Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003
Footnotes
Electricity Market Module
[92] Energy Information Administration, Integrating Module of the National Energy Modeling System: Model Documentation, DOE/EIA-M057(2000), (Washington, DC, December 1999).
[93] A registered utility holding company is defined as any company that owns or controls 10% of the voting securities of a public utility company. PUHCA defines a public utility company as any company that owns or operates generation, transmission, or distribution facilities for the sale of electricity to the public.
[94] Year 2000 dollars are shown here to be consistent with program office goals.
Market-Based Advanced Coal Power Systems, Final Report 1998, Parsons Report No. 10198, prepared for the United States Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Contract No. DE-AC01-94FE62747, Task 22/36
Farmer, Robert (ED), Gas Turbine World, 2001-2002 Handbook, Volume 22, Fairfield, CT, Pequot Publishing, 2001.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Gas-Fired Distributed Generation Technology Characterizations, Fuel Cell Systems, April 2002
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Gas-Fired Distributed Generation Technology Characterizations, Reciprocating Engines, December 2001
Energy Nexus Group, Technology Characterization: Small Gas Turbines, September 2001
PennWell Corporation, Distributed Engineering Coming Into Focus, Power Engineering Magazine, Vol. 106, No. 4, April 2002
McGraw-Hill Companies, Top Plants, Power Magazine, Vol. 146, No. 5, August 2002
A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010 (RDNN), available at the following link:
The Economics of Nuclear Energy (ENE), available at the following link: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/ innovation/2002/energy/report.htm
Characterisation of Power Generation Options For the 21st Century (CPG), ECN-C-98-085, prepared in December 1998 for the European Union
Experience Curves for Energy Policy Assessments, IEA (2000) (IEA)
Return to Electricity Market Module
Oil and Gas Supply Module
[95] Technically recoverable resources are resources in accumulations producible using current recovery technology but without reference to economic profitability.
[96] Proved reserves are the estimated quantities that analysis of geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions.
[97] Inferred reserves are that part of expected ultimate recovery from known fields in excess of cumulative production plus current reserves.
[98] Undiscovered resources are located outside oil and gas fields in which the presence of resources has been confirmed by exploratory drilling; they include resources from undiscovered pools within confirmed fields when they occur as unrelated accumulations controlled by distinctly separate structural features or stratigraphic conditions.
[99] Donald L. Gautier and others, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1995 National Assessment of the United States Oil and Gas Resources, (Washington, D.C., 1995); U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, an Assessment of the Undiscovered Hydrocarbon Potential of the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf, OGS Report MMS 96-0034 (June 1996); 2000 Assessment of Conventionally Recoverable Hydrocarbon Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf as of January 1, 2001; and unreported data from Natural Petroleum Council, Natural Gas: Meeting the Challenges of the Nation’s Growing Natural Gas Demand, (Washington, D.C., December 1999.).
[100] U.S. Geological Survey, 2002 Petroleum Resource Assessment of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA): Play Maps and Technically Recoverable Resource Estimates, Open- File Report 02-207 (May 2002).
[101] Case 1 resource estimates from the National Energy Board’s, Canadian Energy, Supply and Demand to 2025, 1999.
[102] Tailgate LNG prices represents the price when natural gas exists the regasification facility.
[103] Gas reserves that have been located but are isolated from potential markets, commonly referred to as “stranded” gas, are likely to provide most of the natural gas for LNG in the future. Reserves that can be linked to sources of demand via pipeline are unlikely candidates to be developed for LNG.
Return to Oil and Gas Supply Module
Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Module
[104] Natural gas consumption by electric generators is established in the Electricity Market Module of NEMS on a seasonal basis. These values are used as a basis for adjusting the related load patterns throughout the forecast.
[105] Historical core and noncore industrial prices were based on data from various Energy Information Administration Manufacturing Energy Consumption Surveys.
Return to Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Module
Petroleum Market Module
[106] Energy Information Administration, EIA Model Documentation: Petroleum Market Model of the National Energy Modeling System, DOE/EIA-M059 (2002), (Washington, DC, January 2002).
[107] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Tier2” Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements, February 2000, (Washington, DC).
[108] Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 80, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Rules and Regulations, p. 7800, (Washington, DC, February 1994).
[109] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirements, EPA420-R-00-026 (Washington, DC, December 2000).
[110] Environmental cost estimates are based on National Petroleum Council, U.S. Petroleum Refining: Meeting Requirements for Cleaner Fuels and Refineries, Volume I, (Washington, DC, August 1993). Associated operating and maintenance base costs predating 1995 are excluded as they are reflected in the refinery fixed operating cost estimates.
[111] American Petroleum Institute. “How Much We Pay for Gasoline”: 1996 Annual Review, Page 4 (Washington, DC, May 1997).
[112] National Petroleum Council, U.S. Petroleum Refining: Meeting Requirements for Cleaner Fuels and Refineries, Volume 1, (Washington, DC, August 1993).
[113] M. Walsh, R. Perlock, D. Becker, A Turhollow, and R. Graham, “Evolution of the Fuel Ethanol Industry: Feedstock Availability and Price”, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (June 5, 1997).
Return to Petroleum Market Module
[114] Energy Information Administration, The U.S. Coal Industry, 1970-1990: Two Decades of Change, DOE/EIA-0559, (Washington, DC, November 1992).
[115] Stanley C. Suboleski, et.al., Central Appalachia: Coal Mine Productivity and Expansion, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI IE-7117, (September 1991).
[116] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID: EEU1012006.
[117] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID: PCU3532#.
[118] Hong, B.D. and Slatick, E.R. “Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal,” Energy Information Administration, Quarterly Coal Report, January-March 1994, DOE/EIA-121 (94/Q1) (Washington, DC, August 1995).
Renewable Fuels Module
[119] For a comprehensive description of each submodule, see Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Model Documentation, Renewable Fuels Module of the National Energy Modeling System, DOE/EIA-M069(2002), (Washington, DC, January 2002).
[120] Electric Power Research Institute and U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Utility Technologies, Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations (EPRI TR-109496, December 1997) or www.eren.doe. gov/utilities/techchar.html.
[121] D.L. Elliott, L.L. Wendell, and G.L. Gower, An Assessment of the Available Windy Land Area and Wind Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States, Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest Laboratory, (PNL-7789), prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830, (August 1991); and Schwartz, N.N.; Elliot, O.L.; and Gower, G.L., Gridded State Maps of Wind Electric Potential Proceedings Wind Power 1992, (Seattle, WA, October 19-23, 1992).
[122] Energy Information Administration analysts discussed input values with the Electric Power Research Institute, U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and others.
[123] Dyncorp Corporation, deliverable #DEL-99-548 (Contract #DE-AC01-95-ADF34277), Alexandria, Virginia, July, 1997).
[124] United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Forest Resources of the United States, 1992, General Technical Report RM-234, (Fort Collins CO, June 1994).
[125] Antares Group Inc., Biomass Residue Supply Curves for the U.S. (updated), prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, June 1999.
[126] Walsh, M.E., et.al., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The Economic Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production on U.S. Agriculture, (Oak Ridge, TN, May 2000). http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/wagin/ index.html.
[127] Graham, R.L., et.al., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “The Oak Ridge Energy Crop County Level Database”, (Oak Ridge TN, December, 1996).
[128] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division, Energy Project Landfill Gas Utilization Software (E-PLUS) Version 1.0, EPA-430-B-97-006 (Washington, DC, January 1997).
[129] Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000, DOE/EIA-0573(2000) (Washington, DC, November 2001).
[130] Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc., METH2000 Database, Westport, CT, January 25, 2000.
[131] Department of Energy assumptions are obtained or derived from Electric Power Research Institute and U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Utility Technologies, Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations (EPRI TR-109496, Dec. 1997) or www.eren.doe.gov/utilities/techchar.html.