January 2003 • NREL/TP-620-32742

Domestic Energy Scenarios

J. Aabakken and W. Short

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory
Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel
Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
January 2003 • NREL/TP-620-32742

Domestic Energy Scenarios

J. Aabakken and W. Short

Prepared under Task No. AS72.1502

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory
Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel
Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
 NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial
product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
 Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.

The authors wish to thank Susan H. Holte of the Office of Power Technologies in the U.S.
Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for her
sponsorship and thoughtful review. The authors also wish to thank the following reviewers for
their thoughtful comments and suggestions: Hill Huntington of Stanford Energy Modeling
Forum, Morey Wolfson of NREL, and Frances Wood of OnLocation. Finally, the authors wish to
thank Al Berger of NREL for research support and Michelle Kubik of NREL for her editorial
review.
Introduction
sce•nar•i•o
an imagined or projected sequence of events, esp. any of several detailed plans or possibilities.

This report attempts to organize and evaluate scenarios of markets and technologies that
could impact renewable and distributed electricity-generating technologies during the
next 20-100 years in the United States. For the purposes of this report, scenarios are
defined broadly as any projection or forecast that helps illuminate the potential of
Renewable Electric Technologies (RETs) in the United States. Scenarios vary widely in
terms of their scope—some focus on supply of fuels or narrow segments of markets with
limited timeframes, while others are broader in scope and time span. Because the focus of
this report is on domestic scenarios, broader regional and global scenarios are discussed
here only if they contain information on future U.S. energy markets.

There are several factors that influence the market penetration of renewable energy and
distributed generation technologies. Most notable among these are natural gas prices,
technology improvements, and policy measures. Natural gas prices are important because
most new generating capacity, as well as marginal generation units, generally are natural-
gas fired. Assumptions about the rate of improvement in renewable and distributed
generation technologies can also have a significant impact on market penetration.
Finally, policy measures that support these technologies, such as tax credits or
interconnection standards, can contribute to their accelerated adoption.

We focus in this report on those U.S. energy scenarios that explicitly consider these
primary influences on market penetration. More particularly, we included scenarios that
examine:

• The potential of Renewable Electric Technologies (RETs) in the United States during
the next 100 years
• Overall U.S. energy use
• RET cost/performance improvements
• The development of competing conventional technologies
• Fossil fuel resource depletion and prices in the United States, especially natural gas
• Future environmental regulation
• Electric-sector restructuring
• Distributed generation development
• Electric demand growth (including major new loads like the Internet)

The first section of the report consists of general findings that summarize and synthesize
information from all the scenarios covered in this report. A simple matrix indicates which
areas each scenario covers. The second section provides brief summaries of relevant
scenarios selected for this report. The section is divided into three parts—energy
economy scenarios, technology forecast scenarios and distributed generation scenarios.
A simple matrix indicates the areas covered by the specific scenario, including a brief

1
description of the objective for the scenario, the modeling framework, and key findings.
The third section is a collection of tables that summarizes the relevant information from
the selected scenarios.

General Findings
The scenarios described in this report generally fall into two main groups: 1) policy
reports that seek to analyze a specific set of policies, 2) technology and market forecast
reports that tend to focus on the growth of certain segments of the energy market. The
first category is more commonly performed by government and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) attempting to analyze specific policies. Independent government
agencies and industry trade associations usually publish the second category. It is
therefore useful to take into account the differing motivations and assumptions that
underpin each type of report, especially if comparisons are made among reports. Such a
detailed comparison is beyond the scope of this report, which includes a brief summary
of each scenario in the Scenario Profiles section. This report also lists key information
from the different scenarios in a consistent form in the Scenario Summaries section.

The following matrix summarizes the area of focus for each scenario.

Scenario Energy Energy Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Name* Use Prices Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
1) AEO 2002 X X X X X X X
2) EIA- RPS X X X X
3) EIA-Gas X X
4) EIA-Deplete X X X
5) EIA-MEC X X X X
6) CEF X X X X X X X
7) GRI X X X
8) EPIA X X
9) UCS-CEB X X X X X X
10) UCS-RPS X X X
11) EPI/CSE X X
12) EMF X X X X
13) IPAA X X X
14) AGA X X
15) LBNL X X
16) RE X X
* Numbers correspond to studies profiled on pages 5-16.

Time frames
In general, fewer scenarios are available the further out the time frame of the scenario.
Most scenarios cover only the near term, i.e., the next 20 years or so. There is a distinct
lack of models that venture beyond 20 years into the future. This seems to be due to a
combination of factors, such as limitations in modeling technology or the needs of the
organization producing the scenario. Some scenarios do not provide a specific time
frame.

2
Several of the scenarios employ the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) model
for their analysis. This model, developed and maintained by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), is used to develop projections 20 years into the future. If longer-
term scenarios beyond 20 years are to be investigated, other models must be employed—
or the NEMS model must be modified to accommodate such time frames.

Distributed Generation
Some scenarios indicate that distributed generation (DG) is poised to experience growth
in the future. Transmission constraints and system reliability concerns are cited as drivers
for a move toward distributed power systems. In general, other than the EIA’s Annual
Energy Outlook, none of the studies cover both distributed generation and renewables
specifically.

Renewable Energy Characterization

Where the scenarios are developed using the NEMS model—which includes a full slate
of renewable energy technologies—renewables are frequently included explicitly in the
scenarios. However, those scenarios developed by the conventional technology/fuels
trade associations usually include at best only a small subset of renewable energy
technologies, e.g. biomass and wind.

The cost and performance of renewable energy in the scenarios show no discrete
breakthroughs or novel technologies. Most rely on the renewable energy technology
characterizations of NEMS or the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)/Department
of Energy (DOE) technology characterizations report (EPRI/DOE 1997).

Technology Improvement
Among the scenarios covered in this report, there is more emphasis on policies to
accelerate renewable generating technologies and market penetration than studies of
R&D impacts on cost reductions and/or efficiency improvements. Some scenarios
indicate there is far greater uncertainty regarding future cost reductions and efficiency
improvements for renewable technologies than responses to policies. As projections are
made further into the future, the uncertainty around technology costs widen considerably.

While most scenarios make assumptions about different levels of improvement in cost
and efficiency, no scenarios project any “surprise” technologies in the future.

Policy Initiatives
Environmental Benefits
Only two studies, one by Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)1 and one by the EIA2,
focus specifically on reductions of criteria pollutants and develop several related
scenarios, while several studies and their scenarios focus on global climate-change

1
Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy Blueprint – A Smarter National Energy Policy for Today
and the Future.
2
EIA, Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Electric Power Plants with Advanced
Technology Scenarios.

3
mitigation. One study, the Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, deals specifically with
renewables and clean air policies, with an emphasis on climate-change mitigation. The
Clean Energy Blueprint by UCS covers both climate change and criteria pollutants.

Energy Security
There is little emphasis on energy security and renewables. No scenario deals
specifically with renewables and energy security.

Modeling Issues
As different scenarios rely on results from many different computer models, it is worth
mentioning some of the factors that should be considered when comparing the different
scenarios.

Reliance on NEMS
Several of the scenarios summarized in this report rely on the NEMS model or some
variation of the NEMS model. Other models rely on data from NEMS or are “calibrated”
to NEMS in some respect. This may be a matter of convenience or an effort to lend
credibility to any new scenario. Certainly this facilitates comparisons among different
scenarios, as long as the differing assumptions are disclosed and well understood.
Among the models included in this report, NEMS appears to be the most widely used and
referenced. This is partly due to NEMS being publicly available, while other models (and
scenarios based on other models) may be proprietary or attainable only for a fee and
therefore inaccessible to this study.

Lack of transparency
While the NEMS model is documented and many assumptions in it are published, other
models developed by consulting firms or trade associations are proprietary and have very
limited public disclosure of the inner workings and assumptions of the model.

Further efforts, such as those performed by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF)
to benchmark different models and compare them side-by-side, are useful in critically
evaluating and comparing different scenarios.

Apples and Oranges

There are many diverse scenarios of the future. Any comparison needs to take into
account the widely differing analytical underpinnings, assumptions, scope, time frames,
and motivations behind each scenario. Some studies and their featured scenarios use
models of the entire energy economy, and are used to address a broad scope of issues.
Other studies feature scenarios that are limited to only one or two values and a limited
time frame.

Incremental Scenarios
All the scenarios covered in this paper tend to involve incremental variations of their
central theme. Because many rely on the same models and assumptions, the results are
increments around a theme such as the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook. Granted, over

4
time, even incremental changes can add up to major impacts during a decade or two, but
they do so largely along a predictable path.

We could find no “surprise” scenarios that offer “inflection points” in the future that may
indicate major changes in the future of the energy economy. A historical example of such
a major change would be the rapid rise and subsequent leveling off of nuclear power in
the United States. It is conceivable that similar dramatic inflection points may occur in
the future. The causes of such inflection points can be many: major policy changes,
natural disasters, the advent of economically competitive technology, unforeseen
environmental impacts, etc.

Given the lack of sharp departures from the status quo, it may be valuable for the federal
government to develop “surprise” scenarios that are linked to areas of strategic interest to
the nation. For example, alternative economic growth paths that also involve major
changes in the economy’s structure, away from energy-intensive sectors. More specific
scenarios could focus on changes in electricity pricing including dynamic (real-time)
pricing or shifts away from postage-stamp transmission pricing toward nodal pricing.
A more extreme example could be a scenario that assumes a major disruption in oil
markets due to instability in the Middle East, Russia, or Venezuela. Another example
would be an unforeseen climatic event that validates climate-change theories and
mobilizes international efforts to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Scenario Profiles
There are two groups of scenarios: 1) Energy economy scenarios, which look at the
energy economy in the United States as a whole, focusing on changes in market
conditions that may influence energy use and market penetration of different energy
generation technologies. 2) Technology scenarios, which focus on the specifics of
technology improvement in terms of changes in capital and operating costs and the
performance of the different technologies.

There are several distinct energy economy scenarios that are covered in this report. They
are numbered for convenience, with publishing organizations grouped together. The order
does not imply any ranking or significance of any of the scenarios.

Energy Economy Scenarios

Scenarios that cover the energy economy are contained in the following reports and
studies. Each study or report may contain one or more scenarios.

1) Annual Energy Outlook 2002

Publishing Organization: Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
x x x x x x X

5
Published annually, the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2002) provides a broad overview
of energy consumption, technology improvement, energy prices, and policy implications
for the United States.

The AEO2002 uses the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to model and project
energy use in the United States. The NEMS model has been used by organizations to
evaluate alternative scenarios, while others use NEMS assumptions and results as inputs
in their own models. The scenarios presented in the AEO2002, and earlier editions of
AEO, especially the reference case, are often used as a benchmark for other studies as
well as other models.

The AEO2002 features several scenarios, or side cases that focus on differing
assumptions about technological progress, resource availability, and policy measures. In
the reference case, the AEO2002 projects that during the next 20 years, new capacity
additions will be dominated by natural gas-generating technologies along with low
natural gas prices. Coal will continue as a dominant generating technology due to
inexpensive coal. In the reference scenario, non-hydro renewables are projected to
increase only slightly, only contributing 4 percent of added capacity through 2020.
Biomass, especially cogeneration, is projected to see the largest absolute growth.
Geothermal is also projected to increase; and wind will increase to a lesser degree. Solar
power is not expected to contribute to new generating capacity at any significant level.
While the vast majority of new capacity additions are projected to be central generating
station technologies, about 19 gigawatts, or about 5 percent (compared to a total of 355
gigawatt (GW)) of distributed generating capacity is projected to be added by 2020.

Time frame: 2002-2020

Publication Date: December 2001

2) Impacts of a 10-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard

Publishing Organization: Energy Information Administration (EIA), requestor: Senator
Frank Murkowski.

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X X X X

This report analyzes the impacts of implementing a 10 percent renewable portfolio

standard (RPS) for electricity generation in the United States. A second scenario of a 20
percent RPS also is presented.

The report uses the NEMS model to project the impacts of implementing a 10 percent
renewable portfolio standard and a second scenario with a 20 percent RPS.
Generators failing to meet RPS standards will face a 3-cent per kilowatt-hour penalty.

In both the 10 percent and 20 percent RPS scenarios, electricity generators will fail to
achieve the respective goals. Generators are projected to achieve 8.4 and 12 percent,
respectively, of qualifying renewable electricity generation. The remaining generators are

6
projected to pay the penalty of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour rather than invest in new
renewable generating capability. The scenario also projects that there will be no net
increase in consumers’ energy bills due to the fact that the RPS lowers natural gas
demand and prices.

Time frame: 2002-2020

Publication Date: February 2002

3) U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Recent Trends and Prospects for the Future
Publishing Organization: Energy Information Administration (EIA), requestor:
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham.

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X x X

This report by the EIA makes projections about short-term and midterm outlook for
natural gas in the United States. Development of the scenarios is done with the NEMS
model and is based largely on the AEO2001 with some updated assumptions.

In the reference case based on Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001), consumption of
natural gas is projected to increase to 31.6 trillion cubic feet in 2015 and 34.7 trillion
cubic feet in 2020. Natural gas consumption in the alternate scenarios ranges from a low
of 31.2 trillion cubic feet (“Low Resource” scenario) to a high of 36.0 trillion cubic feet
(“High Resource” scenario). By 2020, the projected natural gas real price in the reference
case is $3.13 per thousand cubic feet. The alternate scenarios have prices as low as $2.50
per thousand cubic feet (“Rapid Technology” scenario) and as high as $4.53 per thousand
cubic feet (“Low Resource” scenario).

Time frame: 2000-2020

Publication Date: May 2001

4) Accelerated Depletion: Assessing Its Impact on Domestic Oil and Natural Gas
Prices and Production
Publishing Organization: Energy Information Administration (EIA), requestor: Office
of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X x X X

This report presents several scenarios on the effects of different assumptions for depletion
of natural gas and petroleum resources in the United States. Several scenarios are
evaluated with varying levels of accelerated depletion of reserves. It is assumed that each
new discovery adds incrementally fewer resources over time. In addition, varying
assumptions about technology, access to resources in the Rocky Mountain region, and
increased imports are evaluated.

7
The scenarios are developed with the AOE2000 version of the NEMS model. Different
assumptions for alternate cases are made regarding the pace of depletion, technological
growth, reduced environmental constraints for the region, and greater levels of imports.

The results indicate that accelerated depletion of resources leads to higher prices (as high
as $4.56 per thousand cubic feet versus the reference price of $2.79 per thousand cubic
feet by 2020) and lower levels of production. By 2020, natural gas production is
projected to be 13 percent lower under accelerated depletion than in the reference case.
Assumptions about higher petroleum prices also lead to significantly higher natural gas
prices ($4.40 per thousand cubic feet versus the reference price of $2.79 by 2020). A
combination of increased access to Rocky Mountain areas combined with faster
introduction of new technology may offset the effects of accelerated depletion.

Time frame: 2000-2020

Publication Date: July 2000

5) Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Electric Power

Plants with Advanced Technology Scenarios
Publishing Organization: Energy Information Administration (EIA), requestors:
Senators James M. Jeffords and Joseph I. Lieberman.

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X x x X X x

This special report presents scenarios of reducing multiple criteria pollutants from fossil-
fueled electricity generators. Two sets of scenarios are presented: “cases without
emission limits” and “cases with emission limits.”

A modified version of the NEMS model is used for the scenarios presented. Some
scenarios use modifications of the NEMS model that are consistent with the moderate
and advanced policy cases in the Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future (CEF), including a
renewable portfolio standard. Assumptions are made for different levels of emission caps,
and emission prices for CO2, SO2, NOx, and Hg are projected.

All of the scenarios presented, both with and without emission limits, lead to a decline in
primary energy consumption and electricity consumption. Emissions of CO2 are reduced
with large reductions in the emissions of SO2, NOx, and Hg. Natural gas-fired electricity
generation is projected to increase with resulting higher natural gas prices. Coal-fired
generation is projected to decrease, especially in cases with a carbon tax. In the reference
case with emissions limits, the price of electricity increases by 33 percent in 2020,
compared to the reference case without emissions limits. As a result of this, gross
domestic product is projected to decline slightly. The introduction of the emissions limits
raises the projected average delivered price of electricity by 33 percent by 2020
compared to the reference case. Energy expenditures are projected to be higher than in
the reference case without emission limits. However, in the advanced technology case,
energy expenditures are lower due to more energy-efficient technologies and lower fossil

8
fuel and electricity prices. Distributed generation capacity is projected to be 11 GW by
2020 in the reference case, and lower in all other cases, with only 1.8 GW projected in
the Advanced Technology with Emission Limits scenario.

Imposition of emission limits leads to increased renewable electricity generation from

399 billion kWh to 519 billion kWh in 2020. The “Advanced Technology” case results in
similar increases from 409 million kWh (without emission limits) to 524 million kWh
(with emission limits) in 2020. In the advanced technology case, the cost of compliance is
lower, based on a lower baseline of energy and emissions.

Time frame: 2000-2020

Publication Date: October 2001

6) Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future

Publishing Organization: Interlaboratory Working Group (IWG)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
x x x x x x x

The Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future (CEF) study explores what can happen if
alternative policies favorable to renewables and energy efficiency are pursued. Four
scenarios are explored: a business as usual, a moderate scenario, and two advanced
scenarios with carbon taxes of $25 per ton and $50 per ton respectively.

The scenarios presented in CEF are developed using a modified version of the EIA’s
NEMS model. Different assumptions are made on policies to tighten standards for
buildings, industry, transportation, and electricity generation. Electric generators are
projected to face a renewable portfolio standard (in the advanced scenarios) and electric-
industry restructuring. The advanced scenario also assumes a doubling of federal R&D
for renewable and energy efficiency technologies, and a domestic carbon-trading system.

The policy measures and technology improvement assumptions made in the study are
projected to result in significant reductions of all emissions, reduced reliance on
petroleum, and more efficient use of, and generation of, electricity. These ends are
accomplished with no increase in consumer energy bills. Distributed generation is limited
to industrial use of combined heat and power, and photovoltaics.

Time frame: 2000-2020

Publication Date: October 2001

7) 2000 Edition of the GRI Baseline Projection of the U.S. Energy Supply and
Demand to 2015
Publishing Organization: Gas Research Institute (GRI)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
x x x

9
This report by GRI makes projections about energy demand, energy prices, and energy
supply through 2015. Projections are made for the United States on a national level and at
the regional level. No policy measures are evaluated.

GRI uses a collection of models for its projections: ISTUM (a proprietary model by
EEA), the GRI Energy Demand Model (which is based on NEMS), Hydrocarbon Supply
Model (HSM), and Gas Market and Data Forecasting System (GMDFS). In addition, GRI
relies on two outside models: DRI Macroeconomic Model and Hill & Associates Coal
Model.

GRI projects that primary energy consumption will increase to 117.7 quadrillion British
Thermal Units (Btu) by 2015, lower than the AEO2002 reference case of 123.6
quadrillion Btu. Natural gas demand is projected to increase steadily to 33.7 quadrillion
Btu by 2015. Independent power generators are projected to increase to produce more
than a third of all electricity by 2015. Natural gas prices are projected to trend downward
through 2015.

The scenario emphasizes natural gas and coal resources, with little attention to renewable
energy. Renewable energy consumption is projected to be 5.6 quadrillion Btu by 2015,
considerably lower than AEO2002. In the electric-power sector, hydropower is projected
to remain around current levels, while non-hydro renewables are projected to increase
from 0.61 quadrillion Btu in 1998 to 2.45 quadrillion Btu in 2015. Distributed generation
is not addressed in this scenario.

Time frame: 2000-2015

Publication Date: December 2000

8) Solar Generation: electricity for over 1 billion people and 2 million jobs by 2020
Publishing Organization: Greenpeace/European Photovoltaic Industry Association
(EPIA)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X x

This report focuses on the worldwide potential for growth in the global photovoltaics
(PV) market. The main finding is a scenario by 2020 with PV generating 276 TWh of
electricity. By 2040, PV is projected to generate 9,113 TWh.

No information is provided on the modeling framework. Distributed generation is not

specifically addressed in this scenario.

Market growth rates are based on recent developments and assume the same level of
growth during the time span of the scenario. Globally, the average growth rate for PV is
assumed to be 27 percent per year through 2009 and then increasing by 34 percent per
year between 2010 and 2020. Another assumption is the continuation of national and

10
regional market support programs, national targets for PV installations, solar radiation
potential, availability of rooftop area, and demand in off-grid segments.

For the United States, two separate scenarios are presented: 1) “business as usual” (BAU)
and 2) “take-off scenario” (TOS). In the BAU case, total added generating capacity is
projected to reach 843.43 MW by 2020. The TOS, which assumes the United States
adopts a nationwide support scheme similar to those in Germany and Japan, projects 23.4
GW by 2020. Annual unit sales could reach $1,700 and $27,573 million per year,
respectively.

Time frame: 2000-2040

Publication Date: September 2001

9) Clean Energy Blueprint – A Smarter National Energy Policy for Today and the
Future
Publishing Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists, with American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy and Tellus Institute.

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
x x x x x x

This report investigates several policy options to create a cleaner energy system.
Included in the study are renewable portfolio standard (RPS), public benefits fund, net
metering, production tax credit, increased R&D funding for renewables, combined heat
and power, improved efficiency standards, enhanced building codes, tax incentives, and
industrial energy efficiency measures.

This report uses the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to investigate the
potential future impacts of several policy initiatives. The modified NEMS model used in
the Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future was used as a starting point for the analysis.
Assumptions about renewables were changed for wind, geothermal, solar, and biomass.
The Clean Energy Blueprint compares the ”business as usual” scenario (based on the
EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2001) with its own Clean Energy Blueprint scenario and a
subset of these policies included in the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Investment Act of 2001 (S. 1333).

The Clean Energy Blueprint scenario leads to a dramatic increase in renewable energy
along with a decrease in fossil fuels and nuclear power. At least 20 percent of electricity
can be produced by non-hydro renewables by 2020. The use of natural gas can be
reduced 31 percent, and use of coal can be reduced 60 percent compared to business as
usual by 2020. At the same time, consumers are estimated to save $440 billion by 2020.
Distributed generation is not specifically addressed in this scenario.

Time frame: 2000-2020

Publication Date: October 2001

11
10) A Powerful Opportunity – Making Renewable Electricity the Standard
Publishing Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
x x x

This report examines the prospects of several different levels of non-hydro renewable
portfolio standards (RPS) electricity generation. These standards range from 4 percent to
20 percent renewable electricity generation by 2020.

The analysis uses an electricity market model called RenewMarket. This model is
patterned after the Electricity Capacity Planning sub-module of the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS) model.

The study finds that, under all scenarios, average electricity prices for consumers fall by
between 13 to 17 percent between 1997 and 2020. At the same time, every RPS scenario
would provide environmental benefits, reduce CO2 emissions, diversify the electricity-
generating portfolio, and expand renewable energy development. In addition, decreased
demand for natural gas for electricity generation would result in lower natural gas prices.
Distributed generation is not specifically addressed in this scenario.

Time frame: 2000-2030

Publication Date: January 1999

11) Clean Energy and Jobs – A Comprehensive Approach to Climate Change and
Energy Policy
Publishing Organization: Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and Center for a Sustainable
Economy (CSE)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X x

This report uses the LIFT (Long-term Interindustry Forecasting Tool) model, which is a
97-sector inter-industry macroeconomic model created by the Inforum modeling group.
The model was calibrated to the 2001 Annual Energy Outlook. In addition, the scenario
assumes carbon taxes, as well as energy efficiency improvements, from the Scenarios for
Clean Energy Future (CEF) report.

The macroeconomic scope and emphasis of this report is on carbon emission reductions
and job creation. The scenario projects that GDP will increase slightly compared to the
baseline scenario. While energy prices overall are projected to increase, expenditures for
energy are projected to fall as consumers switch to more energy-efficient technologies.

This scenario assumes that the proposed renewable energy portfolio standard be
structured to encourage renewable generation by existing utilities, as opposed to
independent power producers. The policy package for renewables also includes a more

12
aggressive form of the renewable portfolio standard, which increases to 10 percent by
2010 and 20 percent in 2020. Distributed generation is not specifically addressed in this
scenario.

Time frame: 2000-2020

Publication Date: 2002

12) Prices and Emissions in a Restructured Electricity Market

Publishing Organization: Energy Modeling Forum (EMF), Stanford University

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X x x x

This report compares and summarizes results from several different models. The models
included in the study are National Modeling Energy System (NEMS), by the Energy
Information Administration; Policy Office Electricity Modeling System (POEMS), by the
U.S. Department of Energy and OnLocation, Inc.; Haiku, by Resources for the Future
(RFF); IPM, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ICF Consulting,
Inc.; Energy 2020, by Canadian Energy Research Institute; and MarketPoint, by Altos
Management Partners.

All models were run using a set of five standardized scenarios that assume immediate
deregulation of the electricity industry. The scenarios evaluated are: “reference case,”
“high demand,” “low natural gas prices,” “expanded transmission,” and a “renewable
portfolio standard (RPS).” The reference case is based on the 1999 Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO1999).

Results indicate differences among the models. Although results were fairly consistent in
the reference case, the models tended to diverge in the more extreme scenarios. Total fuel
consumption varies from a high of 36.3 quadrillion Btu (NEMS) to a low of 33.2
quadrillion Btu (E2020) by 2010. In the baseline scenario, natural gas-fired generators
account for 84 to 98 percent of cumulative additions by 2010. While two models (NEMS
and POEMS), project non-hydro electricity to increase by 33-48 percent by 2010,
renewables capacity remains a small share of the total. The baseline scenario assumes the
wind tax credit is extended to 2005. By 2010, coal still is the dominant fuel. The different
models diverge significantly in terms of cumulative combined-cycle capacity additions—
ranging from a low of around 55 gigawatts (NEMS) to 190 gigawatts (E2020) by 2010.
Wholesale prices also vary widely among the models. In some regions, the differences
between models are up to $15 per MWh by 2010. There also are significant differences in
interregional trade of electricity.

For renewables, only NEMS, POEMS, and RFF show details on capacity. While NEMS
and POEMS are similar with about 2.3 GW in cumulative additions, RFF projects about
0.2 GW of new wind by 2010. In terms of geothermal, POEMS projects about 0.7 GW,
while NEMS projects about 0.4 GW. For MSW, the roles are reversed—NEMS projects
about 1.7 GW while POEMS projects 0.4 GW. There are similar differences for biomass

13
and solar. In the “low gas” scenario, the POEMS model projects nearly 60 percent less
wind-generating capacity compared to the baseline scenario by 2010. Distributed
generation is not specifically addressed in these scenarios.

Time frame: 2000-2010

Publication Date: May 2001

13) Report of the IPAA Supply and Demand Committee – Long-Run Forecast
(2001-2015)
Publishing Organization: Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X x x

The IPAA study presents projections of general macroeconomic trends, natural gas, and
petroleum supply and demand.

No information is disclosed about the modeling framework. The IPAA Supply &
Demand Committee performs the projections. The projections seem to rely in part on
historical data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

GDP is projected to grow by 3 percent per year through 2015, and energy consumption
by 2.3 percent per year, resulting in a total energy consumption of 116.26 quadrillion Btu
by 2015—which is roughly 7 quadrillion Btu less than the AEO2002.

This scenario groups hydro and geothermal energy together, but no other renewables are
mentioned. The IPAA projects that these renewables will increase by an average of 1.4
percent per year through 2015. The emphasis is on petroleum and natural gas.
Consumption of natural gas is projected to increase by 1.8 percent per year, to 30,748
billion cubic feet by 2015. The scenario does not project prices. Distributed generation is
not specifically addressed in this scenario.

Time frame: 2001-2015

Publication Date: April 2001

14) Fueling the Future – Natural Gas and New Technologies for a Cleaner 21st
Century
Publishing Organization: Washington Policy and Analysis, Inc., for American Gas
Association (AGA)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X x

This report presents two scenarios for natural gas use in the United States. The first
scenario projects an increase in natural gas consumption to reach a total of 29.7

14
quadrillion Btu by 2020. The other scenario calls for greater use of natural gas, reaching a
total of 35.5 quadrillion Btu by 2020.

Modeling is done with the Washington Policy and Analysis (WPA) U.S. Energy Model.
The WPA is a global model, with the United States representing a segment of the global
energy economy.

The accelerated gas-use scenario makes assumptions about environmental and energy
policy, including increased R&D, few restrictions on access to natural gas resources, and
a deregulated energy market where natural gas can compete. The scenario does not
address natural gas prices. Renewable energy and distributed generation are not
specifically addressed in this scenario.

Time frame: 1997-2020

Publication Date: February 2000

15) The Federal Role in Electric System R&D During a Time of Transition: An
Application of Scenario Analysis
Publishing Organization: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X X

As part of a series of white papers, this study analyzes four possible scenarios of
electricity restructuring for the purposes of developing a strategy for federally funded
RD&D to maintain and enhance electric system reliability.

Scenario One assumes a utility industry, which is vertically integrated but functionally
unbundled, similar to what was recently assumed to occur in the United States during the
next three-five years.
Scenarios Two and Three assume a movement toward regional transmission
organizations (RTO). However, the two scenarios assume substantial differences in the
organization and shape of the electricity markets they serve. Both scenarios rely on
physical unbundling and trade of energy and reliability services using market
mechanisms.
Scenario Four envisions increased reliance on small-scale generation, storage, and load-
control technologies. This would lead to generation from small-scale generators
contributing 20 percent or more of total generation in some areas within a decade.

For each scenario, the need for federal RD&D is evaluated and a rationale developed for
the role of federal RD&D. No model is utilized, and no energy quantities or prices are
projected. Distributed generation is the focus of Scenario Four, but the scenario does not
focus specifically on renewable energy technologies.

Time frame: 2000-2010

Publication Date: December 1999

15
16) Impact of Competitive Electricity Market on Renewable Generation Technology
Choice and Policies in the United States
Publishing Organization: Ashok Sarkar, Renewable Energy 16 (1999).

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X X

This paper examines three scenarios of electricity market development: 1) reference case,
2) market power, and 3) competitive case. The author projects that in the “reference
case,” renewable generating capacity reaches 30 percent of the U.S. total by 2015 with
about 10 percent of electricity generation coming from renewables. In the “competitive
case,” renewables penetrate the market at far lower levels, based on assumptions about
fewer incentives for renewables. Renewables in the “competitive case” contribute only 10
percent of capacity by 2015, and produce about 5 percent of all electricity.

Emissions of SO2, NOx, and CO2 also are evaluated. Compared to the reference case, the
competitive market case results in slightly lower emissions for all three pollutants. In the
market power case, emissions of all three pollutants are projected to increase due to less
incentive to generate less-polluting electricity. Distributed generation technologies are
not specifically addressed in this scenario.

Time frame: 2001-N/A

Publication Date: 2001

Technology Forecasts
These scenarios project future improvements in electricity-generating technologies and
do not necessarily take into account the energy economy as a whole. Projections include
forecasts on efficiency improvements and cost reductions. Some scenarios are separate
reports or articles, while others are pulled from the broader energy economy scenarios
listed above. For example, the EIA’s annual Energy Outlook is listed as an Energy
Economy scenario, but contains assumptions about the future development of generating
technologies. The proprietary models do not openly publish their assumptions and, as
such, cannot be included here.

Annual Energy Outlook

The EIA’s assumptions for electricity-generating technologies are defined in the NEMS
model, and more details are published in a separate EIA document3. Because the AEO is
often seen as a reference or business-as-usual scenario, the assumptions for electricity-
generating technologies are likewise seen as “business as usual” with moderate gains in
efficiencies and cost improvements.

3
Energy Information Administration, “Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2002,” DOE/EIA-0554
(2002), December 2001.

16
Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future
While based on a modified version of the EIA’s NEMS model, the CEF makes different
assumptions about costs and efficiencies for renewable and nuclear electricity-generating
technologies.

Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations

EPRI’s technology characterizations4 make projections about the cost and efficiency of
most renewable electricity-generating technologies. These include biomass, geothermal,
solar, and wind power. Projections are made through 2030 in terms of efficiency
improvements and all relevant costs.

Wind technology is projected to decline steadily in installed capacity cost. Larger

turbines, economies of scale in production, and learning effects are expected to bring the
installed cost of wind down substantially by 2030. The increasing operating and
management (O&M) costs for wind are due to increasing tower heights and more
powerful wind regimes.

Wind
2005 2010 2020 2030
Capital Cost 720 675 655 635
($/kW)
O&M 17.6 18.1 18.7 19.1
($/kW-yr)

Biomass generation is projected to experience declining costs of technology over time.

Integrated gasification combined-cycle generators are expected to experience the most
rapid reductions in capital cost. Direct-fired combustion technology, which is more
mature, is expected to decline in costs at a slower rate. By 2030, capital costs are
projected to be equivalent for these two technologies.

Biomass
2005 2010 2020 2030
IGCC Capital Cost 1650 1464 1258 1111
($/kW)
Fixed O&M 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4
($/kW-yr)

Direct Capital Cost 1510 1346 1115 1115

Fired ($/kW)
Fixed O&M 60 60 49 49
($/kW-yr)

4
Electric Power Research Institute and U.S. Department of Energy, “Renewable Energy Technology
Characterizations,” TR-109496, December 1997.

17
Solar technologies encompass a diverse set of technologies, which include photovoltaics,
solar thermal used in power towers, parabolic troughs, and dish engines. While all solar
technologies are expected to experience lower installed costs, the most dramatic
reduction in costs is for photovoltaic technologies, which are projected to decline by
about 60-75 percent between 2005 and 2030.

Solar
2005 2010 2020 2030
C-Si Capital Cost 4040 3050 1770 1040
Residential ($/kW)
O& M 14.3 13.3 12.5 11.8
($/kW-yr)
Thin-film Capital Cost 2900 1500 1111 880
utility ($/kW)
O&M 5.8 3.6 2.4 2.3
($/k/W-yr)
Solar Tower Capital Cost 2329 2605 2523 2523
($/kW)
$/kW-yr 23 30 25 25
Parabolic Capital Cost 2916 2999 2907 2756
trough ($/kW)
52 43 34 34
Dish Engine Capital Cost 3231 1690 1467 1324
($/kW)
O&M 2.3 1.1 1.05 1.05
(c/kWh)

Geothermal technology costs are expected to decline over time. Hydrothermal generation,
which is more established, is expected to see a slow decline in capital costs. The newer
hot dry rock technologies are expected to see a more dramatic reduction in capital cost,
with installed cost falling more than 50 percent between 2005 and 2030.

Geothermal
2005 2010 2020 2030
Hydrothermal Capital Cost 1250 1194 1100 1036
($/kW)
O&M 74.8 66.3 58.2 54.7
($/kW-yr)
Hot dry rock Capital Cost 4756 4316 3276 2692
($/kW)
O&M 191 179 163 152
($/kW-yr)

18
EPIA
The EPIA scenario5 projects that ready-to-install PV modules will decrease in cost from
current levels of about $3 per Watt peak (Wp) to less than $1 per Wp in 2020. This will
be due, in part, to improved efficiencies in production and a shift toward cheaper thin-
film technologies.

Distributed Generation Scenarios

The emergence of distributed generation as an alternative to the traditional central plant
system offers new opportunities for renewable energy technologies. Some renewable
energy technologies like solar and wind offer the ability to place power generation in
smaller units dispersed widely over an area. The following scenarios focus on future
developments of distributed generation systems.

Can We Have Our Cake and Eat It Too? Creating Distributed Generation
Technology to Improve Air Quality.
Publishing Organization: The Energy Foundation

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X X

While this scenario does not specify any timeline, it makes qualitative projections of
distributed generation’s (DG) contribution to the energy system. DG has the potential to
improve energy security and may decrease air pollution, although the outcome is
uncertain given the current regulatory framework.

DG technologies are expected to compete with central station combined-cycle generators

rather than existing coal-fired generators. The most cost-effective, currently available DG
technologies—diesel and gas internal combustion engines—are also the most polluting.
The report concludes that only DG technologies with the lowest emissions levels and
significant recovery of waste heat can be competitive with combined-cycle central station
generators, if air pollution is taken into consideration.

The scenario only covers fossil-fueled technologies and different types of fuel cells.
Renewables are not mentioned.

Time frame: 2000-N/A

Publication Date: December 1, 2000

5
Greenpeace/European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA), “Solar Generation: electricity for over 1
billion people and 2 million jobs by 2020,” 2000.

19
Cleaner Energy, Greener Profits – Fuel Cells as Cost-Effective Distributed Energy
Resources.
Publishing Organization: Rocky Mountain Institute

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X X

This scenario discusses qualitatively the benefits and values of distributed generation
(DG) and fuel cells for the U.S. energy economy.

The report discusses several areas of value that may or may not be taken into account in
the conventional electric-utility system. In addition to the conventional energy value, fuel
cells also can provide thermal energy value. Waste heat recovery can provide fuel savings
of $100-$150/kW-year. Modular DG also offers option value that reduces the cost of
overbuilding—this value is estimated at $50-$200/kW-year with modularity. A deferral
value of $50-$200/kW-year is possible as DG can be built in smaller, modular systems.
Packaged DG offers engineering cost savings of $50-$150/kW-year and T&D loss
reductions of $25/kW-year. Modern society’s demand for reliability makes outages
expensive, and the reliability value is estimated to be between $25-$250/kW-year.
Finally, DG fuel cells offer environmental value. Fuel cells’ low emissions rates make
them easier to site compared to other DG technologies. These values may not necessarily
be additive.

The scenario does not discuss renewable energy technologies.

Time frame: 2000-N/A

Publication Date: 2002

On Future Fuels: A Comparison of Options.

Publishing Organization: Thomas, C.E., Directed Technologies, Inc., Arlington, VA,
2001.

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X X

This paper discusses the current and near-future options for fuels in transportation and
stationary electricity generation focusing on fuel cells. The paper examines scenarios of
different production levels of fuel cells units and different levels of natural gas fuel
prices.

The cost of a fuel cell system is projected to fall with increased levels of production.
While producing one fuel cell unit is projected to cost $4,002/kW, producing 100 units
reduces this to $1,701/kW; and at 10,000 units, the capacity cost is $778/kW. Cost
reductions are estimated only with respect to scale of output, no time frame is given.

20
Production of electricity (and electricity and heat) using fuel cells results in a negative
after-tax return on investment at production levels of 10,000 units. However, oversizing
the reformer and producing extra hydrogen for use in transportation or industry can
achieve coproduction of hydrogen. The prospect of generating electricity and producing
hydrogen, as well as combining electricity generation with heat recovery and hydrogen
production, offers the possibility of a positive return on investment at production levels of
10,000 units.

Longer term, the greatest opportunities lie in storage for intermittent renewable
technologies. This study claims that renewable generating expansion beyond 10 to 20
percent of the grid capacity will require some form of energy storage.

Time frame: 2000-N/A

Publication Date: 2000

Biomass pyrolysis for power generation – a potential technology.

Publishing Organization: Anuradda Ganesh and Rangan Banerjee, Renewable Energy
22 (2001)

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X X

This paper discusses the potential for biomass pyrolysis in electricity power generation.
Four alternative technology paths are evaluated: 1) Biomass Combustion – Rankine
Cycle, 2) Biomass Gasification – Gas Engine, 3) Biomass Gasification – Combined
Cycle, 4) Biomass Pyrolysis – Combined Cycle. The generators evaluated are in the 1 to
5 MW range.

The four different technology paths are evaluated for capital costs, capacity factors, and
biomass fuel costs. Using a low and high range for technology costs, all four technologies
result in comparable delivered electricity costs. For the low cost set with a 90 percent
capacity factor, costs range from 3.8 c/kWh (biomass gasification-gas engine) to
4.8c/kWh (biomass pyrolysis-combined cycle).

Time frame: 2001-N/A

Publication Date: 2001

Engines versus electrons: the future of power production

Publishing Organization: D E Winterbone, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Vol. 214 Part A

Energy Use Energy Prices Energy Technology Distributed Restructuring Environmental

Resources Improvement Generation Regulations
X

This paper discusses the theoretical and practical limits of efficiencies of electricity-
generating technologies. Both heat engines and fuel cells are evaluated.

21
While the most efficient gas turbine plants currently have efficiencies of 21.1 – 32.5
percent, the combined-cycle plants have efficiencies ranging from 42.5 to 58.5 percent.
The author projects that efficiencies of more than 60 percent are attainable for combined-
cycle plants. Fuel cells appear to have an advantage over heat engines when the plant
operates for a significant time with a low load, as fuel cells are more efficient at lower
loads than at higher loads.

Time frame: 2000-N/A

Publication Date: 2000

Some projections were not included due to the high cost of the publications. They are
listed here with the relevant summary data provided in the open literature.

“Fuel Cell Industry Review,” by Business Communications Company, Inc., projects that
130 GW of new fuel cell power-generating capacity will be in place in the United States.
by 2010. (April 2001).

“Fuel Cells,” by The Freedonia Group, projects that the U.S. market for fuel cells will be
valued at $2.4 billion by 2004 and increase to $7 billion by 2009. (May 2000).

“Micropower,” by The Freedonia Group, projects the market for micropower products to
reach $6.1 billion in 2005.

“Opportunities in Advanced Fuel Cell Technologies: Stationary Power Generation 1998-

2008,” by Kine & Company, projects that between 2.5 and 6 GW of fuel cell-generating
capacity will be in place by 2010. (June 1998).

Global Scenarios

In addition to the domestic and technology scenarios already covered, there are several
global scenarios, many focusing on climate change6. These scenarios do not cover
individual countries such as the United States explicitly, but rather group them together
into larger regions. The United States often is grouped into a North American region.
Some of these scenarios go further out into the future than the domestic scenarios already
covered—some as far as 2100. There appears to be a trade-off between the number of
years the scenario covers, regions, and technology detail.

Renewable energy sources are rarely represented in a detailed manner in these global
scenarios. None of these global scenarios focuses explicitly on distributed generation.
While there is perhaps a wider range of scenario outcomes in many of the scenarios
associated with global climate change (as with the domestic scenarios), there are no real
discrete event “surprise” scenarios.

6
IIASA/WEC, “Global Energy Perspectives; Shell, “The Evolution of the World’s Energy System 1860-
2060”; IEA, “World Energy Outlook”; DOE/EIA “International Energy Outlook”; IPCC “WGIII”, John P.
Weyant, editor, The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, special issue of The Energy
Journal, 2000.

22
Scenario Comparisons

Summary of Aggregate Energy Consumption

The different scenarios are fairly consistent in the near term, although differences
increase over time. None of the U.S. scenarios make projections of domestic energy
consumption beyond 2020 (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of Energy Consumption (quadrillion Btu)

Scenario 2005 2010 2015 2020
1) EIA - AEO2002* 107.6 115.6 123.6 130.8
3) EIA-Nat Gas Mrkt. 107.61 115.61 123.64 130.85
4) EIA-Accelerated 105.08 – 111.29 – 111.54 116.24 –116.68 119.78 – 121.00
Depletion 105.15
5) EIA-Emissions 104.07 – 107.32 – 114.74 111.33 – 121.34 115.18 – 127.68
Control 107.56
6) CEF 103.3 - 110.2 100.9 -119.4
7) GRI 103.5 111.4 117.7
9) UCS Clean Energy 105.3 102.5
Blueprint
13) IPAA 102.96 103.96 116.26
14) AGA 115.2 - 122.6
* Reference case
For renewable energy, most scenarios are fairly consistent in the near term, with
differences widening over time (Table 2). Scenarios not listed did not report values.

Table 2: Summary of Renewable Energy Consumption (quadrillion Btu)

Scenario 2005 2010 2015 2020
1) EIA - AEO2002
Total 7.57 8.10 8.70 9.17
Non-hydro 4.45 4.99 5.59 6.07
4) EIA-Accelerated
Depletion
Total 7.09 – 7.10 7.43 7.71 – 7.72 7.99 – 8.06
Non-hydro n/a n/a n/a n/a
5) EIA-Emissions
Control
Total 7.27 – 8.78 8.05 – 9.95 8.35 – 10.37 8.58 – 10.88
Non-hydro 4.17 – 5.68 4.95 – 6.84 5.26 – 7.27 5.50 – 7.79
6) CEF
Total 7.8 – 10.2 8.9 – 11.3
Non-hydro 4.5 – 6.9 5.6 – 8.0
7) GRI
Total 7.5 8.6 9.1
Non-hydro 4.1 5.1 5.6
9) UCS Clean Energy
Blueprint
Total 7.5 – 11.5 8.0 – 13.7
Non-hydro 4.4 – 8.4 4.9 – 10.6
13) IPAA*
Total 3.62 3.62 3.87
Non-hydro n/a n/a n/a
14) AGA
Total 8.9
Non-hydro n/a
* Hydroelectric and geothermal only

23
Natural gas prices show variation among the scenarios as well as differences in trends
over time. GRI indicates a downward trend while several others show an upward trend.

Table 3: Summary of Natural Gas Wellhead Prices ($ per thousand cubic feet).
Scenario 2005 2010 2015 2020
1) EIA - AEO2002 2.67 2.86 3.08 3.28
2) EIA-RPS 2.40 – 2.48 2.48 – 2.62 2.68 – 3.13 2.79 – 4.12
3) EIA-Nat Gas Mrkt. 2.64 – 2.66 2.72 – 2.85 3.14 – 3.26
4) EIA-Accelerated 2.47 – 2.55 2.55 – 2.69 2.76 – 3.22 2.87 – 4.24
Depletion
5) EIA-Emissions 2.92 – 3.07 2.46 – 3.37 2.36 – 3.30 2.27 – 3.63
Control
6) CEF 4.06 – 4.86 3.81 – 4.43
7) GRI 2.13 2.09 2.06
14) AGA 2.75 – 3.75
All prices in year 2000 dollars.

Renewable Technology Characteristics

Conventional and renewable energy technologies have very different capital cost and
efficiency attributes. Both renewable and conventional energy technologies are projected
to improve over time both in terms of capital cost and efficiency. Renewables were
covered earlier under: Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, and
conventional technologies are detailed below in Table 4.

Table 4: Conventional and fossil-fueled technologies

Technology Capital cost Heat Rate
($/kW) (Btu/KWh)
Pulverized Coal
2005 1110 9253
2010 1083 9087
2015 1062-1068 9087
2020 1047-1056 9087
Coal-ICGG
2005 1208-1332 7469-7769
2010 1000-1332 6968-7769
2015 976-1332 6968-7769
2020 951-1332 6968-7769
Conv. Combined Cycle
2005 453 7343
2010 448 7000
2015 443 7000
2050 438 7000
Adv. Combined Cycle
2005 572-587 6639-6812
2010 516-587 5672-6812
2015 499-587 4960-6812
2020 485-587 4960-6812
Conv. Combustion Turbine
2005 336 11033
2010 333 10600
2015 329 10600
2020 326 10600

24
Adv. Combustion Turbine
2005 446-472 8117-8907
2010 384-472 6800-8907
2015 363-472 6800-8907
2020 361-472 6800-8907
Adv. Nuclear
2005 1650-2108
2010 1484-2063
2015 1320-2019
2020 1320-1974
Distributed Generators
2000-Peak 531
2000-Baseload 591
2010-Peak 440
2010-Baseload 560
Micro turbine*
2000 450-1,000 8,123-11,765
Fuel Cells*
2000 3,750-5,000 5,986-8,530
IC Engine*
2000 200-350 9,748

Sources: Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2002, 2002.
*Ann-Marie Borbely and Jan F. Kreider, “Distributed Generation, The Power Paradigm for the New
Millennium,” 2001.

Conclusions
This report surveyed scenarios of markets and technologies that could impact renewable
electricity-generating technologies during the next 20-100 years in the United States.
The scenarios presented in this report are fairly consistent in the near term but diverge
more dramatically in the outer years of the scenarios. Most scenarios are incremental
variations around the same theme. There are no “surprise” scenarios where future
development of the energy economy takes unexpected directions.

The most commonly used model for developing scenarios is the EIA’s National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS). Many scenarios rely on modified versions of NEMS or use
results from NEMS to calibrate or initiate other models.

Distributed generation is rarely mentioned specifically and appears to be an area in need

of more detailed scenario analysis. Renewable energy is usually included in those
scenarios developed using the NEMS or POEMS model. Other scenarios generally either
exclude renewable energy or represent only a subset of the renewable energy
technologies, though sometimes one or two renewable technologies are aggregated.

25
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB NO. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
January 2003 Technical Report - Analysis

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Domestic Energy Scenarios
TA: AS72.1502
6. AUTHOR(S)
J. Aabakken and W. Short

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

National Renewable Energy Laboratory REPORT NUMBER
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

National Renewable Energy Laboratory AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393 NREL/TP-620-32742

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
This report attempts to organize and evaluate scenarios of markets and technologies that could impact renewable and
distributed electricity-generating technologies during the next 20-100 years in the United States. For the purposes of this
report, scenarios are defined broadly as any projection or forecast that helps illuminate the potential of Renewable Electric
Technologies (RETs) in the United States. Scenarios vary widely in terms of their scope—some focus on supply of fuels or
narrow segments of markets with limited timeframes, while others are broader in scope and time span. There are several
factors that influence the market penetration of renewable energy and distributed generation technologies. Most notable
among these are natural gas prices, technology improvements, and policy measures. Natural gas prices are important
because most new generating capacity, as well as marginal generation units, generally are natural-gas fired. Assumptions
about the rate of improvement in renewable and distributed generation technologies can also have a significant impact on
market penetration. Finally, policy measures that support these technologies, such as tax credits or interconnection
standards, can contribute to their accelerated adoption.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

15. NUMBER OF PAGES
domestic energy scenarios; renewable energy technologies; distributed-generation
development; natural gas prices; tax credits; policy measures; environmental regulations;
16. PRICE CODE
restructuring; energy security; National Energy Modeling System; Energy Information
Administration; emissions; electric power; Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future; Union of
Concerned Scientists; Economic Policy Institute; Center for a Sustainable Economy
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102