Report Contents

[Report#:DOE/EIA-0383(2001)]
December 22, 2000 
(Next Release: 
December, 2001)

Preface

Overview

Legislation & Regulations

Issues in Focus

Market Trends

Forecast Comparisons

Major Assumptions for the Forecasts 

Summary of the AEO2001 Cases/
Scenarios
   - Appendix Table G1

Model Results 
   (Formats - PDF, ZIP)
    - Appendix Tables
    - Reference Case
    - 1998 to 2020

Download Report
     - Entire AEO2001 (PDF)
     - AEO2001 by Chapters
       (PDF)

Acronyms

Contacts

Feedback

Related Links

Assumptions to the 
    AEO2001

Supplemental Data 
   to the AEO2001
     (Only available 
     on the Web)
    - Regional and more
      detailed AEO 2001
      Reference Case Results
    - 1998, 2000 to 2020   

NEMS Conference

Forecast Homepage

EIA Homepage 

Notes & Sources

Legislation and Regulations

[1]  The tax of 4.3 cents per gallon is in nominal terms.

[2]  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Order 2000, “Regional Transmission Organizations,” Docket No. RM99-2-000 (December 20, 1999).

[3]  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Order 2000, “Regional Transmission Organizations,” Docket No. RM99-2-000 (December 20, 1999), p. 3.

[4]  R. Wiser, K. Porter, and M. Bolinger, Comparing State Portfolio Standards and Systems-Benefits Charges Under Restructuring (Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, August 2000).

[5]  Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 51 (March 15, 2000), p. 14074.

[6]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Control Requirements, 40 CFR Parts 80, 85, and 86 (Washington, DC, February 10, 2000).

[7]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, web site www.epa.gov/oms/regs/hd-hwy/ 2000frm/f00026.htm.

[8]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, web site www.epa.gov/oms/regs/hd_hwy/ 2000frm/2004frm.pdf.

[9]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Proposed Rules,” Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 107, p. 35546 (June 2, 2000).

[10]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposal for Cleaner Heavy-Duty Trucks and Buses and Cleaner Diesel Fuel: Fact Sheet (Washington, DC, May 17, 2000).

[11]  EIA will be conducting a study of the proposed diesel fuel standards at the request of the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives. The study 
is expected to be released in spring 2001.

[12]  Figure quoted by Dr. James R. Katzer, ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company, at the Hart 2000 World Fuels Conference (Washington, DC, September 21, 2000).

[13]  “RFG Watch: With No Minimum Oxygen Standard, Ethanol in RFG Widens,” Octane Week (August 14, 2000).

[14]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Announcement: Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, EPA-420-F-00-025 (Washington, DC, July 2000).

[15]  State of California Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Proposed Regulations for Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels (Sacramento, CA, August 13, 1990).

[16]  State of California Air Resources Board, Mobile Source Control Division, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Proposed Amendments to California Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Standards and Test Procedures for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles—“LEV II” and Proposed Amendments to California Motor Vehicle Certification, Assembly-Line and In-Use Test Requirements—“CAP 2000” (El Monte, CA, September 18, 1998).

Issues in Focus

[17]  See web site www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm for a listing and access to BEA national accounts.

[18]  J.S. Landefeld and R.P. Parker, “BEA’s Chain Indexes, Time Series, and Measures of Long-Term Economic Growth,” Survey of Current Business (May 1997), pp. 58-68, web site www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ an1.htm.

[19]  The fixed-weighed, or Laspeyres, measure of real GDP specified a single base-period set of prices and then value the output in all periods in those prices. As explained in the May 1997 BEA article, this resulted in significant changes in perceived growth rates when the base year was periodically updated. Chain-weighted, or Fisher, indexes overcome this problem by using weights of adjacent years. The annual changes are “chained” together to form a time series that allows for the effects of changes in relative prices and in the composition of output over time.

[20]  E.P. Seskin, “Improved Estimates of the National Income and Product Accounts for 1959-98: Results of the Comprehensive Revision,” Survey of Current Business (December 1999), pp. 15-43, web site www. bea.doc.gov/bea/an1.htm.

[21]  As part of any comprehensive revision of the NIPA’s, BEA will designate a more recent year as a benchmark year to express the real value of the output of the economy. The update presented in the December BEA article changed the base year from 1992 to 1996. However, as explained in the previous note, this revaluation does not affect historical growth rates because of the chain-weighting procedure introduced by BEA (BEA, May 1997).

[22]  D. Wyss, “Rewriting History,” in The U.S. Economy (Standard & Poor’s DRI, November 1999).

[23]  D. Wyss, “Growing Faster,” in The U.S. Economy (Standard & Poor’s DRI, April 2000); and A. Hodge, “Productivity and the New Age Economy,” U.S. Macro Special Study (May 8, 2000). For a summary of the debate about recent productivity trends, see “United States: Adjusting the Lens,” The Economist (November, 20, 1999), pp. 29-30; “Productivity on Stilts,” The Economist (June 10, 2000), p. 86; and “Performing Miracles,” The Economist (June 17, 2000), p. 78. The latter two articles highlight the work of Robert Gordon of Northwestern University (web site http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/351_text.pdf); Stephen Oliner and Daniel Sichel of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC (web site www.federalreserve. gov/pubs/feds/2000/200020/200020pap.pdf); and Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University and Kevin Stiroh of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (web site www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/jorgenson/papers/dj_ ks5.pdf).

[24]  A 21-year period was selected to match the 21-year forecast period (from 1999 to 2020) for AEO2001.

[25]  U.S. Geological Survey, Worldwide Petroleum Assessment 2000 (Reston, VA, June 2000).

[26]  Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas.

[27]  “Upstream Digging Its Way Back, But Production Hole a Deep One,” Natural Gas Week, Vol. 16, No. 29 (July 17, 2000), p. 1.

[28]  U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Natural Gas Imports and Exports, Fourth Quarter Report 1999, DOE/FE-0414 (Washington, DC, 1999), p. xi.

[29]  T.A. Stokes and M.R. Rodriguez, “44th Annual Reed Rig Census,” World Oil (October 1996).

[30]  “Simmons: Offshore Rig Shortage Looms,” Oil and Gas Journal (April 27, 1998), p. 24.

[31]  Adjustments were made to unconventional resources with data from Advanced Resources International and to offshore resources with data from the National Petroleum Council.

[32]  3-D seismic technology provides data to create a multidimensional picture of the subsurface by bouncing acoustic or electrical vibrations off subsurface structures, enabling the oil and gas deposits to be better targeted. 4-D seismic technology goes one step further by allowing the scientist to see the flow pattern of hydrocarbon changes in the formation over time.

[33]  As of November 13, 2000, the Alliance Pipeline was scheduled to open on December 1, 2000.

[34]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Achieving Clean Air and Clean Water: The Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline, EPA-420-R-99-021 (Washington, DC, September 15, 1999).

[35]  States that have passed legislation limiting MTBE are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, and South Dakota.

[36]  At least one bill banning MTBE—S. 2962, as amended—would also put new limits on high-octane aromatics, which would make octane replacement even more difficult for refiners.

[37]  J. Vaiutrain, “California Refiners Anticipate Broad Effects of Possible State MTBE Ban,” Oil and Gas Journal (January 18, 1999).

[38]  S. Shaffer, “Ethanol Sulfur: Not a Serious Concern”, Oxy-Fuel News (June 5, 2000).

[39]  Downstream Alternatives, Inc., The Use of Ethanol in California Clean Burning Gasoline: Ethanol Supply and Demand (Bremen, IN, February 5, 1999).

[40]  Remote applications are not addressed in this analysis.

[41]  This includes a generic representation of microturbines, frame type combustion turbines operating on natural gas, and three types of reciprocating engines. The cost of the generic technology is the sum of an assumed share of each of the technologies mentioned above multiplied by its respective costs. The lowest costs are for the diesel cycle/compression ignition engines operated with natural gas. This technology represents 40 percent of the generic technology for peaking distributed generators.

[42]  The technologies in the generic include heavy-duty microturbines, combustion turbines, compression ignition engines, and fuel cells. The cost of the base-load generic is calculated in the same fashion as is done for the peaking generic. Combustion turbines and engines make up about one-half of the generic for baseload distributed generators.

[43]  For further information on DOE’s Million Solar Roofs program see the program web site at www. eren.doe.gov/millionroofs/background.html. For the Department of Defense fuel cell demonstration program see http://energy.nfesc.navy.mil/enews/96b/ fuelcell.htm.

[44]  For photovoltaic and fuel cell technologies, a doubling of cumulative shipments yields an assumed 13 percent reduction in installed capital costs. For microturbines, a doubling results in an assumed 7 percent reduction in costs.

[45]  For a more detailed discussion of modeling distributed generation and several sensitivity cases see E. Boedecker, J. Cymbalsky, and S. Wade, “Modeling Distributed Electricity Generation in the NEMS Buildings Models,” Energy Information Administration, web site www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/ electricity_generation.html.

[46]  ONSITE SYCOM Energy Corporation, The Market and Technical Potential for Combined Heat and Power in the Industrial Sector (January 2000), p. 17.

[47]  Arkansas, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania allow some form of competitive metering and/or billing services. Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana , New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Virginia are studying or have not made final determinations on whether or not to allow competitive metering and/or billing services. Louisiana is considering allowing these services to be competitive as part of a restructuring package.

[48]  Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have legislation mandating competition of electricity supply. New York passed a comprehensive regulatory order mandating electric restructuring which is considered legally binding.

[49]  R.T. Eynon, T.J. Leckey, and D.R. Hale, “The Electric Transmission Network: A Multi-Region Analysis,” Energy Information Administration, web site www.eia.doe.gov/ oiaf/analysispaper/transmiss.html.

[50]  U.S. Department of Energy, Report of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Power Outage Study Team: Findings and Recommendations to Enhance Reliability From the Summer of 1999, Final Report, March 2000, web site www.policy.energy.gov/ electricity/postfinal.pdf.

[51]  Office of the Chief Accountant, Office of Economic Policy, Office of Electric Power Regulation, Office of the General Counsel, Staff Report to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the Causes of Wholesale Electric Pricing Abnormalities in the Midwest During June 1998 (Washington, DC, September 22, 1998), pp. 4-15 to 4-17, web site www.ferc.fed.us/electric/ mastback.pdf. Immediately after the June 1998 Midwest price spikes, wholesale market participants told the staff investigating team that they were actively reviewing the creditworthiness of their counterparts and asking for increased assurances of performance in appropriate cases. The team also found some evidence that power purchasers had, immediately after the June price spikes, begun to change their short-term buying strategy to anticipate large price swings without disrupting service to native load retail customers.

[52]  Power Markets Week (September 6, 1999).

[53]  “ISO New England Files to Eliminate ICAP Market in June,” ISO New England Press Advisory (May 8, 2000), web site www.iso-ne.com/iso_news/newsnews. html; M. Kahn and L. Lynch, California’s Electricity Options and Challenges: Report to Governor Gray Davis (August 2, 2000).

[54]  Gaming the system is when traders or generators use their knowledge of market procedures and regulations to buy up or withhold large amounts of power, bid up the price, then dump the power in the spot market at a much higher rate.

[55]  “ISO New England Files to Eliminate ICAP Market in June,” ISO New England Press Advisory (May 8, 2000), web site www.iso-ne.com/iso_news/newsnews. html.
[56]  M. Kahn and L. Lynch, California’s Electricity Options and Challenges: Report to Governor Gray Davis (August 2, 2000).

[57]  “Governor Davis Presses FERC for Action on Wholesale Power Rates: Calls on Federal Regulators To Reduce Prices, Issue Refunds,” Office of the Governor press release (September 12, 2000).

[58]  A. de Rouffignac, “Supply vs. Demand: The Gas Industry’s Catch-22,” Financial Times Energy (September 14, 2000). Can be accessed by registering with Energy Insight Today at web site www.einsight.com.

[59]  Based on the most recently completed survey of electricity sales data from the 1998 Form EIA-861, “Annual Electric Utility Report.”

[60]  Some of the regulations mandating price freezes and reductions have a fuel clause allowing prices to increase or further decrease within a certain range with a substantial increase or decrease in fuel costs.

[61]  Buildings: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Technology Forecast Updates—Residential and Commercial Building Technologies—Advanced Adoption Case (Arthur D. Little, Inc., September 1998). Industrial: EIA, Aggressive Technology Strategy for the NEMS Model (Arthur D. Little, Inc., September 1998). Transportation: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, ORNL/CON-444 (Washington, DC, September 1997); Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, OTT Program Analysis Methodology: Quality Metrics 2000 (November 1998); J. DeCicco and M. Ross, An Updated Assessment of the Near-Term Potential for Improving Automotive Fuel Economy (Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, November 1993); and F. Stodolsky, A. Vyas, and R. Cuenca, Heavy and Medium Duty Truck Fuel Economy and Market Penetration Analysis, Draft Report (Chicago, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, August 1999). Fossil-fired generating technologies: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Renewable Generating Technologies: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Electric Power Research Institute, Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, EPRI-TR-109496 (Washington, DC, December 1997).

[62]  President William J. Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., The Climate Change Action Plan (Washington, DC, October 1993).

[63]  Carbon dioxide is absorbed by growing vegetation and soils. Defining the total impacts of CCAP as net reductions accounts for the increased sequestration of carbon dioxide as a result of the forestry and land-use actions in the program.

[64]  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America. Turkey and Belarus are Annex I nations that have not ratified the Framework Convention and did not commit to quantifiable emissions targets.

[65]  Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Cyprus, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Georgia, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Jamaica, Kiribati, Lesotho, the Maldives, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Niue, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, and Uzbekistan.

[66]  Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1999, DOE/ EIA-0573(99) (Washington, DC, October 2000), web site www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/.

[67]  Hydrofluorocarbons are a non-ozone-depleting substitute for CFCs; perfluorocarbons are byproducts of aluminum production and are also used in semiconductor manufacturing; and sulfur hexafluoride is used as an insulator in electrical equipment and in semiconductor manufacturing.

[68]  Web site www.state.gov/www/global/global_issues/climate/fs-9911_bonn_ climate_conf.html.

[69]  Web site www.state.gov/www/global/global_issues/climate/fs-000801_unfccc1_ subm.html.

[70]  Web site http://cop6.unfccc.int/media/press.html.

[71]  Energy Information Administration, Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, SR/OIAF/98-03 (Washington, DC, October 1998), web site www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html.

[72]  Energy Information Administration, What Does the Kyoto Protocol Mean to U.S. Energy Markets and the U.S. Economy?, SR/OIAF/98-03(S) (Washington, DC, October 1998), web site www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotobrf.html.

[73]  Energy Information Administration, Analysis of the Impacts of an Early Start for Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, SR/OIAF/99-02 (Washington, DC, July 1999), web site www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto3/kyoto3rpt.html.

[74]  Energy Information Administration (EIA), Analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative, SR/OIAF/ 99-01 (Washington, DC, April 1999), web site www. eia.doe.gov/oiaf/climate99/climaterpt.html, and EIA, Analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative: Fiscal Year 2001, SR/OIAF/2000-01 (Washington, DC, April 2000), web site www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/climate/ index.html.

Market Trends

[75]  Standard & Poor’s DRI, Simulation T250200 (February 2000).

[76]  I. Ismail, “Future Growth in OPEC Oil Production Capacity and the Impact of Environmental Measures,” presented to the Sixth Meeting of the International Energy Workshop (Vienna, Austria, June 1993).

[77]  The transportation sector has been left out of these calculations because levels of transportation sector electricity use have historically been far less than 1 percent of delivered electricity. In the transportation sector, the difference between total and delivered energy consumption is also less than 1 percent.

[78]  The high and low macroeconomic growth cases are linked to higher and lower population growth, respectively, which affects energy use in all sectors.

[79]  The definition of the commercial sector for AEO2001 is based on data from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). See Energy Information Administration, 1995 CBECS Micro-Data Files (February 17, 1998), web site www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/.Nonsampling and sampling errors (found in any statistical sample survey) and a change in the target building population resulted in a lower commercial floorspace estimate than found with the previous CBECS. In addition, 1995 CBECS energy intensities for specific end uses varied from earlier estimates, providing a different composition of end-use consumption. These factors contribute to the pattern of commercial energy use projected for AEO2001. Further discussion is provided in Appendix G.

[80]  The intensities shown were disaggregated using the divisia index. The divisia index is a weighted sum of growth rates and is separated into a sectoral shift or “output” effect and an energy efficiency or “substitution” effect. It has at least two properties that make it superior to other indexes. First, it is not sensitive to where in the time period or in which direction the index is computed. Second, when the effects are separated, the individual components have the same magnitude, regardless of which is calculated first. See Energy Information Administration, “Structural Shift and Aggregate Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing” (unpublished working paper in support of the National Energy Strategy, May 1990); and Boyd et al., “Separating the Changing Effects of U.S. Manufacturing Production from Energy Efficiency Improvements,” Energy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1987).

[81]  Estimated as consumption of alternative transportation fuels in crude oil Btu equivalence.

[82]  Small light trucks (compact pickup trucks and compact vans) are used primarily as passenger vehicles, whereas medium light trucks (compact utility trucks and standard vans) and large light trucks (standard utility trucks and standard pickup trucks) are used more heavily for commercial purposes.

[83]  U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, ORNL/CON-444 (Washington, DC, September 1997); Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, OTT Program Analysis Methodology: Quality Metrics 2000 (November 1998); J. DeCicco and M. Ross, An Updated Assessment of the Near-Term Potential for Improving Automotive Fuel Economy (Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, November 1993); and F. Stodolsky, A. Vyas, and R. Cuenca, Heavy-Duty and Medium-Duty Truck Fuel Economy and Market Penetration Analysis, Draft Report (Chicago, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, August 1999).

[84]  Values for incremental investments and energy expenditure savings are discounted back to 2000 at a 7-percent real discount rate.

[85]  Unless otherwise noted, the term “capacity” in the discussion of electricity generation indicates utility, nonutility, and cogenerator capacity.

[86]  D. Stellfox, “Colvin Tells UI That U.S. Utility May Order New Unit Before 2006,” Nucleonics Week, Vol. 41, No. 36 (September 7, 2000).

[87]  For example, according to the latest USGS estimates, the size of the Nation’s technically recoverable undiscovered conventional crude oil resources (in onshore areas and State waters) is most likely to be 30.3 billion barrels—with a 19 in 20 chance of being at least 23.5 billion barrels and a 1 in 20 chance of being at least 39.6 billion barrels. The corresponding USGS estimate for the Nation’s natural gas resources is 258.7 trillion cubic feet—with a 19 in 20 chance of being at least 207.1 trillion cubic feet and a 1 in 20 chance of being at least 329.1 trillion cubic feet. AEO2001 does not examine the implications of geological resource uncertainty. The figures cited above are taken from U.S. Geological Survey, National Oil and Gas Resource Assessment Team, 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1118 (Washington, DC, 1995), p. 2. The cited numbers exclude natural gas liquids resources, for which the corresponding USGS estimates are 7.2, 5.8, and 8.9 billion barrels.

[88]  Currently, all production in Alaska is either consumed in the State, reinjected, or exported to Japan as liquefied natural gas (LNG). Projected Alaskan natural gas production does not include gas from the North Slope, which primarily is being reinjected to support oil production. In the future, North Slope gas may be transported to the lower 48 market through a pipeline, converted into LNG and marketed to the Pacific Rim, and/or converted into synthetic petroleum products and marketed to California.

[89]  Greater technological advances can markedly increase the quantity of economically recoverable resources by driving down costs, increasing success rates, and increasing recovery from producing wells. Expected production rate declines could be slowed or even reversed within the forecast period if faster implementation of advanced technologies is realized.

[90]  Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is the extraction of the oil that can be economically produced from a petroleum reservoir greater than that which can be economically recovered by conventional primary and secondary methods. EOR methods usually involve injecting heated fluids, pressurized gases, or special chemicals into an oil reservoir in order to produce additional oil.

[91]  Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1999, DOE/EIA-0384(99) (Washington, DC, July 2000).

[92]  Total labor costs are estimated by multiplying the average hourly earnings of coal mine production workers by total annual labor hours worked. Average hourly earnings do not represent total labor costs per hour for the employer, because they exclude retroactive payments and irregular bonuses, employee benefits, and the employer’s share of payroll taxes. Labor hours of office workers are excluded from the calculation.

[93]  Variations in mining costs are not necessarily limited to changes in labor productivity and wage rates. Other factors that affect mining costs and, subsequently, the price of coal include such items as severance taxes, royalties, fuel costs, and the costs of parts and supplies.

[94]  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, web site www.epa.gov/acidrain/ overview.html (September 1997).

Forecast Comparisons

[95]  In April 2000, the Gas Research Institute and the Institute of Gas Technology combined to form the Gas Technology Institute.

[96]  The source used is a forecast prepared for GRI by Hill & Associates, Inc., containing coal projection detail that is comparable with the other forecasts reviewed. 

Appendix G:   Major Assumptions for the Forecasts