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

[2] Energy Information Administration, Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting, DOE/EIA-0608(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997).

[3] “New Air Rules Signed, Lawmakers Attempt To Stall,” Washington Times (July 17, 1997).

[4] Sharon Rinders, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (personal communication, October 3, 1997).

[5] Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Impact of New Ozone and PM Standards on Industrial Gas Markets, prepared for the Gas Research Institute (Arlington, VA, February 1997).

[6] Ibid.

[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cost Estimates for Selected Applications of NO_x Control Technologies on Stationary Combustion Boilers (Washington, DC, March 1996), Table 1-2.

[8] Most of the bills are not far along in the legislative process, and they may undergo significant change. For a complete listing of Congressional bills and their current status, see web site www.thomas.loc.

[9] Ancillary services are services provided to maintain the stable operation of the transmission system. For a discussion of the ancillary services identified by FERC, see Energy Information Administration, Electricity Prices in a Competitive Environment: Marginal Cost Pricing of Generation Services and Financial Status of Electric Utilities, DOE/EIA-0614 (Washington, DC, August 1997).

[10] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Standards and Communications Protocols for Open Access Same-Time Information System Phase IA (August 11, 1997).

[11] The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and other industry groups worked with FERC to develop standards for what they refer to as the “Transmission System Information Network” (TSIN). They jointly sponsor a web site, www.tsin.com, that provides links to each of the OASIS sites.

[12] Summarizing State plans is difficult, because they are constantly changing. Any review will be out of date before it can be printed. The value given here was derived by reviewing the information provided on the GDS Associates Electric Web (www.gdsassoc.com/ dereg/state.html) on August 20, 1997. States were counted as aggressively moving toward retail competition if the summaries provided indicated a date for full retail choice and/or a retail pilot program either started or planned for the near future.

[13] For a more detailed discussion of electricity prices in a competitive environment, see Energy Information Administration, Electricity Prices in a Competitive Environment: Marginal Cost Pricing of Generation Services and Financial Status of Electric Utilities, DOE/EIA-0614 (Washington, DC, August 1997).

[14] Electricity prices are determined competitively in the reference case in the California, New York, and New Jersey regions, which have made sufficient progress to allow their transition to a more competitive structure to be represented.

[15] The results described here are similar to those presented in Electricity Prices in a Competitive Environment: Marginal Cost Pricing of Generation Services and Financial Status of Electric Utilities; however, the magnitudes of the price changes, especially in the Northwest, are smaller because this analysis used updated operations and maintenance costs and lower gas price expectations.

[16] State regulators and legislatures will determine how stranded costs are allocated among ratepayers (consumers), stockholders, and taxpayers.

[17] Members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and countries of Eastern European and the former Soviet Union undergoing transition to market economies: Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Economic Community, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.

[18] Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997).

[19] Energy Information Administration, Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Voluntary Reporting, DOE/EIA-0608(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997).

[20] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 1997, DOE/EIA-0484(97) (Washington, DC, April 1997).

[21] Greenhouse gases differ in their impacts on global temperatures. For comparisons of emissions from the various gases, they are often weighted by their global warming potential (GWP), which is a measure of the relative impact of each gas on global warming relative to that of carbon dioxide, which is defined as having a GWP equal to 1.

[22] U.S. Department of State, Office of Global Change, Climate Action Report, Department of State Publication 10496 (Washington, DC, July 1997).

[23] Energy Information Administration, An Analysis of Carbon Mitigation Cases, SR-OIAF-96-01 (Washington, DC, June 1996).

[24] Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Carbon Stabilization Cases, SR-OIAF-97-01 (Washington, DC, October 1997).

[25] Only portions of the national economic statistics have been converted to 1992 chain-weighted dollars. Because the national input-output matrix for manufacturing industries, which underlies the projections in Figure 22, is still available only in 1987 fixed-weight dollars, the growth rates shown in the figure are based on 1987 fixed-weight dollars. The use of fixed-weight dollars is not expected to affect the picture of relative growth rates shown in the figure.

[26] DRI/McGraw-Hill, Review of the U.S. Economy, Long-Range Focus, Summer 1997 (Lexington, MA, 1997).

[27] 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).

[28] 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.

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

[30] 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).

[31] Estimated as consumption of alternative transportation fuels in crude oil Btu equivalence, assuming that flex-fuel vehicles use alternative fuels 50 percent of the time.

[32] 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. Over the past decade, horsepower increases for passenger vehicles have outpaced those for commercial light-duty vehicles. This trend is expected to continue.

[33] Sales of alternative-fuel vehicles that are determined by market forces rather than by legislative mandates are defined here as market-driven AFV sales.

[34] 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); and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, OTT Program Analysis Methodology: Quality Metrics 98 (June 17, 1997).

[35] Values for incremental investments and energy expenditure savings are discounted back to 1997 at a 7-percent real discount rate.

[36] 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); and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, OTT Program Analysis Methodology: Quality Metrics 98 (June 17, 1997).

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

[38] 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. AEO98 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.

[39] Substantial uncertainty surrounds the ultimate use of North Slope gas. However, projected low gas prices in the lower 48 markets justify the AEO98 perspective that does not consider it a significant factor affecting domestic energy markets, especially natural gas markets.

[40] Eleven projects are currently proposed to expand pipeline capacity from Canada into the United States between 1998 and 2000. Three are slated to provide access to Sable Island supplies. It is assumed that not all proposed projects will be built, but that some combination of currently proposed projects will add approximately 2 billion cubic feet per day of pipeline capacity to access western Canadian supplies and 0.4 billion cubic feet per day to access Sable Island supplies. For information about specific projects, see Energy Information Administration, “Natural Gas Pipeline and System Expansions,” Natural Gas Monthly, DOE/EIA-0130(97/04) (Washington, DC, April 1997).

[41] Two additional LNG import facilities located at Cove Point, MD, and Elba Island, GA, both of which are currently idle, are not projected to be reopened in the reference case. While LNG imports in the forecast all come from Algeria, new potential sources of supply include Australia, Abu Dhabi, Trinidad and Tobago, and Norway.

[42] The two technology cases were run as fully integrated model runs. All other parameters in the model were kept at their reference case values, including technology parameters for other modules, parameters affecting foreign oil supply, and assumptions about gas trade with Mexico.

[43] 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.

[44] 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.

[45] Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(96/03) (Washington, DC, March 1996), Table 1.6.

[46] In the 1980s, falling consumption led to surplus refining capacity, which reduced the need for product imports. See Energy Information Administration, The U.S. Petroleum Industry: Past as Prologue 1970-1992, DOE/EIA-0572 (Washington, DC, September 1993), p. 47.

[47] 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.

[48] 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.

[49] The “Syncoal” and “Encoal” processes have been developed in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy by coal producers located in the Montana and Wyoming portions of the Powder River Basin, respectively. The Syncoal process uses subbituminous coal with a moisture content of 25 to 40 percent, sulfur content of 0.5 to 1.5 percent, and heating value of 11 to 18 million Btu per ton. It yields a solid fuel with 1 percent moisture, 0.3 percent sulfur, and up to 24 million Btu per ton. The Encoal process uses mild gasification to produce “CDL”—a synthetic low-sulfur No. 6 fuel oil equivalent—and “PDF”—a low-sulfur solid fuel with a heat content of approximately 24 million Btu per ton. Encoal PDF solids have been successfully tested by American Electric Power as a steam fuel and by USX and Bethlehem Steel as a blast furnace injectant. Encoal CDL has been used by industries in Maine, Michigan, and Louisiana. See U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: Project Fact Sheets,  DOE/FE-0351 (Washington, DC, September 1996), pp. 72-75.

 [50] Energy Information Administration, Electric Utility Phase I Acid Rain Compliance Strategies for the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, DOE/EIA-0582 (Washington, DC, March 1994), p. 1.

[51] 1990: Energy Information Administration, The Effects of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 on Electric Utilities: An Update, DOE/EIA-0582(97) (Washington, DC, March 1997). 1995: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume II, DOE/EIA-0348(95)/2 (Washington, DC, December 1996)
 

Table notes

Note: Tables indicated as sources in these notes refer to the tables in Appendixes A, B, C, and F of this report.

Table 1. Summary of results for five cases (page 7): Tables A1, A19, A20, B1, B19, B20, C1, C19, and C20.

Table 2. Effective dates of appliance efficiency standards, 1988--1995 (page 11): U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards; and Electric Power Research Institute, “Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products.”

Table 3. Product categories and priority levels for new standards (page 12): U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards.

Table 4. Natural gas prices to electricity producers in three competitive pricing cases, 2000--2020 (page 22): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs HOGCOMP.D100697A, AEO98B.D100197A, and LOGCOMP.D100697A.

Table 5. Changes in efficiency, fuel consumption, and carbon emissions with changes in horsepower, 2000-2020 (page 45): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A and DCDRUN. D110697D.

Table 6. Market shares of alternative-fuel light-duty vehicles by technology type, 2020 (page 46): U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy, Technical Report Fourteen: Market Potential and Impacts of Alternative Fuel Use in Light-Duty Vehicles: A 2000/2010 Analysis (Draft, 1995). California Air Resources Board, “Proposed Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels, Staff Report” (Sacramento, CA, August 13, 1990). U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Truck Inventory and Use Survey, 1992, TC92-T-52 (Washington, DC, May 1995). Energy Information Administration, Describing Current and Potential Markets for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, DOE/EIA-0604 (Washington, DC, March 1996). Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Vol. 1, DOE/EIA-0585(94)/1 (Washington, DC, February 1996). AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A.

Table 7. Costs of producing electricity from new plants, 2005 and 2020 (page 53): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Table 8. Economically recoverable oil and gas resources in 1990, measured under different technology assumptions (page 59): Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting.

Table 9. Natural gas and crude oil drilling in three cases, 1996-2020 (page 60): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, LWOP98. D100197C, and HWOP98.D100197A.

Table 10. Transmission and distribution revenues and margins, 1970--2020 (page 63): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A. End-use consumption is net of pipeline and lease and plant fuels.

Table 11. Components of residential and commercial natural gas end-use prices, 1985-2020 (page 63): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1987, DOE/EIA-0384(87) (Washington, DC, July 1988). 1996 and Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A. Note: End-use prices may not equal the sum of citygate prices and LDC margins due to independent rounding.

Table 12. Representative average annual rates of technological progress in alternative technology cases (page 64): Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting.

Table 13. Petroleum consumption and net imports, 1996 and 2020 (page 67): 1996: Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual 1996, DOE/EIA-0340(96)/1 (Washington, DC, June 1997). Projections: Tables A11, B11, and C11.

Table 14. Scrubber retrofits, allowance costs, and banked allowances, 2000-2020 (page 76): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A.

Table 15. Forecasts of economic growth, 1996-2020 (page 78): AEO98: Table B20. DRI: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Review of the U.S. Economy, Long-Range Focus, Summer 1997, (Lexington, MA, 1997). WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997).

Table 16. Forecasts of world oil prices, 2000-2020 (page 78): AEO98: Tables A1 and C1. DRI: DRI/McGraw-Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997). IEA1: International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 1996: Capacity Constraints Case. IEA2: International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 1996: Energy Savings Case. PEL: Petroleum Economics, Ltd., World Oil and Energy Outlook to 2010 (December 1996). (Price is for Brent crude.) PIRA: PIRA Energy Group, “Retainer Client Seminar” (October 1996). WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition. NRCan: Natural Resources Canada, Canada's Energy Outlook 1996-2020 (April 1997). NWS: NatWest Securities, Oil Perspectives (September 1997).

Table 17. Forecasts of average annual growth rates for energy consumption (page 79): AEO98: Table A2. DRI: DRI/McGraw Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition. WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997). Note: Delivered energy includes petroleum, natural gas, coal, and electricity (excluding generation and transmission losses) consumed in the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors.

Table 18. Forecasts of average annual growth in residential and commercial energy demand (page 79): AEO98: Table A2. DRI: DRI/McGraw Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition. WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997).

Table 19. Forecasts of average annual growth in industrial energy demand (page 80): AEO98: Table A2. DRI: DRI/McGraw Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition. WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997).

Table 20. Forecasts of average annual growth in transportation energy demand (page 80): AEO98: Table A2. DRI: DRI/McGraw Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition. WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997).

Table 21. Comparison of electricity forecasts (page 83): AEO98: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, LMAC98.D100197A, and HMAC98.D100197A. WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition. DRI: DRI/McGraw-Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997).

Table 22. Comparison of natural gas forecasts (page 84): AEO98: Tables B13 and B14. WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition. DRI: DRI/McGraw-Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997). AGA: American Gas Association, 1997 AGA-TERA Base Case (April 1997).

Table 23. Comparison of petroleum forecasts (page 85): AEO98: Table C11. WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition. DRI: DRI/McGraw-Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997). IPAA: Independent Petroleum Association of America, IPAA Supply and Demand Committee Long-Run Report (April 1997).

Table 24. Comparison of coal forecasts (page 86): AEO98: Table B16. WEFA: The WEFA Group, U.S. Energy Outlook (Spring/Summer 1997). GRI: Gas Research Institute, GRI Baseline Projection of U.S. Energy Supply and Demand, 1998 Edition, and Coal Demand and Price Projections, Vol. I, GRI-95/0493.1 (February 1996), Table 4.3. DRI: DRI/McGraw-Hill, World Energy Service: U.S. Outlook, Spring 1997 (April 1997).
 

 Figure notes

Note: Tables indicated as sources in these notes refer to the tables in Appendixes A, B, C, and F of this report.

Figure 1. Fuel price projections, 1996-2020: AEO97 and AEO98 compared (page 2): AEO97 projections: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1997, DOE/EIA-0383(97) (Washington, DC, December 1996). AEO98 projections: Table A1.

Figure 2. Sources of world oil supply, 1996-2020: AEO97 and AEO98 compared (page 2): AEO97 projections: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1997, DOE/EIA-0383(97) (Washington, DC, December 1996). AEO98 projections: Table A21.

Figure 3. Energy consumption by fuel, 1970-2020 (page 4): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A1 and A18. Note: Data for non-electric utility use of renewable energy were collected beginning in 1990.

Figure 4. Energy use per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product, 1970-2020 (page 4): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A2.

Figure 5. Electricity generation by fuel, 1970-2020 (page 5): History: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-867, “Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report”; Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997); and Edison Electric Institute. Projections: Table A8.

Figure 6. Energy production by fuel, 1970-2020 (page 5): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A1 and A18. Note: Data for non-electric utility use of renewable energy were collected beginning in 1990.

Figure 7. Net energy imports by fuel, 1970-2020 (page 6): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A1.

Figure 8. U.S. carbon emissions by sector and fuel, 1990-2020 (page 6): History: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997). Projections: Table A19.

Figure 9. Hourly load curve for the South Atlantic region (page 20): North American Electric Reliability Council.

Figure 10. Average and marginal costs of electricity generation in the reference case, 1998-2020 (page 21): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run BASECOMP.D101797A.

Figure 11. Generation price of electricity by hour for the January/February season (page 22): Source: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run BASECOMP.D101797A. Note: Hourly loads are sorted in descending order; they are not in chronological order.

Figure 12. Average and marginal cost-based prices for electricity in three cases, 1998-2020 (page 22): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs BASECOMP.D101797A, LOGCOMP.D100697A, and HOGCOMP.D100297A.

Figure 13. Generating capacity by fuel in three cases, 2020 (page 24): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, RPS05.D100297A, and RPS10. D100297A.

Figure 14. Electricity generation by fuel in three cases, 2020 (page 24): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, RPS05.D100297A, and RPS10.D100297A.

Figure 15. Projected electricity prices in three cases (page 25): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, RPS05.D100297A, and RPS10. D100297A.

Figure 16. Carbon emissions from electricity generation in three cases (page 25): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, RPS05. D100297A, and RPS10.D100297A.

Figure 17. U.S. carbon emissions by sector and fuel, 1990-2020 (page 28): History: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997). Projections: Table A19.

Figure 18. U.S. energy intensity in three cases, 1995-2020 (page 29): Table F5.

Figure 19. U.S. energy consumption in three cases, 1995-2020 (page 30): Table F5.

Figure 20. U.S. carbon emissions in three cases, 1995-2020 (page 30): Table F5.

Figure 21. Average annual real growth rates of economic factors, 1996-2020 (page 34): History: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 22. Sectoral composition of GDP growth, 1996-2020 (page 34): History: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A.

Figure 23. Average annual real growth rates of economic factors in three cases, 1996-2020 (page 35): History: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, HMAC98. D100197A, and LMAC98.D100197A.

Figure 24. Change in annual GDP growth rate for the preceding 20 years, 1970-2020 (page 35): History: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, HMAC98.D100197A, and LMAC98.D100197A.

Figure 25. World oil prices in three cases, 1970-2020 (page 36): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A1 and C1.

Figure 26. OPEC oil production in three cases, 1970-2020 (page 36): History: Energy Information Administration, International Petroleum Statistics Report, DOE/EIA-0520(97/07) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A21 and C21.

Figure 27. OPEC and non-OPEC oil production in two cases, 1990-2020 (page 37): History: Energy Information Administration, International Petroleum Statistics Report, DOE/EIA-0520(97/07) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A21 and International Energy Module, run HIGH.NOPEC.SUPPLY (Petroconsultants: DESTINY International Energy Forecast Software).

Figure 28. Persian Gulf share of worldwide oil exports, 1965-2020 (page 37): History: Energy Information Administration, International Petroleum Statistics Report, DOE/EIA-0520(97/07) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A and LWOP98.D100197C; and World Oil, Refining, Logistics, and Demand (WORLD) Model, runs AEO98B and AEO98L.

Figure 29. U.S. gross petroleum imports by source, 1996-2020 (page 38): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A; and World Oil, Refining, Logistics, and Demand (WORLD) Model, run AEO98B.

Figure 30. Worldwide refining capacity by region, 1996 and 2020 (page 38): History: Oil and Gas Journal, Energy Database (January 1996). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A; and World Oil, Refining, Logistics, and Demand (WORLD) Model, run AEO98B.

Figure 31. Primary and delivered energy consumption, excluding transportation use, 1970-2020 (page 39): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A2.

Figure 32. Energy use per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product, 1970-2020 (page 39): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A2.

Figure 33. Primary energy use by fuel, 1970-2020 (page 40): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A2.

Figure 34. Primary energy use by sector, 1970-2020 (page 40): History: Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data Report 1994, DOE/EIA-0214(94), and preliminary 1995 and 1996 data. Projections: Table A2.

Figure 35. Residential primary energy consumption by fuel, 1970-2020 (page 41): History: Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data Report 1994, DOE/EIA-0214(94), and preliminary 1995 and 1996 data. Projections: Table A2.

Figure 36. Residential primary energy consumption by end use, 1990, 1996, and 2020 (page 41): History: Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey 1990, DOE/EIA-0321(90) (Washington, DC, February 1993). Projections: Table A4.

Figure 37. Efficiency indicators for selected residential appliances, 1995 and 2020 (page 42): Arthur D. Little, Inc., “EIA Technology Forecast Updates,” Reference No. 41615 (June 20, 1995), and AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 38. Commercial nonrenewable primary energy consumption by fuel, 1970-2020 (page 42): History: Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data Report 1994, DOE/EIA-0214(94), and preliminary 1995 and 1996 data. Projections: Table A2.

Figure 39. Commercial primary energy consumption by end use, 1996 and 2020 (page 43): Table A5.

Figure 40. Industrial primary energy consumption by fuel, 1970-2020 (page 43): History: Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data Report 1994, DOE/EIA-0214(94). Projections: Table A2.

Figure 41. Industrial primary energy consumption by industry category, 1990-2020 (page 44): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 42. Manufacturing primary energy intensity by component, 1990-2020 (page 44): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 43. Transportation energy consumption by fuel, 1975, 1996, and 2020 (page 45): History: Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, DOE/EIA-0202(97/3Q) (Washington DC, July 1997), August update, and State Energy Data Report 1994, DOE/EIA-0214(93). Projections: Table A2.

Figure 44. Transportation stock fuel efficiency by mode, 1980-2020 (page 45): History: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 16 (Oak Ridge, TN, July 1997). Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Aviation Forecasts (Washington, DC, March 1997). U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Statistics, 1995 (Washington, DC, November 1996). U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Summary of Fuel Economy Performance (Washington, DC, March 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A. Note: No comparable historical data are available for trucks.

Figure 45. Alternative-fuel vehicle sales by type of demand, 1996-2020 (page 46): U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy, Technical Report Fourteen: Market Potential and Impacts of Alternative Fuel Use in Light-Duty Vehicles: A 2000/2010 Analysis (Draft, 1995). California Air Resources Board, “Proposed Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels, Staff Report” (Sacramento, CA, August 13, 1990). U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Truck Inventory and Use Survey, 1992, TC92-T-52 (Washington, DC, May 1995). Energy Information Administration, Describing Current and Potential Markets for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, DOE/EIA-0604 (Washington, DC, March 1996). Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Vol. 1, DOE/EIA-0585(94)/1 (Washington, DC, February 1996). AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A.

Figure 46. Alternative-fuel light-duty vehicle sales by fuel type, 1996-2020 (page 46): U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy, Technical Report Fourteen: Market Potential and Impacts of Alternative Fuel Use in Light-Duty Vehicles: A 2000/2010 Analysis (Draft, 1995). California Air Resources Board, “Proposed Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels, Staff Report” (Sacramento, CA, August 13, 1990). U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Truck Inventory and Use Survey, 1992, TC92-T-52 (Washington, DC, May 1995). Energy Information Administration, Describing Current and Potential Markets for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, DOE/EIA-0604 (Washington, DC, March 1996). Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Vol. 1, DOE/EIA-0585 (94)/1 (Washington, DC, February 1996. AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 47. Variation from reference case primary energy use by sector in two alternative technology cases, 2000-2020 (page 47): Tables A2, F1, F2, F3, and F4.

Figure 48. Variation from reference case primary residential energy use in three alternative cases, 1996-2020 (page 47): Tables A2 and F1.

Figure 49. Cost and investment changes for selected residential appliances in the best available technology case, 1996-2020 (page 48): Table A2 and AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, RSINVS.D100297A, and RSINVS.D100297B.

Figure 50. Present value of investment and savings for residential appliances in the best available technology case, 1999-2020 (page 48): Table A2 and AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B. D100197A, RSINVS.D100297A, and RSINVS.D100297B.

Figure 51. Variation from reference case primary commercial energy use in three alternative cases, 1996-2020 (page 48): Tables A2 and F2.

Figure 52. Industrial primary energy intensity in two alternative technology cases, 1996-2020 (page 49): Tables A2 and F3.

Figure 53. Changes in key components of the transportation sector in two alternative cases, 2020 (page 49): U.S. Department of Energy, Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Low-Carbon Technologies, Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, ORNL/CON-444 (Washington, DC, September 1997); Table A2; and AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B. D100197A, DCDRUN.D100797B, and DCDRUN. D100797C.

Figure 54. Population, gross domestic product, and electricity sales growth, 1960-2020 (page 50): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A8 and A20.

Figure 55. Annual electricity sales by sector, 1970-2020 (page 50): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A8.

Figure 56. New generating capacity and retirements, 1996-2020 (page 51): Table A9.

Figure 57. Electricity generation and cogeneration capacity additions by fuel type, 1996-2020 (page 51): Table A9.

Figure 58. Fuel prices to electricity suppliers and electricity price, 1990-2020 (page 52): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A3 and A8.

Figure 59. Electricity prices in the New England, New York, and California regions, 1990-2020 (page 52): History: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861, “Annual Electric Utility Report.” Projections: AEO98 Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 60. Electricity generation costs, 2005 and 2020 (page 53): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 61. Production costs for coal- and gas-fired generating plants, 1982-2020 (page 53): History: Utility Data Institute, Production Costs for Operating Steam-Electric Plants, Turbines, and Combined-Cycle Power Plants. Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 62. Electricity generation by fuel, 1996-2020 (page 54): Table A8.

Figure 63. Nuclear power plant capacity factors, 1975-2020 (page 54): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384 (95) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A8 and A9.

Figure 64. Operable nuclear capacity in three cases, 1996-2020 (page 55): Table F6.

Figure 65. Cumulative new generating capacity by type in two cases, 1996-2020 (page 55): Tables A9 and F7.

Figure 66. Cumulative new generating capacity by type in three cases, 1996-2020 (page 56): Tables A9 and B9.

Figure 67. Cumulative new electricity generating capacity by technology type in three cases, 1996-2020 (page 56): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, HTECEL.D100297A, and LTECEL. D100297A.

Figure 68. Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable energy sources, 1970-2020 (page 57): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A17. Note: Data for nonutility producers are not available before 1989.

Figure 69. Nonhydroelectric renewable electricity generation by energy source, 1996, 2010, and 2020 (page 57): Table A17.

Figure 70. Wind-powered electricity generating capacity in two cases, 1985-2020 (page 58): 1985-1988: California Energy Commission. 1989-1996: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A17 and F11.

Figure 71. Nonhydroelectric renewable electricity generation in two cases, 2020 (page 58): Tables A17 and F11.

Figure 72. Lower 48 crude oil wellhead prices, 1970-2020 (page 59): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A15 and C15.

Figure 73. U.S. petroleum consumption in five cases, 1970-2020 (page 59): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A11, B11, and C11.

Figure 74. Lower 48 natural gas wellhead prices, 1970-2020 (page 59): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A1 and B1. Note: Prices are converted to 1996 dollars.

Figure 75. Successful new lower 48 natural gas and oil wells in three cases, 1970-2020 (page 60): History: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, computations based on well reports submitted to the American Petroleum Institute. Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, LWOP98.D100197C, and HWOP98.D100197A.

Figure 76. Lower 48 natural gas reserve additions in three cases, 1970-2020 (page 60): 1970-1976: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, computations based on well reports submitted to the American Petroleum Institute. 1977-1996: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves, DOE/ EIA-0216(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, LWOP98.D100197C, and HWOP98.D100197A.

Figure 77. Lower 48 crude oil reserve additions in three cases, 1970-2020 (page 60): 1970-1976: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, computations based on well reports submitted to the American Petroleum Institute. 1977-1996: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves, DOE/EIA-0216(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B.D100197A, LWOP98.D100197C, and HWOP98.D100197A.

Figure 78. Natural gas production by source, 1970-2020 (page 61): History: • Total Production, 1970-1991: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1993, DOE/EIA-0384(93) (Washington, DC, July 1994). 1992-1995: Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Annual 1995, DOE/EIA-0131(95) (Washington, DC, November 1996). 1996: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. • Alaska, 1970-1984: Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Annual 1985, DOE/EIA-013(85) (Washington, DC, October 1986). 1985-1989: Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Annual 1989, DOE/EIA-0131(89) (Washington, DC, September 1990). 1990-1995: Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Annual 1995, DOE/EIA-0131(95) (Washington, DC, November 1996). 1996: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. • Offshore, 1970-1976: Minerals Management Service, Federal Offshore Statistics: 1991. 1977-1996: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves, DOE/EIA-216 (annual reports, 1977-1996). • Unconventional Gas, 1978-1986: Energy Information Administration, Drilling and Production Under Title I of the Natural Gas Policy Act, 1978-1986, DOE/EIA-0448 (Washington, DC, January 1989). Preliminary 1987-1996: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. • Associated-Dissolved and Nonassociated Gas, 1970-1976: American Petroleum Institute, Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquids, and Natural Gas in the United States and Canada (annual reports, 1970-1976). 1977-1996: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves, DOE/EIA-0216 (annual reports, 1977-1996). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A. Note: Unconventional gas recovery consists principally of production from reservoirs with low permeability (tight sands) but also includes methane from coal seams and gas from Devonian shales.

Figure 79. Natural gas production, consumption, and imports, 1970-2020 (page 61): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A13.

Figure 80. Natural gas consumption in five cases, 1970-2020 (page 62): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A13, B13, and C13.

Figure 81. Pipeline capacity expansion by Census division, 1996-2020 (page 62): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 82. Pipeline capacity utilization by Census division, 1996 and 2020 (page 62): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A. Note: Only regions with significant changes between 1996 and 2020 are shown in the graph.

Figure 83. Natural gas end-use prices by sector, 1970-2020 (page 63): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A14.

Figure 84. Wellhead share of natural gas end-use prices by sector, 1970-2020 (page 63): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 85. Lower 48 natural gas wellhead prices in three cases, 1970-2020 (page 64): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A14 and F12. Note: Prices are converted to 1996 dollars.

Figure 86. Lower 48 natural gas production in alternative technology cases, 1996-2020 (page 64): Tables A13 and F12.

Figure 87. Lower 48 oil production in alternative technology cases, 1996-2020 (page 65): Tables A11 and F12.

Figure 88. Variation from reference case projections of prices and production in three alternative oil and gas cases, 2020 (page 65): Tables A11, A13, A14, F12, and F13.

Figure 89. Crude oil production by source, 1970-2020 (page 66): History: • Total Production and Alaska: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). • Lower 48 Offshore, 1970-1985: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Offshore Statistics: 1985. 1986-1996: Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual, DOE/EIA-0340 (annual reports, 1986-1996). • Lower 48 Onshore: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. • Lower 48 Conventional: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. • Lower 48 Enhanced Oil Recovery: Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. Projections: Table A15.

Figure 90. Petroleum supply, consumption, and imports, 1970-2020 (page 66): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/ EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A11, B11, and C11. Note: Production includes domestic crude oil and natural gas plant liquids, other crude supply, other inputs, and refinery processing gain.

Figure 91. Share of U.S. petroleum consumption supplied by net imports, 1970-2020 (page 67): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A11 and C11.

Figure 92. Domestic refining capacity, 1975-2020 (page 67): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Tables A11 and B11.

Figure 93. Change in petroleum consumption by sector in five cases, 1996 to 2020 (page 68): 1996: Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual 1996, DOE/EIA-0340(96)/1 (Washington, DC, June 1997). Projections: Tables A11, B11, and C11.

Figure 94. Components of refined product costs, 1996 and 2020 (page 68): Taxes: J.E. Sinor Consultants, Inc., Clean Fuels Report, Vol. 8, No. 1 (February 1996), and Federal Highway Administration, Monthly Motor Fuels Report by State (Washington, DC, March 1997). 1996: Estimated from Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Marketing Monthly, DOE/EIA-0380(97/03) (Washington, DC, March 1997), Tables 2 and 4. Projections: Estimated from AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 95. Coal production by region, 1970-2020 (page 69): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A16.

Figure 96. Average minemouth price of coal by region, 1990-2020 (page 69): History: Energy Information Administration, Coal Industry Annual 1996, DOE/EIA-0584(96) (Washington, DC, November 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A.

Figure 97. Coal mining labor productivity by region, 1990-2020 (page 69): History: Energy Information Administration, Coal Industry Annual 1996, DOE/EIA-0584(96) (Washington, DC, November 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A.

Figure 98. Labor cost component of minemouth coal prices, 1970-2020 (page 70): History: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1996), and Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 99. Average minemouth coal prices in three cases, 1996-2020 (page 70): Tables A16 and F14.

Figure 100. Percent change in coal transportation costs in three cases, 1996-2020 (page 71): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, runs AEO98B. D100197A, LWOP98.D100197C, and HWOP98. D100197A.

Figure 101. Variation from reference case projection of coal demand in two alternative cases, 2020 (page 71): Tables A16 and B16.

Figure 102. Electricity and other coal consumption, 1970-2020 (page 72): History: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997), and Short-Term Energy Outlook, DOE/EIA-0202(97/3Q) (Washington, DC, July 1997), August update. Projections: Table A16.

Figure 103. Non-electricity coal consumption by sector, 1996, 2000, and 2020 (page 72): Table A16.

Figure 104. U.S. coal exports by destination, 1996, 2000, and 2020 (page 73): History: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Monthly Report EM 545.” Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 105. Coal distribution by sulfur content, 1996, 2000, and 2020 (page 73): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.

Figure 106. Carbon emissions by sector, 1990-2020 (page 74): History: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997). Projections: Table A19.

Figure 107. Carbon emissions per capita, 1990-2020 (page 74): History: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997); and Annual Energy Review 1996, DOE/EIA-0384(96) (Washington, DC, July 1997). Projections: Table A19.

Figure 108. Carbon emissions by fuel, 1990-2020 (page 75): History: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997). Projections: Table A19.

Figure 109. Carbon emissions from electricity generation by fuel, 1990-2020 (page 75): History: Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1996, DOE/EIA-0573(96) (Washington, DC, October 1997). Projections: Table A19.

Figure 110. Sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity generation, 1990-2020 (page 76): History: 1990: Energy Information Administration, The Effects of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 on Electric Utilities: An Update, DOE/EIA-0582(97) (Washington, DC, March 1997). 1995: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume II, DOE/EIA-0348(95)/2 (Washington, DC, December 1996). Projections: AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B. D100197A.

Figure 111. Nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation, 1995-2020 (page 76): AEO98 National Energy Modeling System, run AEO98B.D100197A.