### 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................................................................ 14­3

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 14.3.3. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 5........................................... 14­6

Table 14.3.5. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 6........................................... 14­7

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

................................... 14­8

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

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

Table 14.3.10. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTACs at TSL 6

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

Table 14.3.11. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTACs at TSL 7

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

Table 14.3.12. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 1

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

Table 14.3.13. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 2, 3

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

Table 14.3.14. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 4, 5

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

Table 14.3.15. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 6

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

Table 14.3.16. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 7

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

Table 14.3.17. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTHPs at TSL 1................................. 14­14

Table 14.3.18. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTHPs at TSL 2, 3............................. 14­14

Table 14.3.19. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTHPs at TSL 4, 5............................. 14­15

Table 14.3.20. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTHPs at TSL 6................................. 14­15

Table 14.3.21. Utility Impacts for Non­standard Size PTHPs at TSL 7................................. 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

1 

### for the United States, published in the Annual Energy Outlook

. The Annual Energy Outlook

for 2007 ( AEO2007) forecasts energy supply and demand through 2030.

b 

### DOE used a variant of this NEMS model, referred to as NEMS­BT, to account for the

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

NEMS­BT reference case was modeled after the AEO2007 reference case. c 

### The utility impact

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

d 

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

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

AEO2007

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

emissions rates) of future electricity generating plants are as specified in the AEO2007

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 2007 AEO

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

estimates that were 0.3 percent and 0.4 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

2007 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 AEO2007 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. 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 7 for all PTAC equipment

indicate a reduction in generating capacity for combustions turbines (relative to the NEMSBT reference case) of 0.037 gigawatts (GW) in 2025 and 0.065 GW in 2030. The five­year

reduction of generation capacity is 0.028 GW. From the National Energy Savings (NES)

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.

14­2

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

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

turbine capacity between 2030 and 2035 is calculated to be 0.014 GW. Further, the

extrapolated value of the reduction in capacity compared to the reference case for 2035 is

0.079 GW, by adding 0.065 GW with 0.014 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 14.3.21. 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* 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Commercial Sector Electricity Consumption **

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,267 1,399 1,549 1,694 1,865 2,062

Total U.S. Electricity Generation ***

Coal (TWh) 2,015 2,144 2,303 2,498 2,889 3,319

Petroleum (TWh) 122 95 103 103 106 110

Gas (TWh) 756 895 1,013 1,053 1,005 949

Nuclear (TWh) 780 789 816 886 886 893

Renewables (TWh) 362 469 486 498 511 526

Total (TWh) 4,035 4,392 4,722 5,038 5,397 5,797

Installed Generating Capacity †

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) †† 431.9 440.3 413.2 438.1 482.7 535.5

Combined Cycle (GW) 176.6 193.3 195.2 203.4 210.2 212.1

Combustion Turbines (GW) 133.2 137.0 120.7 127.1 136.8 157.8

Nuclear (GW) 100.0 100.5 103.2 111.7 111.7 112.2

Renewables (GW) 118.3 126.6 128.3 130.5 134.9 141.9

Total (GW) 960.1 997.8 960.5 1,010.7 1,076.3 1,159.5

* 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 2005

** Comparable to Table A8 of AEO2007: Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions

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

† Comparable to Table A9 of AEO2007: Electricity Generating Capacity

†† Includes coal steam and other fossil fuel steam plants



### 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 TSL

1, total commercial electricity use in terawatt hours (TWh) declines by 0.003 TWh in 2015

and by 0.013 TWh in 2030. The reductions in total commercial electricity consumption are

slightly higher than those attributable solely to the reduction in cooling. This larger impact is

to due to several factors, one at the building level and the other at the energy system level.

14­3

### First, at the building level, the reduction in cooling electricity demand also leads to some

reduction in the electricity used by distribution transformers, used to step down the voltage

supplied by the utility. Second, at the energy system level, the NEMS model suggests that

electricity prices, at least in the years immediately following the implementation of the

standard, may increase slightly. The effect is likely caused by rate­of­return pricing behavior

that leads utilities, in the face of somewhat lower electricity sales, to charge higher prices to

cover the financial and overhead costs of existing generating facilities. These price increases

lead to very small reductions in demand for all electrical end uses (e.g., lighting, refrigeration,

f 

### office equipment) in the commercial buildings sector.

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

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.003 ­0.007 ­0.010 ­0.013 ­0.015 ­0.016 ­0.017

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.004 ­0.009 ­0.015 ­0.021 ­0.024 ­0.028 ­0.029

Petroleum (TWh) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

Gas (TWh) 0.002 0.002 ­0.003 ­0.011 ­0.016 ­0.021 ­0.023

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.002 ­0.001 0.005 0.016 0.021 0.028 0.030

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002

Total (TWh) ­0.004 ­0.008 ­0.012 ­0.016 ­0.018 ­0.021 ­0.022

Installed Generating Capacity

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

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.004

Combustion Turbines (GW) 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.009 ­0.010 ­0.011

Nuclear (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004

Renewables (GW) 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.003

Total (GW) ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.009 ­0.013 ­0.015 ­0.017 ­0.018



### 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 roughly 30 percent greater than the decline in

commercial sales. As just described, some of the additional impact is due to price increases

that affect all sectors in the economy. Specifically, electricity use in the residential and

industrial sectors declines as well as that in the commercial sector. Moreover, some

additional decline in generation also reflects transmission and distribution losses that are

reduced as a result of lower electricity sales to end users.

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 much more varied. In the

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

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

equipment is replaced in existing buildings. Second, a general behavioral response to higher 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

### 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. The PTAC and PTHP energy conservation standards, by reducing cooling (and thus

peak) electricity demand, help to flatten the shape of the hourly electricity load profile seen by

utilities. This change in the load profile increases the attractiveness of nuclear plants,

particular with respect to gas­fired plants (including combustion turbines used to meet peak

loads) and, as the model indicates, also with respect to coal­fired plants.

In the near term (through 2020), the NEMS­BT model suggests slightly different

behavior. Generation from natural gas and petroleum is somewhat above the base case.

Nuclear is just slightly lower than the reference case, suggesting some delay in the onset of

new nuclear capacity as compared to the reference case. Because there is less opportunity

over the next decade (through 2020) to build new plants and optimize the electricity supply

system to meet the altered character of the load, other institutional and economic factors may

be more relevant in how various generating facilities are dispatched.

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 0.013 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.

Consistent with the pattern shown for nuclear electricity generation in 2030, nuclear

capacity is significantly higher than the reference case. The NEMS­BT model results indicate

that nuclear substitutes not only for combustion turbines, but also for all other fossil­fired

generation. Generation capacity from renewables also declines. Comparing this result to the

slightly positive impact on generation from renewables in 2030, the model suggests that

overall capacity utilization from these technologies increases. g

g Any comparison between the generation and capacity impacts shown in the table is complicated by the fact

that various types of generating plants operate for different numbers of hours during the year. Base load plants

such as fossil fuel steam and nuclear are relatively comparable as they operate for roughly the same number of

hours during the year. Because renewables comprise a number of technologies with various operating hours, it is

not surprising to see a divergence between the behavior of generation and capacity at this aggregate level.

14­5

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

PTAC equipment for TSL 3 through TSL 7. For TSL 6 (

Table 14.3.4. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 5

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.013 ­0.028 ­0.041 ­0.052 ­0.058 ­0.065 ­0.068

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.015 ­0.036 ­0.058 ­0.083 ­0.095 ­0.110 ­0.117

Petroleum (TWh) 0.002 0.002 0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005

Gas (TWh) 0.009 0.007 ­0.012 ­0.045 ­0.062 ­0.083 ­0.092

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.010 ­0.005 0.019 0.062 0.084 0.110 0.121

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006

Total (TWh) ­0.014 ­0.032 ­0.048 ­0.064 ­0.073 ­0.082 ­0.087

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.005 ­0.009 ­0.011 ­0.012 ­0.013 ­0.013 ­0.014

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.008 ­0.012 ­0.013 ­0.015 ­0.016

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.002 ­0.007 ­0.016 ­0.028 ­0.034 ­0.041 ­0.044

Nuclear (GW) ­0.001 ­0.001 0.002 0.008 0.011 0.015 0.016

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.009 ­0.011 ­0.012

Total (GW) ­0.010 ­0.023 ­0.037 ­0.051 ­0.058 ­0.067 ­0.070



### Table 14.3.5), total generation falls by 0.099 TWh. This decline is about six times that

for TSL 1. However, the impact is still very small, representing about 0.002 percent reduction

compared to the reference case. Total generation capacity declines by about 0.073 GW in this

case.

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

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.008 ­0.016 ­0.023 ­0.030 ­0.033 ­0.037 ­0.038

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.008 ­0.020 ­0.033 ­0.047 ­0.054 ­0.062 ­0.066

Petroleum (TWh) 0.001 0.001 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.003

Gas (TWh) 0.005 0.004 ­0.007 ­0.026 ­0.035 ­0.047 ­0.052

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.006 ­0.003 0.011 0.035 0.047 0.062 0.068

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004

Total (TWh) ­0.008 ­0.018 ­0.027 ­0.036 ­0.041 ­0.046 ­0.049

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.008 ­0.007 ­0.007 ­0.006 ­0.006

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.007 ­0.007 ­0.007 ­0.008

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.011 ­0.016 ­0.018 ­0.021 ­0.022

14­6Nuclear (GW) ­0.001 0.000 0.002 0.005

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.004

Total (GW) ­0.006 ­0.013 ­0.026 ­0.029 0.006 0.008 0.009

­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.006

­0.030 ­0.032 ­0.033



### Table 14.3.4. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 5

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.013 ­0.028 ­0.041 ­0.052 ­0.058 ­0.065 ­0.068

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.015 ­0.036 ­0.058 ­0.083 ­0.095 ­0.110 ­0.117

Petroleum (TWh) 0.002 0.002 0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005

Gas (TWh) 0.009 0.007 ­0.012 ­0.045 ­0.062 ­0.083 ­0.092

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.010 ­0.005 0.019 0.062 0.084 0.110 0.121

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006

Total (TWh) ­0.014 ­0.032 ­0.048 ­0.064 ­0.073 ­0.082 ­0.087

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.005 ­0.009 ­0.011 ­0.012 ­0.013 ­0.013 ­0.014

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.008 ­0.012 ­0.013 ­0.015 ­0.016

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.002 ­0.007 ­0.016 ­0.028 ­0.034 ­0.041 ­0.044

Nuclear (GW) ­0.001 ­0.001 0.002 0.008 0.011 0.015 0.016

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.009 ­0.011 ­0.012

Total (GW) ­0.010 ­0.023 ­0.037 ­0.051 ­0.058 ­0.067 ­0.070



### Table 14.3.5. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 6

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.021 ­0.044 ­0.064 ­0.081 ­0.089 ­0.100 ­0.104

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.023 ­0.055 ­0.090 ­0.127 ­0.147 ­0.170 ­0.180

Petroleum (TWh) 0.002 0.003 0.002 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.008

Gas (TWh) 0.014 0.010 ­0.018 ­0.070 ­0.096 ­0.128 ­0.142

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.015 ­0.008 0.029 0.095 0.129 0.169 0.186

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.007 0.009 0.010

Total (TWh) ­0.022 ­0.049 ­0.074 ­0.099 ­0.112 ­0.127 ­0.133

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.007 ­0.013 ­0.017 ­0.019 ­0.020 ­0.021 ­0.021

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.004 ­0.008 ­0.013 ­0.018 ­0.020 ­0.023 ­0.025

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.003 ­0.011 ­0.025 ­0.043 ­0.052 ­0.063 ­0.068

Nuclear (GW) ­0.002 ­0.001 0.004 0.013 0.017 0.022 0.025

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.006 ­0.011 ­0.014 ­0.017 ­0.019

Total (GW) ­0.016 ­0.036 ­0.057 ­0.078 ­0.089 ­0.102 ­0.108

14­7

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

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.047 ­0.099 ­0.144 ­0.182 ­0.202 ­0.225 ­0.235

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.052 ­0.124 ­0.202 ­0.287 ­0.331 ­0.383 ­0.406

Petroleum (TWh) 0.005 0.007 0.004 ­0.005 ­0.010 ­0.015 ­0.018

Gas (TWh) 0.032 0.023 ­0.040 ­0.157 ­0.217 ­0.288 ­0.319

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.034 ­0.017 0.065 0.214 0.290 0.380 0.420

Renewables (TWh) ­0.001 0.001 0.005 0.012 0.016 0.021 0.022

Total (TWh) ­0.050 ­0.110 ­0.168 ­0.223 ­0.252 ­0.285 ­0.300

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.016 ­0.030 ­0.039 ­0.043 ­0.045 ­0.047 ­0.048

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.008 ­0.018 ­0.029 ­0.040 ­0.046 ­0.053 ­0.056

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.007 ­0.025 ­0.055 ­0.097 ­0.118 ­0.143 ­0.154

Nuclear (GW) ­0.005 ­0.002 0.009 0.028 0.038 0.050 0.056

Renewables (GW) ­0.001 ­0.005 ­0.013 ­0.025 ­0.032 ­0.039 ­0.042

Total (GW) ­0.036 ­0.081 ­0.128 ­0.177 ­0.201 ­0.231 ­0.244



### Table 14.3.7 through Table 14.3.11 present the estimated impacts for non-standard size

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

the standard size PTAC equipment. Using TSL 6 as a basis of comparison (

Table 14.3.4. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTACs at TSL 5

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.013 ­0.028 ­0.041 ­0.052 ­0.058 ­0.065 ­0.068

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.015 ­0.036 ­0.058 ­0.083 ­0.095 ­0.110 ­0.117

Petroleum (TWh) 0.002 0.002 0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005

Gas (TWh) 0.009 0.007 ­0.012 ­0.045 ­0.062 ­0.083 ­0.092

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.010 ­0.005 0.019 0.062 0.084 0.110 0.121

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006

Total (TWh) ­0.014 ­0.032 ­0.048 ­0.064 ­0.073 ­0.082 ­0.087

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.005 ­0.009 ­0.011 ­0.012 ­0.013 ­0.013 ­0.014

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.008 ­0.012 ­0.013 ­0.015 ­0.016

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.002 ­0.007 ­0.016 ­0.028 ­0.034 ­0.041 ­0.044

Nuclear (GW) ­0.001 ­0.001 0.002 0.008 0.011 0.015 0.016

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.009 ­0.011 ­0.012

Total (GW) ­0.010 ­0.023 ­0.037 ­0.051 ­0.058 ­0.067 ­0.070

14­8

### Table 14.3.5), total commercial electricity savings in 2030 from the non­standard size

PTAC equipment are about 0.020 TWh (or about 25 percent of the savings from the standard

sleeve size equipment at the same TSL). Total generation in this case declines about 0.025

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: 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 Fuel Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.006

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.001 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.003

­0.001 0.000 0.001 0.005

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.005

0.000 ­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 0.001

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 2035

­0.005

­0.008

0.000

­0.006

0.008

0.000

­0.006

­0.001

­0.001

­0.003

0.001

­0.001

­0.005 Extrapolation

2040

­0.005

­0.008

0.000

­0.006

0.008

0.000

­0.006

­0.001

­0.001

­0.003

0.001

­0.001

­0.005 2042

­0.005

­0.008

0.000

­0.006

0.008

0.000

­0.006

­0.001

­0.001

­0.003

0.001

­0.001

­0.005



### Table 14.3.8. Utility Impacts for Non-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 Fuel Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.007

­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.007 ­0.011

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.001 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.006

­0.001 ­0.001 0.002 0.008

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.008

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 2035

­0.008

­0.013

0.000

­0.010

0.013

0.001

­0.010

­0.002

­0.002 Extrapolation

2040

­0.008

­0.013

0.000

­0.010

0.013

0.001

­0.010

­0.002

­0.002 2042

­0.008

­0.013

0.000

­0.010

0.013

0.001

­0.010

­0.002

­0.002

14­9­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.005

0.002 0.002 0.002

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.008 ­0.008 ­0.008 Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.006



### Table 14.3.9. Utility Impacts for Non-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 Fuel Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) 2015 2020 2025 2030

­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.008 ­0.010

­0.003 ­0.007 ­0.011 ­0.016

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.002 0.001 ­0.002 ­0.009

­0.002 ­0.001 0.004 0.012

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.009 ­0.013

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.002

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.005

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.007 ­0.010 2035

­0.012

­0.020

­0.001

­0.015

0.020

0.001

­0.015

­0.003

­0.003

­0.008

0.003

­0.002

­0.012 Extrapolation

2040

­0.012

­0.020

­0.001

­0.015

0.020

0.001

­0.015

­0.003

­0.003

­0.008

0.003

­0.002

­0.012 2042

­0.012

­0.020

­0.001

­0.015

0.020

0.001

­0.015

­0.003

­0.003

­0.008

0.003

­0.002

­0.012



### Table 14.3.10. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTACs at TSL 6

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.005 ­0.011 ­0.016 ­0.020 ­0.024 ­0.024 ­0.024

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.006 ­0.014 ­0.022 ­0.032 ­0.040 ­0.040 ­0.040

Petroleum (TWh) 0.001 0.001 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

Gas (TWh) 0.004 0.003 ­0.004 ­0.017 ­0.029 ­0.029 ­0.029

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.004 ­0.002 0.007 0.024 0.038 0.038 0.038

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002

Total (TWh) ­0.006 ­0.012 ­0.019 ­0.025 ­0.030 ­0.030 ­0.030

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.005 ­0.005

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.006 ­0.006

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.011 ­0.015 ­0.015 ­0.015

Nuclear (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.005

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.004 ­0.004

Total (GW) ­0.004 ­0.009 ­0.014 ­0.019 ­0.024 ­0.024 ­0.024

14­10

### Table 14.3.11. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTACs at TSL 7

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.007 ­0.015 ­0.022 ­0.028 ­0.033 ­0.033 ­0.033

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.008 ­0.019 ­0.031 ­0.032 ­0.033 ­0.033 ­0.033

Petroleum (TWh) 0.001 0.001 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.002

Gas (TWh) 0.005 0.003 ­0.006 ­0.017 ­0.028 ­0.028 ­0.028

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.005 ­0.003 0.010 0.024 0.036 0.036 0.036

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002

Total (TWh) ­0.008 ­0.017 ­0.025 ­0.025 ­0.024 ­0.024 ­0.024

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.007 ­0.007 ­0.007 ­0.007

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.008 ­0.008 ­0.008

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.008 ­0.015 ­0.020 ­0.020 ­0.020

Nuclear (GW) ­0.001 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.007

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.006 ­0.006

Total (GW) ­0.005 ­0.012 ­0.019 ­0.027 ­0.033 ­0.033 ­0.033



### 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

h 

### simulated for PTHP equipment. 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 10 percent greater than those for

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

2030, the savings for the PTHP case are about 15 percent lower. These differences are due to

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

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.

14­11

### 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 grows over time. In 2015, the change

in total capacity from a PTHP standard (again, measured against the reference case) is about

35 percent smaller than that for a standard on PTHP equipment with same total electricity

savings. By 2030, the change in total generation capacity is about 50 percent smaller. 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 14.3.12 through Table 14.3.16 show the estimated utility impacts for energy

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

Table 14.3.12, total generation declines by 0.027 TWh by 2030. The pattern of changes in

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

equipment. In the period between 2020 and 2030, both nuclear and renewable generation

increase at the expense of all fossil fuels.

Table 14.3.12. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 1

Difference from Reference Case

NEMS-BT Results: Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.007 ­0.014 ­0.020 ­0.025 ­0.028 ­0.031 ­0.033

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.005 ­0.013 ­0.023 ­0.035 ­0.041 ­0.049 ­0.052

Petroleum (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.003

Gas (TWh) 0.001 ­0.002 ­0.009 ­0.022 ­0.028 ­0.035 ­0.039

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.004 ­0.001 0.010 0.029 0.039 0.050 0.055

Renewables (TWh) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004

Total (TWh) ­0.008 ­0.016 ­0.022 ­0.027 ­0.030 ­0.033 ­0.034

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.006 ­0.006

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.004

Combustion Turbines (GW) 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.009 ­0.011 ­0.012

Nuclear (GW) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.007 0.007

Renewables (GW) 0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002 ­0.002

Total (GW) ­0.003 ­0.007 ­0.010 ­0.013 ­0.014 ­0.016 ­0.017



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

time. By 2030, total generation capacity is about 0.013 GW lower than for the reference case.

Similar to PTAC energy conservation standards, NEMS­BT predicts a substantial increase in

nuclear generating capacity. Capacity from all types of fossil fuel generation declines.

14­12

### Compared to the PTAC cases, the decline in combustion turbine capacity relative to fossil fuel

steam and combined cycle generation capacity is not as great.

Tables 13.3.13 through 13.3.16 show the estimated impacts for the standard size

PTHP equipment for TSL 2 through TSL 7. For TSL 6, total generation falls by 0.105 TWh.

This decline is about 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. Total generation

capacity declines by about 0.050 GW in this case.

Table 14.3.13. 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) ­0.014 ­0.029 ­0.042 ­0.053 ­0.059 ­0.066 ­0.069

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.010 ­0.026 ­0.047 ­0.073 ­0.086 ­0.102 ­0.109

Petroleum (TWh) 0.001 0.001 0.000 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.006

Gas (TWh) 0.002 ­0.004 ­0.020 ­0.046 ­0.059 ­0.074 ­0.081

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.008 ­0.003 0.020 0.060 0.081 0.105 0.116

Renewables (TWh) ­0.001 ­0.001 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.009

Total (TWh) ­0.016 ­0.033 ­0.046 ­0.057 ­0.062 ­0.068 ­0.071

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.003 ­0.007 ­0.009 ­0.011 ­0.012 ­0.013 ­0.013

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.007 ­0.008 ­0.008

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.009 ­0.015 ­0.019 ­0.023 ­0.025

Nuclear (GW) ­0.001 0.000 0.003 0.008 0.011 0.014 0.015

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005

Total (GW) ­0.007 ­0.015 ­0.021 ­0.027 ­0.030 ­0.034 ­0.035



### Table 14.3.14. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 4, 5

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.020 ­0.042 ­0.062 ­0.078 ­0.086 ­0.096 ­0.101

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.014 ­0.038 ­0.069 ­0.107 ­0.126 ­0.149 ­0.160

Petroleum (TWh) 0.001 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.007 ­0.008

Gas (TWh) 0.003 ­0.006 ­0.029 ­0.067 ­0.086 ­0.109 ­0.119

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.012 ­0.004 0.029 0.088 0.118 0.154 0.170

Renewables (TWh) ­0.001 ­0.001 0.002 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.013

Total (TWh) ­0.023 ­0.048 ­0.068 ­0.083 ­0.091 ­0.100 ­0.104

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.005 ­0.010 ­0.013 ­0.016 ­0.017 ­0.019 ­0.019

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.009 ­0.010 ­0.011 ­0.012

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.001 ­0.006 ­0.013 ­0.023 ­0.028 ­0.033 ­0.036

Nuclear (GW) ­0.002 0.000 0.004 0.012 0.016 0.020 0.022

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.007

Total (GW) ­0.010 ­0.021 ­0.031 ­0.040 ­0.044 ­0.049 ­0.051

14­13

### Table 14.3.15. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 6

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.025 ­0.054 ­0.078 ­0.099 ­0.110 ­0.122 ­0.128

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.018 ­0.049 ­0.088 ­0.136 ­0.160 ­0.189 ­0.202

Petroleum (TWh) 0.001 0.001 ­0.001 ­0.005 ­0.007 ­0.009 ­0.011

Gas (TWh) 0.004 ­0.007 ­0.037 ­0.085 ­0.109 ­0.138 ­0.151

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.015 ­0.005 0.037 0.112 0.150 0.195 0.215

Renewables (TWh) ­0.002 ­0.001 0.002 0.008 0.011 0.015 0.017

Total (TWh) ­0.029 ­0.061 ­0.086 ­0.105 ­0.115 ­0.127 ­0.132

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.006 ­0.012 ­0.017 ­0.020 ­0.022 ­0.024 ­0.025

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.008 ­0.011 ­0.012 ­0.014 ­0.015

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.002 ­0.007 ­0.016 ­0.029 ­0.035 ­0.042 ­0.046

Nuclear (GW) ­0.002 ­0.001 0.005 0.015 0.020 0.026 0.028

Renewables (GW) 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.008 ­0.008

Total (GW) ­0.013 ­0.027 ­0.039 ­0.050 ­0.056 ­0.062 ­0.065



### Table 14.3.16. Utility Impacts for Standard Size PTHPs at TSL 7

Difference from Reference Case

Extrapolation

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2042

Commercial Sector Electricity

Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) ­0.065 ­0.137 ­0.200 ­0.254 ­0.281 ­0.313 ­0.328

Total U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal (TWh) ­0.047 ­0.125 ­0.225 ­0.348 ­0.411 ­0.485 ­0.519

Petroleum (TWh) 0.004 0.004 ­0.002 ­0.012 ­0.018 ­0.024 ­0.027

Gas (TWh) 0.011 ­0.018 ­0.094 ­0.217 ­0.279 ­0.354 ­0.387

Nuclear (TWh) ­0.039 ­0.013 0.095 0.286 0.384 0.500 0.552

Renewables (TWh) ­0.004 ­0.003 0.005 0.021 0.029 0.039 0.043

Total (TWh) ­0.075 ­0.156 ­0.220 ­0.270 ­0.295 ­0.325 ­0.338

Installed Generating Capacity

Fossil Fuel Steam (GW) ­0.016 ­0.032 ­0.044 ­0.052 ­0.056 ­0.061 ­0.063

Combined Cycle (GW) ­0.006 ­0.014 ­0.021 ­0.028 ­0.031 ­0.036 ­0.038

Combustion Turbines (GW) ­0.005 ­0.019 ­0.041 ­0.073 ­0.089 ­0.109 ­0.117

Nuclear (GW) ­0.005 ­0.001 0.013 0.038 0.051 0.066 0.072

Renewables (GW) ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.008 ­0.013 ­0.016 ­0.020 ­0.021

Total (GW) ­0.032 ­0.069 ­0.101 ­0.129 ­0.143 ­0.160 ­0.167



### Table 14.3.17 through Table 14.3.21 present the estimated impacts for non­standard

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

sleeve sizes. Using TSL 6 as a basis of comparison (Table 14.3.20), total commercial

electricity savings in 2030 from the non­standard sleeve size equipment are about 0.021 TWh

(or about twenty percent of the savings from the standard size equipment at the same TSL).

Total generation declines about 0.010 TWh in this case by 2030.

14­14

### Table 14.3.17. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTHPs at TSL 1

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Extrapolation

2040 2042

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 Fuel Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.007

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 ­0.002 ­0.004

­0.001 0.000 0.002 0.006

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.005

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.006

­0.009

0.000

­0.007

0.009

0.001

­0.006

­0.001

­0.001

­0.002

0.001

0.000

­0.003 ­0.006

­0.009

0.000

­0.007

0.009

0.001

­0.006

­0.001

­0.001

­0.002

0.001

0.000

­0.003 ­0.006

­0.009

0.000

­0.007

0.009

0.001

­0.006

­0.001

­0.001

­0.002

0.001

0.000

­0.003



### Table 14.3.18. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTHPs at TSL 2, 3

Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Extrapolation

2040 2042

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 Fuel Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.007

­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 ­0.003 ­0.006

­0.001 0.000 0.003 0.008

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.006 ­0.007

0.000 ­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 0.001

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004 ­0.008

­0.013

­0.001

­0.009

0.013

0.001

­0.009

­0.002

­0.001

­0.003

0.002

­0.001

­0.004 ­0.008

­0.013

­0.001

­0.009

0.013

0.001

­0.009

­0.002

­0.001

­0.003

0.002

­0.001

­0.004 ­0.008

­0.013

­0.001

­0.009

0.013

0.001

­0.009

­0.002

­0.001

­0.003

0.002

­0.001

­0.004

14­15

### Table 14.3.19. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTHPs at TSL 4, 5

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Extrapolation

2040 2042

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 Fuel Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) ­0.003 ­0.006 ­0.009 ­0.012

­0.002 ­0.006 ­0.011 ­0.016

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

0.001 ­0.001 ­0.004 ­0.010

­0.002 ­0.001 0.005 0.014

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

­0.004 ­0.007 ­0.010 ­0.013

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.001

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003

0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.006 ­0.014

­0.022

­0.001

­0.015

0.022

0.002

­0.015

­0.003

­0.002

­0.005

0.003

­0.001

­0.007 ­0.014

­0.022

­0.001

­0.015

0.022

0.002

­0.015

­0.003

­0.002

­0.005

0.003

­0.001

­0.007 ­0.014

­0.022

­0.001

­0.015

0.022

0.002

­0.015

­0.003

­0.002

­0.005

0.003

­0.001

­0.007



### Table 14.3.20. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTHPs at TSL 6

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Extrapolation

2040 2042

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 Fuel Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) ­0.005 ­0.010 ­0.015 ­0.019

­0.004 ­0.010 ­0.017 ­0.027

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

0.001 ­0.001 ­0.007 ­0.017

­0.003 ­0.001 0.007 0.022

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002

­0.006 ­0.012 ­0.017 ­0.021

­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.004

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.002

0.000 ­0.001 ­0.003 ­0.006

0.000 0.000 0.001 0.003

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.002 ­0.005 ­0.008 ­0.010 ­0.023

­0.035

­0.002

­0.025

0.035

0.003

­0.024

­0.005

­0.003

­0.008

0.005

­0.001

­0.012 ­0.023

­0.035

­0.002

­0.025

0.035

0.003

­0.024

­0.005

­0.003

­0.008

0.005

­0.001

­0.012 ­0.023

­0.035

­0.002

­0.025

0.035

0.003

­0.024

­0.005

­0.003

­0.008

0.005

­0.001

­0.012

14­16

### Table 14.3.21. Utility Impacts for Non-standard Size PTHPs at TSL 7

NEMS-BT Results: Difference from Reference Case

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Extrapolation

2040 2042

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 Fuel Steam (GW)

Combined Cycle (GW)

Combustion Turbines (GW)

Nuclear (GW)

Renewables (GW)

Total (GW) ­0.007 ­0.015 ­0.021 ­0.027

­0.005 ­0.013 ­0.024 ­0.037

0.000 0.000 0.000 ­0.001

0.001 ­0.002 ­0.010 ­0.023

­0.004 ­0.001 0.010 0.031

0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002

­0.008 ­0.017 ­0.024 ­0.029

­0.002 ­0.003 ­0.005 ­0.006

­0.001 ­0.001 ­0.002 ­0.003

0.000 ­0.002 ­0.004 ­0.008

­0.001 0.000 0.001 0.004

0.000 0.000 ­0.001 ­0.001

­0.003 ­0.007 ­0.011 ­0.014 ­0.032

­0.049

­0.002

­0.035

0.049

0.004

­0.034

­0.006

­0.004

­0.011

0.006

­0.002

­0.016 ­0.032

­0.049

­0.002

­0.035

0.049

0.004

­0.034

­0.006

­0.004

­0.011

0.006

­0.002

­0.016 ­0.032

­0.049

­0.002

­0.035

0.049

0.004

­0.034

­0.006

­0.004

­0.011

0.006

­0.002

­0.016

14­17

### REFERENCES

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

Energy Outlook 2007

, February 2007. Washington, D.C. DOE/EIA­0383(2007).

14­18