ENERGY UPDATE FOR PROGRESSIVE 15 STUART A. SANDERSON, PRESIDENT WWW.COLORADOMINING.ORG - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Audrey
energy update for progressive 15 stuart a sanderson president www coloradomining org n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ENERGY UPDATE FOR PROGRESSIVE 15 STUART A. SANDERSON, PRESIDENT WWW.COLORADOMINING.ORG PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ENERGY UPDATE FOR PROGRESSIVE 15 STUART A. SANDERSON, PRESIDENT WWW.COLORADOMINING.ORG

play fullscreen
1 / 14
Download Presentation
ENERGY UPDATE FOR PROGRESSIVE 15 STUART A. SANDERSON, PRESIDENT WWW.COLORADOMINING.ORG
375 Views
Download Presentation

ENERGY UPDATE FOR PROGRESSIVE 15 STUART A. SANDERSON, PRESIDENT WWW.COLORADOMINING.ORG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. ENERGY UPDATE FOR PROGRESSIVE 15 STUART A. SANDERSON, PRESIDENTWWW.COLORADOMINING.ORG

  2. Mining in Colorado Accounts for 73,450 Jobs $8.8 Billion to CO Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Coal - direct employment 6,200 21,160 jobs total and $2.8 billion to CO GDP

  3. Mining Colorado’s Heritage and its Future – Colorado Ranks Molybdenum 1st Coal 11th Molybdenum 1st Gold 4th

  4. Key Competitive AdvantageLow-Cost Electricity from Coal “Green States” Pay Considerably Lower Rates for Electricity Coal-Dependent States 9.1¢ / kWh 48% Coal Northeast 14.8¢ / kWh 4% Coal Hydro California 14.6¢ / kWh <1% Coal U.S. EIA, 2013 data (March 2014). Average retail electricity prices per kWh. Weighted average of CA and NE states equals 14.7 cents per kWh.

  5. Colorado - 60% Coal Dependent 7.2¢ 6% 12.7¢ 1% 8.6¢ 52% 8.5¢ 75% 8.8¢ 5% 9.6¢ 50% 8.0¢ 0% 16.3¢ 3% 10.7¢ 63% 9.1¢ 23% 7.8¢ 89% 11.1¢ 51% 10.3¢ 36% 8.2¢ 58% 8.8¢ 63% 9.8¢ 18% 9.7¢ 67% 9.0¢ 87% 8.4¢ 77% 8.9¢ 43% 7.7¢ 96% 10.0¢ 60% 9.3¢ 27% 15.2¢ <1% 9.1¢ 83% 10.0¢ 58% 93% 8.1¢ 9.3¢ 39% 9.5¢ 45% 8.1¢ 43% 10.2¢ 38% MA 15.3¢9% CT 17.0¢ 3% NH 15.3¢7% RI 15.6¢0% NJ 14.0¢ 4% VT 14.6¢0% MD 12.1¢47% DE 11.3¢13% DC 12.2¢ 0% 9.7¢ 64% 9.6¢ 30% 7.9¢ 56% 9.9¢ 37% 9.3¢ 32% 9.7¢ 21% ¢ = average retail price per kilowatt hour for CY 2014 % = percent of electric power sector generation from coal for CY 2014 9.0¢ 37% 8.1¢ 25% 10.9¢ 23% 17.6¢ 7% ≤ 10¢ > 10¢ Hydro 33.5¢ 16% Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, February 2015.

  6. Technology Provides the Proven Path for Addressing Emissions Emissions Rate Declines 90% Since 1970 As Coal Use Rises 170% Coal Used forPower Generation + 170% Denver 1970s + 116% GDP per Capita Key Emissions/MWh from Coal Today - 90% 2013 1970 1980 2000 1990 6 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 Annual Energy Outlook, 2013; EIA Annual Energy Review, 2012; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013; U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2012; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Air Markets,” 2013.

  7. The Cost of the Clean Power Plan Dwarfs Other EPA Rules Annual cost of all Clean Air Act rules for the electric power sector promulgated by 2010 from U.S. EPA, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 (2011) at Table 3-2 (electric utility direct annual compliance costs were $6.6 billion (2006$) in 2010; this converts to $7.1 billion in 2010$). MATS annual cost from U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, December 2011 ($9.6 billion compliance cost in 2006$ converted to 2010$.) Cost of proposed Clean Power Plan from NERA analysis (2013$).

  8. FIGURE 1: These are the 22 biggest losers under the final Clean Power Plan because their emission reduction targets are more stringent than they were under the proposed CPP. ND MT SD WI MI WY RI IA PA NE OH IL IN UT WV CO KS MO KY TN NM AL AK More stringent goal under final CPP

  9. What EPA Rules Will Cost You: Increases in Wholesale Electricity Prices

  10. EPA’s Proposal Will Have No Real Effect on Climate Change CO2 concentrations will be reduced by less than 0.5% Global average temperature rise will be reduced by0.016 degree F (less than 2/100ths of a degree) Sea level rise will be reduced by 0.3 millimeter (1/100th of an inch or the thickness of three sheets of paper) Emission reductions from EPA’s proposal and AEO 2014 are accumulated and scaled to projected emissions reductions and resulting climate effects from EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, August 2012, page 4-134 and 6-112.

  11. IMPACT ON COLORADO COAL PRODUCTION Direct Link to EPA, State Decisions to Reduce Coal Use

  12. EIA Annual Outlook 2015 Leaves No Doubt About Impact of EPA Rules • Coal’s share to rise 14.3 per cent by 2030, absent EPA regulation • “EIA’s data breaks the narrative spun by the administration and EPA’s supporters that coal’s days are done,” NMA’s President and CEO Hal Quinn said. “It is not competition from rival energy sources that will damage coal’s prospects but the deliberate decisions of our own government.”

  13. Federal Actions • Pushing Back Against Unprecedented Actions by Feds to Destroy Jobs August 17 Feds Hold Hearings on Proposals to Raise Royalty Rates September 1 – OSM Hearing in Denver on Stream Protection Rule – additional restrictions proposed although Colorado has more than 95% success rate in controlling off site impacts Ozone, WOTUS, sage grouse all part of new War on western economies Thanks to AG Cynthia Coffman for joining litigation against EPA carbon rules

  14. Oil, Gas & MiningAreas of Common Interest 2014 Initiatives aimed at oil and gas threatened spillover to mining Some would have overruled CMA v Summit County – which held local governments cannot ban mining – state law preempts local rules Though ultimately withdrawn, they could resurface in 2016, though one major supporter has pulled support Coloradans for Responsible Reform Amicus Briefs Colorado Supreme Court