Notes and Sources

1 Letters from Sen. Murkowski to Mary J. Hutzler, dated December 20, 2001 and February 6, 2002. See Appendix A for a copy of the original letters.

2 Annual Energy Outlook 2002, With Projections to 2020, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0383(2002), December 2001.

3 For example, efficiency improvements in electricity generation would be expected to reduce the price of electricity, consequently devaluing investment in end-use energy efficiency.

4 Consumer perceptions regarding the length of payback periods apparently exceed actual payback periods, discouraging new equipment purchases, as does the fact that consumers may base their decisions on current, rather than future, prices.

5 The level of increased R&D was not estimated in the High Technology cases.

6 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (DOE/EIA-0383(2002), Washington, DC, December 2001, Table F4.

7 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).

8 Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2002, DOE/EIA-0554(2002), Table 45, p.77. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/0554(2002).pdf

9 http://www.pathnet.org/topics/energy.html

10 Energy Information Administration, Analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative: Fiscal Year 2001, (SR/OIAF/2000-01) Washington, DC, April 2000, p. 61.

11 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (DOE/EIA-0383(2002), Washington, DC, December 2001, Table F1. The Reference Case, which includes the PATH goals, projects savings of 370 trillion Btu compared to the 2002 Technology Case, which assumes future equipment purchases are based on equipment available in 2002, and existing shell efficiencies are fixed at 2002 levels.

12 http://www.oit.doe.gov/factsheets/aluminum/pdfs/advcells.pdf

13 http://www.oit.doe.gov/forest/pdfs/quarterlyhighlights.pdf

14 Efficiency of plant and equipment fixed at 2002 levels.

15 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (DOE/EIA-0383(2002), Washington, DC, December 2001, Table F2.

16 Web address, http://www.ta.doc.gov/PNGV/AboutPNGV/intro.htm.

17 Technology Roadmap for the 21st Century Truck Program, 21CT-001, December 2000, p. 1-1, web address http://www.osti.gov/hvt/21stcenturytruck.pdf.

18 Technology Roadmap for the 21st Century Truck Program, 21CT-001, December 2000, p. 5-1, web address http://www.osti.gov/hvt/21stcenturytruck.pdf.

19 http://www.eren.doe.gov/der/full_value.html. For example, (potential) owners of distributed systems might also seek to recover any reliability benefits provided by the generator to the system.

20 A generic “base” microturbine ($623/kW), and a generic “peak” microturbine ($599/kW). http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/0554(2002).pdf, Table 38. As modeled, these technologies perform at 31 and 32 percent efficiency in 2000.

21Distributed generation technologies represented in the commercial sector include solar photovoltaic systems and fossil fuel-fired systems ranging from engines and turbines to gas-fired microturbines and fuel cells. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/0554(2002).pdf, Table 18. The generic base-load system improves from 31 percent to 37 percent, short of the efficiency goals of S. 1766. The peaker obtains a very slight improvement.

22 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (DOE/EIA-0383(2002), Washington, DC, December 2001, Tables A9 and F1. About 14 GW is projected in the industrial sector, 11 GW in the electric generator sector and about 1.5 GW of natural gas distributed generation is projected commercially, the majority of which are microturbines and fuel cells. Additional quantities of photovoltaic distributed generation, about 300 kW, are also projected for the commercial sector.

23 Organic light emitting polymers may be less costly to produce than inorganic materials.

24 Lamp life estimates for current LED technology range from 10,000 hours of use to 100,000 hours of use while incandescent bulbs last about 1,000 hours.

25 Haitz, R., F. Kish, J. Tsao, J. Nelson, The Case for a National Research Program on Semiconductor Lighting, Sandia National Laboratories/Agilent Technologies White Paper (April 2000).

26 Kendall, M. and M. Scholand, Energy Savings Potential of Solid State Lighting in General Lighting Applications, U.S. Department of Energy (Washington, DC, April 2001).

27 Haitz, et.al..

28 Haitz, R., F. Kish, J. Tsao, J. Nelson, “Another Semiconductor Revolution: This Time It’s Lighting!” Compound Semiconductor Magazine Issue 6, No. 2 (March 2000).

29 Computed from U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 21, September 2001, Table 12.7.

30 Hydrogen-based fuels programs.

31 Class 3 wind resources include areas where average wind speed ranges from 14.3 to 15.7 mph; average wind speeds of class 4 resources range up to 16.8 mph. Elliot, D.L., L.L. Wendell & G.L. Gower, "An Assessment of the Available Windy Land Area and Wind Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States," Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, August 1991.

32 One of the reasons why the High Renewables Case is “less likely” is that, in this scenario, fossil technologies improve only at Reference Case rates.

33 Maycock, P., and W. Bower, The 2000 National Survey Report of Photovoltaic Power Applications in the United States, The International Energy Agency Co-Operative Programme on Photovoltaic Power Systems, April 2001.

34Ibid.

35 Assumed in EIA’s High Renewables case.

36 Biomass cofiring involves mixing biomass with coal in an existing feed system and burning them together in a boiler, or providing a separate boiler feed system for the biomass. The effect of cofiring is that the biomass displaces some coal. Biomass gasification involves heating biomass in an oxygen-starved environment to produce a medium or low calorific fuel gas. This fuel gas is then used in a combined cycle power generation system that includes a gas turbine topping cycle and a steam turbine bottoming cycle. Modular biomass systems are advanced biomass conversion systems with capacities of less than 5 MW. Various biomass conversion technologies are being assessed to fuel micro-turbines, Stirling engines, gas engines, and fuel cells.

37 “DOE Biopower Program: A Strategy for the Future”, September 2000, available at http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/bplib/library/biopower_strat_plan_for_web_ver_2.pdf. This represents biomass IGCC capacity, industrial pulp and paper capacity, biomass cofiring capacity, and modular biomass capacity. It should be pointed out that in the FY03 budget, DOE’s research and development
program in biomass cofiring and bioenergy feedstock development have been zeroed out. The impact that this would have on achieving DOE’s program goals is uncertain.

38 NEMS does not calculate a capacity value for biomass cofiring since it is assumed to take place at existing coal-fired power plants where the biomass is used to augment the coal thereby increasing generation but not capacity. Therefore, in order to compare the NEMS projections to the DOE program goals a calculation has been made to convert generation due to biomass cofiring to an equivalent capacity number. The assumption made in these calculations is that the capacity factor of the plant combusting biomass in a cofiring application would be 80 percent. Therefore, for example, in the AEO2002 Reference Case, by 2020, biomass cofiring generates 4.03 billion kWh of electricity. Assuming an 80 percent capacity factor, this translates to 4.03 x 109 kWh/{8760(0.8)} hrs = 575,060 kW of equivalent capacity, or 0.58 GW of equivalent capacity. In the AEO2002 Reference Case, dedicated biomass capacity by 2020 = 1.97 GW and industrial cogeneration biomass capacity = 8.43 GW. Therefore, total biomass capacity = 1.97 + 8.43 + 0.58 = 10.98 GW, or about 11,000 MW. Note however, that industrial cogeneration biomass likely is not of the character envisioned by S. 1766, so that the amount of qualifying biomass is less than 11,000 MW. Similar calculations are made for the AEO2002 High Renewables Case and for the S.1766 RPS Case, in all cases assuming a plant capacity factor of 80 percent for biomass cofiring plants.

39 EIA’s dedicated biomass plants are modeled as 40 percent efficient, with nth of a kind overnight capital costs of $1,303/kW by 2020.

40 Currently the excise tax exemption is $0.53 per gallon of ethanol, scheduled to be reduced to $0.52 in 2003, and $0.51 in 2005. Costs and prices are in year 2000 dollars.

41 http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/research.html. The same process yielded about 8 percent efficiency using sunlight.

42 http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/research.html.

43 http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases01/seppr/pr01161.htm

44 Guy Gugliotta, “A Milestone Moment for an Energy Bonanza?” The Washington Post, May 20, 2001, page A3.

45 Motors, generators, and cable on ships, or as superconducting filters used to boost ground signals for cellular telephones.

46 Includes $27 million in FY 2003 and FY2004 for exploring mining research priorities.

47 Clean Coal Technology Program.

48 U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Advanced Turbine Systems, Washington, DC, November 2000. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/brochures/pdfs/scng/ATS_Brochure.pdf

49 http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/turbines/index.shtml.

50 http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/vision21/index.shtml. In S. 1766, the Power Plant Improvement Initiative, Subtitle C, Section 1232.

51 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/0554(2002).pdf, Table 38.

52 IGCC modeled as 60 percent efficient and overnight capital costs are reduced by 34 percent from reference. Advanced combined cycle modeled as 70 percent efficient, with similar capital costs to Reference Case.

53 Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2001, DOE/EIA-0484(2001) (Washington, DC, March 2001), pp. 34-35

54 UK Department of Trade and Industry, Coal Liquefaction, Technology Status Report 10 (London, UK, October 1999).

55 D. Gray and G. Tomlinson, Coproduction: A Green Coal Technology, MP 2001-28 (report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory, March 2001); and D. Gray and G. Tomlinson, Coproduction: Producing Electric Power and Ultra-Clean Transportation Fuels in One Facility, MP 2000-39 (report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory, August 2000).

56 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html.

57 Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (DOE/EIA-0383(2002), Washington, DC, December 2001, Tables F1, F2 and F3.

58 Rebecca Smith, “Nuclear Power: Revival or Relapse?” Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2001.