Oklahoma 622,000 68,044 9.1% Wyoming 583,000 51,700 11.3% Utah 398,000 24,404 16.3% Louisiana* 370,000 73,582 5.0% Montana 343,000 23,703 14.5% Colorado 279,000 26,060 10.7% Kansas 259,000 40,420 6.4% Mississippi 244,000 23,637 10.3% Illinois 66,000 8,975 7.4% Ohio 38,000 5,796 6.6% Alabama 37,000 6,972 5.3% Michigan 33,000 6,506 5.1% Arkansas 28,000 5,735 4.9% Kentucky 20,000 2,519 7.9% West Virginia 19,000 1,967 9.7% Pennsylvania 10,000 3,475 2.9% Florida 9,000 1,780 5.1% Nebraska 9,000 2,192 4.1% Indiana 8,000 1,835 4.4% Arizona N/A 40 N/A Missouri N/A 105 N/A Nevada N/A 433 N/A New York N/A 377 N/A South Dakota N/A 1,601 N/A Tennessee N/A 266 N/A Virginia N/A 6 N/A


Crude Oil Production (2007-2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 10

Thou

sand

Bar

rels

Uneven crude oil production is related to price volatility and regulatory uncertainty. Drilling on federal lands or waters--and in environmentally sensitive areas—results in a more complex permitting processes nationwide.

*Includes offshore production.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

AK* CA* ND LA* OK NM WY KS CO

200720082009

10th Highest

Crude Oil Production (2007-2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State

2007 (Million Bbls.)



Texas* 397,433 398,624 404,694 Alaska* 355,419 333,080 259,270 California* 230,278 227,044 220,434 North Dakota 45,058 62,776 79,736 Louisiana* 84,718 79,233 74,545 Oklahoma 60,952 64,065 67,018 New Mexico 58,831 59,403 61,146 Wyoming 54,130 52,943 51,333 Kansas 36,490 39,582 39,464 Colorado 23,237 24,054 28,324 Montana 34,829 31,545 27,692 Mississippi 20,396 22,102 23,232 Utah 19,520 21,998 22,927 Illinois 9,609 9,423 9,099 Alabama 7,173 7,546 7,189 Michigan 5,201 6,223 5,900 Ohio 5,455 5,715 5,834 Arkansas 6,031 6,079 5,781 Pennsylvania 3,653 3,611 3,541 Kentucky 2,666 2,645 2,609 Nebraska 2,334 2,394 2,239 West Virginia 1,574 1,593 1,864 Indiana 1,727 1,858 1,804 South Dakota 1,665 1,697 1,658 Florida 2,078 1,956 696 Nevada 408 436 455 New York 380 386 339 Tennessee 264 344 268 Missouri 80 99 94 Arizona 43 52 46 Virginia 8 7 14 Total U.S. Production 1,848,450 1,881,817 1,956,596 *Includes offshore production.

Rotary Rig Counts (2007-2010)November average year over year

Baker Hughes

Drilling rig counts are an important business barometer for the oil and gas industry and its suppliers. The active rig count acts as a leading indicator of demand for products used in drilling, completing, producing, and processing hydrocarbons. Drilling rig efficiencies, such as drilling multiple wells from a single pad, are changing this traditional relationship.

Fig. 11

Num

ber o

f R

igs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

TX LA ND OK PA NM CO WY AR CA

2007200820092010

7th Highest

Rotary Rig Counts (2007-2010) November Average Year Over Year

Baker Hughes

State 2007 2008 2009 2010 Texas 860 899 433 734 Louisiana 165 188 169 180 North Dakota 49 89 56 139 Oklahoma 198 188 80 139 Pennsylvania 18 28 62 101 New Mexico 71 79 48 70 Colorado 113 123 38 68 Wyoming 72 77 39 44 Arkansas 49 58 40 36 California 40 44 24 36 Utah 41 44 19 29 Kansas 15 10 20 25 West Virginia 32 26 21 22 Montana 10 7 6 9 Ohio 14 12 8 8 Alabama 5 4 4 7 Alaska 10 11 8 7 Mississippi 8 16 6 6 Nevada 3 7 2 6 Kentucky 7 10 11 5 Nebraska 0 0 1 3 Virginia 3 5 3 3 Illinois 0 1 1 2 Indiana 2 2 3 2 New York 5 5 3 2 Florida 0 1 0 1 South Dakota 0 1 0 1 Georgia 0 0 0 0 Hawaii 0 0 1 0 Maryland 1 0 0 0 Michigan 1 1 0 0 Oregon 0 1 1 0 Tennessee 6 2 1 0 Washington 0 1 0 0

Drilling Leases on Public Lands (2007-2009)Bureau of Land Management, Public Lands Statistics

Fig. 12

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

WY NM CO UT MT NV ND OK AR MS

200720082009

Tota

l No.

of L

ease

s in

Effe

ct

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior, manages lease sales on federal lands, as well as overseeing drilling operations. More than one-third of Colorado’s land area is publicly owned, including the resource-rich Piceance Basin.

3rd Highest

Drilling Leases on Public Lands (2007-2009) Total Number of Leases in Effect

Bureau of Land Management, Public Lands Statistics

Total Number of Leases in Effect State 2007 2008 2009 Wyoming 16,479 18,961 17,854 New Mexico 7,647 8,951 8,954 Colorado 5,397 6,179 5,910 Utah 3,818 4,300 4,271 Montana 3,750 4,185 4,093 Nevada 2,126 2,176 2,157 North Dakota 1,510 1,565 1,772 Arkansas 1,439 1,521 1,486 Oklahoma 1,193 1,268 1,298 Mississippi 1,092 1,154 916 California 687 778 756 Texas 658 658 731 Kansas 458 485 494 Louisiana 407 531 441 Alaska 378 371 352 Washington 446 416 342 West Virginia 268 283 273 Ohio 215 238 237 Alabama 172 204 201 Oregon 200 191 188 South Dakota 155 167 181 Michigan 113 147 172 Arizona 98 86 86 Kentucky 76 83 76 Pennsylvania 70 69 68 Virginia 22 46 42 Nebraska 28 29 28 Indiana 0 2 15 Idaho 6 16 13 Illinois 11 11 11 New York 5 5 5 Maryland 3 4 4 Florida 3 3 2 Tennessee 3 2 2

Drilling Leases on Public Lands (2007-2009)Bureau of Land Management, Public Lands Statistics

Fig. 13

Tota

l No.

of A

cres

Lea

sed

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

WY NM UT CO NV MT AK AR ND TX

FY 2007FY 2008FY 2009

Public lands are available for oil and gas leasing based on the BLM’s multiple-use planning process. If drilling operations create a conflict with protection or management of other resources or public land uses, mitigating measures are identified and may become part of the lease as either stipulations or restrictions.

4th Highest

Drilling Leases on Public Lands (2007-2009) Total Acres Leased

Bureau of Land Management, Public Lands Statistics

Total Acres Leased State FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Wyoming 12,580,651 13,708,523 12,732,957 New Mexico 4,759,364 5,432,045 5,468,058 Utah 4,681,529 4,988,903 4,995,479 Colorado 4,819,654 5,241,707 4,920,123 Nevada 4,452,856 4,345,439 4,245,630 Montana 4,020,480 4,318,778 3,975,577 Alaska 3,344,519 3,147,183 3,113,795 Arkansas 1,157,654 1,202,479 1,135,809 North Dakota 799,816 830,605 962,998 Texas 420,347 439,939 489,344 Washington 650,665 579,163 483,693 California 380,987 439,430 422,750 Mississippi 547,825 553,448 410,687 Arizona 384,848 358,673 358,319 Oklahoma 296,443 328,085 350,548 Oregon 303,021 289,093 278,693 Louisiana 160,587 221,119 166,637 South Dakota 134,284 135,483 150,086 West Virginia 136,207 142,640 141,866 Alabama 122,078 148,893 137,723 Kansas 113,441 126,828 133,642 Michigan 60,899 80,061 101,785 Ohio 43,768 47,323 47,721 Kentucky 38,834 42,049 37,117 Virginia 21,840 35,721 32,401 Idaho 9,149 26,660 22,154 Indiana 0 68 21,937 Nebraska 15,400 11,047 9,767 Illinois 6,592 6,592 6,592 Pennsylvania 6,944 6,474 4,827 Maryland 1,829 2,637 2,637 Florida 3,488 3,488 1,720 New York 1,183 1,183 1,183 Tennessee 2,296 736 736

Natural Gas Prices (2000-2010)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 14

$/Th

ousa

nd C

ubic

Fee

t

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010With the emergence of natural gas as a potential bridge fuel, the direct connection between price and production has weakened somewhat. In spite of lower commodity prices, U.S. natural gas production has increased each of the last three years due in part to declining drilling and completion costs.

Natural Gas Prices (2000-2010) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Year $/Thousand Cubic Feet

2000 $3.682001 $4.002002 $2.952003 $4.882004 $5.462005 $7.332006 $6.392007 $6.252008 $7.972009 $3.672010 $4.16

Coal Prices (2000-2010)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 15

In spite of increased competition from natural gas and renewable resources for power generation, coal prices have increased steadily over time due to increased exports of coal, which grew by 49.5 percent from 2010 through March of 2011. Little changed during that time in reserves.

$/S

hort

Ton

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Coal Prices (2000-2010) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Year $/Short Ton

2000 $18.932001 $19.172002 $19.522003 $18.972004 $20.602005 $23.592006 $24.372007 $24.652008 $28.772009 $30.322010 $32.20

Crude Oil Prices (2000-2010)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 16Crude oil price volatility has historically had a direct impact on exploration and production. Since the beginning of the 2008 recession, the link between price and production was weakened as consumption declined.

$/B

arre

l

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

$80.00

$90.00

$100.00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Crude Oil Prices (2000-2010) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Year $/Barrel 2000 $26.722001 $21.842002 $22.512003 $27.562004 $36.772005 $50.282006 $59.692007 $66.522008 $94.042009 $56.352010 $74.71

Levelized Cost Estimates for Electric Generation Plants (2010)

SNL, 2010 Historic Data

Fig. 17

Dol

lars

/Meg

awat

t Hou

r Ins

talle

d

The Levelized cost to build an electric generation plant includes “overnight cost” (the cost at which a plant could be built assuming that the entire process could be accomplished in a single day), operations and maintenance, and fuel costs. For this analysis: 1) the cost of capital assumption is 9 percent; 2) wind and solar plants do not require fuel as a component of the cost; and 3) the PTC and ITC for wind and solar, respectively, are not included in the cost estimates. The solar costs include both small scale (distributed generation) and large scale solar.

$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

Coal Nat. Gas Wind Solar

Overnight Capital Cost Fuel Total O&M

Levelized Cost Estimates for Electric Generation Plants (2010)

SNL, 2010 Historic Data

Nominal Capacity

(kW) Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)

Overnight Capital Cost

($/mWh) Fuel

($/mWh)

Total O&M

($/mWh) Coal: Dual Unit Advanced PC 1,300,000 8,800 $35.50 $26.67 $34.36Natural Gas: Advanced NGCC 400,000 6,430 $22.30 $41.18 $45.47Wind: Onshore 100,000 N/A $87.10 $0.00 $7.37Solar: Large Photovoltaic 150,000 N/A $297.30 $0.00 $5.00

Severance Tax Revenues (2010) U.S. Census Bureau

Fig. 18There are 14 states in the U.S. that do not collect a severance tax on extracted resources. Colorado’s severance tax is among the lowest in the country for states that do collect severance tax.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

AK TX ND LA OK WY NM WV KY MT CO

Rev

enue

s C

olle

cted

16th

Highest

Severance Tax Revenues (2010) U.S. Census Bureau

State

Severance Tax (in thousands)

Alaska $3,355,049 Texas $1,737,136 North Dakota $1,136,553 Louisiana $758,469 Oklahoma $743,686 Wyoming $721,002 New Mexico $654,752 West Virginia $417,230 Kentucky $317,146 Montana $253,649 Nevada $182,752 Kansas $102,878 Mississippi $90,832 Alabama $90,538 Utah $89,162 Colorado $71,436 Florida $71,000 Arkansas $65,147 Michigan $57,424 Arizona $33,372 California $24,409 Minnesota $23,290 Washington $20,905 Oregon $12,742 Ohio $10,550 South Dakota $8,410 Idaho $6,730 Wisconsin $5,004 Nebraska $3,473 Tennessee $2,251 Virginia $1,882 North Carolina $1,464 Indiana $1,426 Connecticut $61 Missouri $2 Illinois $0 US Total $11,071,812

*Of the 50 states, 36 collect severance taxes on natural resource extraction.

Net Generation by Resource (2000-2010)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Per

cent

age

Gen

erat

ed b

y R

esou

rce

Fig. 19Coal’s dominant position as a power source is beginning to decline with the increased use of natural gas and renewable resources. The United States is just beginning to tap into the potential of renewable resources, which is expected to further reduce the use of coal.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Coal Natural Gas Other Renewables

Net Generation by Resource (2000-2010) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Coal Natural

Gas Other

Renewables2000 1,966,265 601,038 80,9062001 1,903,956 639,129 70,7692002 1,933,130 691,006 79,1092003 1,973,737 649,908 79,4872004 1,978,301 710,100 83,0672005 2,012,873 760,960 87,3292006 1,990,511 816,441 96,5252007 2,016,456 896,590 105,2382008 1,985,801 882,981 126,1012009 1,755,904 920,979 144,2792010 1,850,750 981,815 168,144

Average Capacity Factor by Energy Source (2007-2009)

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Per

cent

age

Fig. 20

Capacity Factor is the ratio of energy generation in a year to the maximum energy possible if the plant ran at full capacity for the full year. Coal and nuclear plants typically run as baseload units, thus high capacity factors. In contrast, renewables run only when wind or solar resources are available. Natural gas plants typically run as peaking or intermediate units and help to balance the system. Oil represents only 1.2 percent of total power generation and is not included in this chart.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Coal N.Gas/CC N.Gas/Other Nuclear Hydro Other Renew

200720082009

Average Capacity Factor by Energy Source (2007-2009)

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Resource 2007 2008 2009Coal 74% 72% 64%N.Gas/CC 42% 41% 42%N.Gas/Other 11% 11% 10%Nuclear 92% 91% 90%Hydro 36% 37% 40%Other Renew 40% 37% 34%

Energy Consumption per Capita (2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 21

Increased energy use is linked to population growth through increases in housing, commercial space, transportation, and goods and services. However, Colorado’s energy consumption is lower than many, less-populous states based on an innovative culture that supports initiatives such as SmartGrid City and Fort ZED.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

WY AK LA ND TX SD KY NE MT IA CO

Thou

sand

Btu

19th Lowest

Energy Consumption per Capita (2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State Thousand Btu

Wyoming 956Alaska 908Louisiana 750North Dakota 661Texas 456South Dakota 444Kentucky 435Nebraska 423Montana 422Iowa 418Indiana 409Alabama 405Oklahoma 404West Virginia 393Mississippi 386Kansas 385Arkansas 365Minnesota 354South Carolina 347Tennessee 340New Mexico 334Idaho 330Maine 327Ohio 315Wisconsin 309Washington 305Missouri 304Virginia 303Georgia 301Illinois 296Pennsylvania 290Colorado 290Delaware 288Oregon 279New Jersey 275North Carolina 272Utah 271Michigan 271Nevada 268Vermont 255Maryland 251Florida 232New Hampshire 229Connecticut 224Arizona 221California 217Massachusetts 216Hawaii 210Rhode Island 207New York 196

Energy Consumption/Real Dollar of GDP (2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 22Energy intensity (Btu of energy use per dollar of real Gross Domestic Product) falls as a result of structural changes to the economy and efficiency improvements. Colorado’s public/private partnerships with utilities have increased energy efficiency in the state.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

LA ND WY AK KY MS WV MT AL AR CO

Thou

sand

Btu

12th Lowest

Energy Consumption/Real Dollar of GDP (2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State

Thousand Btu per Chained (2005) Dollar

Louisiana 17.5North Dakota 14.7Wyoming 14.7Alaska 14.1Kentucky 13.5Mississippi 13.2West Virginia 13.1Montana 12.8Alabama 12.5Arkansa 11.5Iowa 11.4Indiana 11.3South Carolina 11.2Texas 10.6Idaho 10.3Oklahoma 10.1South Dakota 10.0Nebraska 9.9New Mexico 9.7Tennessee 9.7Kansas 9.6Maine 9.5Ohio 8.6Missouri 8.5Georgia 8.3Michigan 8.2Wisconsin 8.1Minnesota 7.7Pennsylvania 7.4Utah 7.4North Carolina 7.1Vermont 6.9Illinois 6.8Oregon 6.7Washington 6.6Florida 6.5Virginia 6.5Arizona 6.3Colorado 6.3Nevada 6.3Maryland 5.6New Hampshire 5.6New Jersey 5.5Rhode Island 5.1Delaware 4.7California 4.6Hawaii 4.6Massachusetts 4.3Connecticut 4.0New York 3.9

Emissions per Capita (CO2, SOx, & NOx - 2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration; U.S. Census

Met

ric T

ons

Fig. 23

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

WY ND NH WV KY OK MT IN NM AL CO

24th Lowest

Higher emissions per capita may be the result of severe weather patterns, population density, industry mix, and the energy habits of residents. States’ energy policies also impact emissions. Colorado’s 30 percent Renewable Energy Standard contributes to the state’s relatively low emissions per capita.

Emissions per Capita (CO2, SOX, & NOx - 2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration; U.S. Census

State 2009

Population

2009 Emissions

(Metric Tons)

Emissions per Capita

(Metric Tons) .Wyoming 544,270 179,303,980 329.44 .North Dakota 646,844 131,152,148 202.76 .New Hampshire 1,324,575 221,730,000 167.40 .West Virginia 1,819,777 264,518,844 145.36 .Kentucky 4,314,113 345,845,664 80.17 .Oklahoma 3,687,050 280,601,712 76.10 .Montana 974,989 70,365,944 72.17 .Indiana 6,423,113 446,429,940 69.50 .New Mexico 2,009,671 134,323,796 66.84 .Alabama 4,708,708 278,304,688 59.10 .Iowa 3,007,856 172,460,672 57.34 .Nebraska 1,796,619 96,054,232 53.46 .Utah 2,784,572 146,462,272 52.60 .Kansas 2,818,747 145,198,608 51.51 .Missouri 5,987,580 300,011,436 50.11 .Louisiana 4,492,076 213,571,472 47.54 .Arkansas 2,889,450 122,158,804 42.28 .Ohio 11,542,645 463,200,476 40.13 .Texas 24,782,302 973,929,228 39.30 .Pennsylvania 12,604,767 469,304,336 37.23 .South Carolina 4,561,242 153,003,316 33.54 .Arizona 6,595,778 214,472,572 32.52 .Mississippi 2,951,996 94,213,868 31.92 .Georgia 9,829,211 309,562,972 31.49 .Wisconsin 5,654,774 177,685,044 31.42 .Colorado 5,024,748 156,344,752 31.11 .Illinois 12,910,409 397,160,664 30.76 .Michigan 9,969,727 295,873,384 29.68 .Nevada 2,643,085 73,273,444 27.72 .North Carolina 9,380,884 260,061,868 27.72 .Tennessee 6,296,254 174,451,236 27.71 .Hawaii 1,295,178 34,824,392 26.89 .Minnesota 5,266,214 135,211,648 25.68 .Florida 18,537,969 460,755,492 24.85 .Alaska 698,473 17,043,680 24.40 .Delaware 885,122 16,659,052 18.82 .Virginia 7,882,590 145,270,180 18.43 .Maryland 5,699,478 103,518,296 18.16 .South Dakota 812,383 14,131,988 17.40 .Maine 1,318,301 19,038,368 14.44 .Rhode Island 1,053,209 12,736,124 12.09 .Massachusetts 6,593,587 78,933,672 11.97 .Oregon 3,825,657 37,722,264 9.86 .Connecticut 3,518,288 32,217,732 9.16 .Washington 6,664,195 54,226,944 8.14 .New York 19,541,453 152,696,678 7.81 .New Jersey 8,707,739 64,445,068 7.40 .California 36,961,664 238,055,196 6.44 .Idaho 1,545,801 4,123,272 2.67 .Vermont 621,760 28,992 0.05

Residential Avg. Retail Electric Price (2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

Fig. 24The Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects residential electricity prices to increase by 1.6 percent per year through 2035. At 10.13 cents per kilowatt hour, Colorado’s residential rate is on a par with other Western states.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

HI CT NY MA RI AK ME NH NJ VT CO

Cen

ts/K

ilow

att H

our

24th Highest

Residential Avg. Retail Electric Price (2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State Cents per

kWh Hawaii 32.50Connecticut 19.55New York 18.30Massachusetts 17.68Rhode Island 17.45Alaska 16.55Maine 16.20New Hampshire 15.68New Jersey 15.66Vermont 14.48Delaware 13.93Maryland 13.84California 13.81Texas 13.04Nevada 11.93Florida 11.65Wisconsin 11.51Pennsylvania 11.35Illinois 11.07Michigan 10.75Alabama 10.44Mississippi 10.39Louisiana 10.28Arizona 10.27Colorado 10.13Ohio 10.06New Mexico 10.01Georgia 9.93South Carolina 9.89Minnesota 9.74Virginia 9.62North Carolina 9.52Iowa 9.49Arkansas 9.27Montana 9.13Oklahoma 9.09Tennessee 8.91Kansas 8.88Indiana 8.87Oregon 8.49South Dakota 8.27Utah 8.26Wyoming 8.21Missouri 8.00Kentucky 7.94Nebraska 7.87Washington 7.54North Dakota 7.51West Virginia 7.06Idaho 6.99

Commercial Avg. Retail Electric Price (2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Fig. 25The EIA expects commercial electricity prices to increase by 1.5 percent per year through 2035. Commercial rates in Western and Midwestern states tend to be lower than rates for the coasts and Hawaii.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

HI CT NY MA RI NJ NH AK ME MD CO

Cen

ts/K

ilow

att H

our

22nd Lowest

Commercial Avg. Retail Electric Price (2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State Cents per kWh

Hawaii 29.72Connecticut 17.12New York 16.84Massachusetts 15.80Rhode Island 15.36New Jersey 14.48New Hampshire 14.32Alaska 13.64Maine 12.98Maryland 12.76California 12.54Vermont 12.49Delaware 12.07Illinois 11.79Texas 10.75Florida 10.14Lousiana 10.12Nevada 10.07Mississippi 10.02Alabama 9.87Pennsylvania 9.38Wisconsin 9.28Tennessee 9.24Ohio 9.22Michigan 9.20Georgia 9.07Arizona 8.93New Mexico 8.67Colorado 8.57Montana 8.54South Carolina 8.42Minnesota 7.88Oklahoma 7.88Indiana 7.82Arkansas 7.61North Carolina 7.55Kansas 7.42Virginia 7.32Kentucky 7.29Oregon 7.29Iowa 7.18South Dakota 6.97North Dakota 6.81Washington 6.76Wyoming 6.71Nebraska 6.68Utah 6.66Missouri 6.61West Virginia 6.08Idaho 5.72

Industrial Avg. Retail Electric Price (2009)U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Fig. 26

The EIA expects industrial electricity prices to increase by 1.6 percent per year through 2035. States with high levels of manufacturing often have lower industrial rates based on robust existing infrastructure. Surprisingly, Western states, although not usually manufacturing hubs, have relatively low industrial rates.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

HI CT MA RI AK NH ME NJ DE MD CO

Cen

ts/K

ilow

att H

our

21st Highest

Industrial Avg. Retail Electric Price (2009) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

State Cents per kWh Hawaii 26.05Connecticut 14.93Massachusetts 14.85Rhode Island 14.20Alaska 14.17New Hampshire 13.17Maine 11.70New Jersey 10.86Delaware 10.45Maryland 10.37New York 10.14California 10.04Vermont 9.19Texas 8.79Florida 8.25Nevada 7.98Louisiana 7.94Pennsylvania 7.02Michigan 6.74Georgia 6.67Colorado 6.65Arizona 6.57Mississippi 6.56Wisconsin 6.51New Mexico 6.38Tennessee 6.29Ohio 6.19Alabama 6.11Montana 5.90Oklahoma 5.90Arkansas 5.89Minnesota 5.87Virginia 5.82Kansas 5.69North Dakota 5.59North Carolina 5.54Indiana 5.46South Carolina 5.37South Dakota 5.31Oregon 5.21Nebraska 5.16Missouri 4.92Kentucky 4.82Iowa 4.81Utah 4.59Washington 4.55Illinois 4.54Idaho 4.48Wyoming 4.47West Virginia 4.20

Energy Policies and Programs

Energy Efficiency PoliciesDatabase of State Incentives for Renewables & Energy Efficiency

Fig. 27

www.dsireusa.org/September 2011

Energy efficiency resource goal (EERG)

Energy efficiency resource standard (EERS)

20 states have an EERS

(5 states have goals)

20 states have an EERS

(5 states have goals)

MA, RI

DE

Policy includes natural gas savings requirements or goals

Note: See following slide for a brief summary of policy details. For more details on EERS policies,see www.dsireusa.org and www.aceee.org/topics/eers.

Renewable Energy StandardsDatabase of State Incentives for Renewables & Energy Efficiency

Fig. 28

Renewable Energy Standard

Renewable Energy goal

www.dsireusa.org/November 2011

Solar water heating eligible *† Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables

Includes non-renewable alternative resources

WA: 15% x 2020*

CA: 33% x 2020

NV: 25% x 2025*

AZ: 15% x 2025

NM: 20% x 2020 (IOUs)10% x 2020 (co-ops)

HI: 40% x 2030

Minimum solar or customer-sited requirement

TX: 5,880 MW x 2015

UT: 20% by 2025*

CO: 30% by 2020 (IOUs)10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)*

MT: 15% x 2015

ND: 10% x 2015

SD: 10% x 2015

IA: 105 MW

MN: 25% x 2025(Xcel: 30% x 2020)

MO: 15% x 2021

WI: Varies by utility; ~10% x 2015 statewide

MI: 10% & 1,100 MW x 2015*

OH: 25% x 2025†

ME: 30% x 2000New RE: 10% x 2017

NH: 23.8% x 2025

MA: 22.1% x 2020 New RE: 15% x 2020

(+1% annually thereafter)

RI: 16% x 2020

CT: 27% x 2020NY: 29% x 2015

NJ: 20.38% RE x 2021+ 5,316 GWh solar x 2026

PA: ~18% x 2021†

MD: 20% x 2022

DE: 25% x 2026*

DC: 20% x 2020

NC: 12.5% x 2021 (IOUs)10% x 2018 (co-ops & munis)

VT: (1) RE meets any increase in retail sales x 2012;

(2) 20% RE & CHP x 2017

KS: 20% x 2020

OR: 25% x 2025 (large utilities)*5% - 10% x 2025 (smaller utilities)

IL: 25% x 2025

29 states + DC and PR have

an RES(8 states have goals)

29 states + DC and PR have

an RES(8 states have goals)

OK: 15% x 2015

PR: 20% x 2035

WV: 25% x 2025*†VA: 15% x 2025*

DC

IN: 15% x 2025†

Demand Side Management PoliciesDatabase of State Incentives for Renewables & Energy Efficiency

Fig. 29

State net metering policy

Voluntary utility program(s) only

www.dsireusa.org/October 2011

* State policy applies to certain utility types only (e.g., investor-owned utilities)

WA: 100

OR: 25/2,000*co-ops & munis: 10/25

CA: 1,000*

MT: 50*

NV: 1,000*

UT: 25/2,000*

AZ: no limit*

ND: 100*

NM: 80,000*

WY: 25*

HI: 100KIUC: 50

CO: no limitco-ops & munis: 10/25

OK: 100*

MN: 40

LA: 25/300

AR: 25/300

MI: 150*WI: 20*

MO: 100

IA: 500*

IN: 1,000*IL: 40*

FL: 2,000

KY: 30*

OH: no limit*

GA: 10/100WV: 25/50/500/2,000

NC: 1,000*

VT: 20/250/2,200

VA: 20/500*

NH: 100MA: 60/1,000/2,000/10,000*

RI: 5,000*

CT: 2,000*NY: 10/25/500/1,000/2,000*

PA: 50/3,000/5,000*NJ: no limit*

DE: 25/100/2,000co-ops & munis: 25/100/500

MD: 2,000

DC: 1,000

Note: Numbers indicate individual system capacity limit in kW. Some limits vary by customer type, technology and/or application. Other limits might also apply. This map generally does not address statutory changes until administrative rules have been adopted to implement such changes.

NE: 25

KS: 25/200*

ME: 660co-ops & munis: 100

PR: 25/1,000

AK: 25*

43 states + DC & PR have adopted a net

metering policy

43 states + DC & PR have adopted a net

metering policy

DC

Incentives, Regulatory Policies, and Taxes INCENTIVES Energy-related incentives may come from a combination of sources including the federal government, local governments, and utility companies. Colorado’s Incentives Energy-Related Incentives:

Resource

Incentive Type

Description Tax

Credit Cash Other Oil and Natural Gas X Severance tax exemption for stripper wells

X Reduced levies, fee waivers for companies that address land and soil reclamation effectively

X Tax offset for oil and gas producing counties where local property tax exceeds the sum of severance tax less credit for ad valorem taxes paid

Coal X For construction of IGCC facilities, waives certain Colorado PUC requirements, full cost recovery from customers

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

X Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing

X Property tax exemptions X Sales and use tax exemptions

Common Business Incentives:

Incentive Name

Incentive Type

Description Tax

Credit Cash Other The Strategic Fund X Up-front performance-based incentive that may

provide $2,000 to $5,000 per net new full-time job that pays above-average wages

The Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit Program

X A tax credit of up to 50 percent of a business’ share of FICA on net new job growth. Business must create at least 20 new jobs that pay at least 110 percent of the average county wage.

Colorado First and Existing Industry Training Grants

X Offsets training costs for transferable job skills that support both the company’s competitiveness and the employee’s long-term employment prospects. Reimburses up to $800 per employee.

The Enterprise Zone Program

X Provides tax credits for businesses that locate in economically distressed areas of Colorado. There are nine different EZ tax credits

Sales and Use Tax X By statute, Colorado municipalities are allowed to assess a local sales tax of up to 4.15 percent. Cities may consider waiving or rebating local sales/use taxes for construction materials, personal property, and manufacturing equipment.

Business Personal Property Tax

X By statute, Colorado counties may provide a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the county’s levy on taxable personal property, used in connection with the operation of a new or

expanded business, for up to 10 years Utilities across the state also offer incentives in the form of rebates and credits on energy efficiency programs and systems in the commercial and residential sectors. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest electric utility, offers commercial customers rebates for measured improvements, discounts for flexible (e.g. off-peak) energy use, energy audits, and customized services including energy efficiency design assistance for new or renovated buildings. Federal Incentives According to the Energy Information Administration, total federal energy-specific subsidies (incentives) and support to all forms of energy were estimated at $16.6 billion for fiscal year 2007. The distribution of these incentives has shifted in recent years to reflect a redirection of priorities. For example:

• Subsidies for renewables increased from 17 percent of total subsidies in 1999 to 29 percent in 2007. From December 2010 to November 2011, 268 new renewable energy and energy efficiency incentive programs were created by U.S. states and territories.

• Oil and gas subsidies declined from 25 percent of total subsidies in 1999 to 13 percent in 2007.

• Coal subsidies declined a modest 7 percent from 1999 to 2007. Federal Energy-Related Incentives:

Incentive Name

Incentive Type

Description Expires Tax

Credit Cash Other Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC)

X Tax credit for installation of eligible clean energy technologies – wind, biomass, geothermal, etc – in commercial and industrial buildings

Wind – 12/31/2012; all others 12/31/2013

Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC)

X Tax credit for installation of eligible clean energy technologies – solar, fuel cells, microturbines, geothermal – in commercial and industrial buildings

12/31/2016

Grant in Lieu of PTC/ITC X ARRA expanded PTC and ITC by adding a grant option in lieu of either tax credit

12/31/2011

Clean Coal Power Inititaive

X Government co-financing for new coal technologies that cut sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions from power plants. Annual allocation of $2 million

12/31/2014

Tax Deduction for Energy-Efficient Commercial Buildings

X Provides up to $1.80 per square foot to owners who install energy-efficient lighting, and make energy improvements to the building envelope and/or HVAC systems

N/A

Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery + Bonus Depreciation

X Applies to investments in solar, landfill gas, wind, biomass, geothermal, fuel cells, microturbines

Ongoing

Incentive Name

Incentive Type

Description Expires Tax

Credit Cash Other Loan Guarantee Program

X DOE loan guarantee for 1) manufacturing; 2) stand-alone projects; and 3) large-scale integration projects

Ongoing

REGULATORY POLICIES AND TAXES Colorado’s Policies: Policy Date Passed Description Renewable Energy Standard 2010 HB 10-1001 increased Colorado’s RES to 30 percent

by 2020 Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act 2010 Requires that the state’s investor-owned utilities (Xcel

Energy and Black Hills Power) develop plans to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 70 to 80 percent or more by 2017, for at least 900 MW of coal-fired generation or half of its coal fleet, whichever is smaller.

Colorado Bioscience and Clean Technology Innovation Reinvestment Act

2011 Ten-year funding mechanism that diverts 50 percent of the future growth of income tax withholding from the cleantech and bioscience industries, and reinvests those funds in grant programs to help further develop those industries. Funds available beginning in July 2014.

Single Sales Factor 2008 Simplified Colorado's corporate tax structure by establishing a "single sales factor" for multi-state corporations, effective for tax years beginning January 1, 2009. For income tax purposes, a company’s Colorado income tax liability would be based solely on sales in Colorado as a percentage of its total national sales. The company would not have any tax liability for sales outside Colorado’s borders.

There are three constitutional provisions in Colorado that create fiscal constraints – TABOR, Gallagher, and Amendment 23.

• The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, or TABOR, was enacted in 1992 to limit the size and growth of government. It requires voter approval for any tax rate increases or the creation of public debt, and limits government revenues based upon a formula for growth. If Colorado, or any local government, receives more money than the formula allows, it must either refund the excess or obtain voter approval to retain it. TABOR applies the formula each year to the revenue base from previous year.

• The Gallagher Amendment, enacted in 1982, sought to limit the growth in property taxes, and

particularly protect residential property owners from increases in their tax burden. Its provisions include setting an absolute statewide ratio between the total taxes derived from residential property versus business property. Residential property owners pay about 45 percent of all property taxes. Business property values account for about 25 percent of total property value, but pay about 55 percent of all property taxes. Since TABOR requires a vote of the people to raise any tax rate, TABOR and Gallagher combined require that citizens regularly vote to increase their property tax rates to fund school districts and local services. Since voters resist increases to their tax burden, this has resulted in a shrinkage of the local tax base. The 1994 School Finance Act requires the state to provide funding to cover declines in funding for public schools.

• Amendment 23, adopted in 2000, ensures minimum funding for K-12 public schools. It requires annual increases for public schools of at least the rate of inflation plus one percentage point for 10 years, and by at least the rate of inflation thereafter. Amendment 23 became effective in fiscal year 2001-2002. The initial 10-year period is scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 2011-2012. Since Amendment 23 requires an increase every year in K-12 spending, it is in conflict with TABOR. Also, since the state is required to make up the difference between the contribution of local property taxes and the total required K-12 funding, if property tax revenues decline, then the burden on the state is even heavier.

Colorado’s Taxes: Tax Type Rate Description Corporate Income Tax 4.63% flat Assessed on Colorado net income. Colorado’s

corporate income tax rate is among the lowest in the U.S., ranking 38th nationally in per capita corporate income tax revenue.

Business Personal Property Tax 29% of actual value

The state does not impose property taxes on businesses. Local governments assess business personal property tax on machinery and equipment used in commercial and industrial operations. Assessed at 29% of actual value, based on replacement costs, economic life of the asset, and other factors. Personal property with an economic life of less than one year, or an acquisition cost of $250 or less, are exempt. Computer and telecommunications equipment have accelerated depreciation and reduced residual values.

Sales and Use Tax 29% Sales taxes levied on goods purchased by a business that are not intended for resale. Services are not taxed. Use taxes substitute for sales taxes in cases where an item is purchased for consumption in Colorado from a source outside Colorado or other circumstances where a sales tax was not paid. Business are exempt from paying Colorado sales tax on purchases of manufacturing equipment or machine tools of over $500; component parts; fuels and electricity when used for manufacturing; interstate long distance telephone charges; packaging materials; and pollution control equipment

Local Sales Tax Up to 4.15% By statute, Colorado municipalities may collect up to an additional 4.15 percent tax. Combined state and local sales tax rates in Metro Denver range from 3.15 percent to 8.85 percent. Various special districts impose additional sales taxes in Metro Denver, including the Regional Transportation District (1 percent); the Cultural Facilities District (0.1 percent); and the Football Stadium District (0.1 percent).

Federal Taxes and Regulatory Policies Taxes and regulatory policies drive business decisions and actions. A consistent and fair regulatory environment provides certainty which gives business confidence to respond to business opportunities or threats efficiently. Current and ongoing debates at the federal level are far from reaching any conclusion:

• Hydraulic Fracturing has been in use in oil and gas exploration and production for more than 40 years. The process pumps a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals down the well bore at high pressure to break apart tight formations that contain oil and natural gas, freeing those products to

flow to the wellhead. Hydraulic fracturing, coupled with recent advances in horizontal drilling, has unlocked massive reserves of natural gas and generated a new drilling boom. With its increased use, however, claims have been made that chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing have shown up in ground water. In response, regulators for the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior are considering new federal regulations for hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing has historically been regulated at the state level.

• Access to federal lands and waters. Access to federal lands for drilling has always been

challenging in Colorado with more than one-third of its land owned by the federal government. The oil and gas industry says leasing on public lands in Colorado is down sharply since 2007. The number of parcels offered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is down by 70 percent and the acreage involved is down by 81 percent for fiscal year 2010. Backlogged leases – leases not issued despite selling them to companies at public auction – is another challenge in Colorado. BLM officials have said that environmental protests and uncertainty over endangered species have required them to step up scrutiny of leases, which takes time. Access to federal waters became an issue after the explosion of BP’s Macondo well in April 2011, which killed 11 workers and spilled more than 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of that incident, the Department of the Interior (DOI) placed a deep-water drilling moratorium on the Gulf of Mexico. The moratorium was ultimately lifted in October 2010, but the DOI continued to hold up permits for deep-water wells as it developed enhanced drilling safety regulations. By October 2011, operators in the Gulf were adapting to the new regulations, and 13 deep-water permits were approved for the month, compared to seven approved permits in September and nine in August. It is also higher than the typical monthly caseload of about seven permits per month that were approved from 2006 to 2009.

• Tax Credits (subsidies) for the oil and gas industry are deductions on income made from domestic manufacturing. Democrats introduced legislation in the Senate in 2011 to repeal the incentives, but they could not gather the 60 votes required to overcome a Republican filibuster. The Super Committee, charged with eliminating $1.2 trillion from the deficit, estimated that eliminating oil and gas tax subsidies would add $41 billion in federal revenues in the next 10 years. But the Super Committee failed to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit, so oil and gas subsidies remain in effect. The cleantech industry has benefitted from two federal tax credits, the PTC and the ITC. Both programs were expanded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and a grant in lieu of either the PTC or ITC was made available. Expiration dates for the PTC vary by resource with tax credits for wind expiring at the end of 2012, and for other resources by the end of 2013. The ITC is set to expire by the end of 2011. The possibility that these tax credits will not be extended is already slowing new project investment. The PTC for wind has been an essential tool in developing the wind industry. Whether these tax credits are extended will be decided in Congress.

• TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline is an extension of an existing pipeline system that

delivers oil from Alberta’s tar sands to U.S. refineries, currently terminating in Cushing, Oklahoma. The proposal is to add approximately 1,661 miles of 36-inch crude oil pipeline to extend the pipeline into the U.S. Gulf Coast region. The planned $7 billion pipeline was challenge by the State of Nebraska over concerns that it passed over an aquifer that supplies drinking water to much of the region. TransCanada has been working to define a new route for the pipeline to resolve these concerns. The State Department, which needs to approve the Keystone XL pipeline because it would cross the U.S.-Canadian border, is reviewing those route options and noted that any move on the pipeline would come in 2013.

Intellectual Resources

Highest ACT (25 or above) and SAT (1780 or above)Scores per 1,000 High School Graduates (2007)

NCHEMS Information Center

Fig. 30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50CO IL MN MA CT KS OH NE SD TN

Colorado has the highest percentage of high school graduates achieving ACT and SAT scores in the top 20th percentile for each test. States that score high on this measure produce more high school graduates who are well prepared for college.

Ran

k

1st Highest

Highest ACT (25 or above) and SAT (1780 or above) Scores per 1,000 High School Graduates (2007)

NCHEMS Information Center

State Rank Colorado 1Illinois 2Minnesota 3Massachusetts 4Connecticut 5Kansas 6Ohio 7Nebraska 8South Dakota 9Tennessee 10Wisconsin 11Montana 12Wyoming 13New York 14Michigan 15New Hampshire 16North Dakota 17Vermont 18Missouri 19Utah 20Iowa 21Maryland 22New Jersey 23Kentucky 24Idaho 25Virginia 26Georgia 27Louisiana 28Oregon 29Alabama 30Washington 31Florida 32Arkansas 33Oklahoma 34Alaska 35West Virginia 36New Mexico 37Indiana 38Hawaii 39South Carolina 40California 41Pennsylvania 42Rhode Island 43Delaware 44Texas 45Maine 46North Carolina 47Nevada 48Mississippi 49Arizona 50

Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

Fig. 31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50MA CO MD CT NJ VA VT NH NY MN

200820092010

Colorado, with 36.4 percent of its population over 25 with a bachelor’s degree or higher, continues to hold its place among the top five states in college-educated adults.

Ran

k

2nd Highest

Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

Rank State 2008 2009 2010Massachusetts 1 1 1Colorado 2 2 2Maryland 4 3 3Connecticut 2 4 4New Jersey 5 5 5Virginia 6 6 6Vermont 8 7 7New Hampshire 7 9 8New York 9 8 9Minnesota 10 10 10Washington 11 11 11Illinois 13 12 12Rhode Island 12 13 13California 14 14 14Kansas 14 16 15Hawaii 16 15 16Utah 16 19 17Montana 22 21 18Nebraska 22 21 20Alaska 21 24 21Delaware 19 18 22North Dakota 24 27 23Georgia 19 20 24Pennsylvania 25 26 25Maine 29 23 26North Carolina 26 25 27Oregon 18 17 28South Dakota 31 34 28Arizona 31 29 30Texas 30 30 30Florida 27 31 32Missouri 33 33 33Michigan 34 36 34New Mexico 34 31 35Iowa 36 34 36South Carolina 39 37 38Wisconsin 28 28 38Idaho 38 39 39Wyoming 40 40 40Tennessee 41 41 41Oklahoma 43 42 42Indiana 41 43 43Alabama 44 44 44Nevada 45 45 45Louisiana 46 46 46Kentucky 47 47 47Ohio 37 38 47Arkansas 49 49 48Mississippi 48 48 48West Virginia 50 50 50

Science & Engineering Doctorate Holders as a Percentage of the Workforce (2006)

National Science Foundation

Fig. 32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50MA NM MD DE CT RI WA CO CA NY VA

Colorado’s research laboratories, universities, and technology-based economy attract scientists and engineers from around the world.

Ran

k

8th Highest

Science & Engineering Degree Doctorage Holders as a Percentage of the Workforce (2006)


State Rank Massachusetts 1New Mexico 2Maryland 3Delaware 4Connecticut 5Rhode Island 6Washington 7Colorado 8California 9New York 9Virginia 9Vermont 12New Jersey 13Pennsylvania 13Oregon 15Hawaii 16North Carolina 17Utah 17Minnesota 19Montana 19North Dakota 21Idaho 22Illinois 23Michigan 23Ohio 25Maine 26Tennessee 26Alaska 28New Hampshire 28Texas 30Wisconsin 30Indiana 32Missouri 32Iowa 34Nebraska 34Kansas 36South Carolina 36Arizona 38Georgia 38Louisiana 38Alabama 41Mississippi 42Oklahoma 42Kentucky 44West Virginia 44Wyoming 44South Dakota 47Arkansas 48Nevada 49Florida 50

Science & Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25-34 Years Old (2007)


Fig. 33Colorado’s research laboratories, universities, and technology-based economy attract graduate students from around the world.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50MA CT ND MN NY DE MD KS RI NM CO

14th

Highest

Ran

k

Science & Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25-34 Years Old (2007)


State Rank Massachusetts 1Connecticut 2North Dakota 3Minnesota 4New York 5Delaware 6Maryland 7Kansas 8Rhode Island 9New Mexico 10Illinois 11Iowa 12Pennsylvania 12Colorado 14Virginia 14Ohio 16California 17Montana 17Nebraska 19Michigan 20New Jersey 21Wisconsin 21Wyoming 21Indiana 24Utah 25North Carolina 26Hawaii 27Alabama 28Texas 29Missouri 30New Hampshire 30West Virginia 32Oklahoma 33Louisiana 34Florida 35South Dakota 35Vermont 37Arizona 38Idaho 38Alaska 40Georgia 40Mississippi 42Oregon 42Kentucky 44Tennessee 45Washington 46Arkansas 47Nevada 48South Carolina 49Maine 50

Employment

Cleantech Employment Concentration: Number of Firms

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.; Development Research Partners0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50AK NM WY VT CO MT NV HI MA OR

200920102011

Fig. 34

Ran

k

5th Highest

The number of cleantech firms in Colorado grew in 2011, with announcements from GE (PrimeStar Solar), Southwest Windpower, and Tendril. The cleantech sector continues to be a strong sector for Colorado’s economy.

Cleantech Employment Concentration: Number of Firms

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.; Development Research Partners Rank State 2009 2010 2011 Alaska 1 1 1New Mexico 3 3 2Wyoming 2 2 3Vermont 5 5 4Colorado 4 6 5Montana 6 4 6Nevada 7 8 7Hawaii 8 7 8Massachusetts 14 14 9Oregon 10 11 10Delaware 13 13 11New Hampshire 11 9 12Washington 9 10 13South Carolina 41 39 14New Jersey 23 25 15Maryland 12 12 16California 18 16 17Idaho 21 17 18Rhode Island 24 20 19Maine 16 18 20Oklahoma 25 23 21Louisiana 15 19 22Arizona 17 15 23Virginia 20 21 24West Virginia 19 22 25Utah 22 24 26Pennsylvania 27 27 27Connecticut 30 29 28Texas 26 26 29North Carolina 28 30 30South Dakota 43 43 31North Dakota 29 28 32New York 37 35 33Illinois 38 36 34Kansas 32 32 35Florida 36 33 36Minnesota 35 37 37Ohio 31 31 38Michigan 40 42 39Indiana 33 34 40Wisconsin 42 40 41Georgia 34 38 42Tennessee 39 41 43Nebraska 46 44 44Mississippi 45 46 45Alabama 47 47 46Kentucky 44 45 47Missouri 48 48 48Arkansas 49 50 49Iowa 50 49 50

Cleantech Employment Concentration: Number of Employees

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.; Development Research Partners

Fig. 35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50NM AK TN CO ND WA CA WY DE CT MD

200920102011

4th Highest

Ran

k

North Dakota had the highest growth in the number of cleantech employees in 2011. Colorado cleantech firms continued to create and retain jobs, keeping the state among the nation’s top four.

Cleantech Employment Concentration: Number of Employees


Rank State 2009 2010 2011 New Mexico 2 1 1Alaska 1 3 2Tennessee 3 2 3Colorado 4 4 4North Dakota 17 12 4Washington 5 5 5California 8 6 6Wyoming 9 7 7Delaware 6 8 8Connecticut 10 9 9Maryland 11 11 10South Dakota 15 19 11West Virginia 7 16 12New Jersey 28 15 13Massachusetts 22 20 14Oregon 19 17 15Nebraska 34 30 16Vermont 12 13 17Virginia 20 21 18Pennsylvania 18 18 19Rhode Island 13 31 20Utah 24 23 21Texas 25 26 22Nevada 27 22 23New York 29 14 24Maine 21 27 25South Carolina 16 25 26Illinois 31 28 27Montana 14 10 28Iowa 43 38 29Arizona 33 32 30North Carolina 35 35 31Ohio 23 29 32Arkansas 30 33 33New Hampshire 32 34 34Kansas 36 36 35Hawaii 42 40 36Missouri 40 39 37Indiana 26 24 38Michigan 37 37 39Alabama 38 41 40Louisiana 39 42 41Georgia 47 45 42Wisconsin 44 46 43Kentucky 45 44 44Florida 42 43 45Mississippi 48 50 46Idaho 46 47 48Oklahoma 50 49 49Minnesota 49 48 50

Fossil Fuel Employment Concentration: Number of Firms


Fig. 36

Ran

k

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50WY OK WV LA TX NM KS AK ND MT CO

200920102011

11th Highest

The maturity of the fossil fuels sector is evidenced by flat growth in the number of firms.

Fossil Fuels Employment Concentration: Number of Firms


Rank State 2009 2010 2011 Wyoming 1 1 1Oklahoma 2 2 2West Virginia 4 4 2Louisiana 3 3 4Texas 5 5 5New Mexico 6 6 6Kansas 7 7 7Alaska 8 8 8North Dakota 9 9 9Montana 10 10 10Colorado 11 11 11Kentucky 12 12 12Mississippi 13 13 13Utah 14 14 14Arkansas 15 15 15Alabama 16 16 16South Dakota 20 19 17Nebraska 17 18 18Pennsylvania 18 20 19Nevada 19 17 20Ohio 21 21 21Idaho 23 23 22Delaware 22 24 23Maine 34 30 24Michigan 27 27 25Tennessee 24 22 26Indiana 26 26 27Iowa 33 35 28Virginia 28 28 29Arizona 25 25 30Illinois 32 32 31Missouri 30 31 32Vermont 38 34 33South Carolina 29 29 34Hawaii 42 39 35Oregon 35 38 36Minnesota 37 37 37Georgia 31 33 38Washington 36 36 39New Hampshire 39 40 40Wisconsin 43 43 41California 40 41 42Massachusetts 45 46 43Connecticut 48 47 44New Jersey 46 48 45North Carolina 41 42 46Maryland 44 44 47Florida 47 45 48New York 50 49 49Rhode Island 49 50 50

Fossil Fuels Employment Concentration: Number of Employees


Fig. 37

Ran

k

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50WY OK WV TX AK NM LA ND KY CO

200920102011

10th Highest

While the number of firms remains steady, employment numbers have been impacted by events such as the Gulf of Mexico spill in 2010 (LA), and the emergence of the Niobrara shale play (CO).

Fossil Fuels Employment Concentration: Number of Employees


Rank State 2009 2010 2011 Wyoming 1 1 1 Oklahoma 3 2 2 West Virginia 2 3 3 Texas 6 6 4 Alaska 5 4 5 New Mexico 7 7 6 Louisiana 4 5 7 North Dakota 9 8 8 Kentucky 10 9 9 Colorado 8 11 10 Kansas 12 10 11 Mississippi 11 12 12 Alabama 13 13 13 Utah 16 16 14 Nebraska 14 14 15 Montana 15 15 17 Arkansas 19 17 18 Virginia 22 21 18 Washington 20 18 19 Pennsylvania 27 24 20 Indiana 18 22 21 Tennessee 21 20 22 North Carolina 32 36 23 Ohio 29 28 24 Nevada 17 19 25 Missouri 37 35 26 Arizona 25 25 27 Oregon 24 23 28 South Dakota 28 27 29 Iowa 30 26 30 South Carolina 31 32 31 Delaware 23 29 32 Georgia 26 30 33 California 33 33 34 Minnesota 34 31 35 New Hampshire 40 42 36 Florida 36 34 37 Michigan 38 41 38 Wisconsin 35 37 39 Illinois 43 38 40 Maryland 42 39 41 Hawaii 41 40 42 New York 49 48 43 Idaho 44 43 44 Massachusetts 46 46 45 Maine 47 47 46 New Jersey 48 44 47 Vermont 39 49 48 Rhode Island 45 45 49 Connecticut 50 50 50

Innovation

State Innovation Index (2010)U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50MA CA CT WA DE NJ MD CO ID MN

Fig. 38

Ran

k

8th Highest

The State Innovation Index is based on four component indices that score each state in the areas of human capital, economic dynamics, productivity and employment, and economic well-being.

State Innovation Index (2010) U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration

State Rank Massachusetts 1California 2Connecticut 3Washington 4Delaware 5New Jersey 6Maryland 7Colorado 8Idaho 9Minnesota 10New Hampshire 11New York 12Utah 13Virginia 14Illinois 15Texas 16Oregon 17Pennsylvania 18Michigan 19Rhode Island 20New Mexico 21North Carolina 22Arizona 23Nevada 24Iowa 25Wisconsin 25Ohio 27Kansas 28Alaska 29Nebraska 30Florida 31Vermont 32Missouri 33Georgia 34Wyoming 35Hawaii 36Montana 37Oklahoma 38Indiana 39North Dakota 40Maine 41Alabama 42South Carolina 43Tennessee 44South Dakota 45Arkansas 46Louisiana 47Kentucky 48Mississippi 49West Virginia 50

Entrepreneurial Activity IndexEwing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity

Fig. 39

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50GA NV CA LA CO VT MS AK TN FL TX

200820092010

Ran

k

5th Highest

The Entrepreneurial Activity Index measures the percentage of the adult, non-business owner population that start new businesses. Entrepreneurial activity is a key measure of innovation.

Entrepreneurial Activity Index Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity

Rank State 2008 2009 2010Georgia 1 6 1Nevada 11 11 1California 5 10 3Louisiana 33 8 4Colorado 7 11 5Vermont 28 14 5Mississippi 17 50 7Alaska 5 19 8Tennessee 19 15 9Florida 13 6 10Texas 13 4 10Idaho 13 4 12Montana 3 1 12Arkansas 10 15 14Utah 8 15 14New York 8 19 16Kansas 35 43 17North Carolina 38 38 17Arizona 4 3 19Massachusetts 23 22 20New Mexico 2 37 20Oklahoma 20 1 20Oregon 13 11 20Iowa 45 43 24Nebraska 28 48 24North Dakota 23 25 24Ohio 45 33 24Kentucky 17 38 28Maine 11 19 28Missouri 49 33 28Illinois 33 40 31Alabama 41 47 32Michigan 23 26 32New Hampshire 28 31 32New Jersey 23 22 32Rhode Island 35 40 32Connecticut 20 29 37Hawaii 40 33 37Maryland 38 29 37Virginia 43 33 37Washington 28 40 37South Carolina 35 43 42Delaware 43 26 43Wyoming 28 22 43Minnesota 41 46 45Indiana 23 31 46South Dakota 20 8 46Pennsylvania 50 48 48Wisconsin 47 26 48West Virginia 47 18 50

Venture Capital Investments/$1,000 of State GDPPricewaterhouseCoopers, Money Tree Report

Fig. 40

Ran

k

Venture capital investments are often highest in states with a strong culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. With 83 completed deals in 2010, venture capital investment in Colorado was about $483 million.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50MA CA CO WA MD VT UT NC RI NY

200820092010

3rd

Highest

Venture Capital Investments/$1,000 of State GDP PricewaterhouseCoopers Money Tree Survey

Rank State 2008 2009 2010 Massachusetts 1 1 1 California 2 2 2 Colorado 4 3 3 Washington 5 4 4 Maryland 7 8 5 Vermont 9 7 6 Utah 8 5 7 North Carolina 14 20 8 Rhode Island 19 17 9 New York 11 10 10 Oregon 20 21 11 Illinois 22 26 12 Pennsylvania 13 12 13 New Jersey 10 6 14 Connecticut 24 14 15 New Hampshire 3 15 16 Virginia 12 18 17 Georgia 17 13 18 Texas 15 16 19 Iowa 28 19 20 Minnesota 6 9 21 Delaware 16 27 22 Wisconsin 36 37 23 Michigan 23 25 24 Ohio 26 31 25 Kansas 30 41 26 Arizona 18 22 27 Florida 29 24 28 Indiana 34 11 29 New Mexico 21 40 30 Wyoming 46 46 31 Missouri 31 39 32 Nevada 44 33 33 Tennessee 35 28 34 Hawaii 40 34 35 Idaho 32 30 36 Nebraska 33 46 37 South Carolina 39 35 38 Kentucky 37 38 39 Oklahoma 42 44 40 Louisiana 45 42 41 West Virginia 25 43 42 Montana 27 23 43 Arkansas 48 46 44 Maine 43 36 45 Alabama 41 32 46 Alaska 48 46 47 Mississippi 48 46 47 North Dakota 38 29 47 South Dakota 47 45 47

Small Business Innovation Research GrantsU.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Fig. 41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50MA MD CO NH NM VA CA VT DE CT

200820092010

3rd

Highest

Ran

k

Awards received from SBA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant program are often used to measure innovation and entrepreneurship. Colorado has historically ranked among the most successful states for high-dollar value of SBIR grants per worker.

Small Business Innovation Research Grants Small Business Administration, Tech-Net Database

Rank State 2008 2009 2010 Massachusetts 1 1 1 Maryland 4 3 2 Colorado 3 2 3 New Hampshire 2 4 4 New Mexico 6 5 5 Virginia 5 6 6 California 7 7 7 Vermont 8 11 8 Delaware 10 26 9 Connecticut 11 12 10 Oregon 18 10 11 Alabama 9 8 12 Montana 12 15 13 Ohio 17 19 14 New Jersey 21 18 15 Hawaii 15 23 16 Michigan 22 24 17 Arizona 24 17 18 Washington 13 13 19 Pennsylvania 16 20 20 Wisconsin 25 25 21 New York 23 14 22 North Carolina 19 21 23 Minnesota 20 22 24 Indiana 30 32 25 Illinois 35 29 26 Maine 26 35 27 Texas 28 31 28 Utah 14 16 29 Kentucky 31 42 30 Florida 29 33 31 Rhode Island 27 9 32 Nevada 48 48 33 Arkansas 32 28 34 Missouri 47 39 35 North Dakota 40 30 36 Georgia 34 34 37 Idaho 41 47 38 Wyoming 38 27 39 South Carolina 45 36 40 Nebraska 39 41 41 Tennessee 33 40 42 West Virginia 44 37 43 Oklahoma 36 38 44 Iowa 43 44 45 Louisiana 46 49 46 Mississippi 49 50 47 Kansas 42 46 48 South Dakota 50 43 49 Alaska 37 45 50

Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions per Capita


Fig. 42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50MD MA ND RI NC NH HI NY NE PA CO

200720082009

12th

Highest

Ran

k

Colorado is one of the nation’s centers of public and private R&D spending. This is possibly due to the state’s strong entrepreneurial economy and substantial federal investments in Colorado’s universities, particularly in aerospace, bioscience, and energy programs.

Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions Per Capita

National Science Foundation, webCASPER

Rank State 2007 2008 2009 Maryland 1 1 1Massachusetts 2 2 2North Dakota 3 3 3Rhode Island 6 5 4North Carolina 9 6 5New Hampshire 5 4 6Hawaii 7 9 7New York 8 7 8Nebraska 11 8 9Pennsylvania 14 11 10New Mexico 10 10 11Colorado 19 16 12Wisconsin 15 13 13Connecticut 12 12 14California 16 14 15Vermont 18 17 16Alaska 4 20 17Iowa 13 18 18Montana 17 15 19Utah 21 24 20Michigan 25 22 21Missouri 20 19 22Oregon 23 26 23Illinois 28 27 24Ohio 22 25 25Georgia 27 23 26Washington 24 21 27Texas 30 28 28Alabama 32 30 29Kansas 34 33 30Indiana 37 32 31Delaware 29 29 32Louisiana 33 31 33Minnesota 40 37 34Mississippi 31 34 35Wyoming 26 35 36Arizona 36 38 37Virginia 38 36 38South Carolina 35 39 39Tennessee 39 40 40South Dakota 43 42 41Kentucky 41 41 42New Jersey 44 43 43Maine 42 44 44West Virginia 45 45 45Oklahoma 48 46 46Florida 47 47 47Arkansas 46 48 48Idaho 49 49 49Nevada 50 50 50

Number of Patents Granted to Colleges and Universities

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Fig. 43

Ran

k

Colorado’s rank in patents granted to colleges and universities improved in 2008, moving up from the 27th position. College and university patents are a step in the process of technology transfer.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50CA NY MA TX IL FL PA MI MD NC CO

200620072008

20th Highest

Number of Patents Granted to Colleges & Universities

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patenting Trends

State 2006 2007 2008California 1 1 1New York 2 2 2Massachusetts 3 3 3Texas 4 4 4Illinois 9 6 5Florida 5 5 6Pennsylvania 6 7 7Michigan 10 9 8Maryland 7 10 9North Carolina 8 8 9Wisconsin 11 10 11New Jersey 13 13 12Georgia 13 12 13Minnesota 15 16 14Ohio 12 14 15Washington 19 20 16Virginia 18 15 17Utah 22 18 18Iowa 16 17 19Colorado 25 27 20Connecticut 17 21 21Louisiana 30 30 22Missouri 19 22 22Tennessee 21 24 22Arizona 23 24 25Indiana 24 19 26Kentucky 26 29 27Oregon 32 31 28Nebraska 33 33 29Alabama 27 23 30Mississippi 35 35 30Arkansas 29 27 32New Mexico 38 35 33Oklahoma 27 26 33South Carolina 31 34 35Delaware 41 38 36New Hampshire 34 31 37Rhode Island 38 39 38Kansas 43 40 39Montana 40 40 39Hawaii 36 40 41Vermont 43 44 41Maine 41 45 43Nevada 43 40 43Idaho 36 47 45North Dakota 43 47 45West Virginia 48 45 47South Dakota 48 47 48Wyoming 47 37 48Alaska 50 50 50

State Technology and Science IndexMilken Institute

Fig. 44

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50MA MD CO CA UT WA NH VA CT DE

20082010

3rd Highest

Ran

k

With one of the highest concentrations of scientists and engineers, Colorado also ranks highly for its R&D infrastructure, entrepreneurial culture, human capital investments, innovative workforce, and technological strength.

State Technology and Science Index Milken Institute

Rank State 2008 2010Massachusetts 1 1Maryland 2 2Colorado 3 3California 4 4Utah 8 5Washington 5 6New Hampshire 9 7Virginia 6 8Connecticut 7 9Delaware 14 10New Jersey 12 11Minnesota 11 12North Carolina 18 13Pennsylvania 13 14Arizona 17 15New York 15 16Vermont 19 17New Mexico 16 18Texas 20 19Illinois 21 20Oregon 23 21Rhode Island 10 22Kansas 24 23Wisconsin 22 24Georgia 25 25Michigan 26 26Idaho 27 27Indiana 33 28Ohio 36 29Missouri 30 30Alabama 29 31Iowa 35 32North Dakota 31 33Nebraska 34 34Montana 32 35Hawaii 28 36Alaska 44 37South Dakota 41 38Oklahoma 38 39Florida 37 40Tennessee 40 41Maine 39 42South Carolina 42 43Wyoming 43 44Louisiana 46 45Nevada 45 46Kentucky 47 47Mississippi 50 48West Virginia 49 49Arkansas 48 50

High-Tech Employment per 1,000 WorkersTechAmerica

Fig.45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50VA MA CO MD NM WA CA NH UT ID

200720082010

3rd

Highest

Ran

k

Colorado’s favorable wage structure, high quality of life, and diverse technology-based industries give the state one of the highest concentrations of high-tech employees in the country.

High-Tech Employment per 1,000 Workers TechAmerica

Rank State 2007 2008 2010 Virginia 1 1 1Massachusetts 2 2 2Colorado 3 3 3Maryland 5 4 3New Mexico 4 5 5Washington 6 6 6California 7 7 7New Hampshire 8 8 8Utah 13 13 9Idaho 10 9 10New Jersey 9 10 10Oregon 12 12 12Vermont 11 11 13Minnesota 14 14 14Texas 15 15 14Arizona 18 16 16Delaware 21 18 17Georgia 17 19 17Alabama 23 22 19Rhode Island 22 23 19Connecticut 20 20 21Michigan 19 21 21Kansas 16 17 23North Carolina 24 24 24Florida 30 25 25Alaska 27 26 26Illinois 28 27 26New York 25 29 26Pennsylvania 26 27 26Missouri 29 30 30Nebraska 31 31 31North Dakota 31 32 31Ohio 34 33 31Wisconsin 33 34 34South Carolina 37 37 35Iowa 35 35 36Montana 37 38 37Hawaii 41 42 38Kentucky 42 40 38Oklahoma 36 36 38Indiana 44 42 41Tennessee 46 44 42Maine 37 39 43Louisiana 45 45 44South Dakota 40 41 44Arkansas 43 46 46Nevada 47 47 46West Virginia 48 48 46Mississippi 50 49 49Wyoming 49 50 50

Clean Energy Leadership Index (2011)Clean Edge

Fig. 46

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50CA OR MA NY CO WA MN NM CT VT

5th Highest

Ran

k

The Clean Energy Leadership Index uses over 70 indicators in three categories (technology, policy, and capital) to measure states’ clean energy sectors. The indicators include clean electricity, clean transportation, green building, regulations, incentives, financial capital, and human capital.

Clean Energy Leadership Index (2011) Clean Edge

State Rank California 1Oregon 2Massachusetts 3New York 4Colorado 5Washington 6Minnesota 7New Mexico 7Connecticut 9Vermont 10New Hampshire 11Illinois 12New Jersey 13Michigan 14Wisconsin 15Hawaii 16Delaware 17Texas 18Iowa 19Nevada 20Rhode Island 21Pennsylvania 22Maine 23Arizona 24Maryland 25Montana 26North Carolina 27Virginia 28Utah 29Ohio 30Florida 31Idaho 32Indiana 33Kansas 34Georgia 35South Carolina 36Missouri 37South Dakota 38Kentucky 39Tennessee 40Oklahoma 41Wyoming 42Alaska 43North Dakota 44Louisiana 45Nebraska 46Arkansas 47Alabama 48Mississippi 49West Virginia 50

The Global Energy Economy

Natural Gas Producers (2009)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Fig. 47

Bill

ion

Cub

ic F

eet

The U.S. natural gas industry, which is privately owned, produced the most natural gas among countries in this study. The Russian natural gas industry, which is led by government-run Gazprom, produced slightly less than the United Statets.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

US RU CA IR NO CN QA DZ NL ID

Highest in study

Natural Gas Producers (2009) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Country

Billion Cubic Feet

Algeria (DZ) 2,860Canada (CA) 5,615China (CN) 3,178Indonesia (ID) 2,684Islamic Rep. of Iran (IR) 5,085Netherlands (NL) 2,790Norway (NO) 3,743Qatar (QA) 3,143Russian Federation (RU) 20,800United States (US) 20,977

Net Exporters of Natural Gas (2009)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Fig. 48

While the U.S. is not a net exporter of natural gas, it does export to Canada and Mexico.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

RU NO CA QA DZ ID NL TM MY TT

Bill

ion

Cub

ic F

eet

Net Exporters of Natural Gas (2009) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Country

Billion Cubic Feet

Algeria (DZ) 1,942Canada (CA) 2,684Indonesia (ID) 1,271Malaysia (MY) 848Netherlands (NL) 1,059Norway (NO) 3,531Qatar (QA) 2,366Russian Federation (RU) 5,650Trinidad and Topago (TT) 742Turkmenistan ™ 953

Net Importers of Natural Gas (2009)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Fig. 49The United States is both a top natural gas producer and net importer.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

JP DE US IT FR UA TR ES KR UK

Bill

ion

Cub

ic F

eet

3rd Highest in

study

Net Importers of Natural Gas (2009) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Country

Billion Cubic Feet

France (FR) 1,589Germany (DE) 2,931Italy (IT) 2,437Japan (JP) 3,284South Korea (KR) 1,165Spain (ES) 1,201Turkey (TR) 1,271Ukraine (UA) 1,342United Kingdom (UK) 1,024United States (US) 2,684

Coal Producers (2009)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Fig. 50

Mill

ion

Shor

t Ton

s

Coal continues to dominate the resource mix for electricity production. China, working to develop its energy economy, produced three times more coal than the United States in 2009.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

CN US IN AU ID ZA RU KZ PL CO

2nd Highest in study

Coal Producers (2009) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Country

Million Short Tons

Australia (AU) 369China (CN) 3,275Colombia (CO) 80India (IN) 580Indonesia (ID) 290Kazakhstan (KZ) 106Poland (PL) 86Russian Federation (RU) 252South Africa (ZA) 272United States (US) 1,013

Net Exporters of Coal (2009)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Fig. 51The United States exports about 3.6 percent of its coal to other countries in Europe and Asia.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

AU ID RU CO ZA US VN KZ CA CZ

Mill

ion

Shor

t Ton

s

6th Highest in study

Net Exporters of Coal (2009) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Country Short Tons

Australia (AU) 289Canada (CA) 22Colombia (CO) 76Czech Republic (CZ) 4Indonesia (IN) 254Kazakhstan (KZ) 24Russian Federation (RU) 103South Africa (ZA) 74United States (US) 36Vietnam (VN) 28

Net Importers of Coal (2009)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Fig. 52Japan, China, Korea, and India produce coal from their limited resources, but must import most of the coal they burn to support their growing energy economies.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

JP CN KR IN CN-T DE UK TR IT ES

Shor

t Ton

s

Net Importers of Coal (2009) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; IHS

Country Short Tons

China (CN) 126Chinese Taipei (CN-T) 66Germany (DE) 42India (IN) 73Italy (IT) 21Japan (JP) 182South Korea (KR) 114Spain (ES) 18Turkey (TR) 22United Kingdom (UK) 42

Crude Oil Producers (2009)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics

Fig. 53

Mill

ion

Tonn

es

While the United States measures oil in barrels (1 bbl = 42 gallons), other countries measure oil in tonnes (1 tonne = 1,000 kilograms). For purposes of this comparison, U.S. production is also measured in tonnes.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

RU SA US IR CN CA MX VE KW AE

3rd Highest in

study

Crude Oil Producers (2009) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key Energy Statistics

Country Million Tonnes

Canada (CA) 152China (CN) 194Islamic Rep. of Iran (IR) 206Kuwait (KW) 124Mexico (MX) 146Russian Federation (RU) 494Saudi Arabia (SA) 452United Arab Emirates (AE) 120United States (US) 320Venezuela (VE) 126

Net Exporters of Crude Oil (2008)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics

Fig. 54While the United States is not a net exporter of crude oil, it is an emerging exporter of refined products.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

SA RU IR AE NG AO NO KW IQ VE

Mill

ion

Tonn

es

Net Exporters of Crude Oil (2008) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics

County Million Tonnes

Angola (AO) 92Iraq (IQ) 88Islamic Rep. of Iran (IR) 120Kuwait (KW) 89Nigeria (NG) 102Norway (NO) 90Russian Federation (RU) 241Saudi Arabia (SA) 355United Arab Emirates (AE) 108Venezuela (VE) 74

Net Importers of Crude Oil (2008)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics

Fig. 55In addition to being the third-highest producer of crude oil among the countries in this study, the United States has the highest imports.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

US JP CN IN KR DE IT FR ES NL

Mill

ion

Tonn

es

Highest in study

Net Importers of Crude Oil (2008) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics

Country Million Tonnes

France (FR) 83Germany (DE) 105India (IN) 128Italy (IT) 88Japan (JP) 199Netherlands (NL) 57People's Rep. of China (CN) 175South Korea (KR) 116Spain (ES) 61United States (US) 564

Electricity Generated by Resource (2008)International Energy Agency

Fig. 56

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al G

ener

atio

n

Hydro and natural gas have become more important resources in the fuel mix for many countries. The amount of coal used in China and India has been increasing in recent years, although China is working to increase the amount of renewables in its fuel mix. All bars do not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

*Includes production from pumped storage.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

BR CA CN DE IN JP MX RU KR UK US

Hydro*WindSolar PVNuclearBiomassGasOilCoal

Electricity Generated by Resource (2008) International Energy Agency

Resource (% of Total Generation) Country Coal Oil Gas Biomass Nuclear Solar PV Wind Hydro* Brazil (BR) 3% 4% 6% 4% 3% 0% 0% 80%Canada (CA) 17% 2% 6% 1% 14% 0% 1% 59%China (CN) 79% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 17%Germany (DE) 46% 1% 14% 3% 23% 1% 6% 4%India (IN) 69% 4% 10% 0% 2% 0% 2% 14%Japan (JP) 27% 13% 26% 1% 24% 0% 0% 8%Mexico (MX) 8% 19% 51% 0% 4% 0% 0% 15%Russian Federation (RU) 19% 2% 48% 0% 16% 0% 0% 16%South Korea (KR) 43% 3% 18% 0% 34% 0% 0% 1%United Kingdom (UK) 33% 2% 45% 2% 13% 0% 2% 2%United States (US) 49% 1% 21% 1% 19% 0% 1% 6%

*Includes production from pumped storage plants.

Power Consumption per Capita (2006-2008) World Bank

Fig. 57

Kilo

wat

t Hou

rs

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

CA US JP DE RU UK CN BR MX KR IN

200620072008

2nd Highest in study

Colorado: 10,482 kWh per

Capita

U.S. power consumption is second highest among its trading partners at 13,654 kWh per capita in 2008. Colorado’s power consumption in 2008 was lower than the national average at 10,482 kWh per capita.

Power Consumption per Capita (2006-2008) World Bank

kWh per Capita Country 2006 2007 2008 Brazil (BR) 2,075 2,171 2,232 Canada (CA) 16,724 16,822 17,061 China (CN) 2,041 2,329 2,455 Germany (DE) 7,174 7,184 7,149 India (IN) 516 552 566 Japan (JP) 8,253 8,490 8,071 South Korea (KR) 799 764 820 Mexico (MX) 2,026 2,093 2,020 Russian Federation (RU) 6,122 6,317 6,435 United Kingdom (UK) 6,210 6,146 6,061 United States (US) 13,574 13,642 13,654

CO2 Emissions per Capita (2007-2008)World Bank

Fig. 58

Met

ric T

ons

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

US CA RU KR JP DE UK CN MX BR IN

20072008

Highest in study

While U.S. emissions are the highest in the study, the numbers are declining. Emissions in China and India are increasing as coal is the predominant power resource as these countries work to expand their economies.

CO2 Emissions per Capita (2007-2008) World Bank

Metric Tons per

Capita Country 2007 2008Brazil (BR) 1.9 2.1Canada (CA) 16.9 16.3China (CN) 5.0 5.3Germany (DE) 9.6 9.6India (IN) 1.4 1.5Japan (JP) 9.8 9.5Mexico (MX) 4.3 4.3Republic of Korea (KR) 10.4 10.5Russian Federation (RU) 10.8 12.0United Kingdom (UK) 8.8 8.5United States (US) 19.3 17.9

Retail Gas Prices for Unleaded Premium (2009)International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; World Bank

U.S. retail gasoline prices are second lowest among its trading partners due largely to its low federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, which is significantly lower than other countries’ gasoline taxes.

Fig. 59

U.S

. Dol

lars

/ Gal

lon

$0.000

$1.000

$2.000

$3.000

$4.000

$5.000

$6.000

$7.000

$8.000

DE UK BR KR JP IN CA CN RU US MX

2nd Lowest in

study

Retail Gas Prices for Unleaded Premium (2009) International Energy Agency, 2010 Key World Energy Statistics; World Bank

Country USD per Gallon

Brazil (BR) $6.280Canada (CA) $3.664China (CN) $3.509Germany (DE) $7.219India (IN) $4.560Japan (JP) $5.360Mexico (MX) $2.324Russian Federation (RU) $3.320South Korea (KR) $5.538United Kingdom (UK) $6.670United States (US) $2.710

Resource Rich Colorado (Full Report)

Business

Transcript of Resource Rich Colorado (Full Report)