### CHAPTER 14. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

14.1 INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................ 14­1

14.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY..................................................................... 14­1

14.3 RESULTS

......................................................................................................................... 14­3

14.3.1 Impacts Related to PTAC Equipment................................................................ 14­4

14.3.2 Impacts Related to PTHP Equipment

.............................................................. 14­10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 14.3.1. Reference Case Forecast: Commercial Electricity Consumption,

Electricity Generation, and Electricity Capacity

............................................... 14­3

Table 14.3.2. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 1, 2, 4................................... 14­4

Table 14.3.3. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 3........................................... 14­6

Table 14.3.4 Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL A............................................ 14­6

Table 14.3.5. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 5........................................... 14­7

Table 14.3.6. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 6........................................... 14­7

Table 14.3.7. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTACs at TSL 1, 2, 4

........................... 14­8

Table 14.3.8. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTACs at TSL 3

................................... 14­9

Table 14.3.9. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTACs at TSL 5

................................... 14­9

Table 14.3.10. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 1

........................................ 14­11

Table 14.3.11. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 2, 3

.................................... 14­12

Table 14.3.12. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL A

....................................... 14­13

Table 14.3.13. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 4, 5

.................................... 14­13

Table 14.3.14. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 6

........................................ 14­14

Table 14.3.15. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTHPs at TSL 1................................. 14­15

Table 14.3.16. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTHPs at TSL 2, 3............................. 14­15

Table 14.3.17. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTHPs at TSL 4, 5............................. 14­16

14­i

### CHAPTER 14. UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

14.1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) analyzed the effects of amended energy

conservation standards for packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged

terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) on the electric utility industry. DOE conducted the utility

impact analysis using Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s National Energy Modeling

System (NEMS). a 

### NEMS is a public domain, multi­sectoral, partial equilibrium model of the

U.S. energy sector. Each year, DOE/EIA uses NEMS to produce a reference energy forecast

for the United States, published in the Annual Energy Outlook

. 1 

### The Annual Energy Outlook

for 2008 ( AEO2008) forecasts energy supply and demand through 2030.

DOE used a variant of this NEMS model, referred to as NEMS­BT, b 

### to account for the

impact of amended energy conservation standards on the reference energy forecast. The

NEMS­BT reference case was modeled after the AEO2008 reference case. c 

### The utility impact

analysis consists of a comparison between model results for the reference case and for the

policy cases in which amended energy conservation standards are in place. d



### NEMS­BT has several advantages that have led to its use in the analysis of national

energy conservation standards. The model uses a set of assumptions that are well known and

fairly transparent, due to the exposure and scrutiny each AEO receives. In addition, the

comprehensiveness of NEMS­BT permits the modeling of interactions among the various

energy supply and demand sectors, and the economy as a whole, producing a complete picture

of the effects of energy conservation standards. Perhaps most importantly, NEMS­BT can be

used to estimate marginal effects, which yield a more accurate estimate of the actual impacts

of energy conservation standards compared to considering only average effects.

14.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

DOE’s utility impact analysis applies the same basic set of assumptions as the

AEO2008

. For example, the operating characteristics (energy conversion efficiency,

emissions rates) of future electricity generating plants are as specified in the AEO2008

a For more information on NEMS, refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

documentation. A useful summary is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2003

, DOE/EIA0581(2003), March 2003. More detailed and more current documentation of various sub­models within NEMS

can be obtained from EIA’s website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html.

b DOE/EIA approves the use of NEMS to describe only an official version of the model without any

modification to code or data. Because this analysis entails some minor code modifications and the model is run

under various policy scenarios that are variations of DOE/EIA assumptions, DOE refers to it by the name

NEMS­BT (BT is DOE’s Buildings Technologies Program, under whose aegis this work has been performed).

c The NEMS­BT reference case shows very slight differences from the AEO reference case. In 2030, total

commercial electricity consumption in the NEMS­BT reference case was 0.06 percent higher than the 2008 AEO

reference case. For total electricity generation and total installed generating capacity, NEMS­BT produced

estimates that were 0.06 percent and 0.3 percent lower than the AEO reference case, respectively. In the

remainder of this chapter, the “reference case” refers to the NEMS­BT reference case.

d In the discussion below, the abbreviated term “the reference case” should be understood to refer to the AEO

2008 Reference Case.

14­1

### Reference Case

. The utility impact analysis reports the changes in installed capacity and

generation, by fuel type, that results from each trial standard level (TSL) as well as changes in

electricity sales to the commercial sector.

The utility analysis uses AEO2008 Reference Case as the base case and treats the

amended PTAC and PTHP energy conservation standards as variations in policy. The effect

of the policy is calculated as the difference in the reference case and the proposed energy

conservation standards case. Because the implementation of energy conservation standards

reduces the electricity demand by less than one­tenth of a percent (in the range of 0.0004 to

0.01 percent in 2025, depending on the equipment class and TSL) in any given year, its effect

is difficult to adequately measure in the NEMS simulations. Therefore, larger reductions in

demand are modeled, and results for the TSLs are interpolated. The effects are assumed to be

linear within the range of interpolation.

In its analysis of energy conservation standards for PTAC and PTHP equipment, DOE

adjusted the annual end­use energy consumption for cooling that was predicted within the

commercial sector module of NEMS­BT. These decrements in the annual consumption were

made for each census division using the method for computing energy savings developed in

the national impact analysis (see Chapter 11). The changes in annual consumption were

translated into changes in hourly system load as part of the normal NEMS modeling process

using the NEMS’ standard commercial building cooling load shapes.

As mentioned above, the magnitude of the energy decrement that would be required

for NEMS­BT to produce stable results, outside the range of numerical noise, is larger than

the highest energy conservation standard under consideration. e 

### Therefore, DOE estimated

results corresponding to the TSL using interpolation. It implemented reductions to both the

commercial cooling end use at multiples of the proposed standards, and linearly interpolated

actual changes in generation and capacity due to the standard from these outputs. The

multipliers used in this analysis were 100, 200, and 300. f 

### Appendix J provides details of the

interpolation method and how the multiples were selected.

The terminal year of the NEMS­BT model is 2030. Impacts beyond 2030 were

extrapolated based on the pattern of electricity savings (in kWh) expected for a particular

standard. The extrapolation was based on a comparison of the change in the NEMS­BT

variable (e.g., coal­fired generation) to the change in electricity savings over the period 2025

to 2030. As first step to implement the method, the changes in electricity savings over three

periods—2030 to 2035, 2035 to 2040, and 2040 to 2042—were expressed as ratios to the

change in electricity savings over the period 2025 to 2030. The changes in a utility­sector

variable were then multiplied by these ratios to estimate the changes in the periods after 2030.

To illustrate the approach, the NEMS­BT results for TSL A for all PTAC equipment

indicate a reduction in generating capacity for combustions turbines (relative to the NEMSBT reference case) of 0.020 gigawatts (GW) in 2025 and 0.049 GW in 2030. The five­year

e The numerical noise stems, in part, from the fact that a precise balancing between the demand and supply sides

of NEMS is not always achieved, given the iterative nature of the solution process.

f These values were the approximate multipliers for the impacts related to TSL 6 for PTHP equipment. As

explained in Appendix J, the implied multipliers for the lower TSL’s are actually greater than these values.

14­2

### reduction of generation capacity is 0.029 GW. From the National Energy Savings (NES)

Spreadsheet Model (described in Chapter 11 of the TSD), the change in electricity savings

from 2030 to 2035 is about 0.43 times that for 2025 to 2030. Thus, the change in combustion

turbine capacity between 2030 and 2035 is calculated to be 0.012 GW (~ 0.43 * 0.29).

Further, the extrapolated value for 2035 of the reduction in capacity compared to the reference

case is 0.061 GW, obtained by adding 0.029 GW with 0.012 GW.

14.3 RESULTS

The results from the reference case are shown in Table 14.3.1. Results for all the

seven TSLs are presented in Table 14.3.2 through Table 14.3.17. Each table shows forecasts

using interpolated results, as described in section 14.2, for commercial sector energy sales,

total U.S. electricity generation, and installed capacity.

Table 14.3.1. Reference Case Forecast: Commercial Electricity Consumption,

Electricity Generation, and Electricity Capacity

NEMS-BT Results:

2005 1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption 2

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation 3 5,239 5,492 5,959 6,446 6,900 7,326

Coal (TWh) 2,014 2,056 2,180 2,359 2,573 2,808

Petroleum (TWh) 122 56 56 60 65 66

Gas (TWh) 761 912 911 835 773 755

Nuclear (TWh) 782 797 807 868 910 928

Renewables (TWh) 372 474 530 601 651 674

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity 4 4,050 4,294 4,483 4,723 4,972 5,231

Fossil Steam (GW) 5 430.9 434.4 416.9 434.8 464.6 494.2

Combined Cycle (GW) 169.3 190.0 192.2 196.8 205.8 210.6

Combusion Turbines (GW) 130.3 137.4 129.4 131.4 143.0 164.4

Nuclear (GW) 100.2 100.9 102.1 110.9 115.6 116.1

Renewables (GW) 114.9 133.4 139.8 148.1 155.2 163.3

Total (GW) 945.6 996.0 980.4 1,022.0 1,084.2 1,148.4

1 Values for 2005 are reported by NEMS­BT, but are very close to the historical values shown in

various tables in EIA's Annual Energy Review 2006

2 Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2008: Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions

Includes generation from electricity­only, combined heat and power, and end­use generators

3 Comparable to Table A9 of AEO2008: Electricity Generating Capacity

4 Includes coal steam and other fossil fuel steam plants

14­3

### 14.3.1 Impacts Related to PTAC Equipment

Table 14.3.2 through Table 14.3.6 show the impacts for standard size PTACs for

seven TSLs examined in this rulemaking. The top line of Table 14.3.2 shows that under TSLs

1, 2, and 4, total commercial electricity use in terawatt hours (TWh) declines by 0.005 TWh

in 2015 and by 0.015 TWh in 2030. The reductions in total commercial electricity

consumption are less than those attributable solely to the reduction in cooling. This smaller

impact is largely due to somewhat lower electricity prices prompted by the conservation

standard. The lower prices increase electricity use for other commercial building end uses as

well as in the residential and commercial sectors These price decreases lead to increases in

demand for all electrical end uses (e.g., lighting, refrigeration, office equipment) in the

commercial buildings sector. g



### Table 14.3.2. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 1, 2, 4

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.005 ­0.009 ­0.012 ­0.014

­0.008 ­0.013 ­0.013 ­0.007

0.000 ­0.001 0.000 0.000

0.002 0.004 0.004 0.004

0.001 ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.009

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

­0.005 ­0.010 ­0.013 ­0.014

­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.002

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.007

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002

­0.004 ­0.008 ­0.012 ­0.015 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040

­0.015 ­0.015

­0.005 ­0.002

0.000 0.000

0.003 0.003

­0.012 ­0.014

­0.002 ­0.002

­0.015 ­0.015

­0.001 0.000

­0.003 ­0.003

­0.009 ­0.010

­0.002 ­0.002

­0.002 ­0.003

­0.017 ­0.018 2042

­0.016

­0.001

0.000

0.003

­0.015

­0.003

­0.015

0.000

­0.003

­0.011

­0.002

­0.003

­0.019



### The last line of the second panel of Table 14.3.2 shows the change in total generation.

The (absolute) decline in total generation is very similar to the decline in commercial sales.

Up through 2020, the decline in total generation is about 10 percent greater than the decline in

commercial electricity consumption, largely reflecting transmission and distribution losses

that are reduced as a result of lower electricity sales to end users. Over the latter portion of

g In the NEMS­BT commercial sector model, the response to lower electricity prices is modeled in two ways.

First, the selection of somewhat less efficient equipment is prompted when new buildings are constructed or

when equipment is replaced in existing buildings. Second, a general behavioral response to lower prices is

modeled via a price elasticity in which a percentage increase in prices (x) is reflected by a different percentage

reduction in consumption (y). For most commercial end uses, this price elasticity (y/x) is approximately ­0.15.

14­4

### the forecast horizon, that difference narrows as the small decline in electricity prices leads to

greater overall electricity use.

As expected, total generation falls in a nearly continuous fashion with respect to the

lower electricity demand prompted by the energy conservation standard. However, for the

individual generation technologies by fuel type, the responses are somewhat much more

varied. In the near term (through 2020), the NEMS­BT model suggests that the largest

reduction will be from coal plants, accompanied by a small reduction in generation from

nuclear plants. Generation from natural gas somewhat above the base case.

In the long term (e.g., by 2030), the NEMS­BT model suggests that there may be

significant changes, compared to the reference case

, between coal and natural gas plants

versus nuclear plants. By 2030, the largest reduction in generation occurs with nuclear plants,

followed by coal.

The last panel of Table 14.3.2 shows the impacts on generating capacity by type of

generation technology. Total generation capacity is lower by about 0.015 gigawatts (GW) in

2030, roughly a 0.01 percent decline from the reference case.

The components of total capacity are distinguished by type of generation technology

rather than strictly by fuel type. Fossil fuel steam plants are primarily coal­fired, but also

include some petroleum use. High efficiency, combined­cycle plants and combustion turbines

both use natural gas.

Because combustion turbines are primarily used to meet peak loads, the capacity of

this technology shows the greatest decline over the next two decades. Compared to the

reference case, the total generation capacity of combustion turbines falls throughout the

forecast period and is lower by about 0.007 GW by 2030. The reduction in combustion

turbine capacity represents nearly half of the total capacity reduction by 2030.

Table 14.3.3 through Table 14.3.6 show the estimated impacts for the standard size

PTAC equipment for the other TSLs. Table 14.3.3 shows the results for TSL 3. The impacts

from the TSL 3 are roughly double of those for TSLs 1,2, and 4.

Table 14.3.4 shows the impacts from TSL A. As discussed in Chapter 9, TSL A

represents different efficiency levels for small and large PTAC equipment. Under TSL A,

total generation is lower by 0.020 TWh in 2030, as compared to the reference case. Total

capacity falls by slightly more than 0.02 GW, or about 0.01% of the reference case.

For TSL 5 (Table 14.3.6), total generation falls by 0.056 TWh by 2030. This decline

is about four times that for TSL 1. However, the impact is still very small, representing a

little more than a 0.001 percent reduction compared to the reference case. Total generation

capacity in 2030 declines by 0.060 GW in this case.

As shown in Table 14.3.6, TSL 6 represents the most stringent conservation standard

of those considered in the analysis. Under this TSL, total generation by 2030 is lower by

about 0.086 TWh as compared to the reference case. In this case, total generating capacity is

about 0.075 GW less than the reference case.

14­5

### Table 14.3.3. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 3

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.011 ­0.021 ­0.028 ­0.031

­0.018 ­0.030 ­0.029 ­0.016

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 0.000

0.005 0.009 0.010 0.008

0.001 ­0.001 ­0.009 ­0.021

0.001 0.001 0.000 ­0.003

­0.012 ­0.023 ­0.029 ­0.032

­0.005 ­0.008 ­0.008 ­0.004

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.006

­0.001 ­0.005 ­0.010 ­0.016

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.005

­0.008 ­0.018 ­0.026 ­0.034 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040

­0.033 ­0.034

­0.011 ­0.004

0.000 0.001

0.008 0.007

­0.026 ­0.032

­0.004 ­0.005

­0.033 ­0.034

­0.003 ­0.001

­0.006 ­0.007

­0.019 ­0.023

­0.003 ­0.004

­0.006 ­0.006

­0.037 ­0.041 2042

­0.035

­0.002

0.001

0.006

­0.034

­0.006

­0.034

0.000

­0.007

­0.024

­0.005

­0.007

­0.043



### Table 14.3.4 Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL A

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.007 ­0.014 ­0.018 ­0.020

­0.012 ­0.019 ­0.019 ­0.011

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 0.000

0.003 0.006 0.006 0.005

0.001 ­0.001 ­0.006 ­0.013

0.001 0.001 0.000 ­0.002

­0.008 ­0.015 ­0.019 ­0.020

­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.003

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.011

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003

­0.005 ­0.012 ­0.017 ­0.022 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040

­0.021 ­0.022

­0.007 ­0.003

0.000 0.001

0.005 0.004

­0.017 ­0.021

­0.003 ­0.003

­0.021 ­0.022

­0.002 ­0.001

­0.004 ­0.005

­0.012 ­0.015

­0.002 ­0.003

­0.004 ­0.004

­0.024 ­0.027 2042

­0.023

­0.001

0.001

0.004

­0.022

­0.004

­0.022

0.000

­0.005

­0.016

­0.003

­0.004

­0.028

14­6

### Table 14.3.5. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 5

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.019 ­0.037 ­0.049 ­0.055

­0.032 ­0.053 ­0.051 ­0.029

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 0.000

0.009 0.015 0.017 0.014

0.002 ­0.002 ­0.015 ­0.036

0.002 0.002 ­0.001 ­0.005

­0.021 ­0.040 ­0.052 ­0.056

­0.009 ­0.015 ­0.014 ­0.008

­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.008 ­0.010

­0.002 ­0.008 ­0.017 ­0.029

0.000 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.005

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.009

­0.015 ­0.032 ­0.047 ­0.060 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040

­0.058 ­0.061

­0.019 ­0.008

0.001 0.001

0.013 0.012

­0.046 ­0.056

­0.007 ­0.009

­0.058 ­0.060

­0.005 ­0.001

­0.011 ­0.013

­0.034 ­0.040

­0.006 ­0.007

­0.010 ­0.011

­0.066 ­0.073 2042

­0.062

­0.003

0.002

0.011

­0.061

­0.010

­0.061

0.000

­0.013

­0.043

­0.008

­0.012

­0.076



### Table 14.3.6. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 6

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.029 ­0.057 ­0.076 ­0.085

­0.049 ­0.081 ­0.079 ­0.044

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.002 0.000

0.013 0.023 0.026 0.022

0.004 ­0.003 ­0.023 ­0.056

0.002 0.002 ­0.001 ­0.008

­0.032 ­0.061 ­0.079 ­0.086

­0.014 ­0.022 ­0.022 ­0.012

­0.004 ­0.008 ­0.012 ­0.016

­0.004 ­0.013 ­0.026 ­0.045

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.007

­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.009 ­0.013

­0.023 ­0.048 ­0.072 ­0.092 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040

­0.089 ­0.093

­0.029 ­0.012

0.001 0.002

0.020 0.018

­0.070 ­0.086

­0.011 ­0.014

­0.089 ­0.092

­0.007 ­0.002

­0.017 ­0.019

­0.052 ­0.061

­0.009 ­0.012

­0.015 ­0.017

­0.101 ­0.112 2042

­0.095

­0.004

0.003

0.017

­0.093

­0.015

­0.093

0.000

­0.020

­0.065

­0.012

­0.018

­0.116

14­7

### Table 14.3.7 through Table 14.3.9 present the estimated impacts for non­standard size

PTACs. The impacts on the utility sector are somewhat lower than those described for the

standard size PTAC equipment. Using the TSLs with the greatest savings (TSL 6 for

standard size equipment and TSL 5 for non­standard size equipment) as a basis of comparison

total commercial electricity savings in 2030 from the non­standard size PTAC equipment are

about 0.011 TWh (or about 13 percent of the savings from the standard sleeve size equipment

at the highest TSL). Total generation for TSL 5 for non­standard size equipment declines

about 0.012 TWh by 2030.

Based on the National Energy Savings model results, electricity savings do not

continue to increase after 2035 for PTAC equipment with non­standard sleeve sizes. The

utility impacts for years after 2035 are maintained at the levels shown for 2035.

Table 14.3.7. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTACs at TSL 1, 2, 4

NEMS-BT Results:

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 

### Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.004

­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.002

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.004

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.005

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.001 0.001 0.001

­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.003

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.004

0.000 0.000 0.000

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.003 ­0.003 ­0.003

­0.001 0.000 0.000

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.006 ­0.005 ­0.005

14­8

### Table 14.3.8. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTACs at TSL 3

NEMS-BT Results:

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

*

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 

### Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.007

­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.007 ­0.004

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002

0.000 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.005

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.007 ­0.007

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.001

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.008 ­0.008 ­0.007 ­0.007

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.002 0.002 0.002

­0.007 ­0.006 ­0.006

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.008 ­0.007 ­0.007

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.002 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.004

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.009 ­0.009 ­0.008



### Table 14.3.9. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTACs at TSL 5

NEMS-BT Results:

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 

### Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.010 ­0.011

­0.006 ­0.010 ­0.010 ­0.006

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003

0.000 0.000 ­0.003 ­0.007

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

­0.004 ­0.008 ­0.010 ­0.011

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.003 ­0.001

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002

0.000 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.006

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002

­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.009 ­0.012 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040 2042

­0.012 ­0.012 ­0.012

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.002 0.003 0.003

­0.011 ­0.009 ­0.009

­0.002 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.012 ­0.011 ­0.011

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.002

­0.008 ­0.007 ­0.006

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.002

­0.014 ­0.013 ­0.013

14­9

### 14.3.2 Impacts Related to PTHP Equipment

Energy conservation standards for PTHP equipment reduce both cooling and heating

electricity demands, affecting both summer and winter peaks in system electricity loads. At

the national level, under TSL 6, about 57 percent of the total reduction in electricity use is

estimated to be for cooling and the remainder for heating. Before turning to the specific

results for the various trial standard levels for PTHP equipment, it may be useful to discuss

some differences in how the energy conservation standards for PTHP and PTAC equipment

may affect the utility sector.

Using the NEMS­BT model, some comparative analysis of the utility system

responses between PTAC and PTHP equipment was undertaken. Using the same total

decrements in commercial electricity consumption as for the PTAC case, NEMS­BT was

simulated for PTHP equipment. h 

### Thus, for example, if the total decrement in the PTAC

simulation was 10 TWh, with 100 percent of that change applied to commercial cooling end

use, then the same decrement of 10 TWh was applied for the PTHP simulation but split in a

57­43 ratio between cooling and heating. (As actually implemented in the model runs, the

shares between heating and cooling vary by census division.)

The results of this analysis indicate that the response of total generation depends on

both the end use composition and magnitude of the equipment electricity savings. In the early

years of the forecast, the PTHP equipment savings are about the same as those for PTAC

equipment, for the same total decrement in commercial building electricity use. By 2030, the

savings for the PTHP case are about 10 percent higher. These differences are due to changes

in the behavior of electricity prices between the two cases as well as other changes that may

reflect alternative levels of transmission and distribution losses with different generation

mixes.

The differential impact on total capacity between the two types of equipment is more

significant, however. For the same decrement in total electricity use, an energy conservation

standard on PTHP equipment has a much smaller impact on installed capacity than does a

standard on PTAC equipment. The relative difference remains relatively constant over time,

with the change in total capacity from a PTHP standard (again, measured against the reference

case) about 45 percent smaller than that for a standard on PTAC equipment with same total

electricity savings. This result can be expected, in particular, for combustion turbines as a

much higher proportion of the electricity saving for the PTAC standards will influence the

system peak, which is for most utilities during the summer months. With the implementation

of the standard, more peaking capacity is unneeded in the PTAC case compared to the PTHP

case.

Table 14.3.10 through Table 14.3.14 show the estimated utility impacts for energy

conservation standards for PTHP equipment with standard sleeve sizes. At TSL 1 shown in

Table 14.3.10, total generation declines by 0.030 TWh by 2030. The pattern of changes in

generation attributed to various generation classes by fuel type is similar to that for PTAC

h As for the PTAC equipment, the magnitude of these decrements used in NEMS­BT was much higher than that

anticipated by the energy conservation standards. See Appendix J of this TSD.

14­10

### equipment. By 2030, the largest reductions occur in coal and nuclear generation, with nuclear

generation falling somewhat more, in relative terms, as compared to the standard for PTACs.

Table 14.3.10. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 1

Difference from Reference Case



### NEMS-BT Results:

2015 2020 2025 2030 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation ­0.009 ­0.019 ­0.026 ­0.030 ­0.032 ­0.034 ­0.035

Coal (TWh) ­0.011 ­0.019 ­0.019 ­0.011 ­0.007 ­0.003 ­0.001

Petroleum (TWh) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gas (TWh) ­0.001 0.001 0.005 0.012 0.015 0.018 0.019

Nuclear (TWh) 0.001 ­0.002 ­0.012 ­0.027 ­0.034 ­0.041 ­0.045

Renewables (TWh) 0.001 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.007

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity ­0.011 ­0.021 ­0.027 ­0.030 ­0.031 ­0.033 ­0.033

Fossil Steam (GW) ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.003 ­0.002 ­0.001 ­0.001

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

Combusion Turbines (GW) ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.008 ­0.009 ­0.010

Nuclear (GW) 0.000 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.006

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.003 ­0.003

Total (GW) ­0.004 ­0.009 ­0.013 ­0.016 ­0.018 ­0.020 ­0.021



### Relative to the reference case, total capacity declines in almost linear fashion over

time. By 2030, total generation capacity is about 0.016 GW lower than for the reference case.

Capacity from all types of fossil fuel generation declines. Compared to the PTAC cases, the

decline in combustion turbine capacity relative to fossil fuel steam and nuclear generation

capacity is not quite as great.

Tables 14.3.11 through 14.3.16 show the estimated impacts for the standard size

PTHP equipment for the other TSLs.. Table 14.3.11 shows the utility impacts for TSLs 2 and

3. Table 14.3.12 displays the impacts for TSL A

– a hybrid level that mixes efficiency levels

from small and large PTHP equipment (again, see Chapter 9 for explanation). For TSL A,

total generation in 2030 is lower by 0.062 TWh. For generation, the 2030 impact is a

reduction of 0.044 GW (about double the reduction for PTACs at the same TSL).

For TSLs 4 and 5, as shown in Table 14.3.13, total 2030 generation falls by 0.091

TWh. This decline is nearly four times that for TSL 1. Again, however, the impact is still

very small, representing about 0.02 percent reduction compared to the reference case. The

decline by 2030 in total generation capacity is projected to be 0.05 GW in this case.

14­11

### TSL 6 represents the most stringent energy conservation standard considered in this

analysis. As shown in Table 14.3.14, total generation is lower in 2030 by 0.115 TWh as

compared to the reference. In this case, total capacity is 0.064 GW lower.

Table 14.3.11. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 2, 3

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.020 ­0.041 ­0.055 ­0.063 ­0.067 ­0.071 ­0.071

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.024 ­0.040 ­0.039 ­0.022 ­0.015 ­0.006 ­0.003

Petroleum (TWh) ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gas (TWh) ­0.002 0.001 0.010 0.024 0.030 0.037 0.041

Nuclear (TWh) 0.003 ­0.005 ­0.024 ­0.057 ­0.070 ­0.086 ­0.093

Renewables (TWh) 0.002 0.001 ­0.002 ­0.007 ­0.010 ­0.013 ­0.014

Total (TWh) ­0.022 ­0.043 ­0.056 ­0.062 ­0.065 ­0.068 ­0.069

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW) ­0.005 ­0.009 ­0.009 ­0.005 ­0.004 ­0.002 ­0.001

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.002

Combusion Turbines (GW) ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.009 ­0.014 ­0.017 ­0.020 ­0.021

Nuclear (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.008 ­0.009 ­0.012 ­0.012

Renewables (GW) ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.006 ­0.007

Total (GW) ­0.008 ­0.018 ­0.027 ­0.034 ­0.038 ­0.042 ­0.043

14­12

### Table 14.3.12. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL A

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combusion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.026 ­0.052 ­0.069 ­0.080

­0.030 ­0.050 ­0.049 ­0.028

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.001

­0.002 0.002 0.013 0.031

0.004 ­0.006 ­0.031 ­0.072

0.002 0.002 ­0.002 ­0.009

­0.028 ­0.054 ­0.071 ­0.079

­0.007 ­0.011 ­0.011 ­0.007

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.003 ­0.003

­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.011 ­0.018

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.010

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006

­0.011 ­0.023 ­0.034 ­0.044 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040

­0.084 ­0.089

­0.019 ­0.008

­0.001 0.000

0.039 0.047

­0.089 ­0.110

­0.012 ­0.016

­0.082 ­0.086

­0.005 ­0.003

­0.003 ­0.002

­0.021 ­0.025

­0.012 ­0.015

­0.007 ­0.008

­0.048 ­0.053 2042

­0.092

­0.003

0.000

0.051

­0.118

­0.017

­0.088

­0.002

­0.002

­0.026

­0.016

­0.009

­0.055



### Table 14.3.13. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 4, 5

Difference from Reference Case

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combusion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.030 ­0.059 ­0.080 ­0.092

­0.035 ­0.058 ­0.057 ­0.032

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.001

­0.002 0.002 0.015 0.035

0.004 ­0.007 ­0.036 ­0.083

0.002 0.002 ­0.003 ­0.011

­0.032 ­0.063 ­0.082 ­0.091

­0.008 ­0.013 ­0.013 ­0.008

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.003

­0.002 ­0.006 ­0.013 ­0.021

0.001 ­0.001 ­0.005 ­0.011

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.007

­0.012 ­0.026 ­0.039 ­0.050 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040

­0.097 ­0.103

­0.021 ­0.009

­0.001 0.000

0.044 0.055

­0.103 ­0.126

­0.014 ­0.018

­0.095 ­0.099

­0.006 ­0.003

­0.003 ­0.003

­0.024 ­0.029

­0.014 ­0.017

­0.008 ­0.009

­0.055 ­0.061 2042

­0.106

­0.004

0.000

0.059

­0.136

­0.020

­0.101

­0.002

­0.003

­0.030

­0.018

­0.010

­0.063

14­13

### Table 14.3.14. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 6

Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.038 ­0.075 ­0.101 ­0.116 ­0.123 ­0.131 ­0.134

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.044 ­0.073 ­0.072 ­0.041 ­0.027 ­0.012 ­0.005

Petroleum (TWh) ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.002 ­0.001 ­0.001 0.000 0.000

Gas (TWh) ­0.003 0.002 0.018 0.045 0.056 0.069 0.075

Nuclear (TWh) 0.005 ­0.008 ­0.045 ­0.105 ­0.130 ­0.160 ­0.173

Renewables (TWh) 0.003 0.002 ­0.003 ­0.014 ­0.018 ­0.023 ­0.026

Total (TWh) ­0.041 ­0.079 ­0.104 ­0.115 ­0.120 ­0.126 ­0.128

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Steam (GW) ­0.010 ­0.017 ­0.017 ­0.010 ­0.007 ­0.004 ­0.002

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.004

Combusion Turbines (GW) ­0.003 ­0.008 ­0.016 ­0.026 ­0.031 ­0.036 ­0.038

Nuclear (GW) 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.006 ­0.014 ­0.017 ­0.021 ­0.023

Renewables (GW) ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.009 ­0.010 ­0.012 ­0.013

Total (GW) ­0.015 ­0.033 ­0.049 ­0.064 ­0.070 ­0.077 ­0.080



### Table 14.3.15 through Table 14.3.17 present the estimated impacts for non­standard

size PTHPs. The utility sector impacts are much lower than those described for the standard

sleeve sizes. Using the TSLs with the greatest savings (TSL 6 for standard size equipment

and TSLs 5 for non­standard size equipment) as a basis of comparison, total commercial

electricity savings in 2030 from the non­standard size PTAC equipment are about 0.014 TWh

(or about 12 percent of the savings from the standard sleeve size equipment at the highest

TSL). Total generation for TSL 5 for non­standard size equipment declines about 0.012 TWh

by 2030, as compared to the reference case..

As for the PTAC equipment, based on the National Energy Savings model results,

electricity savings do not continue to increase after 2035 for PTHPs with non­standard sleeve

sizes. The utility impacts for years after 2035 are maintained at the levels shown for 2035.

14­14

### Table 14.3.15. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTHPs at TSL 1

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.007 ­0.007 ­0.007

Coal (TWh) ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.002 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002

Petroleum (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gas (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003

Nuclear (TWh) 0.000 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.006 ­0.009 ­0.007 ­0.007

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.006 ­0.007 ­0.007 ­0.006

Fossil Steam (GW) ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000

Combined Cycle (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Combusion Turbines (GW) 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.002

Nuclear (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

Renewables (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

Total (GW) ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.004



### Table 14.3.16. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTHPs at TSL 2, 3

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.007 ­0.009 ­0.010 ­0.009 ­0.009

Coal (TWh) ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.003 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002

Petroleum (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gas (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.004

Nuclear (TWh) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.008 ­0.012 ­0.010 ­0.009

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.001 ­0.001

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.008 ­0.008 ­0.009 ­0.009 ­0.009

Fossil Steam (GW) ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

Combined Cycle (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Combusion Turbines (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.002 ­0.002

Nuclear (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.001 ­0.001

Renewables (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

Total (GW) ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.005 ­0.005

14­15

### Table 14.3.17. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTHPs at TSL 4, 5

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 

### Extrapolation

2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electricity Generation ­0.005 ­0.009 ­0.013 ­0.014 ­0.016 ­0.015 ­0.015

Coal (TWh) ­0.006 ­0.009 ­0.009 ­0.005 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004

Petroleum (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Gas (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.009 0.007 0.007

Nuclear (TWh) 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.006 ­0.013 ­0.020 ­0.017 ­0.015

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.002 ­0.002

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity ­0.005 ­0.010 ­0.013 ­0.014 ­0.016 ­0.015 ­0.015

Fossil Steam (GW) ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.001 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

Combined Cycle (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000

Combusion Turbines (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.004

Nuclear (GW) 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.002 ­0.002

Renewables (GW) 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

Total (GW) ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.008 ­0.010 ­0.009 ­0.008

14­16

### REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA), Annual

Energy Outlook 2008

, June 2008. Washington, D.C. DOE/EIA­0383(2008).

14­17