D O E / E I A 0 3 8 3 ( 2 0 1 2 )| J u n e 2 0 1 2

A n n u a l E n e r g y Ou t l o o k 2 0 1 2
w i t h P r o j e c t i o n s t o 2 0 3 5

For further information . . .
The Annual Energy Outlook 2012 was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), under the direction of John J. Conti (john.conti@eia.gov, 202/586-2222), Assistant Administrator of Energy Analysis; Paul D. Holtberg (paul.holtberg@eia. gov, 202/586-1284), Team Leader, Analysis Integration Team, Office of Integrated and International Energy Analysis; Joseph A. Beamon (joseph.beamon@eia.gov, 202/586-2025), Director, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis; Sam A. Napolitano (sam.napolitano@eia.gov, 202/586-0687), Director, Office of Integrated and International Energy Analysis; A. Michael Schaal (michael.schaal@eia.gov, 202/586-5590), Director, Office of Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels Analysis; and James T. Turnure (james.turnure@eia.gov, 202/586-1762), Director, Office of Energy Consumption and Efficiency Analysis. Complimentary copies are available to certain groups, such as public and academic libraries; Federal, State, local, and foreign governments; EIA survey respondents; and the media. For further information and answers to questions, contact:  Office of Communications, EI-40 Forrestal Building, Room 1E-210 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20585 Telephone: 202/586-8800 (24-hour automated information line) E-mail: infoctr@eia.gov Fax: 202/586-0727 Website: www.eia.gov

Specific questions about the information in this report may be directed to: General questions  ......................................................   National Energy Modeling System  ........................   Executive summary  ...................................................   Economic activity  .......................................................   World oil prices  ..........................................................   International oil production  .....................................   International oil demand  ..........................................   Residential demand  ...................................................   Commercial demand  ................................................   Industrial demand  ......................................................   Transportation demand  ...........................................   Electricity generation, capacity  ..............................   Electricity generation, emissions  ...........................   Electricity prices  .........................................................   Nuclear energy  ...........................................................   Renewable energy  .....................................................   Oil and natural gas production  ...............................   Wholesale natural gas markets  .............................   Oil refining and markets  ...........................................   Ethanol and biodiesel  ................................................   Coal supply and prices  .............................................   Carbon dioxide emissions  .......................................   Paul D. Holtberg (paul.holtberg@eia.gov, 202-586-1284) Dan H. Skelly (daniel.skelly@eia.gov, 202-586-2222) Paul D. Holtberg (paul.holtberg@eia.gov, 202/586-1284) Kay A. Smith (kay.smith@eia.gov, 202/586-1132) John L. Staub (john.staub@eia.gov, 202-586-6344) James P. O’Sullivan (james.osullivan@eia.gov, 202/586-2728) Linda E. Doman (linda.doman@eia.gov, 202/586-1041) Owen Comstock (owen.comstock@eia.gov, 202/586-4752) Erin E. Boedecker (erin.boedecker@eia.gov, 202/586-4791) Kelly A. Perl (kelly.perl@eia.gov, 202/586-1743) John D. Maples (john.maples@eia.gov, 202/586-1757) Jeff S. Jones (jeffrey.jones@eia.gov, 202/586-2038) Michael T. Leff (michael.leff@eia.gov, 202/586-1297) Lori B. Aniti (lori.aniti@eia.gov, 202/586-2867) Laura K. Martin (laura.martin@eia.gov, 202/586-1494) Chris R. Namovicz (chris.namovicz@eia.gov, 202/586-7120) Philip Budzik (philip.budzik@eia.gov, 202/586-2847) Chetha Phang (chetha.phang@eia.gov, 202-586-4821) William S. Brown (william.brown@eia.gov, 202/586-8181) Mac J. Statton (mac.statton@eia.gov, 202-586-7105) Michael L. Mellish (michael.mellish@eia.gov, 202/586-2136) Perry Lindstrom (perry.lindstrom@eia.gov, 202/586-0934)

The Annual Energy Outlook 2012 is available on the EIA website at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo. Assumptions underlying the projections, tables of regional results, and other detailed results will also be available, at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions. Model documentation reports for the National Energy Modeling System are available at website www.eia.gov/analysis/modeldocumentation.cfm and will be updated for the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 during 2012. Other contributors to the report include Vipin Arora, Justine Barden, Joseph Benneche, Tina Bowers, Gwendolyn Bredehoeft, Phillip Budzik, Nicholas Chase, John Cochener, Michael Cole, Jim Diefenderfer, Robert Eynon, Laurie Falter, Mindi Farber-DeAnda, Adrian Geagla, Peter Gross, James Hewlett, Behjat Hojjati, Sean Hill, Kevin Jarzomski, Jim Joosten, Paul Kondis, Angelina LaRose, Thomas Lee, Tanc Lidderdale, Perry Lindstrom, Vishakh Mantri, Phyllis Martin, Elizabeth May, Carrie Milton, David Peterson, Chetha Phang, Marie Rinkowski-Spangler, Mark Schipper, Elizabeth Sendich, Joanne Shore, Robert Smith, Glen Sweetnam, Matthew Tanner, Russell Tarver, Dana Van Wagener, Diwakar Vashishat, Steven Wade, William Watson, and Peggy Wells.

Annual Energy Outlook 2012
With Projections to 2035

June 2012

U.S. Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated and International Energy Analysis U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

This publication is on the WEB at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo

This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or other Federal agencies.

Preface
The Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012), prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), presents long-term projections of energy supply, demand, and prices through 2035, based on results from EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). EIA published an “early release” version of the AEO2012 Reference case in January 2012. The report begins with an “Executive summary” that highlights key aspects of the projections. It is followed by a “ Legislation and regulations” section that discusses evolving legislative and regulatory issues, including a summary of recently enacted legislation and regulations, such as: the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2011 [1]; the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as finalized by the EPA in July 2011 [2]; the new fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles published by the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in September 2011 [3]; and regulations pertaining to the power sector in California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [4]. The “Issues in focus” section contains discussions of selected energy topics, including a discussion of the results in two cases that adopt different assumptions about the future course of existing policies: one case assumes the extension of a selected group of existing public policies—corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, appliance standards, production tax credits, and the elimination of sunset provisions in existing energy policies; the other case assumes only the elimination of sunset provisions. Other discussions include: oil price and production trends in the AEO2012; potential efficiency improvements and their impacts on end-use energy demand; energy impacts of proposed CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles (LDVs), model years (MYs) 2017 to 2025; impacts of a breakthrough in battery vehicle technology; heavy-duty (HD) natural gas vehicles (NGVs); changing structure of the refining industry; changing environment for fuel use in electricity generation; nuclear power in AEO2012; potential impact of minimum pipeline throughput constraints on Alaska North Slope oil production; U.S. crude oil and natural gas resource uncertainty; and evolving Marcellus shale gas resource estimates. The “Market trends” section summarizes the projections for energy markets. The analysis in AEO2012 focuses primarily on a Reference case, Low and High Economic Growth cases, and Low and High Oil Price cases. Results from a number of other alternative cases also are presented, illustrating uncertainties associated with the Reference case projections for energy demand, supply, and prices. Complete tables for the five primary cases are provided in Appendixes A through C. Major results from many of the alternative cases are provided in Appendix D. Complete tables for all the alternative cases are available on EIA’s website in a table browser at www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser. AEO2012 projections are based generally on Federal, State, and local laws and regulations in effect as of the end of December 2011. The potential impacts of pending or proposed legislation, regulations, and standards (and sections of existing legislation that require implementing regulations or funds that have not been appropriated) are not reflected in the projections. In certain situations, however, where it is clear that a law or regulation will take effect shortly after the AEO is completed, it may be considered in the projection. AEO2012 is published in accordance with Section 205c of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-91), which requires the EIA Administrator to prepare annual reports on trends and projections for energy use and supply.

Projections by EIA are not statements of what will happen but of what might happen, given the assumptions and methodologies used for any particular scenario. The Reference case projection is a business-as-usual trend estimate, given known technology and technological and demographic trends. EIA explores the impacts of alternative assumptions in other scenarios with different macroeconomic growth rates, world oil prices, and rates of technology progress. The main cases in AEO2012 generally assume that current laws and regulations are maintained throughout the projections. Thus, the projections provide policy-neutral baselines that can be used to analyze policy initiatives. While energy markets are complex, energy models are simplified representations of energy production and consumption, regulations, and producer and consumer behavior. Projections are highly dependent on the data, methodologies, model structures, and assumptions used in their development. Behavioral characteristics are indicative of real-world tendencies rather than representations of specific outcomes. Energy market projections are subject to much uncertainty. Many of the events that shape energy markets are random and cannot be anticipated. In addition, future developments in technologies, demographics, and resources cannot be foreseen with certainty. Many key uncertainties in the AEO2012 projections are addressed through alternative cases. EIA has endeavored to make these projections as objective, reliable, and useful as possible; however, they should serve as an adjunct to, not a substitute for, a complete and focused analysis of public policy initiatives.

ii

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Reference case (June 2012)
The Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) Reference case included as part of this complete report, released in June 2012, was updated from the Reference case released as part of the AEO2012 Early Release Overview in January 2012. The Reference case was updated to incorporate modeling changes and reflect new legislation or regulation that was not available when the Early Release Overview version of the Reference case was published. Major changes made in the Reference include: • The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) issued by the EPA in December 2011 was incorporated. • The long-term macroeconomic projection was revised, based on the November 2011 long-term projection from IHS Global Insights, Inc. • The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which was included in the Early Release Reference case, was kept in the final Reference case. In December 2011, a District Court delayed the rule from going into effect while in litigation. • The California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was removed from the final Reference case, given the Federal court ruling in December 2011 that found some aspects of it to be unconstitutional. • Historical data and equations for the transportation sector were revised to reflect revised data from NHTSA and FHWA. • A new cement model was incorporated in the industrial sector. • Photovoltaic capacity estimates for recent historical years (2009 and 2010) were updated to line up more closely with Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) reports. • Gulf of Mexico production data were revised downward to reflect data reported by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management more closely. • Data in the electricity model were revised to reflect 2009 electric utility financial data (electric utility plant in service, operations and maintenance costs, etc.) and refine the breakdown of associated costs between the generation, transmission, and distribution components. • Higher capital costs for fabric filters were adopted in the analysis of MATS, based on EPA data. • Reservoir-level oil data were updated to improve the API gravity and sulfur content data elements. • The assumed volume of natural gas used at export liquefaction facilities was revised. Future analyses using the AEO2012 Reference case will start from the version of the Reference case released with this complete report.

Endnotes for Preface
Links current as of June 2012 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards,” website www.epa.gov/mats. 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),” website epa.gov/airtransport. 3.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 179 (September 15, 2011), pp. 57106-57513, website www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/html/2011-20740.htm. 4.  California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, “Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” website www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

iii

This page intentionally left blank .

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................95 Coal production...............................................................6 2.............................................................................................................  Cross-State Air Pollution Rule..............................................87 Electricity sales.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................90 Natural gas prices........................................ crude oil and natural gas resource uncertainty......................31 6.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................110 6.............................................................................................................................................................................  Evolving Marcellus shale gas resource estimates...... Coal............S......... model years 2017 to 2025.........................104 2..........................................18 1..........................................  California low carbon fuel standard.....................  Changing structure of the refining industry..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................88 Electricity capacity..98 Coal production and prices.............................................  Nuclear power in AEO2012...................................................................................................................................................................................................... Economic growth.  State renewable energy requirements and goals: Update through 2011...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 1.......................................................................................  Energy impacts of proposed CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles...............................................56 12...........................................................................................1 Legislation and regulations.......................................................................................52 11................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Liquid fuels...............................................................................................104 3...........................................................................................................................................................................................................23 3....100 1.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Issues in focus.............................................................................................................  California Assembly Bill 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006..................................................................................................................................................  Impacts of a breakthrough in battery vehicle technology............105 4.....................75 Residential sector energy demand........................................................................84 Electricity demand.........113 7.................................................................................................................................................................................................................S...........................Contents Executive summary.........................................81 Transportation sector energy demand.............................................S...............................................................10 5............50 10.............................................  Potential impact of minimum pipeline throughput constraints on Alaska North Slope oil production....89 Renewable capacity.....69 Comparison with other projections....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................79 Industrial sector energy demand.............................5 Introduction....................................................................71 International energy..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Natural gas........................18 2............................94 Petroleum and other liquids supply......................................................................  Heavy-duty natural gas vehicles............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Electricity................................................................................................................ model years 2014 through 2018............  Updated State air emissions regulations...................................................................99 Emissions from energy use.................................................... Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 v ......... energy demand..............................................  Greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards for heavy-duty vehicles.........................................................  Mercury and air toxics standards....  Oil price and production trends in AEO2012....................................................................................................................................................................................................  Total energy consumption...................................................................................45 9....................................................................113 Market trends...................................................................................................................8 3....................................103 List of acronyms......................................................................................................................... Oil prices.......................................................  Potential efficiency improvements and their impacts on end-use energy demand....................................86 Electricity generation.....................................................................................................................................................10 6...........................  Changing environment for fuel use in electricity generation................63 Trends in economic activity..................25 4.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................70 Energy trends in the economy............................41 8....................................................................................................................28 5................................................................................................................................................................................11 7.......................................................................  No Sunset and Extended Policies cases.......................................................................119 Notes and sources......91 Natural gas production....................................................................................................................77 Commercial sector energy demand................................................................................................................120 U............................................................................................106 5..................................................9 4.............92 Petroleum and other liquids consumption.........................................................................36 7..........................................................................................17 Introduction............................  U.............................................................................................72 U..................................................................................................

......................................................  Summary of key results from the Reference.............................................................................................. 2015............ except where noted)........64 Comparison with other projections 22... 2010)................................................  Key analyses from “Issues in focus” in recent AEOs.................. Price case comparisons...................................113 28...................................  Unproved technically recoverable resource assumptions by basin.................................. Conversion factors....... and Low Nuclear cases.....................131 B... and consumption in four cases...... 2010-2035...239 Tables Legislation and regulations 1............................................... 2010...................................................................................................  Comparison of coal projections.....  HD National Program vehicle regulatory categories ...........................................................................7 3.......................... supply..........................................  Comparison of liquids projections........................................................................................ 2020 and 2035................. and AEO2012...........................................................................................................  Marcellus unproved technically recoverable resources in AEO2012 (as of January 1.....................  Projections of oil prices.................................................................. Economic growth case comparisons...............................58 17.....18 6....................... 2015........................................................ Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 ........................ 2010-2035...............................................29 9............................................................................115 vi U...........  Projections of energy consumption by sector............................27 8.. Results from side cases.................................................................. 2020 and 2035................  Vehicle types that do not rely solely on a gasoline internal combustion engine for motive and accessory power.......................... and 2035 (trillion cubic feet.................................................. 2010..... Regional Maps..............  Comparison of electricity projections................ and 2035 (million barrels per day........  Description of battery-powered electric vehicles..  Attributes of unproved technically recoverable tight oil resources as of January 1....... 2030....................59 18......... High Nuclear............................................................................................................................................. 2010-2035 (quadrillion Btu)............. except where noted) ............................. 2015-2035 (2010 dollars per barrel)......................................183  D........................................................................108 26...................................................64 21.........33 12............................  Projections of average annual economic growth........  Natural gas prices...173  C.......................... 2015...............198  E..........................................................................54 14........106 25.....................................104 23.......................................53 13.................... model years 2017-2025.. NEMS overview and brief description of cases........................................................  Estimated ultimate recovery for selected shale gas plays in three AEOs (billion cubic feet per well)............  Alaska North Slope wells completed during 2010 in selected oil fields................................................... and 2035 (million short tons.. and 2035 (billion kilowatthours.............................................................. and prices in four cases..................  Key assumptions for the residential sector in the AEO2012 integrated demand technology cases............................................... 2025..30 10................................ 2025.............................................................................................6 2.............................................  Marcellus unproved technically recoverable resources: AEO2011..............105 24.................................58 16.....................  Key assumptions for the commercial sector in the AEO2012 integrated demand technology cases.................. 2015..................................................................................  Comparison of natural gas projections........................................ Reference case...........................12 Issues in focus 5......231 G.. Estimateda average fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards proposed for light-duty vehicles................................................................................................................... USGS 2011..........  Comparison of operating and incremental costs of battery electric vehicles and conventional gasoline vehicles.......7 4.....................................  Renewable portfolio standards in the 30 States with current mandates.................................... consumption..215  F...............Contents Appendixes A..................32 11.............................................  Petroleum supply........................... except where noted)..........111 27........................60 19... except where noted)..  HD National Program standards for combination tractor greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption (assuming fully compliant engine) ...........................57 15.........27 7....................  Attributes of unproved technically recoverable resources for selected shale gas plays as of January 1.............  HD National Program standards for vocational vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption (assuming fully compliant engine).........................................................62 20.......................................................S.... 2025............... 2025..........

. 2015 and 2035 (thousand 2010 dollars)...  Total carbon dioxide emissions from transportation energy use in two cases....................... 2014-2018.................... 2005-2035 (2010 cents per kilowatthour).............................................................. and net imports...................33 28.............................. 1970-2035 (million barrels per day)..............................8 9...  Total U...........20 12.. 2005-2035 (billion kilowatthours)............................. 2005 and 2035 (million metric tons).........  Consumption of petroleum and other liquids.........  HD National Program model year standards for gasoline pickup and van greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption..... natural gas production.......................................................................................................  Sales of new light-duty vehicles in two cases............36 35.............. 2002 (thousand miles)...........................................40 U.....................................................25 21............34 30..........34 32........  Costs of electric drivetrain nonbattery systems to consumers in two cases.................. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 vii ...............22 16...................................................................  Renewable electricity generation in three cases...................... model year 2025 (percent of all light-duty vehicle sales)............................................................................  Residential and commercial delivered energy consumption in four cases.... and net imports...............................................  Cumulative reductions in residential energy consumption relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case......Contents Figures Executive summary 1.................................  Cumulative reductions in commercial energy consumption relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case........  U.............  Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in three cases................................................. 1980-2035 (2010 dollars per barrel)..........................................................................  Cost of electric vehicle battery storage to consumers in two cases......................................................... 1990-2035 (trillion cubic feet).............  Diesel and natural gas transportation fuel prices in the HDV Reference case..................................................... 1980=1)................................................  Average electricity prices in three cases..........  Annual sales of new heavy-duty natural gas vehicles in two cases. 2011-2035 (gigawatts)............................  World petroleum and other liquids production in the Reference case...  Light-duty vehicle market shares by technology type in two cases................................ 1997-2012 (2010 dollars per million Btu)................................. 2005-2035 (million barrels per day).................................  On-road fuel economy of the light-duty vehicle stock in two cases.............................23 18......................  Total prices to consumers for compact passenger cars in two cases................................................. 2015 and 2035 (thousand 2010 dollars)..S. 2005-2035 (2010 dollars per diesel gallon equivalent)..... consumption.......... energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector and fuel...... and total energy by light-duty vehicles in two cases......... 2014-2018.  Energy use per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product....................................................... 2005-2035 (million metric tons).......... 2005-2035 (billion kilowatthours).  Total combined requirement for State renewable portfolio standards...........S..40 37........................ 2011-2035 (quadrillion Btu)..................................35 34................................... electricity......................... 2000-2035 (million barrels per day).........4 6................................... 2000-2035 (quadrillion Btu)..........................30 24.............4 Legislation and regulations 7....................................................................11 Issues in focus 11..30 25.........................................................................21 14.............2 3................................................................. 2015-2035 (billion kilowatthours).....8 8.......................... 1980-2035 (index.......... 2010-2035 (quadrillion Btu)............  U...........  Natural gas wellhead prices in three cases............  Average annual world oil prices in three cases............................................................................................... consumption........... 2005-2035 (million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent)...34 31............................... 2000-2035 (million barrels per day)..............3 5....  Distribution of annual vehicle-miles traveled by light-medium (Class 3) and heavy (Class 7 and 8) heavy-duty vehicles................... 2015 and 2035 (thousand vehicles)......S....  U......................... 2012-2035 (2010 dollars)........ 2005-2035 (miles per gallon)............................................... 2005-2035 (million barrels per day)........................  Total transportation consumption of petroleum and other liquids in two cases........31 26....................  Natural gas fuel use by heavy-duty vehicles in two cases................................................................................................ 2011-2035 (quadrillion Btu)...........  HD National Program model year standards for diesel pickup and van greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption...................................  Electricity generation from natural gas in three cases...................2 2.....24 20...........................33 29.......................  Total energy consumption in three cases....................................  Consumption of petroleum and other liquids for transportation in three cases......31 27........S............................................................................... production of tight oil in four cases............................................................................. petroleum and other liquids production..................................................26 22..............  Cumulative retirements of coal-fired generating capacity............................. spot market prices for crude oil and natural gas..........................  States covered by CSAPR limits on emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides...39 36..................................................... 2005-2035 (quadrillion Btu)...............28 23......... 2008-2035 (thousand vehicles)........24 19..........................................23 17.......... 2008-2035 (trillion cubic feet).......  Total U..........................................................................................3 4......... 2012-2035 (2010 dollars per kilowatthour)........................................... 2005-2035 (2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet)...............S................................35 33............................................................S..........  Total prices to consumers for small sport utility vehicles in two cases................................................................................22 15.........  Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles in two cases...... 2005-2035 (million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent)...9 10..................................40 38..........21 13...........................................................

......................................................................................... and extra-heavy oil in three cases.................................................................................41 40............74 70....................  U.........................Contents 39........................... 2010-2035 (billion 2010 dollars per year)...........................75 72..................... 2010-2035 (kilowatthours per household)...........................................74 69.................  Electricity generation by fuel in eleven cases.............43 44...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1991................................................................................ excluding hydropower........  Mass-based overview of the U..55 54.................................. 2000-2035 (million barrels per day)..................... 2010 and 2035 (gigawatts).........................................63 58.S............ 2010-2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu)............................................................................................................ 1980 = 1)................................................................................................  Efficiency gains for selected commercial equipment in three cases...........  RFS mandated consumption of renewable fuels.....................  Alaska North Slope wellhead oil revenue in three cases.....................................79 80.................................................  Ratio of residential delivered energy consumption for selected end uses(ratio......................................................... 1987-2035 (nominal expenditures as percent of nominal gross output).....  U...................................................... 2010-2035 (trillion kilowatthours)..........................................71 62...........................75 71......... 2011...............78 77........ 2010-2035 (quadrillion Btu)...  Change in residential electricity consumption for selected end uses in the Reference case..................................  Residential market penetration by renewable technologies in two cases.............S...47 46.......  Alaska North Slope oil production in three cases. 2020...........  U.................. 2011-2020 (gigawatts)................................................. 2005 = 1).... production of tight oil in four cases........  Sectoral composition of industrial output growth rates in three cases. 2010-2035 (million barrels per day).  Energy use per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product............... electricity demand in three cases.................. 2000...................................................  Primary energy use by end-use sector.................44 45................................52 52................................... liquid fuels production industry........................................ and 2035 (percent of households).................................  Natural gas delivered prices to the electric power sector in three cases......................49 49.................42 42..70 59.....................  Commercial delivered energy intensity in four cases...................  Energy intensity of selected commercial electric end uses........................................................................... 2005 = 1).......................................61 57...... 2005-2035 (index............................ production of shale gas in four cases. 2010-2035 (percent per year).....................................................70 61......................... 2005-2035 (billion kilowatthours).......... 2035 (percent change from 2010 installed stock efficiency).............78 78................................................... 2010 and 2035 (million barrels per day)........................................ bitumen.............................. 1990-2035 (quadrillion Btu).............. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 ....... liquid fuels production industry in the LFMM case.S..........................................................  Diesel and natural gas transportation fuel prices in two cases.................................................................................... 2010 and 2020 (trillion kilowatthours).................................................  Nuclear power plant retirements by NERC region in the Low Nuclear case......... 1970-2035 (nominal expenditures as percent of nominal GDP)...................55 53...  United States Geological Survey Marcellus Assessment Units.................S..........................  Energy end-use expenditures as a share of gross output.................  Total world production of nonpetroleum liquids.....................................72 66...........  World renewable electricity generation by source....................... 1982...................................... and 2008 (percent per year). 2010-2035 (gigawatts)..  North American natural gas trade........61 56..................S.................  New regional format for EIA’s Liquid Fuels Market Module (LFMM)..............59 55.............................  Installed nuclear capacity in OECD and non-OECD countries.......... 2005-2035 (index...............................70 60.....................49 51........................................................... 1980-2035 (2010 dollars per barrel)......................... 2010-2035 (thousand barrels per day).........................................................................................S...  Average annual oil prices in three cases... shale plays by years of operation (million cubic feet per year)... and nonfarm labor productivity in three cases........................ 2010.............................................. labor force....................... and 2035 (billion tons per year)......72 65..............................  Average production profiles for shale gas wells in major U.........................................  Electricity generation by fuel in eleven cases...............79 79...........................  Average annual growth rates of real GDP........................73 68..................................................... 1980-2035 (quadrillion Btu)............ assuming no minimum revenue requirement....  U...............................................71 63........................... 1980-2035 (index..................................43 43................................. 2010 and 2035 (trillion kilowatthours).... 2009-2022 (billion gallons per year).............................47 47........80 Market trends viii U..........  Primary energy use by fuel....................  World petroleum and other liquids supply and demand by region in three cases....................... 2010-2035 (percent per year)........73 67................................................................... recessions in 1975.................................... 2035 (2010 dollars per diesel gallon equivalent)...............  Residential delivered energy intensity in four cases.................. 2011-2035 (gigawatts).....................................................  Reduction in petroleum and other liquid fuels use by heavy-duty vehicles in the HD NGV Potential case compared with the HDV Reference case...................................................................... 2035 to 2010)...................................41 41..  Cumulative retrofits of generating capacity with FGD and dry sorbent injection for emissions control.......................S..76 74...... 2010 and 2035 (thousand Btu per square foot)............................................................. 2010-2035 (trillion cubic feet).......  Average annual growth rates for real output and its major components in three cases..............................  World energy consumption by region............................S................................................................................... 2010 and 2035 (million barrels per day)................... 2000-2035 (trillion cubic feet)......77 76.................77 75....48 48............  Cumulative retirements of coal-fired generating capacity by Electric Market Module region in nine cases....................49 50........  Average annual growth rates over 5 years following troughs of U................. 2010-2035 (percent per year).................  Energy end-use expenditures as a share of gross domestic product..........76 73.......................................................................................................71 64....................................................................

...89 100.....91 103................. 1990-2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu)..94 110...............S.................... 2020 and 2035 (2010 cents per kilowatthour)......................S..........  Sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity generation..........................................................  Additions to electricity generating capacity.......90 102............................................................... 2011-2035 (gigawatts).......... 2010 and 2035 (trillion cubic feet)... 2020..........  Heavy-duty vehicle energy consumption.......................................................86 94............................0)................. 2010-2035 (gigawatts)....................90 101.91 105......................... energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector and fuel....................  Sales of light-duty vehicles using non-gasoline technologies by fuel type..........  Industrial energy consumption by fuel.......................  Annual average Henry Hub spot natural gas prices in five cases............................................................................ 1990-2035...........................................81 83......................................... 2000-2035 (billion gallons per year)...............  Electricity generation by fuel................................ 2010-2035 (trillion Btu)......................................................88 97..................85 91...S...................................................................82 85........... and 2035 (quadrillion Btu)...............S.........................................  Levelized electricity costs for new power plants.................  U.........................  Natural gas production by source................. 1995-2035 (quadrillion Btu)...87 95.....................  Coal production by region.........................  Industrial delivered energy consumption by application.......................................... including combined heat and power......... 2010-2035 (percent)..  Consumption of petroleum and other liquids by sector...........................82 86............................  Ratio of low-sulfur light crude oil price to Henry Hub natural gas price on energy equivalent basis.....  Change in delivered energy for non-energy-intensive industries in three cases..................... 2025........... 2010-2035 (million barrels per day).  Electricity generating capacity at U............................. electricity demand growth....................................83 87.......... 1970-2035 (quadrillion Btu).... excluding subsidies.... 1985-2035 (gigawatts).........................................................88 98........99 121..........................  Additions to electricity generation capacity in the commercial sector in two cases.............. total coal production in six cases....... 1950-2035 (percent.................... and 2035 (gigawatts).....  Domestic crude oil production by source............94 111................................87 96.....  Delivered energy consumption for transportation by mode in two cases..................................................S.......................89 99..................................................................... natural gas production................................ 2020.......................... 2010-2035 (percent).......  Lower 48 onshore natural gas production by region.............................. 1990-2035 (trillion cubic feet)........ 2010.............................................................................................................  U.............................................. 2010....  Electricity sales and power sector generating capacity.......... 2010..97 117......................101 U............................  Regional growth in nonhydropower renewable electricity generation.........S....................................................... 1990-2035 (million short tons).......... including end-use generation.......................86 93.......................S..............98 119.............. 1990-2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu). 1990-2035 (million barrels per day)..................................... motor gasoline and diesel fuel consumption........................ 1990-2035 (million short tons)....  Change in delivered energy for energy-intensive industries in three cases........ 1990-2035 (million barrels per day)..... 1990-2035 (percent).........................96 115...................... 1970-2035 (thousand miles).........................96 114.... 2010-2035 (billion kilowatthours)......................  Electricity generation capacity additions by fuel type....................... 2000-2035 (million barrels per day)........................... 2010-2035 (quadrillion Btu)..........................................93 108... and 2035 (billion kilowatthours)....... 2020......100 122........ 2011-2035 (gigawatts)....93 109...  Vehicle miles traveled per licensed driver................97 116...92 106.. 1990-2035 (million barrels per day).......................... 2010.............................. 1990-2035 (trillion cubic feet)...............  EISA2007 RFS credits earned in selected years..  Average annual minemouth coal prices by region................85 92................................. net imports of natural gas by source............................... 1949 = 1.........................  Average fuel economy of new light-duty vehicles in two cases........................  Cumulative coal-fired generating capacity additions by sector in two cases................ and 2035 (million vehicles sold)......95 112........  Net import share of U..... 1980-2035 (miles per gallon)...S. ethanol use in blended gasoline and E85.........80 82..................... 1990-2035 (trillion cubic feet)............................................98 118.............84 90. 1949-2035 (index............. 2010 and 2035 (quadrillion Btu).............  Cumulative growth in value of shipments from non-energy-intensive industries in three cases... crude oil production in six cases............... 2005 and 2035 (million metric tons)...........................81 84................................... including end-use generation.................. nuclear power plants in three cases..95 113...... 2025 and 2035 (quadrillion Btu)...S...............................................83 88......................................  U..S..........  Hydropower and other renewable electricity generation...100 123..  Cumulative growth in value of shipments from energy-intensive industries in three cases............. 2010.......... 2010-2035 (gigawatts)..  Total U.............  U.84 89.........  U............S..........  Annual average Henry Hub spot natural gas prices.............  U................................. including end-use capacity.........92 107....................... 2010-2035 (trillion Btu)....... consumption............................. and net imports.........................................................................  Total U. petroleum and other liquids consumption in three cases....................................................................................................................99 120...Contents 81.............................101 124................... production of petroleum and other liquids by source.. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 ix ............................................................... 1990-2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu).......91 104.............S.................................................................... 2010-2035 (billion credits).....................  Nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation.....  Nonhydropower renewable electricity generation capacity by energy source... 3-year moving average)..................................................................................... 2010-2035 (billion kilowatthours)....................  U...

This page intentionally left blank .

Executive summary .

S. 1980=1) 1. The energy intensity of the U. energy consumption grows at an average annual rate of 0. technologies. But AEO2012 is not limited to the Reference case.S.S. pushes domestic crude oil production higher.S.0 1.0 0.S. 1980-2035 (index.8 0.1 percent from 2010 through 2035 in the Reference case. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) focus on the factors that shape the U. because of more moderate projected economic growth and population growth. For some end uses. Projected energy demand for transportation grows at an annual rate of 0. which explore important areas of uncertainty for markets.5 2.S. Energy consumption per capita declines by an average of 0. allowing for net exports.0 0. It also includes 29 alternative cases (see Appendix E. New Federal and State policies could lead to further reductions in energy consumption. As a result. a growing share of U. reliance on imported oil is reduced. measured as primary energy use in British thermal units (Btu) per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005 dollars. largely driven by rising production from tight oil and shale resources. The potential impact of technology change and the proposed vehicle fuel efficiency standards on energy consumption are discussed in “Issues in focus. and policies in the U. It also serves as a starting point for analysis of potential changes in energy policies. future U. crude oil production in 2035 ranging from 5. crude oil production could vary significantly. 2000-2035 (million barrels per day) 3. Under the assumption that current laws and regulations remain unchanged throughout the projections. production of tight oil in four cases. electric power generation is met with natural gas and renewables.2 1. which includes an article examining impacts of uncertainty about current estimates of the crude oil and natural gas resources.S. and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remain below their 2005 level from 2010 to 2035. primarily as a result of rising energy consumption in the buildings sector. The U. and increasing energy efficiency in end-use applications Overall U.S.2 0 1980 History 2010 Projections Figure 2. declines by an average of 2. tight oil production from eight selected plays in 2035 ranging from 0.S. The rate of growth in energy use slows over the projection period. the AEO2012 Reference case provides the basis for examination and discussion of energy production. Table E1). technology. Figure 1. and projections for U. U.8 million barrels per day (Figure 2).5 million barrels per day to 7. continued development of tight oil.4 Energy use per 2005 dollar of GDP 0. current Federal and State energy requirements and incentives play a continuing role in requiring more efficient technologies. reversing a decline that began in 1986. Over the next 10 years. in combination with the ongoing development of offshore resources in the Gulf of Mexico. economy.5 0 2000 History 2010 Projections High TRR Energy use per capita High EUR Reference Low EUR 1995 2010 2020 2035 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2 U.S. U. and market trends and the direction they may take in the future.6 percent per year from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 1). consumption.S. Because the technology advances that have provided for recent increases in supply are still in the early stages of development.7 million barrels per day to 2.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5. does not return to the levels of energy demand growth experienced in the 20 years prior to the 20082009 recession. Many of the implications of the alternative cases are discussed in the “Issues in focus” section of this report.S.3 percent from 2010 through 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case. even in the absence of new Federal policies designed to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. domestic production of natural gas exceeds consumption. an extended economic recovery.8 million barrels per day. U. energy system over the long term.S.” Domestic crude oil production increases Domestic crude oil production has increased over the past few years. Energy use per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product.6 0. Key results highlighted in AEO2012 include continued modest growth in demand for energy over the next 25 years and increased domestic crude oil and natural gas production.Executive summary The projections in the U. reflecting moderate population growth. energy economy. The AEO2012 projections considering variations in these variables show total U. depending on the outcomes of key uncertainties related to well placement and recovery rates.7 percent per year.0 2.5 million barrels per day in 2010.1 percent per year from 2010 to 2035.5 1. coupled with increasing levels of energy efficiency. and electricity demand grows by 0. crude oil production increased from 5. Those uncertainties are highlighted in this Annual Energy Outlook ’s “Issues in focus” section.

natural gas production. which are not included in the Reference case. much of which is produced domestically.Executive summary With modest economic growth. consumption of petroleum and other liquids. As with tight oil. The outlook reflects increased use of liquefied natural gas in markets outside North America.S.” Natural gas production increases throughout the projection period.S. the natural gas share of electric power generation increases from 24 percent in 2010 to 28 percent in 2035. shale gas production from 9.S.S. dependence on imported petroleum and other liquids declines in the AEO2012 Reference case. 2010 49% Figure 4.S.S. consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels continues to grow through 2035 in the Reference case. could further reduce demand for petroleum and other liquids and the need for imports. continues falling in the Reference case to 36 percent in 2035 (Figure 3). consumption.S. reduced pipeline imports and increased pipeline exports.2 million barrels per day in 2010 to 19. when looking forward to 2035. and net imports. dry gas production).5 trillion cubic feet per year when looking forward to 2035. Total U. Proposed light-duty vehicles (LDV) fuel economy standards covering vehicle MY 2017 through 2025. rises from 19. 1990-2035 (trillion cubic feet) 30 History 2010 Projections Net exports. allowing the United States to transition from a net importer to a net exporter of natural gas Much of the growth in natural gas production in the AEO2012 Reference case results from the application of recent technological advances and continued drilling in shale plays with high concentrations of natural gas liquids and crude oil. The potential impact of those uncertainties results in a range of outcomes for U. Power generation from renewables and natural gas continues to increase In the Reference case. Although U. including both fossil fuels and biofuels. and net imports. The historical reliance on coal-fired power plants in the U. As a result of the projected growth in production.2 million barrels per day crude oil equivalent from 2010 to 2035 in the use of biofuels. there are unresolved uncertainties surrounding the technological advances that have made shale gas production a reality.7 to 20. growing domestic production. In contrast.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 3 . consumption. 2035 5% 25 20 Consumption 11% Net imports. 1970-2035 (million barrels per day) 25 History 2010 Projections Net imports. the share of generation from coal-fired power plants declines. U. and slower growth of energy consumption in the transportation sector as a result of existing corporate average fuel economy standards. strong growth in domestic natural gas production. while the renewables share grows from 10 percent to 15 percent. petroleum and other liquids production. Total U. 2005 60% Domestic production 5 Net imports. electric power sector has begun to wane in recent years. an increase of 1.S.S. and relatively low natural gas prices in the United States. tight oil deposits could also significantly decrease the need for imports. growth in domestic crude oil production to more than 1 million barrels per day above 2010 levels in 2020. Total U. 2010 Henry Hub spot market natural gas prices (2010 dollars per million Btu) 10 5 0 1990 15 20 Domestic production 15 10 2010 2035 0 1970 1980 1990 2005 2010 2020 2035 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2035 U. natural gas production exceeds consumption early in the next decade in the Reference case (Figure 4). which have a higher value than dry natural gas in energy equivalent terms. net imports of petroleum and other liquids make up a smaller share of total U. the reliance on imports of petroleum and other liquids as a share of total consumption declines. 2035 36% Consumption Net imports.S. primarily as a result of rising energy prices. dry gas production) to 13.6 trillion cubic feet per year in 2035 (49 percent of total U.9 million barrels per day in 2035 in the Reference case. and increased supplies from U. as discussed in more detail in “Issues in focus. Proposed fuel economy standards covering vehicle model years (MY) 2017 through 2025 that are not included in the Reference case would further reduce projected need for liquid imports. and continued adoption of nonpetroleum liquids. increased efficiency. which reached 60 percent in 2005 and 2006 before falling to 49 percent in 2010.S. Shale gas production increases in the Reference case from 5. energy consumption U. The net import share of domestic consumption. Figure 3.S.0 trillion cubic feet per year in 2010 (23 percent of total U.

due to slow growth in electricity demand. 2011-2035 (gigawatts) Reference Reference 05 High EUR Low EUR Low Gas Price 05 High Coal Cost Low Coal Cost High Economic Growth Low Economic Growth Figure 6.758 3.S. see “Issues in focus”). leading to stronger growth in electricity demand and higher natural gas prices.0 quadrillion Btu (6. with varying assumptions about coal prices and the length of the period over which environmental compliance costs will be recovered.356 million metric tons (7. Figure 5. and projections for energy-related CO2 emissions in 2035 are 5. nearly all of which occurs over the next 10 years.000 4. coal and natural gas prices. the share of electricity generation from coal falls to 38 percent. 100. also yield cumulative retirements within a range of 34 to 70 gigawatts. Projections for CO2 emissions are sensitive to such economic and regulatory factors due to the pervasiveness of fossil fuel use in the economy. While the Reference case projects 49 gigawatts of coal-fired generation retirements over the 2011 to 2035 period. Although the current trend toward increased use of natural gas and renewables appears fairly robust.4 percent below the Reference case) and 114.4 quadrillion Btu (7.0 percent above the Reference case). projections for total primary energy consumption in 2035 are. and they still are below the 2005 level at the end of the projection period. efficiency improvements. but no assumption of new policies to limit GHG emissions from existing plants. respectively.Executive summary Over the next 25 years. These linkages result in a range of potential GHG emissions scenarios. which assumes no explicit Federal regulations to limit GHG emissions beyond vehicle GHG standards (although State programs and renewable portfolio standards are included).0 percent per year from 2005 to 2035. growing use of renewable technologies and fuels. 2005 and 2035 (million metric tons) 4.0 percent below the Reference case) and 6.000 0 1980 2005 2035 Petroleum Natural gas Coal Electricity 2. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .758 million metric tons in 2035 (Figure 6). In the Reference case.996 million metric tons. Other alternative cases.996 Total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions 5. and compliance with upcoming environmental rules. there is uncertainty about the factors influencing the fuel mix for electricity generation. Retirements of coal-fired capacity exceed the high end of the range (70 gigawatts) when a significant GHG policy is assumed (for further description of the cases and results. U. AEO2012 includes several cases examining the impacts on coal-fired plant generation and retirements resulting from different paths for electricity demand growth.117 million metric tons (6. to a total of 5.2 percent above the Reference case). well below the 48-percent share seen as recently as 2008. The high end of the range is based on much lower natural gas prices than those assumed in the Reference case.000 2005 2035 1.770 5. CO2 emissions in 2020 in the Reference case are more than 9 percent below the 2005 level of 5. and the need to comply with new environmental regulations. from a low of 34 gigawatts (11 percent of the coal-fired generator fleet) to a high of 70 gigawatts (22 percent of the fleet). due to a combination of modest economic growth. In the AEO2012 Low and High Economic Growth cases. Total energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide in the United States remain below their 2005 level through 2035 Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions grow slowly in the AEO2012 Reference case.000 0 0 25 50 75 Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Electric power 4 U. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector and fuel. the lower end of the range is based on stronger economic growth.S. the range for cumulative retirements of coal-fired power plants over the projection period varies considerably across the alternative cases (Figure 5). slow growth in electricity demand. Cumulative retirements of coal-fired generating capacity. increased competition from natural gas and renewable generation. which is less carbon-intensive than other fossil fuels. energy-related CO2 emissions grow by just over 2 percent from 2010 to 2035. and increased use of natural gas. Emissions per capita fall by an average of 1.

Legislation and regulations .

000 pounds) 6 U. NHTSA.S.501 to 14. Pickup trucks and vans are primarily 3/4-ton or 1-ton pickups used on construction sites or 12. The AEO2012 Reference case incorporates the new standards for heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). the HD National Program separates GHG and fuel consumption standards into discrete vehicle categories within combination tractors. with the standards becoming mandatory for MY 2016 and beyond. called the HD National Program [9]. Due to the tremendous diversity of HDV uses. Energy Information Administration (EIA). published by the U. which become mandatory for MY 2017 and beyond. issued by the EPA in December 2011 [8]. become ineffective at the time of those sunset dates) [5 ]. but some are considered in alternative cases. such as delivery. Vocational vehicle standards are set separately for chassis and engines.500 pounds (Classes 2b through 8) [10] and their engines. The potential impacts of proposed legislation. and ambulances.S. Standards reach the most stringent levels for combination tractors and vocational vehicles in MY 2017. 2011. In addition. as finalized by the EPA in July 2011 [7 ] • Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. refuse. those provisions may not be exercised consistently. it is difficult to discern the exact forms that the final provisions of pending legislation or regulations will take. GVWR Class 7 and 8 (26. Vocational vehicles include a wide range of truck configurations.gov/oiaf/service_rpts. There are many other pieces of legislation and regulation that appear to have some probability of being enacted in the not-toodistant future. The HD National Program standards begin for model year (MY) 2014 vehicles and engines and are fully phased in by MY 2018. and sunset provisions may or may not be extended. utility. and tow trucks. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) in September 2011 [6] • The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).eia. and power requirements. in fact. cement.to 15-person passenger vans. the EPA and NHTSA jointly announced a final rule. or standards—or of sections of legislation that have been enacted but require funds or implementing regulations that have not been provided or specified—are not reflected in the AEO2012 Reference case. Examples of recently enacted Federal and State legislation and regulations incorporated in the AEO2012 Reference case include: • New greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel consumption standards for medium. AEO2012 includes the HD Table 1. set voluntary fuel consumption standards for MY 2014 and 2015. There are no GHG or fuel consumption standards for trailers. This section summarizes Federal and State legislation and regulations newly incorporated or updated in AEO2012 since the completion of the Annual Energy Outlook 2011. Standards are set separately for tractor cabs and their engines. and heavyduty pickups and vans (Table 1). school buses. Heavy-duty pickup and van standards are required to reach the highest level of stringency in MY 2018. The rulemaking defines vocational vehicles as all heavy-duty trucks that are not combination tractors or heavy-duty pickups or vans.and heavy-duty engines and vehicles.001 pounds and above) Class 2b through 8 (8. AEO2012 represents standard compliance among HDV regulatory classifications that represent the discrete vehicle categories set forth in the rule. under authority granted by the Clean Air Act. dump. Further.htm.501 pounds and above) Vocational vehicles Heavy-duty pickups and vans Class 2b and 3 (8. Even in situations where existing legislation contains provisions to allow revision of implementing regulations. with subsequent standards then holding constant. has issued GHG emissions standards that begin with MY 2014 for all engine and body categories. vocational vehicles. The AEO2012 Reference case assumes that current laws and regulations affecting the energy sector are largely unchanged throughout the projection period (including the implication that laws that include sunset dates do. and some laws include sunset provisions that may be extended. The EPA.  Greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards for heavy-duty vehicles. model years 2014 through 2018 On September 15. However. 1. EIA has regularly examined the potential implications of proposed legislation in Service Reports.Legislation and regulations Introduction The Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) generally represents current Federal and State legislation and final implementation regulations available as of the end of December 2011. except for diesel engine standards. regulations. Those reports can be found on the EIA website at www. designs. which for the first time established GHG emissions and fuel consumption standards for on-road heavy-duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 8. HD National Program vehicle regulatory categories Category Combination tractors Description Combination tractors are semi trucks designed to pull trailers. at the request of the Administration and Congress. Many pending provisions are examined in alternative cases included in AEO2012 or in other analyses completed by the U. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . fire.S. The final rule sets separate standards for the different engines used in combination tractors and vocational vehicles. the rule recognizes that reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption will require changes to both the engine and the body of a vehicle (to reduce the amount of work demanded by an engine). operating under regulatory timelines mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act [11].

8 8. Vocational vehicle chassis standards are subdivided in the rule by GVWR (Classes 2b to 5. unless made up by credits or other program flexibilities.8 7.7 9.0 8. mid. AEO2012 assumes that vehicle chassis and engine manufacturers comply with the voluntary portion of the rule covering the fuel consumption standard. cab type (day or sleeper). Combination tractor cab standards are subdivided by GVWR (Class 7 or 8). and roof type (low. and Class 8). Each vocational vehicle chassis and engine combination is required to meet the GHG and fuel consumption standard for a given model year. The standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans are different for diesel Table 2.2 7. AEO2012 does not model the chassis and engine standards separately but allows the use of technologies to meet the HD National Program combined engine and chassis standards. Combination tractor engine standards are subdivided into medium heavy-duty diesel (for use in Class 7 tractors) and heavy heavy-duty diesel (for use in Class 8 tractors) (Table 2). HD National Program standards for vocational vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption (assuming fully compliant engine) Standard 2014 GHG emissions standard (grams CO2 per ton-mile) 2016 fuel consumption standard (gallons per 1.000 ton-miles) Table 3.000 ton-miles) 2017 GHG emissions standards (grams CO2 per ton-mile) 2017 fuel consumption standard (gallons per 1.8 U.5 7. Although they are not modeled separately in AEO2012. or high).4 7. including both the chassis and engine. Vocational vehicle engine standards are subdivided into light heavy-duty diesel (for use in Classes 2b through 5). Standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans are based on the “work factor”—a weighted average of the vehicle’s payload and towing capacity. unless they are made up by credits or other program flexibilities. Classes 6 and 7. with standards represented by vehicle.7 7.7 12.3 Class 7 Class 8 Sleeper cab Class 8 2014-2016 voluntary fuel consumption standards (gallons per 1. although they are not modeled separately in AEO2012. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 7 .2 81 88 92 8. medium heavy-duty diesel (for use in Classes 6 and 7).4 8. adjusted for four-wheel drive capability. GHG emission and fuel consumption standards for combination tractors are set for the tractor cabs and the engines used in those cabs separately in the HD National Program. and spark-ignited (primarily gasoline) engines (for use in all classes) (Table 3).0 68 76 75 6.000 ton-miles) Low roof Mid roof High roof 10.S. Each tractor cab and engine combination is required to meet the GHG and fuel consumption standards for a given model year. HD National Program standards for combination tractor greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption (assuming fully compliant engine) Day cab Roof type 2014 GHG emissions standards (grams CO2 per ton-mile) Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof 2017 GHG emissions standards (grams CO2 per ton-mile) Low roof Mid roof High roof 2017 fuel consumption standards (gallons per 1. GHG emission and fuel consumption standards for vocational vehicles are set separately in the HD National Program for the vehicle chassis and the engines used in the chassis.1 373 36.2 222 21.5 11.3 11.7 6.2 11.Legislation and regulations National Program standards beginning in MY 2014 as set by the GHG emissions portion of the rule.7 Medium heavy-duty (Classes 6-7) 234 23.1 104 115 120 80 86 89 66 73 72 107 119 124 10.0 225 22. heavy heavy-duty diesel (for use in Class 8).000 ton-miles) Light heavy-duty (Classes 2b-5) 388 38.1 Heavy heavy-duty (Class 8) 226 22. Again.

HD National Program model year standards for diesel pickup and van greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . 2014-2018 Carbon dioxide (grams per mile) 800 700 600 500 400 300 0 Work factor (pounds) 0 2. such as compressed natural gas vehicles. CAIR is an interstate emissions cap-and-trade program for SO2 and NOx that would have allowed for unlimited trading among 28 eastern States. Twenty-three States are subject to the annual limits.95 5. because the EPA has determined that the States in Group 1 need to meet more stringent emissions reduction requirements. It was finalized in 2005.95 0 Figure 8.000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fuel consumption (gallons per 100 miles) 9.000 8. manufacturer averaging. CSAPR replaces the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The final rulemaking exempts small manufacturers of heavy-duty engines.95 6.95 4.45 8. and requirements for emissions reductions were scheduled to begin 2009.000 10.000 6. The cap-and-trade systems for annual SO2 and NOx emissions are implemented for the coal demand regions by aggregating the allowance budget for each State within a region. All cap-and-trade programs specified in CSAPR are included in AEO2012. Circuit found that CAIR did not sufficiently meet the Clean Air Act requirements and directed the EPA to fix the flaws that it identified while CAIR remained in effect. They differ from the standards for combination tractors and vocational vehicles in that they apply to the vehicle fleet average for each manufacturer for a given model year.95 3. and 25 States are subject to the seasonal limits [12]. and trading. the four group emissions caps and corresponding allowance trading could not be explicitly represented. There are two SO2 control groups. and innovative technology credits.45 5. or vocational vehicle chassis from the GHG emissions and fuel consumption standards. the rulemaking contains four provisions designed to give manufacturers flexibility in meeting the GHG and fuel consumption standards. In 2008.000 8. Court of Appeals for the D.45 0 8 U. however.S. • Seasonal NOx Group covers a separate set of States. Finally. with State coverage as shown in Figure 9. advanced technology credits.000 10. • Group 2 SO2 covers 7 States [13]. CSAPR consists of four individual cap-and-trade programs: • Group 1 SO2 covers 16 States.000 4.000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fuel consumption (gallons per 100 miles) 7. the U. 2. CSAPR is intended to assist States in achieving their National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone. Fuel consumption and GHG emissions for alternative-fuel vehicles. 2014-2018 Carbon dioxide (grams per mile) 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 0 Work factor (pounds) 0 2.45 7. based on a production volume-weighted target for each model. The seasonal NOx limits address ground-level ozone. 20 of which are also in the Annual NOx Group and 5 of which are not.C. • Annual NOx Group consists of an annual cap-and-trade program that covers all Group 1 and Group 2 SO2 States.000 4.Legislation and regulations and gasoline engines (Figures 7 and 8). HD National Program model year standards for gasoline pickup and van greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption.S. Limits on annual emissions of SO2 and NOx are designed to address fine particulate matter. with targets differing by work factor attribute. Both the EPA and NHTSA will allow for early compliance credits in MY 2013. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule The CSAPR was created to regulate emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants greater than 25 megawatts that generate electric power from fossil fuels. combination tractor cabs. Those flexibility provisions are not included in the AEO2012 Reference case.000 6. but because the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) does not represent electric power markets at the State level. In July 2011.45 6.45 3. banking. Figure 7. the EPA published CSAPR.45 4. will be calculated according to their tailpipe emissions.95 2.

The emissions allowances are allocated to generating units primarily on the basis of historical energy use.and oil-fired power plants with nameplate capacities greater than 25 megawatts [17 ]. The MATS rule. 2012.Legislation and regulations The EPA scheduled three annual cap-and-trade programs to commence in January 2012 and the summer season NOx program to begin in May 2012. 3. emissions allowances exist for four independent trading programs. States covered by CSAPR limits on emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides States controlled for both fine particles (annual SO2 and NOx) and ozone (ozone season NOx) (20 States) States controlled for fine particles only (annual SO2 and NOx) (3 States) States controlled for ozone only (ozone season NOx) (5 States) States not covered by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule U. In order to comply with the MATS rule for coal. the initial annual cap does not change over time. The MATS rule is not applied to oil-fired steam units in AEO2012 because of their small size and limited importance. because the Court of Appeals had not made a final ruling at the time AEO2012 was completed. finalized in December 2011. the sources responsible must “pay a penalty” in addition to submitting the additional allowances. the emissions cap across States is reduced substantially in 2014.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 9 . For the Group 1 SO2 program. Each State is designated an annual emissions budget. CSAPR is included in AEO2012 despite the stay. metals. For three of the four programs. Therefore. regulates mercury (Hg) and other HAPs from power plants. which requires that maximum achievable control technology be applied to power plants to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) [16]. The EPA set the penalties with the goal of ensuring that emissions produced by upwind States would not exceed assurance levels and contribute to air quality problems in downwind States. Emissions trading is unrestricted within a group but is not allowed across groups. the NEMS model requires all coal-fired power plants to Figure 9. The AEO2012 Reference case assumes that all coal-fired generating units with capacity greater than 25 megawatts will comply with the MATS rule beginning in 2015. CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1. If the sources collectively exceed the State emission budget by more than the 20 percent. and organics from coal. The standards take effect in 2015. Mercury and air toxics standards The MATS [15 ] are required by Section 112 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. with the sum of the budgets making up the overall group emissions cap. but the Court of Appeals issued a stay that is delaying implementation while it addresses legal challenges to the rule that have been raised by several power companies and States [14]. MATS applies to Hg and hazardous acid gases. Sources can collectively exceed State emissions budgets by close to 20 percent without any penalty.

2012. As a result of the noncompetitive auctions. which are designed to adjust the program at the end of the first compliance period. Therefore. but for AEO2012. The cap-and-trade program is intended to help California achieve its goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Western Climate Initiative is another program designed to establish a GHG emissions trading program. with the enforceable compliance obligations beginning in 2013. Moreover.S. The first compliance period lasts for 2 years. indicating that emissions in the region are at or below the program-mandated ceiling. although the final details of the program remain undecided [20]. as follows: • Compliance Period 1: 2013-2014 • Compliance Period 2: 2015-2017 • Compliance Period 3: 2018-2020. it is assumed to be implemented only in the electric power sector. therefore. Because no changes have been finalized. The California cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions. is discussed in the following section. despite New Jersey’s decision to withdraw from the program at the end of 2011. The hearings. In the past seven auctions. NEMS does not model the best practices associated with reductions in dioxin emissions. All electric power plants. suppliers of transportation fuel. and suppliers of natural gas in California are required to submit emissions allowances for each ton of CO2 or CO2-equivalent emissions they produce. The enforceable cap goes into effect in 2013. in which credits have not actually been traded but simply purchased at a floor price. 10 U. the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [21]. as well as power plants in other States that sell power to California. AEO2012 places limits on emissions from electric power plants and cogeneration facilities in California. it is not included in the AEO2012 projections. while coal prices have increased. large industrial facilities. Because the RGGI baseline and projected emissions were calculated before the economic recession that began in 2008. CARB determined that 427 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) was the total State-wide GHG emissions level in 1990 and.89 per ton [18]. in order to comply with the final rule [23]. California Assembly Bill 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The reduction of CO2 emissions from the power sector in the RGGI region since 2009 is primarily a result of broader market trends. specific control technologies—either flue gas desulfurization scrubbers or dry sorbent injection systems—are assumed to be used to achieve compliance. which also are covered by the MATS rule. which will result in the removal of 67 million tons of CO2 from the RGGI emissions ceiling. At the stakeholders meeting in January 2012. allowances have sold at the floor price of $1. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Since mid-2008. the commitment to emissions trading was reaffirmed. would be the 2020 emissions target. several States have decided to retire their excess allowances permanently [19]. the program began a stakeholder hearing process in January 2012 that will last through the summer of 2012. it is included in AEO2012 as specified in the agreement. Because of the continued uncertainty over the implementation and design of the final program. in order to measure the impact of these rules.Legislation and regulations reduce Hg emissions to 90 percent below their uncontrolled emissions levels by using scrubbers and activated carbon injection controls. the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) continued to apply to fossilfuel-fired power plants larger than 25 megawatts capacity in the northeastern United States. the emissions caps are higher than actual emissions have been. 5. CARB designed a cap-and-trade program that started on January 1. The program covers several GHGs. and the second and third periods last for 3 years each. 4. In 2007. or organic HAPs. Updated State air emissions regulations As its first 3-year compliance period came to a close. The cap is set to begin in 2013 and to decline linearly to 85 percent of the 2013 value by 2020. leading to an excess of available allowances in recent auctions. A full fabric filter also is required to meet the limits on emissions of metals other than Hg and to improve the effectiveness of the dry sorbent injection systems. multi-year program to reduce GHG emissions in California. which caps carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from covered electricity generating facilities and requires each ton of CO2 emitted to be offset by an allowance purchased at auction. and there are three compliance periods—multi-year periods for which the compliance obligation is calculated for covered entities. Emissions resulting from electricity generated outside California but consumed in the State also are subject to the cap. designed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in response to California Assembly Bill 32. As one of the major initiatives for AB 32. may alter the program significantly. modeling of the provisions in AEO2012 is the same as in previous Annual Energy Outlooks. with the most significant being CO2 [22]. NEMS does not explicitly model the emissions of acid gases. natural gas prices and electricity demand in the Northeast have fallen. toxic metals other than Hg. due to modeling limitations. There are now nine States in the accord. Because the program is binding. however. The cap-and-trade program applies to multiple economic sectors throughout the State’s economy. authorized the CARB to set California’s GHG reduction goals for 2020 and establish a comprehensive.

AEO2012 incorporates the impacts of State laws requiring the addition of renewable generation or capacity by utilities doing business in the States. in order to mitigate the economic impact of the cap on the industrial sector. electricity sales 3. State RPS policies are not the only driver of growth in renewable generation. Revenue gained from the auctions is intended to be used for purposes related to AB 32. Currently. 358. and each State generally represents only a portion of one of the NEMS electricity regions. when the second compliance period begins.7 MMTCO2e. 394.S. 370. for 2017.2 MMTCO2e. Seventeen percent of the allowances are allocated directly to industrial facilities covered by the rule. eligible technologies [26]. for 2015. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 11 .4 MMTCO2e. In addition. 2015-2035 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency was (billion kilowatthours) also used to support those efforts [27 ].” “set-asides.3 MMTCO2e.” The following sections detail the significant changes made by the States. 30 States and the District of Columbia have an enforceable renewable portfolio standard (RPS) or similar laws (Table 4). Over the 2013-2020 period. the number of allowances allocated annually to the industrial sector declines linearly. because NEMS provides electricity market projections for the contiguous lower 48 States only). 159. In general. The aggregate RPS requirement for the various State programs. is shown in Figure 10. Under such standards. State renewable energy requirements and goals: Update through 2011 To the extent possible.Legislation and regulations The electricity and industrial sectors are required to comply with the cap starting in 2013.000 1.000 Combined requirement under current State-level RPS 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 No new RPS programs were enacted over the past year. Where applicable. 5.. or impacts on consumer electricity prices. Table 4 provides a summary of all State RPS laws. The remaining 7 percent of the allowances issued in a given year go into a cost containment reserve and forward reserve auction. Offsets used as part of the program must be approved by the CARB. at the end of 2014 they are required to account for all the emissions for which they were responsible during the 2-year period. because NEMS is not a State-level model. for 2018. Auctions are set to begin in 2012. and for 2020. these distinct targets (sometimes referred to as “tiers. although the renewable portfolio standards. In addition.” or “carve-outs”) may be subsumed into the broader targets.5 MMTCO2e. Each entity can also use offsets to meet up to 8 percent of its compliance obligation. Annual GHG allowance budgets for the State (i. and does not account for any discretionary or nondiscretionary waivers or limits on compliance found in most State RPS programs. each State determines its own levels of renewable generation.8 MMTCO2e. the model is not able to treat fuel-specific provisions—such as those for solar and offshore wind energy—as distinct targets. In the AEO2012 Reference case.000 4. for 2014. which will be held quarterly when the program commences. 162. The utilities are then required to put their allowances up for auction and use the revenue generated from the auction to credit ratepayers. The RPS compliance constraint in most regions is approximated. An exception is made for public power agencies. however. and noncompliance penalties. States generally are assumed to meet their ultimate RPS targets. and a more complete discussion of those factors can be found in “Market trends.S. and the projection for total renewable generation is checked for consistency with any State-level cost-control provisions. The requirement is derived from the legal targets and projected sales. Compliance costs in each region are tracked. limits on State compliance funding. the projections do not include policies with either voluntary goals or targets that can be substantially satisfied with nonrenewable resources.S. 346. EIA has confirmed the States’ Figure 10. The cost containment reserve is intended to be called on only if allowance prices rise above a set amount. covered entities are required to submit allowances for up to 30 percent of their annual emissions in each year. emissions caps) are set by the final rule [24] as follows: for 2013. 6. 334. these targets account for about 10 percent of U. Total combined requirement for State requirements through original documentation. 382. sales. or are not modeled because they may be met with existing capacity and/or projected growth based on modeled economic and policy factors.3 MMTCO2e. such as caps on renewable credit prices. as determined by the Governor and the State Legislature. as modeled in AEO2012. AEO2012 includes the impacts of all laws in effect at the end of 2011 (with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii.000 2. some States with existing RPS programs made modifications in 2011.000 Total projected U. U. For the first compliance period.4 MMTCO2e. however. However. Suppliers of natural gas and transportation fuels are required to comply starting in 2015.e. A majority of the allowances (51 percent) [25 ] allocated over the initial 8 years of the program will be distributed through auctions. and the program caps will take effect in 2013. Twenty-five percent of the allowances are allocated directly to electric utilities that sell electricity to consumers in the State. for 2016. which will be able to keep allowances for compliance. for 2019. by a total of 50 percent. By 2025.

CA CO CT DE HI IL IA KS ME MD MA MI MN MO MT NV (continued on next page) 12 U. In 1983. The State has an escalating renewable target. House Bill (HB) 1001 strengthens the State’s existing RPS program by requiring that 20 percent of electricity generated by IOUs in 2015 be renewable. There is also a minimum requirement for photovoltaic systems. including a 2-percent solar target. which seeks to establish 400 megawatts of solar generating capacity. enacted in 2008. approved in April 2007. A Solar Carve-Out Program was also added. increasing incrementally to 15 percent of generation in 2021. SB 717 extended the eligibility of the solar target to include solar water heating systems. expanded the State RPS provisions to all suppliers. Enacted in March of 2010. which has two interim milestones. the State’s largest supplier. In 2009. Up to one-quarter of the 25-percent share may be met through efficiency measures. Iowa had well over 3. increasing to 30 percent in 2020.Legislation and regulations Table 4. 6 percent from solar. Under SBX1-2. A 15-percent share of sales must be renewable by 2015. 3 percent may be met by waste-to-energy and conventional biomass facilities. Initially the law covered only regulated utilities. Bonus credits are given to renewable generation within the State. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . The plan also includes a cap on the incremental costs resulting from the penetration of renewable generation. and there are penalty payments for compliance failure. made the interim solar requirements and penalty payments slightly less stringent. HB 375 also raised penalty payments for “Tier 1” compliance shortfalls to 4 cents per kilowatthour.000 megawatts of wind-powered capacity alone. both IOUs and publicly owned municipal utilities are subject to the RPS. In 2009. HB 375 revised the preceding RPS to contain a 20-percent target by 2022. The State operates a renewable energy credit market. HB 2369 established a requirement that 20 percent of installed capacity must use renewable resources by 2020. while preserving the 2-percent by 2022 solar target. established in 1997 and most recently revised in 2009 by SB 358. Offshore wind generation receives 3. In April 2008. and that level must be maintained in subsequent years. The 30-percent requirement for Xcel consists of 24 percent that must be from wind. 69127 requires 15 percent of electricity sales to be renewable by 2025.5 percent of the total in 2025). There is also a distributed generation requirement. In-State generation receives a 25-percent credit premium.100 megawatts of renewable capacity by 2015. Of the overall total. 25 percent of generation is now required to come from renewable sources in 2025. and 5 percent that can be from other resources. The years leading up to 2017 also have new generation milestones. The State RPS has a goal of a 15-percent renewable share of total sales by 2020 and includes necessary payments for compliance shortfalls. A specific percentage of the target must be from distributed generation. In November 2008. Eligible biomass is restricted to low-carbon life cycle emission sources. In 2007. HB 681. which receive bonus credits. In 2011. the rule was modified to cover sales outside a utility’s home territory. which mandates a 25-percent renewable generation share of sales by 2025. In addition. the State’s large utilities are required to procure an additional combined total of 1. Multiple credits may be provided to solar generation and systems manufactured in-State. In addition. SF 4 created a 30-percent renewable requirement by 2020 for Xcel. HB 1464 sets the renewable mandate at 40 percent by 2030. (Not included in NEMS. Generation from eligible community-owned facilities receives a 10-percent credit premium. and 1 percent from distributed generation. with escalating annual targets. There is a separate requirement for solar generation (3. Missouri voters approved Proposition C. The legislation codifies the 33 percent requirement in Executive Order S-21-09. a capacity mandate of 105 megawatts of renewable energy capacity was adopted. requires that 33 percent of electricity sales be met by renewable sources by 2020.S. enacted in 2011. which mandates a 2-percent renewable energy requirement in 2011. which served as a continuation of California’s first RPS. The law requires that 10 percent of sales come from new renewable capacity by 2017.5 times the credit amount. 1 percent that can be from wind or solar. SB 277. Public Law 403 was added to the State’s RPS requirements. Public Act 295. and solar technologies receive 3 times the credit amount.) Public Act 095-0481 created an agency responsible for overseeing the mandate of 25-percent renewable sales by 2025. Senate Substitute 1 amended Senate Bill (SB) 119 to extend the increasing RPS targets to 2025. including a 4-percent mandate for higher efficiency or combined heat and power systems. established an RPS that will require 10 percent of all electricity sales to be generated from renewable sources by 2015. SBX1-2. Public Act 07-242 mandates a 27-percent renewable sales requirement by 2020. 75 percent of the required sales must be generated from wind. All existing renewable facilities are eligible to meet the target. Renewable portfolio standards in the 30 States with current mandates State AZ Program mandate Arizona Corporate Commission Decision No. Double credits are given to solar energy. By the end of 2010. in which investor-owned utilities (IOUs) were required to deliver 20 percent of sales from renewable sources. and a 25-percent requirement by 2025 for other suppliers. although generation from those facilities may be counted toward the generation-based RPS. with interim goals increasing annually.

There is a separate standard of 10 percent by 2020 for cooperatives. signed into law in November 2004. Verifiable electricity demand reduction can also satisfy the RPS. with wind and solar each accounting for 20 percent of the target. strengthened the State RPS by mandating 5. SB 418. SB 20. Because implementing regulations were not available at the time the AEO2012 projections were being developed.100 megawatts of capacity. passed in May 2007. There is an administrative penalty of 5 cents per kilowatthour for noncompliance. increasing to 40 percent in later years. The program is administered and funded by the State. which had greater flexibility under the State’s previous RPS mandate. Most of the qualifying generation must be renewable. requires 25 percent of electricity sales to be produced from alternative energy resources by 2025. Although the targets specified in the two programs are similar. Assembly Bill (AB) 3520. The Renewable Energy Standard was signed into law in 2004. with a goal to develop 1. which builds on California’s prior RPS mandate for 20 percent of electricity sales by 2010 [29]. The State’s Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority is tasked with creating an investment program that will result in the procurement of 30 megawatts of residential solar installations that can be counted toward the general RPS requirement. In 2006. requires that renewable generation account for 25 percent of sales by 2025 for large utilities. SBX1-2 extends the application of the RPS to local publicly owned utilities. Washington voters approved Initiative 937.880 megawatts of renewable capacity by 2015. with no upper limit. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 13 .5 percent of sales by 2021.38 percent by 2021. the California Renewable Energy Resources Act [28]. SB 838. Compliance penalties vary by generation type. Through 2018. the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities revised the State RPS to increase the renewable generation target to 22. Renewable electricity on line after 1995 is considered eligible. In 2007.300 gigawatthours of solar generation by 2026. State utilities also must procure 90 megawatts of new renewable capacity. with the percentage-based RPS component to reach 20. In November 2006. the 2009 Executive Order was modeled. by 2015. passed in March 2007. The renewable portfolio must consist of diversified technologies. HB 103.Legislation and regulations Table 4. CARB does retain an enforcement role over publicly owned local utilities. The Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard. further refines the mandate to include 5. by 2014. Municipals and cooperatives are exempt. 25 percent of the target may be met through efficiency standards. strengthened the State RPS with a requirement that. enforcement mechanisms may differ significantly. Renewable portfolio standards in the 30 States with current mandates (continued) State NH NJ Program mandate HB 873. NM NY NC OH OR PA RI TX WA WV WI California The State codified its RPS of 33 percent by 2020 through the passage of SBX1-2. passed in August 2005. SBX12 supersedes the 2009 Executive Order that charged the CARB with implementing the 33-percent RPS. and 5 to 10 percent of sales by 2025 for smaller utilities. The program requires that 16 percent of total sales be renewable by 2019.S. however. along with several different fossil energy technologies. signed into law in June 2007. passed in June 2009. but there is also a provision that allows waste coal resources to receive credits. established a requirement that 25 percent of electricity sales must come from alternative energy resources by 2025. The California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission are the primary implementing authorities for SBX1-2.5 percent by 2021 for investor-owned utilities. There is also a separate end-use standard. The Public Service Commission issued updated RPS rules in January 2010 that expand the program to a 30-percent requirement by 2015. a generator must pay an alternative compliance penalty. Generation from any otherwise qualified facility that came on line after 1999 is eligible. There is also a 10-percent requirement by 2018 for cooperatives and municipals. with interim targets. has an 18-percent requirement by 2020. 10 percent of electricity sales must be generated from renewable resources. If the target is not met. SB 3 created an RPS of 12. SB 221. passed in March 2006. and that the renewable share of total generation must be at least 6 percentage points above the average renewable share from 2001 to 2003. The interim program targets escalate more rapidly in later years. enacted in 2010. legislated that 23. There is also a target of 500 megawatts of renewable capacity other than wind. including 3 megawatts of solar. SB 459. SB 2036 has a specific provision for offshore wind. U. directs investor-owned utilities to derive 20 percent of their sales from renewable generation by 2020. which requires that renewables should account for 27 percent of sales by 2020 [30]. not including the required solar generation.8 percent of electricity sales must be met by renewables in 2025. Connecticut Public Act 11-80 adds a solar-specific component to the existing RPS target. One-half of the target must come from renewable sources. passed in May 2008. Alternative energy was defined to include various renewables. including low-carbon and renewable technologies. which specifies that 15 percent of sales from the State’s largest generators must come from renewable sources by 2020.

Regulated parties under the legislation generally are the fuel producers and importers who sell motor gasoline or diesel fuel in California. 7. the U. which extends the list of sources eligible to meet the State’s RPS to include fuel cells under certain conditions [31]. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .S. SB 1652 requires that 1 percent of the renewable target (25 percent of sales from renewable sources by 2025 for large utilities) be fulfilled by distributed generation by mid-2015. The legislation defines electricity demand reduction as a “measureable reduction in the electricity demand of a retail electric customer that is voluntary. along with EIA’s prior completion of modeling efforts.S.S. which requires that solar sources account for 2 percent of electricity sales by 2022 [34]. In December 2011. Illinois With the enactment of SB 1652. In addition. and measured in real time. SB 690 extends the designation of waste-to-energy facilities as qualifying to meet the 20-percent target beyond 2022. California low carbon fuel standard The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Each alternative low-carbon fuel has its own CI. 2012 [39]. with incremental targets beginning to take effect in 2013. however. administered by the CARB [36]. using two-way communications devices that communicate on the basis of standards” [35 ]. Fuel cell projects that can be fueled by renewable sources and that are owned or operated by qualified providers can apply to earn renewable energy credits and. The LCFS legislation is designed to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of motor gasoline and diesel fuels sold in California by 10 percent between 2012 and 2020 through the increased sale of alternative “low-carbon” fuels. North Carolina North Carolina enacted SB 75.Legislation and regulations Delaware Delaware enacted SB 124. solar renewable energy credits. which would have allowed the LCFS to remain in place during the appeal process. The CIs are calculated on an energy-equivalent basis. 14 U. based on life-cycle analyses conducted under the guidance of CARB for a number of approved fuel pathways. A decision on the appeal filed by CARB is yet to be made. As a result of the initial ruling’s timing. a request for a stay of the injunction was quickly filed by CARB. which allows reductions in electricity demand to qualify toward meeting the State’s existing renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standard. District Court for the Eastern Division of California ruled in favor of several trade groups that claimed the LCFS violated the interstate commerce clause of the U. measured in grams of CO2 equivalent emissions per megajoule. The future of the LCFS program remains uncertain. rather than sunsetting [33]. Constitution by seeking to regulate farming and ethanol production practices in other States. After the initial ruling. Maryland The State enacted two pieces of legislation that allow for additional flexibility in meeting the existing RPS target of 20 percent of sales from renewable generation by 2022. There is no upper limit on the portion of the RPS requirement that can be met by electricity demand reduction. on a limited basis. SB 717 specifies that solar water heating systems may also fulfill the solar set-aside requirement. that request was denied by the same judge who initially blocked enforcement of the LCFS [38]. and granted an injunction blocking enforcement by CARB [37 ]. under the real-time control of both the electric power supplier and the retail electric customer. A new request for a stay of injunction while CARB appeals the original ruling was filed with the U. the LCFS is not included in the AEO2012 Reference case [40]. was signed into law in January 2010.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals and was granted as of April 23. the State augmented its existing RPS to include a distributed generation requirement [32].

website www. 24. 2012). “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal.pdf.” Federal Register. DC: December 15. 7.  For purposes of this final rulemaking.  T. website www. website www. Sections 95800 to 96023. website www. heavy-duty trucks are those with a gross vehicle weight rating of at least 8.” Federal Register.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/candtmodreg. Section 112(a)(8). Environmental Protection Agency. website www. pp.S. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule: Reducing Air Pollution.” The New York Times (January 26. 77. website www. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium.  The Clean Air Act.gov/airtransport/pdfs/CSAPRPresentation. No. 13.501 pounds.epa.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/candtmodreg. Environmental Protection Agency.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/candtmodreg. IndustrialCommercial-Institutional. 179 (Washington. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Article 5. 11. Subchapter 10 Climate Change. Vol. U.  Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. except those Class 2 b vehicles of 8. 15. 2012). Schoenberg. 18. 9. 10. CA: July 2011). B.org/market.pdf. No. Title 17. Environmental Protection Agency.eia.gov/Energy/2007_Dec_21_Summary_Security_ Act_2007. “California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms” (Sacramento. pp.  U. Vol.gpo.  California Code of Regulations.pdf. Vol.ca.S.” Bloomberg Businessweek (January 4.seco.pdf. defines an electric generating unit.pdf.pdf.  California Code of Regulations.  A complete list of the laws and regulations included in AEO2012 is provided in Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2012.gpo. Final Rule. westernclimateinitiative.and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. CA: July 2011). CA: July 2011). 21. 22. Appendix A. 57106-57513. therefore. CA: January 12.gpo. Protecting Public Health (Washington. CA: July 2011).S. 2012). website www.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/0554(2012).S.arb. “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). website www.” website www.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf. Article 5. 20. 19.pdf.arb.html?_r=2.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/ html/2011-20740. Tracking & Offsets. 2012).” website www. “Regional Cap-and-Trade Effort Seeks Greater Impact by Cutting Carbon Allowances.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/ candtmodreg. 2011).S. 12. website www. 6.htm. 17. “California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms” (Sacramento. “Covered Gases” (Sacramento. Section 95810.noaa.pdf. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A Summary of Major Provisions. DC: December 2007). Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 15 .  Congressional Research Service. Protecting Public Health (Washington.epa.gov/mats. Title 17. and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units. 76. Subchapter 10 Climate Change.ca.nytimes. 2011).org/document-archives/Partner-Meeting-Materials/Jan-12-Stakeholder-Update-Presentation/%20. Environmental Protection Agency. 9304-9513. DC: December 15. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule: Reducing Air Pollution. ca. 179 (Washington.000 pounds that are currently covered under light-duty vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards. Article 5. “Annual Allowance Budgets for Calendar Years 2013-2020” (Sacramento.com/2012/01/27/nyregion/in-greenhouse-gas-initiative-many-unsoldallowances. DC: September 15. DC: September 15.rggi.html.and OilFired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility. Article 5. DC: February 16.htm.arb. Johnsson. Subchapter 10 Climate Change. and J.businessweek. Final Rule.S. Slide 3.gov/airtransport. 8.S.  California Code of Regulations. The AEO2012 Early Release Reference case was prepared before the final MATS rule was issued and. Order Code RL34294 (Washington.arb.and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.  U.  California Code of Regulations. “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.gov/airtransport/pdfs/CSAPRPresentation. U. website www. No.” website epa. website www. Environmental Protection Agency. ca.Legislation and regulations Endnotes for Legislation and regulations Links current as of June 2012 5.  U.  U. 23. 14.S. Section 95841. 32 (Washington.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/html/201120740. Subchapter 10 Climate Change. WCI Emissions Trading Program Update (San Francisco. website www.” Federal Register. Wingfield.501 to 10. U. 2011).  M.  Western Climate Initiative. 16.com/news/2012-01-04/epa-cross-state-emissions-ruleput-on-hold-by-court.  U. website www. 2011). 76. did not include MATS.epa. Navarro. website www. Sections 95800 to 96023. “CO2 Auctions. “EPA Cross-State Emissions Rule Put on Hold by Court. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

gov/fuels/lcfs/123111lcfs-rep-adv.org/news/entry/judge-denies-california-attempt-to-reimplement-lcfs. while another’s definition may not.dsireusa.pdf. 27.md.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/ PDF/S75v4.  State of California.” (Sacramento. Subarticle 7. 28. 16 U.delaware. 38. “LCFS Enforcement Injunction is Lifted” (Sacramento. CA: October 2010).ca. Article 4. “Judge Denies California Attempt to Reimplement LCFS” (January 23. “An Act To Amend Title 26 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Delaware’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards And Delaware-Manufactured Fuel Cells” (Dover. 39. Appendix J. Title 17. For example. “An Act to Promote the Use of Electricity Demand Reduction to Satisfy Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards” (Raleigh.arb. “An Act Concerning the Establishment of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and Planning for Connecticut’s Energy Future” (Hartford.31.ilga. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .htm. 12. “Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Supplemental Regulatory Advisory 10-04B” (Sacramento. 31.ct. CA: July 2011). State of Connecticut. Table 4 provides more detail on how the technology or fuel category is defined by each State.pdf.pdf. CT: July 1.Legislation and regulations 25. “Low Carbon Fuel Standard. 2012).arb. Senate Bill 717.pdf. 37.arb. website www. Senate Bill 2. 2012).  State of California. Public Act 11-80. website www. Sections 95480 to 95490.  California Code of Regulations.pdf.  State of California. 29. 34.ca.ca. website www.us/2011rs/bills/sb/sb0717e.  State of Maryland. Senate Bill 124. 35.S. “An Act Concerning Renewable Energy Portfolio – Waste-to-Energy and Refuse-Derived Fuel” (Annapolis. CA: December 2011). ethanolrfa.  State of Delaware. DE: July 7. leginfo. Senate Bill 690. 2011). gov/LIS/lis146. Senate Bill 1652. 2011).pdf. State of California.31. California Air Resources Board.  State of Maryland.gov/regact/2009/lcfs09/finalfro. 32. MD: May 29.nsf/vwLegislation/SB+124/$file/legis.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/capv4appj. 2011). NC: April 28.gov/fuels/ lcfs/LCFS_Stay_Granted.  Renewable Fuels Association. CA: April 2011).state.ncleg. one State’s definition of renewables may include hydroelectric power generation.ca. website www.  General Assembly of North Carolina. “California Renewable Energy Resources Act” (Sacramento. website www. 2011). website http://mlis. website www. 40. Public Utilities Code. CA: April 24. website www.  The eligible technology.cga.md.ca. “An Act Concerning Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard – Renewable Energy Credits – Solar Water Heating Systems” (Annapolis. website www. More information about the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency can be found at website www. org/about. Sections 399. IL: October 26. website www. 36. gov/legislation/97/SB/PDF/09700SB1652lv. Subchapter 10 Climate Change. “An Act Concerning Public Utilities” (Springfield.legis.html?open.  State of Illinois.pdf.html.gov/2011/ACT/ PA/2011PA-00080-R00SB-01243-PA. which was completed before the ruling by the Court. 2011). p.  The LCFS was included in the AEO2012 Early Release Reference case.pdf. website mlis. Proposed Regulation to Implement the California Cap-and-Trade Program.state. 2011).us/2011rs/bills/sb/sb0690e.arb. 30. MD: May 29.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section =puc&group=00001-01000&file=399.leginfo.11 to 399. website www.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx1_2_bill_20110412_chaptered. and even the definition of the technology or fuel category. website www. 26.11-399. 33. Senate Bill 75. “Allowance Allocation” (Sacramento. will vary by State.

Issues in focus .

(11) U. there may be considerable interest in a variety of alternative cases that reflect the updating or extension of current laws and regulations. Table 5 provides a list of titles from the 2011. unless the legislation establishing them sets a sunset date or specifies how they will change. (3) potential efficiency improvements and their impacts on end-use energy demand. and (12) evolving Marcellus shale gas resource estimates. 1. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . No Sunset and Extended Policies cases Background The AEO2012 Reference case is best described as a “current laws and regulations” case.eia. crude oil and natural gas resource uncertainty.Issues in focus Introduction The “Issues in focus” section of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) provides an in-depth discussion on topics of special interest. nuclear power plants: Continued life or replacement after 60? Accounting for carbon dioxide emissions from biomass energy combustion Impact of limitations on access to oil and natural gas resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf Expectations for oil shale production Bringing Alaska North Slope natural gas to market Natural gas and crude oil prices in AEO2009 Greenhouse gas concerns and power sector planning Tax credits and renewable generation 18 U.S. (6) heavy-duty (HD) natural gas vehicles (NGVs). In that regard. (4) energy impacts of proposed CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles (LDVs). The first topic updates a discussion included in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (AEO2011) that compared the results of two cases with different assumptions about the future course of existing energy policies. Detailed quantitative results are available in Appendix D. (7) changing structure of the refining industry. The other case assumes the extension or expansion of a selected group of existing policies—corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Key analyses from “Issues in focus” in recent AEOs AEO2011 Increasing light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model years 2017 to 2025 Fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles Potential efficiency improvements in alternative cases for appliance standards and building codes Potential of offshore crude oil and natural gas resources Prospects for shale gas Cost uncertainties for new electric power plants Carbon capture and storage: Economics and issues Power sector environmental regulations on the horizon AEO2010 Energy intensity trends in AEO2010 AEO2009 Economics of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Natural gas as a fuel for heavy trucks: Issues and incentives Factors affecting the relationship between crude oil and natural gas prices Importance of low permeability natural gas reservoirs U. which have been extended with or without modifications several times since their initial implementation. One case assumes the elimination of sunset provisions in existing energy policies. Energy Information Administration (EIA) website at www. While the definition of the Reference case is relatively straightforward. (8) changing environment for fuel use in electricity generation. (10) potential impact of minimum pipeline throughput constraints on Alaska North Slope oil production.gov/analysis/reports. but many of the topics discussed in AEOs published in recent years also remain relevant today. 2010. Table 5.S.S. the policies are assumed not to sunset as they would under current law. including significant changes in assumptions and recent developments in technologies for energy production and consumption.S. that is. areas of particular interest include: • Laws or regulations that have a history of being extended beyond their legislated sunset dates.cfm?t=128. model years (MYs) 2017 to 2025. (9) nuclear power in AEO2012. The Reference case often serves as a starting point for the analysis of proposed legislative or regulatory changes. because it generally assumes that existing laws and regulations will remain unchanged throughout the projection period. appliance standards. (5) impacts of a breakthrough in battery vehicle technology. The topics explored in this section represent current and emerging issues in energy markets. Other topics discussed in this section as identified by subsection number include (2) oil price and production trends in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012). The articles listed in Table 5 can be found on the U. and production tax credits (PTCs)—in addition to the elimination of sunset provisions. Examples include the various tax credits for renewable fuels and technologies. and 2009 AEOs that are likely to be of interest to today’s readers—excluding topics that are updated in AEO2012.

The equipment standards and building codes assumed for the Extended Policies case are meant to illustrate the potential effects of these policies on energy consumption for buildings. • Laws or regulations that allow or require the appropriate regulatory agency to issue new or revised regulations under certain conditions. including: –– The PTC of 2. However. plus the following: • Federal equipment efficiency standards are updated at periodic intervals. –– For solar power investment.2 cents per kilowatthour or the 30-percent investment tax credit (ITC) available for wind. as opposed to ending in 2011 or 2016 as prescribed by current law. the end of the projection period. and that the CAFE standards are then held constant in subsequent model years. a 30-percent ITC that is scheduled to revert to a 10-percent credit in 2016 is. two alternative cases are discussed in this section. geothermal. although standards were not allowed to exceed “maximum technologically feasible” levels described in DOE’s technical support documents. hydroelectric. which call for an U. The business ITCs for commercial-sector generation technologies and geothermal heat pumps are assumed to be extended indefinitely. To provide some insight into the sensitivity of results to scenarios in which existing tax credits do not sunset. –– In the industrial sector. Standards are also introduced for products that are not currently subject to Federal efficiency standards. Department of Energy (DOE). except as identified below. Residential end-use technologies subject to updated standards are not eligible for tax credits in addition to the standards. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). are assumed to be extended indefinitely. the Extended Policies case adopts the same assumptions as the No Sunset case. Extended Policies case The Extended Policies case includes additional updates in Federal equipment efficiency standards that were not considered in the Reference case or No Sunset case. Likewise. No Sunset case • Extension through 2035 of the PTC for cellulosic biofuels of up to $1. Also. and landfill gas resources. Two subsequent rounds in 2023 and 2026 each add an assumed 5-percent incremental improvement to building energy codes. the Reference and No Sunset cases assume that LDV CAFE standards increase to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by MY 2020. No Sunset. although the fuel economy of new LDVs continues to rise modestly over time. biomass. assumed to be extended indefinitely at 30 percent. are assumed to be extended indefinitely.S.S. with the levels based on ENERGY STAR specifications. Examples include appliance efficiency standards issued by the U. industrial. No cost-benefit analysis or evaluation of impacts on consumer welfare was completed in developing the assumptions. and readers should not view the cases discussed as EIA projections of how laws or regulations might or should be changed. as opposed to expiring in 2016. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 19 . the PTC for cellulosic biofuels beyond 2012 is not included because the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program that is already included in the AEO2012 Reference case tends to be the binding driver of cellulosic biofuels use. Examples include the numerous provisions of the Clean Air Act that require the EPA to issue or revise regulations if it finds that an environmental quality target is not being met. • Updated Federal residential and commercial building energy codes reach 30-percent improvement in 2020 relative to the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code in the residential sector and the American Society of Heating. • The AEO2012 Reference.Issues in focus • Laws or regulations that call for the periodic updating of initial specifications. or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) purchasing guidelines for Federal agencies. • Extension of tax credits for renewable energy sources in the utility. no technical feasibility analysis was conducted. and buildings sectors or for energy-efficient equipment in the buildings sector. currently set to expire at the end of 2012 for wind and 2013 for the other eligible resources. instead. tax credits for the purchase of energy-efficient equipment.01 per gallon (set to expire at the end of 2012). Other than these exceptions. No attempt is made to cover the full range of possible uncertainties in these areas.1-2004 in the commercial sector. Changes from the Reference case assumptions in these cases include the following. including photovoltaics (PV) in new houses. consistent with the provisions in the existing law. Analysis cases The two cases prepared—the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases—incorporate all the assumptions from the AEO2012 Reference case. and the business ITC for solar systems is assumed to remain at 30 percent instead of reverting to 10 percent.S. the ITC for combined heat and power (CHP) that ends in 2016 in the AEO2012 Reference case is assumed to be preserved through 2035. The Extended Policies case modifies the assumption in the Reference and No Sunset cases by assuming the incorporation of the proposed CAFE standards recently announced by the EPA and NHTSA for MY 2017 through MY 2025. as called for in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007). and Extended Policies cases include both the attribute-based CAFE standards for LDVs for MY 2011 and the joint attribute-based CAFE and vehicle GHG emissions standards for MY 2012 to MY 2016. –– In the buildings sector. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Building Energy Code 90. and CAFE and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for vehicles issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.

Total energy consumption growth in the Extended Policies case is markedly below the Reference case projection. a reduction nearly five times as large as the 1. offsetting some of the purchased 105 Reference electricity for cooling. energy use for 2005-2035 (quadrillion Btu) space heating in buildings is 6.S.3 percent lower. CAFE standards are assumed to increase at an average annual rate of 1. in the Extended Policies case than in the Reference case.8 percent (1.9 quadrillion Btu in 2035 in the Extended 95 Policies case. particularly for electricity generation. representing a 6.3 quadrillion Btu) reduction in the No Sunset case. Improvements in energy efficiency lead to reduced consumption in this case. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Buildings energy consumption The No Sunset case extends tax credits for residential and commercial renewable energy systems and for the purchase of energyefficient residential equipment. updated standards are assumed to replace any extension of incentives from the No Sunset case. With the additional efficiency gains from assumed future standards and more stringent building codes. Electricity use shows the largest reduction relative to the Reference case. and reduced energyrelated emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). and the Government receives lower tax revenues as consumers and businesses take advantage of the tax credits. respectively. respectively. Total energy consumption in three cases. increased use of renewable fuels. Analysis results The changes made to Reference case assumptions in the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases generally lead to lower estimates for overall energy consumption.9 percent lower.5 quadrillion Btu) lower in the Extended Policies case than in the Reference case. Because the Extended Policies case includes most of the assumptions in the No Sunset case but adds others. Also.9 percent. Although these cases show lower energy prices—because the tax credits and end-use efficiency standards lead to lower energy demand and reduce the cost of renewable fuels—consumers spend more on appliances that are more efficient in order to comply with the tighter appliance standards. which may include multiple units. The Extended Policies case builds on the No Sunset case by assuming updated Federal equipment efficiency standards and new standards for some products that are not currently subject to standards. In 2035. In addition to improved standards and codes. These extensions are consistent with previously proposed or pending legislation. total energy consumption in the Extended Policies case is nearly 6 percent below its projected level in the Reference case.3 quadrillion Btu in 2010 to 7. Similar adoption of renewable DG takes place in the Extended Policies case.2 percent. For residential end-use technologies subject to standards. delivered energy consumption for buildings in 2035 is 6. 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 20 U. with buildings electricity consumption 2. After 2025. • In the industrial sector.5 percent through 2035. the ITC for CHP is extended to cover all system sizes (limited to only capacities between 25 and 50 megawatts in the Reference case).2-percent reduction from the Reference case in 2035. in residential electricity use by this equipment in 2035 relative to the Reference case. Extended tax credits in the No Sunset case spur increased adoption of renewable DG systems. leading to 110 billion kilowatthours of onsite electricity generation in 2035—more than four times the amount of onsite electricity generated in 2035 in the Reference case. in the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases in 2035.Issues in focus annual average increase in fuel economy for new LDVs of 3.4-percent (0. leading to significant savings in energy consumption for heating and Figure 11. Federal residential and commercial building energy codes are also improved as described above. New standards for televisions and for personal computers (PCs) and related equipment in the Extended Policies case lead to savings of 20. and energy 110 use for space cooling is 17.4 percent and 8. Energy consumption Total energy consumption in the No Sunset case is close to the level in the Reference case (Figure 11). the impacts in the Extended Policies case tend to be greater than those in the No Sunset case. In 2035.6 percent and No Sunset 100 18.2 percent lower. Residential Extended Policies and commercial natural gas use declines from 8. but somewhat lower energy prices lead to higher relative consumption. Renewable distributed generation (DG) technologies (PV systems and wind turbines) provide much of the buildings-related energy savings in the No Sunset case. Space heating and cooling are affected by both assumed standards and building codes. the ITC is modified to increase the eligible CHP unit cap from 15 megawatts to 25 megawatts. extended tax credits for PV prompt increased adoption. offsetting some of the impact of the improved efficiency. cooling in the Extended Policies case.

4 million barrels per day (Figure 12). When the renewable tax credits are extended without extending energy efficiency standards.Issues in focus Industrial energy consumption The Extended Policies case modifies the Reference case by extending the existing industrial CHP ITC through the end of the projection period.000 No Sunset Extended Policies Reference 14 No Sunset Reference Extended Policies 750 500 13 250 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 U. and raising the maximum credit that can be claimed from 15 megawatts of installed capacity to 25 megawatts. In all three cases. given sufficient Figure 12. largely as the result of projects already under construction or planned. over the long run.6-percent rise.R. the most rapid growth in renewable capacity occurs in the very near term. Some of the current surge of renewable capacity additions is occurring in anticipation of the expiration of Federal incentives within the next year (for wind) or two (for other renewable fuels except solar). After that. the growth slows through 2020 before picking up again. lead to more rapid growth in renewable generation than in the Reference case. compared to an increase in the Reference case to 14. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 21 . renewable generation more than doubles from 2010 to 2035. Petroleum and other liquids fuels consumption in the transportation sector declines in the Extended Policies case. 2784 of the 112th Congress. from 13. Extending both renewable tax credits and energy efficiency standards (Extended Policies case) results in more modest growth in renewable generation.3 quadrillion Btu in the Reference case to 7. The changes result in 2. In the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases.8 million barrels per day in 2010 to 12. alternative fuels. with CAFE standards applicable after 2025 assumed to increase at an average annual rate of 1. from 16. Renewable electricity generation The extension of tax credits for renewables through 2035 would. and/or hybrid electric systems) play a substantial role in meeting the higher fuel economy standards. 2005-2035 (billion kilowatthours) 1. 2005-2035 (million barrels per day) 15 Figure 13. which call for a 3. LDV energy consumption declines in the Extended Policies case. Transportation energy consumption The Extended Policies case modifies the Reference case and No Sunset case by assuming the incorporation of the CAFE standards recently proposed by the EPA and NHTSA for MY 2017 through 2025. Results from the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases indicate that.3 million barrels per day) in 2035.7 million barrels per day in 2035.S. Consumption of petroleum and other liquids for transportation in three cases.R. Natural gas consumption in the industrial sector (excluding refining) increases from 7. as compared with 15 percent in the Reference case. 2750 and H. there is a significant increase in renewable generation in 2035 relative to the Reference case (Figure 13). because renewable generation in the near term is a significant source of new generation to meet load growth. Electricity purchases are nearly unchanged in the Extended Policies case.9 quadrillion Btu (7. about a 20-percent reduction from the Reference case in 2035. the share of total electricity generation accounted for by renewables is between 19 and 20 percent in both the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases. In 2035. These assumptions are based on the current proposals in H.9-percent annual average increase in fuel economy for new LDVs.9 million barrels per day) in 2010 to 12. as compared with a 77-percent increase in the Reference case.5 percent through 2035. as is assumed in the No Sunset case. a 1. expanding it to include all industrial CHP system sizes. Renewable electricity generation in three cases. as additional demand for electricity relative to the Reference case is fulfilled almost exclusively by increased generation from CHP. compared with about 35 percent in the Reference case. growing to almost 80 percent of new LDV sales in 2035.4 quadrillion Btu in the Extended Policies case. Sales of vehicles that do not rely solely on a gasoline internal combustion engine for both motive and accessory power (including those that use diesel.6 quadrillion Btu (8. and enhanced energy efficiency standards tend to reduce overall electricity consumption and the need for new generation resources.7 gigawatts of additional industrial CHP capacity over the Reference case level in 2035.

in both the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases. and. emissions associated with the combustion of biomass for electricity generation are not counted. A small reduction in transportation sector emissions in the No Sunset case is counterbalanced by an increase in emissions from refineries during the production of synthetic fuels that receive tax credits. attractive low-cost renewable resources already have been developed. In 2035. water heating.500 Reference No Sunset 1.250 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 22 U. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in three cases. energy prices are lower than in the Reference case. lower overall energy demand leads to lower levels of energy-related CO2 emissions than in the Reference case.6-percent reduction over the period) in the No Sunset case (Figure 15). The majority of the emissions reductions in the No Sunset case result from increases in renewable electricity generation. the Extended Policies case projects reduced emissions as a result of decreases in electricity purchases and petroleum use that are partially offset by increased reliance on natural gas—for example.9 billion metric tons (a 0. The Extended Policies case shows much larger emissions reductions than the No Sunset and Reference cases.Issues in focus lead time. The increase in fuel economy standards assumed for new LDVs in the Extended Policies case is responsible for more than 40 percent of the total reduction in CO2 emissions in 2035 in comparison with the Reference case. Relatively small incremental reductions in emissions are attributable to renewables in the Extended Policies case. electricity generation from natural gas is 11 percent lower in the No Sunset case and 15 percent lower in the Extended Policies case than in the Reference case (Figure 14).250 6. Starting around 2020. With slow growth in electricity demand and the addition of capacity stimulated by renewable incentives. as a result.000 Reference 5. leaving only less favorable sites that may require significant investment in transmission as well as other additional infrastructure costs.S. 2005-2035 (million metric tons) 6. increased use of natural gas fired industrial CHP. In the residential sector. In the commercial sector. where combustion of waste products to produce electricity is an economically attractive option. Consistent with current EIA conventions and EPA practice. Energy prices and tax credit payments With lower levels of overall energy use and more consumption of renewable fuels in the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases. space cooling.000 5.750 1. little new capacity is needed between 2015 and 2020. as compared with 0.250 Extended Policies Figure 15.6 Figure 14.44 per thousand cubic feet (6. in some regions. From 2010 to 2035. because they are assumed to be balanced by carbon uptake when the feedstock is grown. Electricity generation from natural gas in three cases. mainly because electricity demand is lower than in the Reference case. In 2035. Between 2020 and 2025. reducing the consumption of all fuels used for generation. Natural gas represents the largest source of displaced generation. renewable generation in the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases starts to increase more rapidly than in the Reference case. generation from nuclear and fossil fuels is reduced from the levels in the Reference case. 2005-2035 (billion kilowatthours) 1.0-percent reduction over the period) in the Extended Policies case from the Reference case projection. In addition. and space heating together account for most of the emissions reductions from Reference case levels. energy-related CO2 emissions are reduced by a cumulative total of 4.3 billion metric tons (a 3. due in part to the inclusion of tighter LDV fuel economy standards for MY 2017 through MY 2035. only the Extended Policies case projects substantial reductions of emissions in those categories. natural gas wellhead prices are $0. The balance of the reduction in CO2 emissions is a result of greater improvement in appliance efficiencies and increased penetration of renewable electricity generation.500 750 No Sunset Extended Policies 5. significant new sources of renewable generation also appear on the market as a result of cogeneration at biorefineries built primarily to produce renewable liquid fuels to meet the Federal RFS. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . In the industrial sector. a long-term extension of these expiring provisions could result in the postponement of some near-term activity to better match projected patterns of load growth. Energy-related CO2 emissions In the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases. including biomass.

lease condensate. coalto-liquids (CTL). as compared with $520 million per year in the Reference case. and electricity prices are about 2 percent and 5 percent lower than in the Reference case (Figure 17). Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 23 .g. affect prices in the longer term. These reductions increase rapidly from $52 million in 2013 to $7.” The term “petroleum” refers to crude oil (including tight oil from shale [also referred to as shale oil]. extra-heavy oils (technically petroleum but grouped in “other liquids” in this report). such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production decisions and expectations about future world demand for petroleum and other liquids.0 Reference No Sunset 9. respectively. Government. chalk. mostly by 2016.3 percent) lower in the No Sunset and Extended Policies cases. and refinery gain. Brent and Louisiana Light Sweet crudes). which is similar to the price for light. which is more representative of the average cost of all crude oils used by domestic refiners. Additional reductions in Government tax revenue in the No Sunset case result from extensions of the cellulosic biofuels PTC. and residential building shell improvements in the Extended Policies case as compared with the Reference case. they save an average of $22 billion per year on energy purchases. Currently there is a price differential between WTI and similar-quality marker crude oils delivered to international ports via tanker (e.. AEO2012 also includes a projection of the U. The AEO2012 Reference case assumes that the large discrepancy will fade over time. bitumen (oil sands). residential and commercial consumers spend.S. Average electricity prices in three cases. including some that have mainly short-term impacts.5 4 9. West Texas Intermediate (WTI). Supply and demand in the world oil market are balanced through responses to price movements. demand. Oil prices are influenced by a number of factors. On the other hand. Other factors. the economics of other liquids supply. natural gas plant liquids. than in the Reference case (Figure 16).82 per thousand cubic feet (12.S. and other low-permeability formations). and world demand for petroleum and other liquids. Oil price and production trends in AEO2012 The oil price in AEO2012 is defined as the average price of light. The key factors determining long-term supply. as construction of more adequate pipeline capacity between Cushing and the Gulf of Mexico eases transportation of crude oil supplies to and from U.0 Extended Policies 2 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 U. from the Government’s perspective. on average. and the factors underlying supply and demand expectations are both numerous and complex. OPEC investment and production decisions. The reductions in energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the Extended Policies case are accompanied by higher equipment costs for consumers and revenue reductions for the U. low-sulfur crude oil delivered in Cushing.Issues in focus percent) and $0. biomass-to-liquids (BTL). 2. Tax credits paid to consumers in the buildings sector (or. and prices for petroleum and other liquids can be summarized in four broad categories: the economics of non-OPEC supply. which assumes that existing tax credits expire as currently scheduled.S. annual average refiners’ acquisition cost of imported crude oil. traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oklahoma.5 billion from 2011 to 2035.S. distributed generation systems. From 2012 to 2035.1 billion) in comparison with the Reference case. an additional $19 billion per year (in 2010 dollars) for newly purchased end-use equipment. Natural gas wellhead prices in three cases.5 8 6 Reference No Sunset Extended Policies 10. and oil shale [41]. 2005-2035 (2010 cents per kilowatthour) 10. sweet crude oil. AEO2012 includes projections of future supply and demand for “petroleum and other liquids. 2005-2035 (2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet) 10 Figure 17. with extension of the PTC and the 30-percent ITC resulting in annual average reductions in Government tax revenues of approximately $2. gas-to-liquids (GTL). reduced revenue) in the No Sunset case average $5 billion (real 2010 dollars) more per year than in the Reference case. Figure 16.2 billion (2010 dollars) in 2035 (a cumulative total of $75. The largest response to Federal tax incentives for new renewable generation is seen in the No Sunset case. The term “other liquids” refers to biofuels. refineries.

combined with greater access to and production of petroleum liquids resources. In the Reference case. leading to slower growth in demand for petroleum and other liquids. the OPEC market share of world petroleum and other liquids production is 46 percent in 2035. Total world consumption of petroleum and other liquids grows to 106 million barrels per day in 2030 and 110 million barrels per day in 2035. politics.Issues in focus Reference case The global oil market projections in the AEO2012 Reference case are based on the assumption that current practices. Increases in non-OPEC production of petroleum and other liquids in the Reference case come primarily from high-cost petroleum liquids projects in areas with inconsistent or unreliable fiscal or political regimes and from increasingly expensive other liquids projects that are made economical by rising oil prices and advances in production technology (Figure 19). Lower demand. As a result. The Reference case also assumes that limitations on access to resources in many areas restrain the growth of non-OPEC petroleum liquids production over the projection period. Growth in world demand for petroleum and other liquids is slowed by lower gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the non-OECD countries than is projected in the Reference case. will more than offset slower growth projected for many OECD nations. particularly for nonOPEC producers with technically challenging supply projects. as Figure 18. 2000-2035 (million barrels per day) 125 History 2010 Projections 200 High Oil Price 150 Reference 100 75 Non-OPEC crude oil and NGL production 100 50 OPEC crude oil and NGL production Other liquids production 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 50 Low Oil Price 25 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2035 0 2000 24 U. and levels of access will continue in the near to mid-term. non-OECD demand for petroleum and other liquids in 2035 is 7 million barrels per day lower than in the Reference case. Average annual GDP growth in the non-OECD nations is assumed to be 1. With those constraining factors. In 2035.5 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. In particular. including China and India. the Low Oil Price case focuses on demand in non-OECD countries. non-OECD petroleum and other liquids consumption is about 21 million barrels per day higher in 2035 than it was in 2010. World petroleum and other liquids production in the Reference case. but OECD consumption grows by less than 2 million barrels per day over the same period. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Average annual world oil prices in three cases. The Reference case assumes that continued robust economic growth in the non-Organization for Economic Cooperative Development (OECD) nations. then rise slowly to $62 per barrel in 2035. non-OECD economic growth is lower than in the Reference case. the market power of OPEC producers is weakened. and easing of Cushing WTI infrastructure constraints combine to support average increases in real oil prices of about 5 percent per year from 2010 to 2020 and about 1 percent per year from 2020 to 2035. where uncertainty about future growth is much higher than in the mature economies of the OECD. satisfying the growing world demand for petroleum and other liquids in coming decades requires production from higher-cost resources. at 107 million barrels per day.S. As a result. 1980-2035 (2010 dollars per barrel) 250 History 2010 Projections Figure 19. the average real price of crude oil in the Reference case is $145 per barrel in 2010 dollars (Figure 18). The Low Oil Price case assumes that oil prices fall steadily after 2011 to about $58 per barrel in 2017. results in sustained lower oil prices. Bitumen production in Canada and biofuels production mostly from the United States and Brazil are the most important components of the world’s incremental supply of other liquids from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case. Low Oil Price case In the Low Oil Price case. In the Reference case. a constant OPEC market share. and that OPEC production maintains a relatively constant share of total world petroleum and other liquids supply—between 40 and 42 percent. the increased cost of non-OPEC supplies. and total world consumption in 2035 is 2 million barrels per day lower.5 percentage points lower than in the Reference case. The rapid increase in the near term is based on the assumption that the WTI price will return to parity with Brent by 2016 as current constraints on pipeline capacity between Cushing and the Gulf of Mexico are eliminated. In the Low Oil Price case. increasing by only 3. and they lose the ability to control prices and limit production.

In contrast. bitumen. BTL. resulting from the assumption of higher economic growth than in the Reference case. and higher prices make other liquids supply more attractive. The higher prices result from higher demand for petroleum and other liquid fuels in the non-OECD nations. The residential sector accounted for 57 percent of that energy use and the commercial sector 43 percent. In the High Demand Technology case. Despite lower prices. OPEC countries are assumed to reduce their market share somewhat. to less than 41 percent through 2035.S. combined with more constrained supply availability. as projects currently underway or planned are completed and begin production.5 percentage point above the Reference case in 2012. Although these influences are important. GDP growth rates for China and India in 2012 are 1. population increases by 25 percent. or 28 percent of total U. The emphasis for this analysis is (quadrillion Btu) on fundamental factors.2 quadrillion Btu in 2035. In 2035. other liquids production totals 17 million barrels per day in the High Oil Price case. energy consumption.S. and other liquids account for 15 percent of the total supply of petroleum and other liquids.4 quadrillion Btu of delivered energy.0 percentage point higher than in the Reference case.S. Oil prices ramp up quickly to $186 per barrel (2010 dollars) in 2017 and continue rising slowly thereafter. 2010-2035 use in the buildings sector. After 2020. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . In the Best Available Demand Technology case. The decline of buildings energy use per capita in past years has been attributable in part to improvements in the efficiencies of appliances and building shells. In the AEO2012 Reference case. consumption of petroleum and other liquids remains fairly flat over the projection. A number of recent changes in the broader context of the U. with related assumptions in the transportation and industrial sectors. As a result. and market forces. such as Federal appliance standards. along with evolving State policies. and efficiency improvements continue to play a key role in projections of buildings energy consumption. delivered energy for buildings increases by a total of 9 percent. GDP growth rates average about 0. high-efficiency technologies are assumed to penetrate end-use markets at lower consumer hurdle rates. which is modest relative to the rate of increase in the number of buildings and their occupants.S. to about $200 per barrel in 2035. GTL and extra-heavy oils achieve much lower costs than in the Reference case. rather than on potential policy or 25 regulatory options. The Low Oil Price case assumes that technologies for producing biofuels. CTL. are drivers of energy efficiency in the United States. the residential and commercial buildings sectors used 20. On the supply side. commercial floorspace increases by 27 percent. 2011 Demand Technology Reference 20 High Demand Technology Best Available Demand Technology 15 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Three alternative cases in AEO2012 illustrate the impacts of different assumptions for rates of technology improvement on delivered energy use in the residential and commercial sectors (Figure 20).S. Potential efficiency improvements and their impacts on end-use energy demand In 2010. These cases are in addition to the Extended Policies and No Sunset cases discussed earlier. to 22. such as advances in shale gas extraction and the economic slowdown. non-OPEC levels of petroleum liquids production are maintained until about 2020. results in higher oil prices than in the Reference case. new equipment purchases are limited to the most efficient versions of technologies available in the residential and commercial buildings sectors regardless of cost. In the 25 U. Specifically. nonOPEC petroleum liquids production declines as existing fields are depleted and not fully replaced by production from new fields and higher cost enhanced recovery technologies. 3. particularly technology factors. buildings sector. Residential and commercial delivered technology improvement remains a critical factor for energy energy consumption in four cases. that affect energy efficiency. about 4 million barrels per day above the Reference case level. and the number of households increases by 28 percent. the U. For the OECD regions. High Oil Price case In the High Oil Price case. production of those liquids increases to 16 million barrels per day in 2035 despite significantly lower oil prices. For most other non-OECD regions. energy system that affect energy prices. Existing policies.Issues in focus compared with 40 to 42 percent in the Reference case. Accordingly. Figure 20. the assumption of high demand for petroleum and other liquids in the non-OECD nations. where prices rather than a higher economic growth rate are the main factor affecting demand. Non-OPEC petroleum liquids resources outside the United States are assumed to be less accessible and/or more costly to produce than in the Reference case. and 0.3 percentage point higher in 2035. and they are intended to provide a broader perspective on changes in demand-side technologies. energy use in the buildings sector on a per-capita basis declines in the projection. also have the potential to affect the dynamics of energy efficiency improvement in the U.

Without the benefits of technology improvement. and the continuing effects of those standards contribute to the cumulative reduction in delivered energy use of 12. energy use is discussed in terms of cumulative reductions (2011-2035) relative to a case with no future advances in technology after 2011. Cumulative savings in residential energy use from 2011 to 2035 total 31. In addition to adopting more optimistic assumptions in the High Demand Technology and Best Available Demand Technology cases for end-use equipment.Issues in focus 2011 Demand Technology case. By varying technology progress across the full range of end uses. In the High Demand Technology case. Electricity accounts for the largest share of the reductions in the High Demand Technology case (49 percent) and the Best Available Demand Technology case (51 percent).2 quadrillion Btu in the Best Available Demand Technology case in comparison with the 2011 Demand Technology case. Background The residential and commercial sectors together are referred to as the “buildings sector. and consumer groups. In a general sense.3 Water heating TVs. in reality.6 quadrillion Btu in the High Demand Technology case and 56. Energy use for space heating shows the most improvement in the Reference case. Although many commercial products 0 Reference High Best Demand Available Technology Demand Technology 26 U. as Federal standards limit increases in energy consumption for those uses even in the 2011 Demand Technology case. or uncertainty about consumer behavior. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .S. Like the High Demand and Best Available Demand Technology cases. Results for the residential sector To emphasize that efficiency is persistent and its effects accumulate over time. and 2011 building codes remain unchanged through 2035. energy delivered to the buildings sectors only reaches about 20 quadrillion Btu for any year in the projection period. In 2035. Specific assumptions for each of the cases are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.4 quadrillion Btu in 2035.2 quadrillion Btu in the Reference case. buildings energy use in the 2011 Demand Technology case grows to 23. analysis results for the commercial sector are discussed here in terms of cumulative reductions relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case.1 quadrillion Btu in 2035. and laptops continue to gain market share over desktop PCs. Light-emitting diodes (LED) lighting provide the potential for further savings in the High and Best Available Demand Technology cases beyond the reductions realized as a result of the EISA2007 (Public Law 110-140) lighting standards. 2011-2035 (quadrillion Btu) 56. in terms of both form and function. Televisions and PCs and related equipment use 1. An extensive range of residential equipment is covered by Federal efficiency standards. residential PV and wind systems produce 23 billion kilowatthours more electricity in the Best Available Demand Technology case than in the 2011 Demand Technology case. in that the market response to a new technology is uncertain. This type of uncertainty is being studied through market research. in order to illustrate the effect of efficiency improvements over the period from 2011 to 2035. Cumulative reductions in residential energy consumption relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case. technologies. each showing a cumulative reduction greater than 5 quadrillion Btu over the period. differentiate products. and related disciplines that examine how purchasers perceive options. and react to information over time. are likely to be less uniform and more specific to certain end uses. this approach can be understood as reflecting uncertainty about technological progress itself. Large kitchen and laundry appliances claim a small share of the reductions. Buildings in the commercial sector are less homogeneous than those in the residential sector. 60 Figure 21. the integrated demand cases provide estimates of potential changes in energy savings that.” The cases discussed here are not policydriven scenarios but rather “what-if” cases used to illustrate the impacts of alternative technology penetration trajectories on buildings sector energy use.9 quadrillion Btu less energy over the projection period. and in the Buildings Best Available Demand Technology case it declines to 17.2 Space heating and ventilation 40 31. laundry Results for the commercial sector Like the residential sector. behavioral economics.3 quadrillion Btu through 2035 in the Reference case relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case. contributing to reductions in purchased electricity.9 quadrillion Btu in 2026 before rising slightly to 18. 20 12. PCs. affected by improvements in building shells and heating equipment (Figure 21). as devices with energy-saving features continue to penetrate the market. as compared with 22. future equipment purchases are limited to the options available in 2011 (“frozen technology”). residential PV and wind technologies are assumed to have greater cost declines than in the Reference case. Electricity and natural gas account for more than 85 percent of the difference. the 2011 Demand Technology case includes all current Federal standards. energy use for residential space heating again shows the most improvement relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case.6 Space cooling In the High Demand Technology and Best Available Demand Technology cases. related equipment Other (miscellaneous) Lighting Kitchen.

Final Report (August 2010). Key assumptions for the commercial sector in the AEO2012 integrated demand technology cases Integrated 2011 Demand Assumptions Technology End-use equipment Limited to technology menu available in 2011.S. Fixed at 2011 values. power management for servers. Hurdle rates Same as Reference case distribution. uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs). and The Cost and Performance of Distributed Wind Turbines. Learning Case in EIA Technology reports. Energy Information Administration. Efficiency improvement for existing buildings is 50 percent greater than in the Reference case. U. Learning rates adjusted for all technologies. All changes from the Reference case start in 2012 unless otherwise stated. UPSs and network equipment. All energy efficiency investments evaluated at 7-percent real interest rate. Learning performance based on Advanced power generation same as in the Reference case.S. and/ or higher efficiencies for advanced equipment. ENERGY STAR sales and enabling rates. etc. All energy efficiency investments evaluated at 7-percent real interest rate. ENERGY STAR sales and enabling ENERGY STAR sales and enabling rates. Final Report (August 2010). lower cost.Issues in focus Table 6. Key assumptions for the residential sector in the AEO2012 integrated demand technology cases Integrated 2011 Demand Assumptions Technology End-use equipment Limited to technology menu available in 2011. regardless of cost. Promulgated standards still take effect. LCD and laptop shares fixed LCD and laptop shares higher than in at 2011 values. Promulgated standards still take effect. Building shells Fixed at 2011 levels. PC-related office equipment Integrated Buildings Best Available Demand Technologya Purchases limited to highest available efficiency for each technology class. regardless of cost. Energy Information Administration. 2010-2035. percent. a b Integrated Buildings Best Available Demand Technologya Purchases limited to highest available efficiency for each technology class. Non-PC Office Equipment Miscellaneous electricity a b All changes from the Reference case start in 2012 unless otherwise stated. LCD share approaches 100 percent. rates. all years. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 27 . lower cost. 25 percent more improvement than in the Reference case by 2035. technologies. Hurdle rates Same as Reference case distribution. LCD and laptop shares fixed LCD and laptop shares higher than in rates. U. and water services. Laptop share higher than in the Reference case. and/ or higher efficiencies for advanced equipment. New buildings meet most efficient specifications. the Reference case. Distributed and No improvement in technology cost PV and wind costs based on Advanced combined heat and or performance after 2011. Integrated High Demand Technologya Earlier availability. LCD share approaches 100 at 2011 values. Photovoltaic (PV) Costs and Performance Characteristics for Residential and Commercial Applications. Final Report (August 2010). Unit energy consumption (UEC) values Per-unit consumption levels reduced to are average of Reference and Best ENERGY STAR specifications. TVs. Efficiency improvement for existing buildings is 100 percent greater than in the Reference case. Available Demand Technology cases. 2010-2035. network equipment. cable boxes. and Commercial and Industrial CHP Technology Costs and Performance Data (June 2010). New buildings meet ENERGY STAR specifications after 2016. Final Report (August 2010). CHP cost and combined heat and or performance after 2011.b Learning rates adjusted for advanced technologies. Use of management for copiers. All energy efficiency investments evaluated at 7-percent real interest rate. elevators. etc. PV and wind costs reduced by twice the difference between the Reference and High Technology costs. Case in EIA Technology reports. 50 percent more improvement than in the Reference case by 2035.b Learning rates adjusted for advanced technologies. CHP based on Advanced Case in EIA Technology reports. varies by end-use technology. and satellite systems Miscellaneous Unit energy consumption (UEC) electricity end uses values fixed at 2011 values. Laptop share higher than in the Reference case. Most efficient equipment selected after Most efficient equipment selected in 2014. PV and wind costs reduced by twice the difference between the Reference and High Technology costs. Personal computers ENERGY STAR sales and enabling ENERGY STAR sales and enabling rates. ENERGY STAR sales and enabling rates. All energy efficiency investments evaluated at 7-percent real interest rate. Building shells Fixed at 2011 levels. Use of higherimprovements.b power generation rates same as in the Reference Learning rates adjusted for all case. higher-efficiency power supplies for efficiency power supplies and continuous servers. the Reference case. U. Integrated High Demand Technologya Earlier availability. Same as Reference case except for Partial adoption of network power Greater adoption of network power elimination of data center efficiency management for copiers. The Cost and Performance of Distributed Wind Turbines. Less efficiency improvement Savings from high-efficiency UPSs and Greater savings from high-efficiency than in the Reference case for network equipment. Photovoltaic (PV) Costs and Performance Characteristics for Residential and Commercial Applications. Distributed and No improvement in technology cost PV and wind costs. Table 7.S.

1 0 Office equipment Other (miscellaneous) Space cooling Water heating. In the Best Available Demand Technology case.5 percent per year from MY 2016 through MY 2021.6 mpg for the CAFE-only portion (Table 8). ventilation and cooling account for almost 50 percent of the 17. In the commercial sector.6 quadrillion Btu. In the Reference case. EIA assumes that the reductions in GHG emissions required under EPA standards exceed the reductions required under the NHTSA CAFE standards and are achieved through changes other than those that would provide further improvement in fuel economy as tested for compliance with the NHTSA standards. In the Best Available Demand Technology case.7 percent of total commercial energy use—over the same period. cumulative energy consumption is reduced by an additional 64.4 percent and 5. those initiatives and the ensuing efficiency improvements contribute to a cumulative reduction in commercial delivered energy use of 4. due to the timing of the modeling process. Energy impacts of proposed CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles.1 percent in the residential and commercial sectors.6 20 Space heating and ventilation 17. Even when consumers choose the most efficient type of each end-use technology. resulting in a cumulative reduction in natural gas consumption of 0.9 quadrillion Btu. energy consumption is reduced by 4. EIA uses the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). For MY 2021 through MY 2025. Commercial natural gas use is actually slightly higher in the Reference case because of the increased penetration of CHP. The more optimistic assumptions for enduse equipment in the High Demand Technology case offset the additional energy consumed as a result of greater adoption of CHP. cumulative energy savings from 2011 to 2035 rise by an additional 6.4 quadrillion Btu of energy consumption is avoided over the projection period relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case. Office-related computer equipment sees the most significant end-use energy savings relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case.2 percent and 3. respectively.5 mpg equivalent) in MY 2025. the more optimistic assumptions regarding technology learning for advanced CHP technologies result in more natural gas use in the Best Available Demand Technology case relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case. respectively. Technologies such as LED lighting result in almost as much improvement as space heating and ventilation in the Best Available Demand Technology case relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case.1 percent of total residential energy use—from 2011 to 2035 in comparison with the 2011 Demand Technology case. With greater technology improvement in the High Demand Technology case. FEMP guidelines. and energy security concerns. with a cumulative reduction in energy consumption of 24. does not incorporate all information from the pending rulemaking process. with larger average reductions for smaller lightduty trucks and smaller average reductions for larger lightduty trucks.1 quadrillion Btu—equivalent to 1. economic.S. primarily because laptop computers gain market share from desktop computers. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . The increase in distributed and CHP generation contributes 0. light-duty trucks would be required to achieve a 5-percent average annual reduction rate. 4. In this section.4 quadrillion Btu (115 billion kilowatthours) of the cumulative reduction in purchased electricity in the Reference case.1 quadrillion Btu in cumulative energy savings in the High Demand Technology case relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case. model years 2017 to 2025 In response to environmental. 28 U. technology improvement reduces residential energy consumption by 12. cooking.3 quadrillion Btu from 2011 to 2035. refrigeration Reference High Best Demand Available Technology Demand Technology EPA is proposing GHG emissions standards that will reach a fleetwide LDV average of 163 grams CO2 per mile (54. Cumulative reductions in commercial 30 energy consumption relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case. That reduction is roughly equivalent to 80 percent of the energy that the buildings sectors consumed in 2010. the cumulative reductions in energy consumption grow by an additional 8.5 percent in the residential and commercial sectors. Significant reductions are seen for all enduse services. Figure 22. Passenger car standards are made more stringent by reducing the average annual CO2 emissions allowed by 5 percent per year from MY 2016 through MY 2025. In the Reference case. Increased adoption of DG and CHP accounts for 0. the alternative cases show the potential for reductions in energy consumption from the adoption of more energy-efficient technologies.1 quadrillion Btu in the Reference case relative to the 2011 Demand Technology case (Figure 22). to assess potential energy impacts of the regulatory proposal. Virtually all of the reduction is in purchased electricity. or 49.8 quadrillion Btu (231 billion kilowatthours) to the cumulative reduction in purchased electricity use. coverage is not as comprehensive as in the residential sector. In comparison to a case that restricts future equipment to the efficiencies available in 2011. Average annual CO2 emissions from light-duty trucks are reduced by 3. Commercial heating. and ENERGY STAR specifications. EPA and NHTSA in December 2011 jointly issued a proposed rule covering GHG emissions and CAFE standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks in MY 2017 through MY 2025 [42].Issues in focus are subject to Federal efficiency standards.1 Lighting 10 4. In this section. Still.3 quadrillion Btu—equivalent to 4. EPA and NHTSA expect to announce a final rule in the second half of 2012. 2011-2035 (quadrillion Btu) 24. a cumulative total of 16. which has been updated since last year but.

Light-duty trucks account for 39 percent of new LDV sales in 2025 in the CAFE Standards case. some consumers switch from passenger cars to light trucks. compared with 31 mpg in 2025 in the Reference case.6 mpg in MY 2025. change in response to the more stringent fuel economy standards. The proposed standards for passenger cars increase by 4.2 38. AEO2012 includes a CAFE Standards case that incorporates the proposed NHTSA fuel economy standards for MY 2017 through MY 2025. higher than their 37 percent share in 2025 in the Reference case but still much lower than their 2005 share of more than 50 percent. and conditionally for MY 2022 through MY 2025. U. the average on-road fuel economy of the LDV stock. As vehicle attributes.9 165 237 190 2023 51. projected to increase to 276 million in 2035. including those related to biofuels [43] and other gasoline alternatives.8 34. the average fuel economy of gasoline vehicles.6 45. the CAFE standards would increase by 2.4 30.3 49.1 percent per year for MY 2017 through MY 2021 and 4. it takes time for new vehicles to penetrate the vehicle fleet in numbers that are sufficiently large to affect the average fuel economy of the entire U. in the Reference case. The CAFE Standards case also projects a significant improvement in the fuel economy of traditional vehicles with gasoline internal combustion engines with and without micro hybrid technologies. compliance with the more stringent fuel economy standards in the CAFE Standards case leads to a change in the vehicle sales mix. CAFE standards are proposed for MY 2017 through MY 2021. such as diesel or E85. transportation sector. The fuel economy of gasoline-only passenger cars.1 225 298 250 Carbon dioxide emissions (grams per mile) Based on projected mix of LDV sales.8 28. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 29 . Table 8.3 percent for MY 2022 through MY 2025. or use a combination of a liquid fuel (including gasoline) and electric power stored in batteries for motive and/or accessory power—such as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)—or that use liquid fuels other than gasoline.8 34. increases from 32 mpg in 2010 to 51 mpg in 2025 in the CAFE Standards case. Currently there are about 230 million LDVs on the road in the United States. new passenger cars average 56 mpg and light-duty trucks average 40 mpg in the CAFE Standards case.4 202 285 232 2019 43. including micro hybrids.0 29. The fuel economy of gasoline-powered light-duty trucks. Although there are complex dynamics in play among the CAFE standards and other policies. LDV stock. more fuel-efficient models.3 40. As modeled by EIA.0 40.S. including micro hybrids. Estimateda average fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards proposed for light-duty vehicles.5 192 277 223 2020 44. Further.0 30. Gasoline-only vehicles retain the single largest share of new vehicle sales in 2025.3 151 214 172 2025 56. rises similarly. from 24 mpg in 2010 to 37 mpg in 2025 in the CAFE Standards case.7 31.6 37. with greater improvement required for smaller light-duty trucks and somewhat smaller improvement required for larger light-duty trucks. In order to meet increased fuel economy requirements. As a consequence of the gradual scrapping of older vehicles and the introduction of new. such as horsepower and weight. vehicles that combine gasoline internal combustion engines with micro hybrid systems are projected to have the largest increase in sales relative to the Reference case (Figure 23 and Table 9). is raised by the introduction of new fuelefficient technologies and improved vehicle designs.S. play a larger role than in the Reference case.5 47.9 percent per year for MY 2017 through MY 2021. Vehicles that use electric power stored in batteries.5 38. compared with 41 mpg and 31 mpg. model years 2017-2025 2016 (base) Passenger cars Light-duty trucks All light-duty vehicles Passenger cars Light-duty trucks All light-duty vehicles a 2017 40. the Reference case assumes that CAFE standards rise slightly to meet the requirement that LDVs reach 35 mpg by 2020 mandated in EISA2007.9 42. Although more stringent standards stimulate sales of vehicles with higher fuel economy. Fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for MY 2011 through MY 2016 have been promulgated already as final rules and are represented in the AEO2012 Reference case.8 182 270 213 2021 46. based on the projected inclusion of reductions in GHG emissions that are achieved by means other than improvements in fuel economy. For MY 2022 through MY 2025.3 213 295 243 2018 41.Issues in focus NHTSA has proposed CAFE standards for LDVs that will reach a fleetwide average of 49. In the analysis. For light-duty trucks. CAFE standards for all light-duty trucks would increase by 4.4 35.9 173 250 200 2022 48. compared with 38 mpg in 2025 in the Reference case.0 36.7 percent per year. respectively.0 36. CAFE standards are the single most powerful regulatory mechanism affecting energy use in the U.6 144 203 163 Fuel economy only (miles per gallon) 37.S.0 158 225 181 2024 53. In 2025.6 33. including micro hybrids.

increases from around 20 mpg in 2010 to 22 mpg in 2016. model year 2025 (percent of all light-duty vehicle sales) Gasoline only (non-hybrid) Micro hybrid Flex-fuel Hybrid electric Diesel Electric Plug-in hybrid electric 0 20 40 60 80 Reference CAFE Standards Figure 24. Total cumulative delivered energy consumption by LDVs from 2017 to 2035 is 8 percent lower in the CAFE Standards case than in the Reference case. motor gasoline. Vehicles that can run on gasoline or any gasoline-ethanol blend up to 85 percent ethanol. The batteries can be recharged from the grid by plugging a power cord into an electrical outlet. remains the predominant fuel by far for LDVs in the CAFE Standards case. until a minimum level of battery power is reached. The reductions in total delivered energy use and liquid fuel consumption become more pronounced later in the projection. On-road fuel economy of the light-duty vehicle stock in two cases. The existing standards are modestly exceeded in the Reference case. as compared with 28 mpg in 2035 in the Reference case (Figure 24).6 million barrels per day in 2035 in the CAFE Standards case relative to the Reference case. If the standards are just met. larger batteries.Issues in focus representing the fuel economy realized by all vehicles in use. Vehicles that combine internal combustion and electric propulsion engines but have limited all-electric range and batteries that cannot be recharged with grid power. Vehicles that use battery power for driving some distance. the reduction in liquids consumption is 0. Light-duty vehicle market shares by technology type in two cases.5 mpg in 2035.S. More stringent fuel economy standards lead to reductions in total energy consumption. Plug-in hybrids also can be engineered to run in a “blended mode. and electrically powered auxiliary systems that allow the engine to be turned off when the vehicle is coasting or idling and then quickly restarted. Regenerative braking recharges the batteries but does not provide power to the wheels for traction. Hybrid electric (gasoline or diesel) Diesel Plug-in hybrid electric Electric Flex-fuel 30 U. Vehicles that use diesel fuel in a compression-ignition internal combustion engine.5 million barrels per day in 2025 and 1. at which point they operate on a mixture of battery and internal combustion power. Vehicle types that do not rely solely on a gasoline internal combustion engine for motive and accessory power Vehicle type Micro hybrid Description Vehicles with gasoline engines. 2005-2035 (miles per gallon) 50 40 CAFE Standards 30 Reference 20 10 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Table 9.” where an onboard computer determines the most efficient use of battery and internal combustion power. Total consumption of petroleum and other liquids in the transportation sector is 0. LDV delivered energy consumption is 6 percent lower in 2025 in the CAFE Standards case than in the Reference case and 17 percent lower in 2035. Figure 23. and 34.4 million barrels per day lower in 2035 in the CAFE Standards case than in the Reference case (Figure 25). as more of the total vehicle stock consists of vehicles with higher fuel economy. The more stringent regulatory standards in the CAFE Standards case change the composition of the vehicle fleet by fuel type and shift the mix of fuels consumed. Nevertheless.5 million barrels per day lower in 2025 and 1. 27. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . including gasoline blended with up to 15 percent ethanol (used in vehicles manufactured in MY 2001 and after). accounting for 84 percent of LDV delivered energy consumption in 2035—only slightly less than its 86-percent share in 2035 in the Reference case. Vehicles that operate by electric propulsion from batteries that are recharged exclusively by electricity from the grid or through regenerative braking.5 mpg in 2025.

in the case of PHEVs and EVs. and expectations of future fuel prices.500 15 Reference CAFE Standards 2. performance. including style. however.Issues in focus Total motor gasoline demand for LDVs is 19 percent lower in the CAFE Standards case in 2035 than in the Reference case.500 5 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 U. respectively (Figure 26). such as battery electric systems.000 units [44]. peaked at about 350. The Nissan Leaf.000 Reference 10 CAFE Standards 1. expected use. 2005-2035 (million barrels per day) 20 Figure 26. As a consequence. From 2017 and 2035. Transportation GHG emissions decline from 1. are particularly well suited to meet those objectives. including HEVs. Electricity use by LDVs grows in the CAFE Standards case but still makes up less than 1 percent of LDV delivered energy demand in 2035. instead of conventional gasoline internal combustion engines (ICEs) if the economic benefit over a period of ownership is greater than the initial price of the vehicle. reductions of 4 percent and 10 percent from the Reference case.876 mmt in 2010 to 1. 2005-2035 (million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent) 2. E85 accounts for 10 percent of delivered energy consumption by LDVs in 2035. an EV-100 (EV with a 100-mile range) introduced around the same time as the Chevy Volt. sales in the first full year were under 10. consumers may be unwilling to spend more to purchase a vehicle. Breakthroughs may include a dramatic reduction in the cost of battery and nonbattery systems. substitute electric power for gasoline use (see Table 10 for a descriptive list of electric drivetrain technologies). environmental. refueling capability. and resale value—also may enter into vehicle choice decisions. because they are unfamiliar with the new technology or alternative fuel. and manufacturers again made EVs available in the 1990s but with a focus on niche markets. Diesel fuel accounts for 5 percent of LDV delivered energy consumption in 2035. environmental values. and lower demand for motor gasoline reduces the amount of ethanol used in E10 and E15 gasoline blends. one of the single most important factors consumers consider when deciding to purchase a vehicle is cost. energy demand.690 mmt in 2035. Further. PHEVs. Total carbon dioxide emissions from transportation energy use in two cases. Total transportation consumption of petroleum and other liquids in two cases. and plug-in electric vehicles (EVs). Figure 25. introduced in the United States more than a decade ago. Specifically.000 new sales in 2007 and have maintained a roughly 3-percent share of total LDV sales through 2011. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 31 . increased or decreased maintenance. as well as the introduction of battery-powered electric vehicles in several additional vehicle size classes. comfort. has sparked interest in the wider commercial prospects for EVs. even if it accrues fuel cost savings beyond the initial cost over a relatively short period. EVs were first introduced in the early 1900s. 5. sales in 2011 remained below 10. they generally are more willing to purchase new vehicle technologies. more E85 fuel is sold to meet the RFS. compared with 8 percent in the Reference case. In general.S. cumulative CO2 emissions from transportation are 357 million metric tons (mmt) lower in the CAFE Standards case compared to the Reference case. A brief summary of the results of the High Technology Battery case follows a discussion of the current market for battery electric vehicles. AEO2012 includes a High Technology Battery case that examines the potential impacts of significant breakthroughs in battery electric vehicle technology on vehicle sales. Impacts of a breakthrough in battery vehicle technology The transportation sector’s dependence on petroleum-based fuels has prompted significant efforts to develop technology and alternative fuel options that address associated economic. success in addressing overheating and life-cycle concerns. Although manufacturer plans call for increased production of PHEVs. The individual decision to purchase a vehicle is influenced by many factors.000 units.759 mmt in 2025 and to 1. and CO2 emissions. because they reduce petroleum consumption by improving vehicle fuel economy and. a PHEV-40 (PHEV with a 40-mile range). Electric drivetrain vehicles. Sales of light-duty HEVs. Additional costs and benefits—such as refueling time or difficulty of refueling. a reduction of 5 percent. PHEVs were introduced in the United States at the end of 2010 with the production of the Chevy Volt. and energy security concerns. Reductions in LDV delivered energy consumption reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. similar to its share in the Reference case.

the discounted fuel savings achieved.S. battery and nonbattery systems costs could be reduced by improving the manufacturing process. achieves 25 to 42 mpg. and the Nissan Versa. or power split systems. until a minimum level of battery power is reached (a “minimum state of charge”). assuming five years of ownership with future fuel savings discounted at 7 percent. at which point they operate on a mixture of battery and internal combustion power (“charge-sustaining mode”). depending on trim and driving test cycle. The inclusion of advanced battery technology that increases fuel economy and. EV batteries also have a working depth of discharge capacity that is limited to both lower and upper levels due to life-cycle and safety concerns. and assist the ICE drivetrain throughout its drive cycle. and electrically powered auxiliary systems that allow the engine to be turned off when the vehicle is coasting or idle and then be quickly restarted.000 and $29. PHEVs. a passenger car generally similar to the Prius.490 for the Nissan Versa) [47 ]. Full HEV systems are configured in parallel. Vehicles with larger batteries to provide power to drive the vehicle for some distance in charge-depleting mode. Solving battery life-cycle and overheating Table 10. This result is true even if gasoline is $6. For example. For example. EVs lack the “range extender” capability of PHEVs. The vehicle battery is recharged by capturing some of the energy lost during braking.990 for the Toyota Corolla).250 (compared with $14. before accounting for Federal and State tax incentives. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Although consumers may value high-cost battery electric vehicles for a variety of reasons. EVs are recharged primarily from the electrical grid by plugging into an electrical outlet. an EV-100 is designed to travel around 100 miles on battery power. Typically. The Toyota Prius has a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) between $24. providing consumers with lower fueling costs. and the Nissan Leaf has an MSRP between $35. displaces gasoline with electricity increases the initial cost of the vehicle to the consumer. which can switch instantly to an ICE when the battery reaches a minimum state of charge. Description of battery-powered electric vehicles Vehicle type Micro or “mild” hybrid Description Vehicles with ICEs.00 per gallon.145 and $42. Current PHEV batteries are designed to recharge to about 75 percent of capacity for safety reasons related to battery overheating. a subcompact passenger car similar to the Leaf [46].500 (compared with $16. Vehicles that combine an internal combustion engine with electric propulsion from an electric motor and battery. For example. The Chevy Volt achieves 35 to 40 mpg in charge-sustaining mode [45 ] and 93 to 95 mpg equivalent in charge-depleting mode.480 to $18. Currently available battery electric vehicles such as the Toyota Prius (HEV). higher gasoline-equivalent mpg in electric mode. Regenerative braking recharges the batteries but does not provide power to the wheels for traction. achieves 24 to 34 mpg. The Toyota Prius achieves an EPA-estimated 39 to 53 mpg. leaving a depth of discharge of around 50 percent of total battery capacity. or improving the electric motor. Micro and mild hybrids are not connected to the electrical grid for recharging and are not considered as HEVs in this analysis. are significantly less than the incremental purchase cost of the vehicles (Table 11).S. petroleum consumption and save consumers refueling costs. EVs are designated by the distance a fully charged vehicle can travel in all-electric mode. a passenger car in the compact car size class similar to the Volt.130 to $17. it is unlikely that they can achieve wide-scale market penetration while their additional purchase costs remain significantly higher than the present value of future fuel savings. The minimum state of charge is engineered to about 25 percent of full charge to ensure that the battery’s life cycle matches the expected life of the vehicle.000 for an HEV and $20.” using an onboard computer to determine the most efficient use of battery and internal combustion power.200 and $37. and EVs to reduce U. The battery can be recharged either from the grid by plugging a power cord into an electrical outlet or by the internal combustion engine. Based on these MSRPs.Issues in focus Battery electric vehicles offer an economic benefit to consumers over conventional gasoline ICEs in terms of significant fuel cost savings from both increased fuel economy for HEVs and PHEVs and the displacement of gasoline with electricity for PHEVs and EVs. a PHEV-40 is engineered to travel around 40 miles on battery power alone before switching to charge-sustaining operation. the current incremental consumer purchase cost of a battery electric vehicle relative to a comparable conventional gasoline vehicle is around $7. series.000 for a PHEV or EV. The Nissan Leaf achieves 99 mpg equivalent. the Chevy Volt has an MSRP between $39. Currently.800 to $23. Stored energy is used to eliminate engine operation during idle. achieves 26 to 34 mpg. This calculation does not take into account any difference in maintenance cost or refueling infrastructure. in the case of PHEVs and EVs. In comparison. Chevy Volt (PHEV). operate the vehicle at slow speeds for limited distances. HEVs are not connected to the electric grid for recharging. Full hybrid electric (HEV) Plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV) Plug-in electric (EV) 32 U. with the higher efficiency of electric motors. PHEVs also can be engineered to run in a “blended mode.085 (compared with $16. Vehicles that operate solely on an electric drivetrain with a large battery and electric motor and do not have an ICE to provide motive power. efforts are underway at both the public and private levels to address several of the barriers to wide-scale adoption of battery electric vehicle technology. with some additional energy captured through regenerative braking. changing battery chemistry. and Nissan Leaf (EV) achieve much higher fuel economy (mpg) and. Paramount among the barriers are reducing the cost of battery electric vehicles by lowering battery and nonbattery system costs and solving battery life-cycle and overheating limitations that will allow battery storage to downsize while maintaining a given driving range. depending on how power is delivered to the drivetrain. the Chevy Cruze. the distance a fully charged PHEV can travel in charge-depleting mode is indicated by its designation. the Toyota Corolla. larger batteries. Recognizing the potential of HEVs.190 for the Chevy Cruze).

and cost of a nonbattery traction drive system for 2015 and 2030 (Figures 27 and 28) [48]. Costs of electric drivetrain nonbattery systems to consumers in two cases. The AEO2012 High Technology Battery case examines the potential impacts of battery technology breakthroughs by assuming the attainment of program goals established by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) for high-energy battery storage cost.071 $20.50 per gallon)a Fuel savings vs. respectively. or 11 percent.10 per kilowatthour electricity price. The prices of HEVs and PHEVs with a 10-mile range decline by an additional $1.314 $7. Further.00 per gallon)a Incremental vehicle cost (2010 dollars) relative to cost of 35-mpg conventional gasoline ICE vehicleb a b 0 $1. public and private efforts to address other obstacles to wider adoption of plug-in battery vehicles are underway. assuming 35 mpg for ICE.000 HEV 750 1. maximum depth of discharge. Comparison of operating and incremental costs of battery electric vehicles and conventional gasoline vehicles Characteristics Fuel efficiency (mpg equivalent) Hybrid electric vehicle (Prius) 45 Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (Volt) 38 (chargesustaining mode) 94 (chargedepleting mode) 58 $2. in 2035 in the High Technology Battery case relative to the Reference case. The Reference case already projects a much lower real price to consumers for battery electric vehicles in 2035 relative to 2010 as a result of cost reductions for battery and nonbattery systems. Reduced costs for battery and nonbattery systems in the High Technology Battery case lead to significantly lower HEV.169 $2. including the development of public charging infrastructure.000 Reference case High Technology Battery case 2.000 Plug-in electric vehicle (Leaf) 99 (chargedepleting mode) Annual vehicle miles traveled Percent vehicle miles traveled electric only Fuel savings vs. Does not include Federal.500. and EV costs to the consumer (Figures 29 and 30). in 2035 relative to the Reference case. more vehicle size classes are assumed to be available for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Those declines are furthered in the High Technology Battery case. Figure 27. U. and $0. which would improve the depth of discharge and make the battery less expensive.250 Figure 28.000 5-year net present value of fuel savings.500 Reference case 1.000 High Technology Battery case 250 DOE high-energy battery goals. conventional gasoline ICE vehicle (at $3.600 and $13. conventional gasoline ICE vehicle (at $6. 2015 and 2030 2020 2025 $150 500 0 2012 2015 2030 2035 0 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Table 11. For EVs with 100-mile (EV100) and 200-mile (EV200) ranges the relative declines are $3. in 2035. or 13 percent and 30 percent.300. 7% discount rate. in terms of costs and life-cycle and safety concerns. 2012-2035 (2010 dollars per kilowatthour) 1. with breakthroughs in battery electric vehicle technology.036 $4. or local tax credits.500 100 $3. EERE’s program goals represent significant breakthroughs in battery and nonbattery systems.004 $7.500.500 500 $405 1.340 $20.S. 2012-2035 (2010 dollars) PHEV-40 PHEV-10 2.000 12. State. in comparison with current electric vehicle technologies. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 33 . For PHEVs with a 40-mile range the relative decline is $3. PHEV. Cost of electric vehicle battery storage to consumers in two cases.Issues in focus concerns would allow battery capacity to be downsized. In addition. or 5 percent.

show the largest growth in sales in the High Technology Battery case. even in 2035.000 1. including an ICE powered by either diesel fuel or gasoline. HEVs benefit from being unconstrained by the lack of recharging infrastructure.6 quadrillion Btu in 2013 to 14. given the prohibitive cost.000 34 U. which limits the maximum market potential of PHEVs and EVs. Most PHEV sales are vehicles with a 10-mile all-electric range.5 quadrillion Btu in 2035 in the Reference case (Figure 32). Although the cost declines for HEVs are modest relative to those for other battery electric vehicle types. compared with 5 percent in 2035 in the Reference case. increase in the High Technology Battery case from 3 percent of sales in 2013 to 11 percent in 2035.8 quadrillion Btu in 2035 in the High Technology Battery case. that growth is tempered by the lack of widespread high-speed recharging infrastructure. compared with 8 percent in 2035 in the Reference case (Figure 31). Virtually all sales of plug-in vehicles are EVs with a 100-mile range.Issues in focus Lower vehicle prices lead to greater penetration of battery electric vehicle sales in the High Technology Battery case than projected in the Reference case. with EV sales growing to 8 percent of new LDV sales in 2035. compared with 1 percent each in the Reference case. as compared with 4 percent in the Reference case. EV200 vehicles do not achieve noticeable market penetration. Due to the still prohibitive incremental cost. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . compared with 2 percent in 2035 in the Reference case. LDV liquid fuel use declines to 2015 PHEV10 2035 HEV 2015 2035 2015 PHEV40 2035 EV200 2015 2035 0 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 30. Although plug-in vehicle sales increase substantially in the High Technology Battery case. 2015 and 2035 (thousand 2010 dollars) EV100 2015 2035 Reference High Technology Battery HEV sales. Total prices to consumers for small sport utility vehicles in two cases. Figure 29. According to data from the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey. compared with 3 percent in 2035 in the Reference case. 2015 and 2035 (thousand vehicles) 2015 EV100 2035 2015 PHEV10 2035 HEV 2015 2035 Reference 2015 PHEV10 2035 HEV 2015 2035 High Technology Battery 2015 PHEV40 2035 EV200 2015 2035 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2015 PHEV40 2035 2015 EV200 2035 0 500 1. Total prices to consumers for compact passenger cars in two cases. consumers must rely almost entirely on recharging at home. compared with 15. In the absence of such public infrastructure. compared with 2 percent in 2035 in the Reference case. of batteries for EVs with a 200-mile range. excluding mild hybrids. Plug-in vehicle sales grow to just over 13 percent of new vehicle sales in 2035. 49 percent of households that own vehicles park within 20 feet of an electrical outlet [49]. PHEVs grow to just under 6 percent of total sales. Increased sales of battery electric vehicles in the High Technology Battery case lead to their gradual penetration throughout the LDV fleet. 2015 and 2035 (thousand 2010 dollars) EV100 2015 2035 Reference High Technology Battery Figure 31. Battery electric vehicles.500 2. EVs and PHEVs each account for about 5 percent of the LDV stock in the High Technology Battery case in 2035. resulting from the relatively larger incremental reduction in vehicle costs. HEVs represent 9 percent of the 276 million LDV stock.S. Sales of new light-duty vehicles in two cases. A widespread publicly available infrastructure was not considered as part of the High Technology Battery case. Plug-in vehicles. including both PHEVs and EVs. In 2035. The penetration of battery electric vehicles with relatively higher fuel economy and efficient electric motors reduces total energy use by LDVs from 15. grow from 3 percent of new LDV sales in 2013 to 24 percent in 2035.

2 million barrels per day in 2035 in the Reference case. In comparison. Quick-recharging 480-volt outlets are under consideration for 30-minute “ultra-quick” recharges.030 million metric tons in 2013 to 935 million metric tons in 2035 in the High Technology Battery case. the CO2 and other GHG emissions of plug-in vehicles will depend on the fuel used in generating electricity.2 14 0. EVs face the added constraint of plug-in infrastructure availability. but they may raise concerns related to safety and residential or commercial building codes. despite the assumed dramatic decline in battery and nonbattery system costs. consumers will have to rely on residential recharging. EVs still would require substantially longer times for refueling than are required for ICE vehicles using liquid fuels. they also could considerably change the economic payback of electric drivetrain vehicles by decreasing consumer refueling costs for Figure 32.200 16 1. compared with 7.4 quadrillion Btu of liquid fuel consumption and essentially no electricity consumption in 2035 in the Reference case. Given the concerns about availability and duration of recharging. about 2. and new CAFE standards proposed for MY 2017 through MY 2025 would increase combined LDV fuel economy to 49. there are some 150. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 35 . or would purchase a more expensive but environmentally cleaner vehicle for a moderate additional cost. Ultimately.6 quadrillion Btu in 2035 in the High Technology Battery case.0 mpg for passenger cars and 40.S. The decline in sales prices relative to those for conventional vehicles may be enough to justify purchases by consumers who drive more frequently. The reduction in total energy consumption by LDVs and displacement of petroleum and other liquid fuels with electricity decreases LDV energy-related CO2-equivalent emissions from 1. dwellings.000 of which are in California [50]. and total energy by light-duty vehicles in two cases. recharging times differ dramatically depending on the voltage of the outlet.100 15 0. Final standards for LDV fuel economy currently are in place through MY 2016. may inhibit the adoption of EVs by consumers.9 million barrels per day in 2035.2 quadrillion Btu—as compared with 15. consider relatively longer payback periods. which is available for only around 40 percent of U. 2005-2035 (million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent) 1. prices for battery electric vehicles remain above those for conventional gasoline counterparts. Even with ultra-quick recharging.S. However. Finally. relatively more expensive battery electric vehicles may not pay back the higher purchase cost over the ownership period for a significant population of consumers.000 gasoline refueling stations available for public use.1 0 2000 2005 2010 2025 2035 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 1.5 million barrels per day in 2013 to 6. In addition. 2000-2035 (quadrillion Btu) 17 Total energy Petroleum and other liquids High Technology Battery Reference Figure 33.S. Typical 120-volt outlets can take up to 20 hours for a full EV battery to recharge. which represents a 2-percent decrease from 958 million metric tons in 2035 in the Reference case (Figure 33). While the standards themselves may promote the adoption of battery electric vehicles. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles in two cases. First. CO2 and other GHG emissions from the electric power consumed by PHEVs and EVs is treated as representative of the national electricity grid and not regionalized. Currently.000 public locations in the United States with at least one outlet for vehicle recharging. there are about 8. The High Technology Battery case assumes a breakthrough in the costs of batteries and nonbattery systems for battery electric vehicles.6 mpg (56. and their electricity use increases to 0.3 mpg for light-duty trucks) [52]. Yet. Without the construction of a much larger recharging network. the obstacle of severe range limitation. Further. The reduction in liquid fuel consumption in the High Technology Battery case lowers U.Issues in focus 14. net imports of petroleum from 8. which does not affect PHEVs or HEVs. battery electric vehicles still face obstacles to wide-scale market penetration.000 Reference Electricity 900 High Technology Battery 0 2000 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 U. a 240-volt outlet can reduce the recharging time to about 7 hours [51]. another obstacle to wide-scale adoption of battery electric vehicles and other types of alternative-fuel vehicles is the increase in fuel economy for conventional gasoline vehicles and other types of AFVs resulting from higher fuel economy standards for LDVs. electricity. even with the assumption of technology breakthroughs throughout the projection period. Consumption of petroleum and other liquids.

Consumption of petroleum-based diesel fuel by HDVs increases to 2. with significant price differences across regions of the world. accounting for 19 percent of total petroleum consumption in the transportation sector (12. there were fewer than 40. Figure 34.4 percent of the total HDV stock of nearly 9 million vehicles. use of petroleum-based diesel fuel by HDVs accounted for 17 percent (2.2 million barrels per day) of total petroleum consumption in the transportation sector (12. the stations were not evenly distributed across the United States. domestic natural gas prices in 2012 are significantly lower than crude oil prices on an energy-equivalent basis (Figure 34). together with recent optimism about natural gas supply and recent lower natural gas prices. Basic fuel issues Diesel fuel falls into the category of distillate fuels. As of May 2012.8 million barrels per day) and 12 percent of the U. 1997-2012 (2010 dollars per million Btu) 25 Crude oil (West Texas Intermediate) 20 Fuel and infrastructure issues Even when it appears that an emerging technology can be profitable with significant market penetration.S.1 million barrels per day) and 14 percent of the U. vehicle weight.047 CNG fueling stations and 53 LNG fueling stations in the United States. potentially. With the recent growth in U. In comparison.3 percent of total energy used by HDVs in 2010. refinery output in recent years. vehicle residual value. with prices set in the global marketplace. have led to significant interest in the potential for fueling heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) with natural gas produced domestically. and vehicle refueling time). total for all sectors (18. availability of fueling infrastructure. with 22 percent (227) of the CNG stations and 68 percent (36) of the LNG stations located in California. Further. nationwide. Sales of new HDVs fueled by natural gas peaked at about 8. In terms of estimating the prices that will be charged for NGV fuels beyond the cost of the dry natural gas itself. domestic production of dry natural gas increased by about 14 percent from 2008 to 2011. with 53 percent of the CNG stations and 57 percent of the LNG stations being privately owned and not open to the public [54]. spot market prices for crude oil and natural gas. In 2010. or 0. 6. cost-effectiveness in view of average vehicle usage. there were 1. and the potential of prices being set on the basis of the prices of competing fuels. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .000 HDVs sold.6 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 28. natural gas has played a negligible role as a highway transportation fuel in the United States. taxes. which have constituted more than 25 percent of U.S. U. achieving significant penetration can be difficult and. costs.000 in 2003. natural gas accounted for 0. Refueling stations for NGVs are unlikely to be built without some assurance that there will be sufficient numbers of NGVs to be refueled. In 2010.S. and fuel savings adds to the complexity of this dynamic. In the AEO2012 Reference case. natural gas production. Current state of the market At present. Key market uncertainties with regard to natural gas as a fuel for HDVs include fuel and infrastructure issues (such as the build-out process for refueling stations and whether there will be sufficient demand for refueling to cover the required capital outlays. thus lowering the fuel savings of electric drivetrain vehicles and making the upfront incremental cost more prohibitive. soon enough to allow for recovery of the capital investment within a reasonable period of time.S. there were more than 157.0 trillion cubic feet in 2035.S.Issues in focus conventional vehicles. The cost of diesel fuel is linked closely to the 15 Natural gas (Henry Hub) 10 5 0 1997 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2011 36 U. and retail pricing and taxes for liquefied natural gas [LNG] and compressed natural gas [CNG] fuels).S.3 million barrels per day).S. natural gas production (including supplemental gas) increases from 21. The potential impact of CAFE standards on other vehicle attributes. although the world market for oil and petroleum products is highly integrated.000 were sold in 2010 out of a total of more 360. Developments in natural gas and petroleum markets in recent years have led to significant price disparities between the two fuels and sparked renewed interest in natural gas as a transportation fuel.000 total natural gas HDVs on the road. there are additional uncertainties related to capital and operating costs. and vehicle issues (including incremental costs for HDVs fueled by natural gas. HDVs in the United States are fueled almost exclusively by petroleum-based diesel fuel [53]. total for all sectors (17. Led by technological breakthroughs in the production of natural gas from shale formations.2 million barrels per day).000 stations selling motor gasoline in 2010 [55 ]. Further. natural gas markets are less integrated. unattainable. U. With relatively few vehicles on the road.3 million barrels per day in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case. Historically. Heavy-duty natural gas vehicles Environmental and energy security concerns. and fewer than 1. and the issue of expected utilization rates.

Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 37 . Several regional efforts are in place to encourage such “hub-and-spoke” growth for NGV refueling facilities. taxes.612 gallons of diesel fuel. processing.80 per million Btu.” the average nationwide nominal retail price for LNG was $3. Federal. but the significant disparity between current natural gas and crude oil prices suggests that the cost of CNG and LNG fuels in dge terms could be significantly below the price of diesel fuel. with an energy content of approximately 84. and taxes. Such arrangements provide an alternative to reliance on centrally fueled fleets as a means of circumventing the problem of how to introduce NGVs and natural gas refueling infrastructures concurrently. the cost of moving fuel from production to refueling sites (if applicable). The “spokes” would ensure that refueling infrastructure is in place on the main transportation corridors connecting the hubs. and Philadelphia. current technologies allow for natural gas to be used as efficiently as diesel in HDV applications. In a competitive market. A major question is whether gaps between isolated targeted markets can be bridged to provide a nationwide refueling structure that will allow heavy-duty NGVs to travel almost anywhere. However. and San Francisco. the 2011 national average retail price of $3. as well as the difference between the wholesale price at the refinery gate and the cost of crude oil input. State. Las Vegas. operators of an LNG and/or CNG vehicle fleet may be in a position to negotiate cost-based fuel prices with refueling station operators seeking to lock in demand for their initial investments in refueling infrastructure. with an average energy content of 138. Although early models of NGVs sometimes were less fuel-efficient than comparable diesel-fueled vehicles. and retailing costs. the cost and price of natural gas fuels are expressed in terms of diesel gallon equivalent (dge).690 Btu per gallon. the spot price of Gulf Coast ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel averaged $2. and retailing costs. retail fuel prices should reflect costs. For example. retailing costs. Harrisburg. and the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor [58]. the pump price of diesel fuel reflects distribution costs. commonly referred to as the “crack spread. Costs can vary with the scale of operations. For this analysis. at least in their initial stages. Reno. would pay a natural gas price similar to the prices paid by electric power plants. San Antonio. Sufficiency of demand for refueling to cover capital outlay The cost of providing refueling services for NGVs depends on a number of factors and is distinctly different for CNG and LNG vehicles. Investment decisions are likely to be based on levels of demand. For diesel fuel. Build-out process for refueling stations It is not clear how NGVs and an expanded natural gas refueling infrastructure ultimately will evolve. which would provide CNG and LNG fueling stations between Pittsburgh. and local fuel taxes. currently in place primarily to support local fleets. at public refueling stations. even without many fuel providers. distributors. insulated LNG storage tanks and special refueling pumps are needed. in an effort to ensure that both demand and supply will be in place concurrently. which is produced by a large number of foreign and domestic refiners and is sold through numerous distributors and retail outlets. In 2011. may not be as competitive as diesel fuel markets.Issues in focus value of crude oil inputs for the refining process. distribution. The wholesale diesel price reflects crude oil costs. including input. the market for diesel fuel. comparisons between natural gas and diesel fueling costs can be based on the price of energy-equivalent volumes of fuel. depending on its scale. and Houston. For example. Federal and State incentives are subsidizing both the construction of refueling stations and the production of heavy-duty LNG vehicles [60]. The costs depend in part on the number U.820 Btu per gallon. There also is a plan for a Pennsylvania Clean Transportation Corridor [59]. The “hubs” in the model would include the local refueling infrastructure. LNG and CNG currently sell at prices significantly higher than would be suggested by a long-term analysis of cost-based pricing. in which retail prices follow costs.32 per dge [56]. Therefore.” which reflects the costs and profits of refineries. The costs of liquefying and transporting the fuel to the retail station would ultimately be included in the retail price. LNG typically would be delivered from a liquefaction facility that. and profits. If the use of LNG and/or CNG to fuel HDVs starts to grow. Beyond the wholesale price. the cost of the liquefaction or compression process (including profits). Phoenix. a strategic plan for CNG and LNG refueling stations between Dallas. are likely to pay prices for natural gas that are similar to those paid by commercial facilities. One view is that a “huband-spoke” model for refueling infrastructure will expand sufficiently in multiple areas for a point-to-point system to take hold eventually. Salt Lake City. normal profit margins for processors. 1 gallon of LNG is equivalent in energy terms to 0. According to DOE’s April 2012 “Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report. In several corridors. NGV refueling capability can be added at an existing facility or at a separate dedicated facility (which would require an additional investment). and retailers.97 per gallon. it is likely to take some time before fuel production and refueling infrastructure become sufficiently widespread for competition among fuel providers alone to assure that fuel prices are more closely linked to cost-based levels. generally is considered to be a competitive market.S. For LNG stations. There are different wholesale natural gas prices and capital costs associated with CNG and LNG stations. and the average for CNG was $2. Scranton. They include the Texas Clean Transportation Triangle [57 ]. which typically have connections to the pipeline distribution network and thus require compression equipment and special refueling pumps. CNG and LNG markets. For example.05 per dge. which aims to provide LNG fueling stations between such major western cities as Los Angeles. CNG retail stations.84 per gallon is equivalent to about $27. Fuel costs for LNG and CNG vehicles depend on the cost of natural gas used to produce the fuels.

000.000 miles annually for Class 7 and 8 vehicles. the payback period would be just over 3 years if the vehicle were driven 100. and $49.150 to $69.S.50 per gallon. Although there are several dedicated large-scale natural gas liquefaction facilities in the United States. NGV refueling stations presumably would want to provide sufficient economic incentive in terms of the competitiveness of fuel prices to encourage more purchases of NGVs. with a combined liquefaction capacity of more than 6 billion cubic feet per day.Issues in focus of fueling hoses added. Further. the proximity of which is a major factor in the cost and frequency of deliveries. Currently.24 per LNG gallon equivalent ($0. If the same Class 7 or 8 vehicle were driven 40.000 miles per year. $34. Retail prices and taxes for LNG and CNG fuels Even if the costs are fully known. Non-storage-tank incremental costs average about $2.000 miles annually for Class 3 vehicles and more than 100.000 to 80.000 and $30. at least initially. LNG stations in particular benefit from higher volumes.125 for Class 7 and 8 trucks (GVWR greater than 26. CNG is taxed at the same rate as gasoline on an energy-equivalent basis ($0.40 per dge) rather than on the basis of energy content [62]. without a widely available infrastructure. Any significant expansion of LNG refueling capacity also will require expanded liquefaction capacity. State taxes vary.000 pounds). given questions about whether dispensers would charge higher prices in order to recover costs more rapidly if the facility were underutilized or would set prices to be competitive with the price of diesel. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .000 to 40.000 miles per year. Total incremental costs relative to diesel HDVs range from about $9. For example.000 for Class 4 to 6 vehicles. There are more than 100 such facilities in the United States. 38 U.000 to $86. averaging $0. NGV fuel is taxed at State and Federal levels. however. the payback period would be about 8 years.000 miles per year. which may have less mileage-intensive vehicle use. primarily in the West. However. assuming a diesel fuel price of $4. Availability of fueling infrastructure The absence of widespread public refueling infrastructure can impose a serious constraint on heavy-duty NGV purchases. and they must satisfy special safety requirements—both of which add costs that can vary significantly from place to place. The payback period varies with miles driven and is shorter for trucks that are used more intensively.000 to 80. with the incremental cost for Class 3 CNG vehicle storage tanks ranging between about $8. Vehicle Issues Incremental vehicle cost NGVs have significant incremental costs relative to their diesel-powered counterparts because of the need for pressurization and insulation of CNG or LNG tanks and the lower energy content of natural gas as a fuel. which can be sized to match its typical daily driving range. The majority are concentrated in the Northeast and Southeast [61 ]. Prices charged at private stations for fleet vehicles presumably would be based on cost. competition between retailers is likely to be limited. and about $475 per gallon diesel equivalent for LNG. With the number of refueling stations limited.000 for Class 7 to 8 vehicles [63].000.000 miles per year.21 per dge). Payback periods for the upfront incremental costs of NGVs are greater than 5 years for Class 3 vehicles unless they are driven at least 20. $20.750 to $36. LNG typically is delivered to refueling stations via tanker truck from a separate liquefaction facility. One added cost in operating an LNG station is the need for safety suits and specialized training for station attendants who dispense the fuel. there are smaller liquefaction plants and LNG storage tanks currently in use for meeting peakshaving needs of utilities and pipelines during times of high demand. and $30.000 pounds). Natural gas fuel storage technology is relatively mature.00 per gallon and an LNG fuel price of $2.001 to 26. for a Class 7 or 8 compression ignition NGV with average fuel economy of 6 miles per gallon (which has a similar fuel economy compared to a diesel counterpart) and an incremental cost of $80. Fuel storage costs are about $350 per gallon diesel equivalent for CNG. 3 years or less. Shorter payback periods.18 per gasoline gallon equivalent. leaving only modest opportunity for cost reductions.000 for Class 3 trucks (GVWR 10. and for Class 7 and 8 vehicles unless they are driven at least 60.000 for Class 3 vehicles. owners must operate the vehicles enough to pay back the higher incremental cost in a reasonable period of time. which currently is not sufficiently dispersed throughout the country to support a nationwide LNG refueling infrastructure. on a Federal level. may reflect typical owner expectations more accurately [64].001 to 14. but they require much more intensive use: around 60. LNG is taxed at a higher effective rate than diesel fuel. but they also require significant additional land to accommodate storage tank(s). Owners who typically refuel vehicles at a private central location do not face an absolute constraint based on infrastructure. retail prices for CNG and LNG transportation fuels remain uncertain.000 and $52. Cost-effectiveness with average vehicle usage In order to take advantage of potential fuel cost savings from switching to NGVs. and heavy-duty NGVs currently in operation have tended to be purchased by fleet operators who refuel consistently at a specific central location or in areas where their vehicles routinely operate on dedicated routes.000. However. or $0.250 for Class 4 to 6 trucks (GVWR 14.001 pounds). with the incremental cost for Class 4 to 8 LNG vehicle storage tanks ranging between about $14. heavy-duty NGVs tend to be considered by centrally refueled fleets. The incremental costs of heavy-duty NGVs depend in large part on the volume of the vehicle’s CNG or LNG storage tank.15 per dge for CNG and $0. because it is taxed volumetrically at $0.24 per dge for LNG.

First. incremental costs are determined by assuming a set cost for CNG or LNG engines plus a CNG or LNG tank cost based on the average amount of daily travel and vehicle size class. last completed in 2002. However. However. Even if the payback period for an investment in natural gas vehicles seemed acceptable.9 how (or whether) specific barriers to natural gas refueling infrastructure investment can be overcome. based on the assumptions that refueling stations would be utilized at a sufficiently high rate to warrant the capital investment. CNG and LNG vehicles that do not opt for large tanks because of either weight or incremental cost considerations might have to refuel more frequently. The HD NGV Potential case differs from an earlier sensitivity case completed as part of the Annual Energy Outlook 2010. lease terms tend to limit the importance of this factor. Other market uncertainties Other factors may also affect market acceptance of heavy-duty NGVs. The complex set of factors influencing the potential for natural gas as a fuel for HDVs includes several areas for which policy mechanisms have been discussed. financing constraints or returns available on competing investment options could preclude the purchase. The gradual increase in the maximum Figure 35.Issues in focus According to the Department of Transportation’s Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey [65 ]. at a considerable weight penalty and an incremental cost of more than $80. Most policy debates to date have considered the possibility of subsidies to reduce the incremental cost of natural gas vehicles (for example. For owners who typically “weight-out” a vehicle (driving with a full payload). station operators would not 39 U. Finally. under an assumption that the refueling infrastructure exists to support such an expansion. the purchase decision could be affected by the considerable additional weight of CNG or LNG tanks.S.9 40-59. to allow for a range of about 650 miles on a single refueling. The EPA and NHTSA have estimated that about onethird of Class 8 sleeper tractors routinely are “weighted-out” [66]. the reduction in unrefueled maximum range would not require additional breaks for vehicles with large CNG or LNG tanks. In the HD NGV Potential case. Around 30 percent of Class 3 vehicles and 75 percent of Class 7 and 8 vehicles are not driven enough to reach the 5-year payback threshold mentioned above. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .9 100-119. Because owner/operators typically stop several times per day. affect market uptake. The natural gas refueling infrastructure is expanded in the 7 and 8) heavy-duty vehicles. and that the prices charged for the fuel would be cost-based (i. adding heavy CNG or LNG tanks necessitates a reduction in freight payload. the owner perception of the balance of risk and reward for large capital investment is an uncertainty. the potential resale market is constrained to owners of centrally operated fleets.000. This is a significant portion of the market that would require either more favorable fuel economics or lower vehicle costs before the purchase of an NGV could be justified. HD NGV Potential case results The AEO2012 HD NGV Potential case examines issues associated with expanded use of heavy-duty NGVs. The AEO2012 HD NGV Potential case permits expansion of the HDV market to allow a gradual increase in the share of HDV owners who would consider purchasing an NGV if justified by the fuel economics over a payback distribution with a weighted average of 3 years.e. it is not clear 0-19.9 80-99. Additionally. With little natural gas refueling infrastructure in existence. The HD NGV Potential case includes separate delivered CNG and LNG fuel prices for fleet and nonfleet operators. market hurdles related to consumer acceptance or payback periods might also be addressed through loan guarantees or related financial support policies. Distribution of annual vehicle-miles natural gas market share reflects the fact that a national traveled by light-medium (Class 3) and heavy (Class natural gas refueling program would require time to build out. Added per-unit charges to recover infrastructure are set and held constant in real terms throughout the projection period. which focused on possible subsidies to expand the market potential for heavy-duty NGVs and limited its attention to vehicles operating within 200 miles of a central CNG refueling facility. A diesel tractor with 200 gallons of tank capacity and a fuel economy of 6 miles per gallon can drive 1. the residual value of natural gas HDVs could. a large segment of the HDV market simply does not drive enough to justify the purchase of an NGV (Figure 35). In addition. 2002 (thousand miles) HD NGV Potential case simply by assumption. 20-39.200 miles on a single refueling. in Senate and House versions of the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act [67 ]) and Federal grant-based or other financial support for fueling station infrastructure.9 120+ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Class 3 Class 7-8 Incremental costs for NGVs in the HD NGV Potential case differ from those in the Reference case.. The same tractor would need up to 110 dge of LNG tank capacity. both for the vehicles and for the refueling infrastructure. in theory.9 60-79. Higher upfront capital costs can prove economically prohibitive for some potential owners.

S. HDVs would be reflected by a decline in imports. as compared with 0. and that Class 7 and 8 vehicles. HDVs.4 trillion cubic feet (5 percent) higher than in the Reference case.2 percent Figure 36. 2005-2035 compared with 1. 2008-2035 (trillion cubic feet) 2. as compared with 2.5 HDV Reference 0 2008 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 2008 2015 HDV Reference 2020 2025 2030 2035 HD NGV Potential 40 U.000 in 2035 (34 percent of total new vehicle sales). nearly all the reduction in petroleum and other liquids use by U.0 100 0. Without a major impact on world oil prices. natural gas consumption by HDVs in the HD NGV Potential case displaces about 850. Natural gas fuel use by heavy-duty vehicles in two cases. Diesel and natural gas transportation in 2010 to 32 percent in 2035 in the HD NGV Potential case. In the HD NGV Potential case. use LNG. Sales of heavy-duty NGVs rise dramatically in the HD NGV Potential case. an HDV Reference case was developed from the AEO2012 Reference case. As a result of the large projected increase in sales of new heavy-duty NGVs. New heavy-duty NGVs gradually claim a more significant share of the vehicle stock.01 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 1. projected total U. Annual sales of new heavy-duty natural gas vehicles in two cases. maintaining the higher energy-equivalent tax on LNG relative to diesel fuel.750. The electric power and industrial sectors account for the 1 Retail CNG Fleet CNG 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Figure 37. fuel prices in the HDV Reference case.8 trillion cubic feet in 2035 in the HD NGV Potential case.000 vehicles) in 2035.Issues in focus set prices on the basis of prices for competing fuels). EIA examined current motor fuel taxes and any charges added to the commodity price of dry natural gas sold at private central refueling stations (fleets) and at retail stations where actual data were available. Sales of new heavy-duty NGVs increase from 860 in 2010 (0. Thus. In defining CNG and LNG prices for the HD NGV Potential case. to provide a consistent basis for comparison with the HD NGV Potential case (Figure 36). which is not expected to result from the gradual but significant adoption of natural gas as a fuel for U.S. The HDV Reference case assumes that Class 3 through 6 vehicles use CNG.000 vehicles) in 2035 in the HDV Reference case.S. 2008-2035 (thousand vehicles) 300 Figure 38. as compared with 26.000 barrels per day of petroleum and other liquids consumption in 2035 (Figure 39). Motor fuels taxes are assumed to remain at their current levels in nominal terms. from 0. Accordingly. obtained from either fleet operators (using fleet prices) or nonfleet operators (using retail prices).000 in the HDV Reference case (3 percent of total new HDV sales).0 1.5 million barrels per day of petroleum and other liquids. natural gas demand in the HDV sector rises from about 0. based on the national availability of refueling infrastructure and expanded market potential (Figure 37). in response to higher natural gas prices (Figure 40).4 percent (300. as the increase in natural gas use by vehicles is partially offset by lower consumption in other sectors.2 percent of total new HDV sales) to about 275.5 200 HD NGV Potential 1. by including the updated fleet and retail CNG and LNG prices. natural gas consumption in 2035 is 1. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .6 percent in the HDV Reference case. both fleet and nonfleet. The natural gas share of total energy use by HDVs grows from 0. about 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas consumed per year replaces 0. (2010 dollars per diesel gallon equivalent) 5 Diesel 4 3 2 Retail LNG Fleet LNG Roughly speaking.S.1 trillion cubic feet in the HDV Reference case (Figure 38).4 percent in 2010 to 21.8 percent (2.

2 trillion cubic feet (2.000 Figure 40. In 2035.76 per million Btu (2010 dollars)—at the Henry Hub in 2035 in comparison with the HDV Reference case.7 percent) lower than in the Reference case.S. liquid fuels production industry has changed from being based primarily on domestic petroleum to using a variety of feedstocks and finished products from sources around the world.9 percent in the commercial sector. such as natural gas and renewable biomass. The higher level of natural gas production needed to support the growth in HDV fuel use results in a 10-percent increase in natural gas prices—$0. Regulatory and policy changes have resulted in the use of feedstocks other than crude oil. U. and improving the Nation’s energy security by reducing reliance on imports. Reduction in petroleum and other liquid fuels use by heavy-duty vehicles in the HD NGV Potential case compared with the HDV Reference case. and regulatory issues. The LFMM will allow EIA to address more adequately the current and anticipated domestic and international market environments. These changes have resulted in a transition from a relatively straightforward supply chain relying on crude oil and finished products to an increasingly complex system. U. Figure 39. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 41 . Major industry changes and their implications are discussed below. New feedstocks and technologies Over the past 25 years. the LFMM case. Changing structure of the refining industry Petroleum-based liquid fuels represent the largest source of U.3 trillion cubic feet (3. The liquid fuels markets are not homogeneous.9 percent) higher than in the HDV Reference case. domestic natural gas production in the HD NGV Potential case is 1.9 percent in the electricity generation sector in comparison with the HDV Reference case in 2035. which include transmission and distribution costs that are not affected by higher prices to producers.9 percent in the industrial sector. 7. The mix and composition of liquids. Furthermore. regional differences have become more pronounced. are provided here. legislative. energy consumption.S. policymakers are paying more attention to evolving markets for liquid fuels and the potential for improving the efficiency of liquid fuels consumption. which must be reflected in models to produce valid projections. which it intends to use in place of the existing Petroleum Market Module (PMM) to produce the Annual Energy Outlook 2013. Some results from an early simulation of the LFMM. and 7.S. the U. as their 2035 natural gas use is. Diesel and natural gas transportation fuel prices in two cases. 8. reducing GHG emissions associated with the production and consumption of liquid fuels.Issues in focus bulk of the consumption offsets. accounting for about 37 percent of total energy consumption in 2010. with delivered natural gas prices increasing by 4. are smaller. leading to changes in the mix of liquid fuel feedstocks. The landscape for both production and consumption of liquid fuels in the United States continues to evolve. however.9 percent in the residential sector. The changes in the industry require that analytical tools used for market analysis of the liquid fuels produced by the industry also be reevaluated. 5. to analyze the implications of emerging technologies and fuel alternatives. 2010-2035 (thousand barrels per day) 1. have changed in recent years in response to changes in regulations and other factors.1 percent) and 0. and could lead to the use of other feedstocks (such as coal) in the coming years. with greater emphasis on renewable fuels. In recognition of the fundamental changes in the liquid fuels production industry.S. 2035 (2010 dollars per diesel gallon equivalent) 5 HDV Reference HD NGV Potential 750 4 3 500 2 250 1 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 Retail CNG Fleet CNG Retail LNG Fleet LNG Diesel U. and to evaluate the impact of complex emerging energy-related policy. 0.1 trillion cubic feet (3. EIA is developing a new Liquid Fuels Market Module (LFMM).S. respectively. and the structure of the liquid fuels production industry has changed in response [68]. Percentage increases in delivered natural gas prices to other sectors.

The more inclusive definition of the liquid fuels production industry illustrated in Figure 41 is necessary to capture and model the full range of product flows and economic drivers of decisionmaking by firms involved in this complex industry. Nonpetroleum feedstocks are used in many new and emerging technologies. better reflecting the industry’s evolution. the share of petroleum has dropped while the shares of biomass and other fossil fuels have increased. Traditional volumetric measures. and the less extensive “petroleum and other liquids industry. The complexity of the industry supply chain is inadequately described by nomenclature predicated on specific feedstocks (e. and supply/demand dynamics when the uses of nonpetroleum feedstocks are being examined. from production of feedstocks to delivery of both liquid and non-liquid end-use products to customers. diesel fuel and gasoline). This approach allows for comparison among the different sectors of the liquid fuels production industry. however.S. liquid fuels production industry—including petroleum. It is more appropriate to use the fundamental principles of mass and energy balance to evaluate process performance.. and algae-based biofuels. The new LFMM will include the entire liquid fuels production industry. the petroleum and other liquids concept used in AEO2012 does not explicitly link the industrial processes that yield nonpetroleum liquid fuels (nor their feedstocks. blending sites. It includes participants in the more traditional petroleum refining sector. In AEO2012.S. In 2011. The variety and changing dynamics of nonpetroleum feedstocks and the resulting end-use products also are illustrated in Figure 42.” the components of which are highlighted in red.g. distiller’s grains. Nonpetroleum feedstocks do not exist in traditional liquid form. refinery hydrotreating). Figure 41 also highlights the differences between the new expanded “liquid fuels production industry. In the LFMM case. providing greater flexibility for integrating new technologies and their associated products into the liquid fuels supply chain. The new technologies provide valuable non-liquid-fuel co-products—such as chemical feedstocks. and biofuel sectors— are shown in Figure 41.g. or retail pumps.S.. The increase in biofuel production has led to new distribution channels and infrastructure investments and recognition of new production regions. and vegetable oils—that significantly affect the economics of liquid fuels production. are not applicable to an analysis of the liquids produced from nonpetroleum feedstocks. and they require a different analytical approach for analysis of their conversion to liquid fuels. and in the biofuel sector. such as the high concentration of ethanol producers in the Midwest. Figure 42 provides an overview of the liquid fuels production industry on a mass basis.g. or end-use products (e. In recent history. using biomass to produce biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. the biomass share of feedstock consumption increases to Figure 41. nonpetroleum fossil fuels and biomass) with liquids production. Because this approach treats nonpetroleum products as exogenously produced feedstocks. which are blended with petroleum products to make enduse liquid fuels. using natural gas and coal to produce liquid fuels. the “petroleum and other liquids” category includes the petroleum sector and those non-petroleum-based liquid products shaded in red in Figure 41. nearly all liquid fuels were derived from petroleum. relying on crude oil as a primary feedstock. nonpetroleum fossil fuel. biomass-to-liquids. processes (e. enzymatic conversion. Since then. liquid fuels production industry Primary feedstocks Petroleum sector Crude oil Refining processes Distillation Hydrocracking Coking Refined products Liquids/blendstock Chemicals Petroleum solids End-use products LPG E85 Gasoline Liquid fuels Jet fuel Diesel fuel Heating oil Residual fuel Chemicals Asphalt Petroleum coke Agricultural Biomass heat and power Nonpetroleum fossil fuel sector Other fossil fuels Gasification Direct liquefaction Gas plant fractionator Liquids/blendstock Chemicals Fossil fuel solids Biofuel sector Biomass Dry/wet mill Enzymes Gasification Ethanol Biodiesel Biomass solids 42 U. crude oil). Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . GTL. the combined biomass and other fossil fuels share of feedstocks was almost 18 percent. such as fermentation. biomass has taken significant market share from petroleum feedstocks. In 2000. along with examples illustrating processes and products. such as ethanol and biodiesel. CTL. The emergence of renewable biofuels has led to the introduction of midstream components such as ethanol and biodiesel.” which the entire figure represents. which fail to capture the significant economic implications of non-liquid-fuel products for the industry. along with further diversification into nonpetroleum fossil feedstocks. such as process gain. U. measured on a mass basis.Issues in focus The term “liquid fuels production industry” refers to all the participants in the production and delivery of liquid fuels. which are blended with petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel during the final stages of the supply chain at refineries. correlated with shifts in product yields—a trend that is expected to continue in the future. The components of the U. market penetration. in the nonpetroleum fossil fuel sector.

The United States increasingly is using crude oil extracted from oil sands and oil shale.5 Petroleum Nonpetroleum gasoline Gasoline Regional updates The Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADD). EIA has redefined the refining regions on the basis of market potential and availability of feedstocks. as well as other nontraditional petroleum sources that require additional processing. The biomass share of end-use products increases only to 10 percent in 2035. and shifting price relationships in crude oil markets require an updated representation of different crude types in NEMS. including a growing number from Canada and Mexico.02 and 5. have been traditionally used as the regional framework for analyzing liquid fuels production. The new sources have led to shifts in crude oil flows and changes in the distribution network. has been substantially different in quality from the crude oil previously expected to be Figure 42.Issues in focus 30 percent in 2035. Because the topology and configuration of the liquid fuels market have changed significantly. new technologies for recovering crude oil. reflecting differences in conversion efficiencies between petroleum and nonpetroleum feedstocks. and 2035 (billion tons per year) has been sold to refiners on the Gulf Coast in recent years 1. as well as flexibility to add new sources. with a wide range of API gravities (between 10. to date. it is difficult to group them according to the categories used in the existing NEMS PMM. and a global increase in exploration have expanded the number and variety of crude oil types. Mass-based overview of the U. Caribbean Ethanol Plants PADDS U. The model also needs an updated and more dynamic representation of the crude oil distribution network in order to provide better estimates of changes in crude oil flows and potential new regional sources in the future.S.5 percent).S. The new regional configuration of the NEMS LFMM will use eight domestic regions and adds a new Maritime Canada international region (Figure 43). and the petroleum share falls to about 57 percent. which were developed by the Department of Defense during World War II. because of limitations in the delivery infrastructure.5 Feedstocks End-use products at a substantial discount relative to heavier imported crudes. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . but can be further divided based on recent and possible future refinery closures and shifts in imports from Europe. The increased variety and regional availability of certain crude types has created new market dynamics and pricing relationships that are difficult to capture using existing methods. changes in characteristics of crudes. liquid available to U.4 and 64. The redefined regions will be further divided as market conditions change.S. PADD 2 was subdivided into the Great Lakes and Inland regions due to the concentrated 43 0 2000 2011 2035 2000 2011 2035 Figure 43. especially considering the rapid emergence of “tight oil” production. Each new refining region has unique characteristics. The United States currently imports more than 100 different types of crude oil from around the world. Biomass Other Agricultural products Chemicals Residual fuel Nonpetroleum distillates Distillates 1.S.6) and sulfur content (between 0. Consequently. changes in the yields of existing crude oil fields. light sweet crude fuels production industry in the LFMM case. LFMM Refineries LFMM regions PADD 1 PADD 2 inland PADD 2 lakes PADD 3 Gulf PADD 3 Inland PADD 4 PADD 5 California PADD 5 other Maritime Canada. 2011.0 Other fossil fuels The growing number of sources. Over the same period. New regional format for EIA’s Liquid Fuels Market Module (LFMM) Caribbean U. as highlighted by the growing but still small nonpetroleum content of gasoline and distillates. which. For example. A new and more comprehensive representation of the numerous crude types is required. 0. the regional definitions for processing liquid fuels need to be redefined. Toward this end. and new feedstocks have emerged from regions that are subsets of PADDs. Changes in crude oil types Economic growth in the developing countries over the past decade has increased global demand for crude oil. oil sourced from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota 2000. PADD 1 has been left unchanged in the new configuration. refineries.

00 per gallon minus the wholesale gasoline price. refinery configurations. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . As a further example. In addition. market. Traditional measures of profitability. economic. RFS mandated consumption of renewable traditional PADD regional format used to represent the fuels. which has led to more gasoline exports and more investment to increase diesel output from domestic refineries.25 cents per gallon or $3. For example. recent refinery closures and other developments on the East Coast evidence the need for a dynamic and flexible representation of the refinery regions that supply the U. EIA’s new LFMM representation of the liquid fuels production industry will need to account for global competition for both crude oil and end-use products. ethanol. One of the most important regulations currently affecting the U. efficiency standards for LDVs have reduced demand for gasoline and increased demand for diesel fuel. as well as an update to the transportation 40 network that distributes the fuels. liquid fuels industry is the RFS. For example.S. require modification in NEMS in view of the changing market for liquid fuels. which not only has increased production and use of renewable fuels. in addition to being flexible enough to model proposed laws and regulations. California was separated from the rest of PADD 5 due to the State’s unique gasoline and diesel specifications and regulatory policies. PADD 4 was left unchanged. Fuel volumes by product are mandated by the RFS. products. and its individual actions could not be represented accurately in the PADD framework. and crude and product demands as the industry evolves. or environmental feasibility that the EPA Administrator has discretionary authority to act on to reduce the mandates for advanced and total biofuels. PADD 3 was divided into the Gulf Coast and Inland regions due to the inability of the interior refineries to handle heavy sour crude. or exchanging domestic feedstocks and products with merchant refineries in a global market. both based on 2008 real dollars. have the capacity to refine 86 million barrels of crude oil per day. and other first-generation biofuels generally require their own distribution networks or investments in new infrastructure. Because of their chemical properties. biorefineries. The RFS mandates the use of biofuels that are consumed primarily as blends with traditional petroleum products.Issues in focus production of biofuels and access to Canadian crudes. however. Now. such as the 3-2-1 crack spread. 44 U. biodiesel. More than 650 refineries. Changing product markets Crude oil is still the most important and valuable feedstock for the liquid fuels production industry. A new international region was added comprising Maritime Canada and the Caribbean. The calculation of margins requires consideration of multiple feedstocks and multiple products produced in refineries. complex refineries are becoming more common in Europe and the developing countries of Asia and Latin America. The modified regional refinery format will allow EIA’s analyses to more accurately capture regional refinery trends and potential regional regulatory policies that affect the liquid fuels market. California often enacts its own regulatory policies earlier than the rest of its PADD region. the cellulosic biofuel credit price is set as the greater of $0. the new products are added at different points in the supply chain. but also has changed how fuels are distributed and consumed both here and abroad. As refineries around the world become larger and more complex. regulated parties must make the decision to either buy the available renewable fuels in proportion to their RFS requirements or purchase the necessary credits. either at blending terminals or at retail sites via blender pumps. most of the complex refineries that could transform a wide variety of crudes into numerous different products to meet demand were located in the United States. The RFS also contains a general waiver based on technical. For each year. For example. 2009-2022 (billion gallons per year) liquid fuels market. because they are produced outside traditional petroleum refineries. located in more than 116 countries. Therefore. An example is the regular export of surplus gasoline from refiners in Europe to the Northeast United States. Modeling those changes requires an update to the Figure 44. and production facilities for nonpetroleum fuels.S.S.S. In the past.S. and the products from export-focused merchant refineries in those countries have the potential to compete with U. 30 Cellulosic biofuels 20 Conventional biofuels Noncellulosic advanced biofuels 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2009 2010 2011 2022 Biomassbased biodiesel 10 0 The RFS also requires consideration of many new technologies and increases the complexity of decisionmaking in the liquid fuels production industry. smaller refineries may not be able to compete with imports produced at low margins. Regulations and policies It is important for EIA’s models to represent existing laws and regulations accurately. such as gasoline and diesel fuel (Figure 44). it is necessary to have a more robust and dynamic representation of the liquid fuel producers. Operators in the liquid fuels production industry are faced with a choice of investing in facilities and modifying their configurations to meet changing market demand. as well as additional flexibility to adjust inputs. increased U.

Although natural gas prices declined dramatically in the second half of 2011 and the first half of 2012. coal.S. in turn. which plants are retired. production regions.S. For example. higher coal prices. The changes are significant enough to make the framework and metrics used in traditional refinery models no longer adaptable or robust enough for proper modeling of the transformed liquid fuels market. which can be sold to the agricultural sector. coal-fired power plants have generally had the advantage of lower fuel prices and the disadvantage of higher heat rates in comparison to combined-cycle plants fueled by natural gas. These factors influence how existing plants are used.Issues in focus In addition. U. AEO2012 includes alternative cases that assume higher and lower prices for natural gas and coal. ethanol producers compete globally in other countries. generating fleet. Finally. and regulations and policies. and makes investment decisions based on both economic and regulatory factors. EIA currently is in the process of updating its framework to allow better representation of the transformed industry. Coal and natural gas plants can vary their outputs on the basis of fuel prices. with a 38-percent share of total generation in 2035. slow growth in electricity demand. that have their own renewable fuels mandates. midstream products and coproducts. and complex domestic and global market interactions. can offset up to one-third of the purchase cost for the corn feedstock. Key factors contributing to the shift away from coal are sustained low natural gas prices. when demand declines. When demand increases. evolving regional production and distribution networks. the economics of biofuels production are complex.and oil-fired power plants with capacities greater than 25 megawatts to meet emission limits consistent with the average performance of the top 12 percent of existing units— known as the maximum achievable control technology. MATS requires all U. For instance. Higher prices. Demand for electricity Electricity demand determines how much generating capacity is needed. also referred to as the heat rate. and the implementation of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) [69] and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) [70].S. hydrogen chloride (HCl). but there are some cases in which plants may cycle off completely until they can be operated economically. The RFS adds to the liquids fuels market a number of fuel technologies. Coal remains the dominant source of electricity generation in the Reference case. changes in fuel prices can affect the choice of plants dispatched. and the economic incentives for new plant construction are reduced. and global interactions. average electricity prices. A good example is ethanol.S. as a result. global market dynamics. if the price of natural gas decreases. Plants with the lowest operating costs generally operate continuously. Because fuel prices influence variable costs. and what types of new plants are built. and fine particulate matter (PM2.S.5 are intended to serve as surrogate pollutants for acid gases and nonmercury metals. especially coal-fired power plants. liquid fuels market has evolved substantially over the past 20 years in terms of available fuel types. the variable costs for combined-cycle plants may fall below those for competing coal-fired plants. If a plant is not profitable. Fuel prices and dispatch of power plants The price of fuel is a major component of a power plant’s variable operating costs [71]. the value of the dried distillers grains coproduct from corn ethanol production. MATS applies to three pollutants: mercury. Changing environment for fuel use in electricity generation Introduction The AEO2012 Reference case shows considerable change in the mix of generating technologies over the next 25 years. Thus. increasing average operating costs and.5). Both rules have significant implications for the U. 8. the combined-cycle plant may be dispatched before the coal-fired plant. both of which are global commodities in high demand as food sources as well as biofuel feedstocks. The fuel-related variable cost of generating electricity is a function of the fuel price and the efficiency of the plant’s conversion of the fuel into electricity. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 45 . but that is down from shares of 45 percent in 2010 and nearly 50 percent in 2005. Conversely. The decrease in coal’s share of total generation is offset primarily by increases in the shares of natural gas and renewables. and. CSAPR is scheduled U. feedstock markets. plants with higher operating costs are taken off line or run at lower intensities. such as Brazil. as a result. The transition has resulted in a liquid fuels market that uses both petroleumand nonpetroleum-based inputs. CSAPR is a cap-and-trade program that sets caps on sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from all fossil-fueled plants greater than 25 megawatts in 28 States in most of the eastern half of the United States. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Both MATS and CSAPR are included in the AEO2012 Reference case [72]. distributes them around the country by a variety of methods. the owner may decide to retire it. Its primary feedstocks are corn and sugar. coproducts from biofuels production have a significant influence on their economics. use of biofuels has broader implications for the global market. in terms of both feedstocks and the fuels themselves. plants with higher operating costs are brought into service. provide economic incentives for the construction of new capacity. HCl and PM2. respectively. The U. and they require a model that accounts for numerous investment decisions. Plants with higher variable costs are brought on line sequentially as demand for generation increases. In order to examine the overall impacts of changes in projected fuel price trends on the electric power sector. Power plants are dispatched primarily on the basis of their variable costs of operation.

NEMS does not explicitly model emissions of acid gases or toxic metals other than mercury. FGD systems require significant upfront investment but have relatively low operating costs. but the rule allows State environmental permitting agencies to extend the deadline by a year. the technologies that can be used to meet their requirements are not mutually exclusive. which is primarily used to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions. AEO2012 also includes two alternative cases that assume enactment of an explicit GHG control policy. There are economic and engineering tradeoffs between the two technologies. Two alternative cases assume that the costs would be recovered over 5 years. and the cost recovery period for environmental control equipment investments: • The Reference 05 case assumes that the cost recovery period for investments in new environmental controls is reduced from 20 years to 5 years. 43 percent of U. Environmental regulations. generating capacity already had FGDs installed [74]. Alternative cases In order to illustrate the impacts of the various influences on the electric power sector.S. uncontrolled plants. and strong competition from neighboring natural gas plants in regions with slow growth in electricity demand may be especially prone to retirement. given the possibility that GHG regulations might be enacted in the near future. DSI and wet and dry FGD systems are technologies that will allow plants to meet the MATS standards for acid gases.S. in order to meet the MATS acid gas standard. AEO2012 assumes that all coal-fired power plants will be required to reduce mercury emissions to 90 percent below their precontrol levels in order to comply with MATS. or by installing activated carbon injection (ACI) systems. reflecting concern that future laws or regulations aimed at limiting GHG emissions will have significant negative effects on the economics of investing in existing coal plants. and future demand for electricity all are key factors in the decision. Economics of plant retirements The decision to retire a power plant is an economic one. Thus. operators will need to assess the effectiveness of installing FGD or DSI systems to comply with MATS. As of 2010. The AEO2012 NEMS explicitly models mercury emissions from power plants. it is assumed that coal-fired plants without appropriate existing controls will need to install either flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) or dry sorbent injection (DSI) systems. the costs of environmental retrofits are assumed to be recovered over a 20-year period. Although the two rules differ in their makeup and the pollutants covered. a CO2 price is applied across all sectors starting in 2013 and increased at a 5-percent annual real rate through 2035. AEO2012 includes several alternative cases that include varying assumptions about fuel prices. which increases their operating costs. the EPA stated that it will handle noncompliant units that need to operate for reliability purposes on a case-by-case basis [75 ]. plants will lower overall SO2 emissions. In order to represent the MATS limits for those emissions. whereas the waste products from FGD systems can be sold as feedstock for industrial processes. low natural gas prices. FGD systems may be effective in reducing mercury emissions from bituminous coal (due to its chemical makeup). A carbon price would increase the cost of generation for all fossil fuel plants. The CO2 price is applied across sectors and has a significant impact on the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuels. In each case. in the absence of a scrubber. many utilities include simulations with a future CO2 emissions price when evaluating long-term investment decisions. See also “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” in the “Legislation and regulations” section of this report. Greenhouse gas policy in AEO2012 Uncertainty about possible future regulation of GHG emissions will continue to influence investment decisions in the power sector. Plant owners must determine whether a plant’s future operations will be profitable. 46 U. DSI systems generally do not require significant capital expenses but may use significant quantities of sorbent to operate effectively. AEO2012 assumes that the appropriate control technologies will be installed by 2015 in order to meet the MATS requirements. This uncertainty may influence the assumptions plant owners make about the economic lives of particular facilities. higher coal prices. Coal plants without FGD systems and with high heat rates.Issues in focus to begin in 2012. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Therefore. but ACI systems may be necessary to remove mercury emissions from plants burning subbituminous and lignite coal. high delivered coal costs. Despite a lack of Congressional action. although implementation was delayed by a court-issued stay at the time this article was completed [73]. but the largest impact would be on coal-fired plants. For instance. Waste disposal for DSI also may be a significant variable cost. electricity demand. In the Reference case. AEO2012 assumes that all plants will comply with MATS by the beginning of 2015. The EPA set an April 2015 compliance deadline for MATS. which also reduce SO2 emissions. particularly coal. The price starts at $25 per metric ton in the GHG25 case and $15 per metric ton in the GHG15 case. For a number of the remaining. facilitating compliance with CSAPR. AEO2012 assumes that plants must install either FGD or DSI systems to meet the acid gas standard and. plant owners could be reluctant to retrofit existing coal plants to control for non-GHG pollutants. a full fabric filter to meet the MATS standard for nonmercury metals. Reductions in mercury emissions can be achieved with a combination of FGDs and selective catalytic reduction. by complying with the MATS standards for acid gases. Beyond 2016.

63 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity is retired through 2035. 2010-2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu) 10 Figure 46. inflation and interest rates are lower than in the Reference case. • The Low Economic Growth case assumes lower growth rates for population and labor productivity. as existing coal-fired capacity is needed to meet growing electricity demand. the CO2 price is set at $15 per metric ton in 2013 and increases at a real annual rate of 5 percent per year over the projection period. the price of natural gas used at power plants (Figure 45). which is reflected in electricity sales. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 47 . higher interest rates. and lower growth in industrial output. • The High Economic Growth case assumes higher growth rates for population and labor productivity.S. 69 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity is retired. increasing the per-unit cost of developing the resource and. making it more likely that investments in retrofit equipment will be recouped over the life of the plants.) In the Reference 05 case. consequently. In the Low Economic Growth case. electricity demand in three cases. and coal transportation. With higher productivity gains and employment growth. Analysis results Coal-fired plant retirements Significant amounts of coal-fired generating capacity are retired in all the alternative cases considered (Figure 47). relative to the Reference case. ultimately increasing demand for electricity. 2010-2035 (trillion kilowatthours) 6 5 High Economic Growth Reference Low Economic Growth 8 Low EUR Reference High EUR 4 3 2 6 4 2 1 0 2010 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 U. • The Low Coal Cost case assumes higher mining productivity and lower costs for labor. the lower relative coal prices increase the profit margins for coal-fired power plants. Price is set to target the same reduction in CO2 emissions as in the AEO2011 GHG Price Economywide case. mine equipment. • The Low Gas Price 05 case combines the more optimistic assumptions about future volumes of shale gas production from the High EUR case with a 5-year recovery period for investments in new environmental controls. which ultimately result in higher coal prices for electric power plants. the CO2 price is set at $25 per metric ton in 2013 and increases at a real annual rate of 5 percent per year over the projection period.Issues in focus • The Low Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) case assumes that the EUR per tight oil or shale gas well is 50 percent lower than in the Reference case. 55 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity is retired. In the Low Coal Cost case. and. Price is set to target the same dollar amount as in the AEO2011 GHG Price Economywide case. which is reflected in electricity sales. The High Economic Growth case results in fewer retirements. and coal transportation. because lower demand for electricity reduces the need for new capacity and makes investments in older plants unattractive. 28 percent higher than in the Reference case. economic output grows at a higher rate. • In the GHG15 case. decreasing the per-unit cost of developing the resource and the price of natural gas for power plants. Natural gas delivered prices to the electric power sector in three cases. In the High EUR case. Figure 45.S. • The High EUR case assumes that the EUR per tight oil or shale gas well is 50 percent higher than in the Reference case. • The High Coal Cost case assumes lower mining productivity and higher costs for labor. as lower wholesale electricity prices and competition from natural gas combined-cycle units makes the operation of some coal plants uneconomical. and higher economic growth pushes up natural gas prices. ultimately. see Appendix F. mine equipment. which ultimately result in lower coal prices for electric power plants. U. relative to the Reference case. which ultimately reduce demand for electricity (Figure 46). (For a map of the electricity regions projected. • In the GHG25 case.

and slow growth in electricity demand are responsible for the decrease. Many coal-fired plants in those regions are sensitive to the factors that influence retirement decisions. in the RFC region. electricity generation from natural gas in 2020 is 13 percent above the 2010 level. the High Economic Growth case. 43 percent of the coal-fired plants do not have FGD units installed. only 3. of the total generation mix in 2035. and/or higher coal prices are assumed.S. Generation from coal is lower than in the Reference case in the Reference 05. respectively. coal-fired generating capacity. as discussed above. High Coal Cost. natural gas generation is seen as an attractive 48 U. which includes most of the Mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley region [76]. Low natural gas prices result in greater utilization of existing combinedcycle plants as well as the addition of 16 gigawatts of natural gas combined-cycle capacity from 2010 to 2020. and in both cases generation from coal declines significantly as the explicit price on CO2 emissions increases costs. coal still has the highest share of total electricity generation in 2035 in all nonGHG or High TRR cases. and the Reliability First Corporation (RFC). 58 gigawatts of natural gas combinedcycle capacity is added from 2020 to 2035. Conversely. and renewable generation. In all cases. Coal plants in the RFC and SERC regions are fueled primarily by bituminous coal. In both the GHG15 and GHG25 cases. Natural gas has one-half the CO2 emissions of coal. which grows significantly in all the cases. especially.S. growth in natural gas combined-cycle capacity is slower. which covers the Southeast region. The natural gas share of total generation almost equals that of coal in the Low Gas Price 05 case. generation from coal is lower in 2020 than in 2010. even larger amounts of coal-fired capacity are retired by 2035 than in the non-GHG policy cases. Cumulative retirements of coal-fired significantly across the cases. In the GHG15 and GHG25 cases. demonstrating that changes in generating capacity by Electric Market Module the relative economics of coal and natural gas affect primarily region in nine cases. and at relatively low CO2 prices. or lower electricity demand. Although generation from natural gas increases overall with the addition of new capacity. Generation by fuel Coal In all cases. utilization of existing combinedcycle plants drops slightly as higher natural gas prices reduce the frequency at which combined-cycle plants are dispatched. Despite a declining share of the generation mix.Issues in focus Coal-fired capacity retirements are concentrated in two North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) regions: the SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC) region. The lower coal share is offset by increased generation from natural gas. Natural gas In the AEO2012 Reference case. In the most optimistic case. In the Low EUR and Low Coal Cost cases. coal-fired generation drops to 16 percent and 4 percent. lower economic growth. coal-fired generation is higher. the coal share of total generation in 2035 is 34 percent in the Low Gas Price 05 case. relatively low natural gas prices. In the SERC and RFC regions. retirements of coal-fired capacity. as electricity demand and natural gas prices start to rise. However. Projected demand for electricity in the early years of the Reference case is low nationwide and.3 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity is added from 2017 to 2035 [77 ]. High EUR. nuclear. Generation from combustion turbines does not change Figure 47. coal-fired generation still increases after 2020 but at a slower rate. decreases in coal-fired generation are offset by a mix of natural gas. In the GHG15 and GHG25 cases. which in 2010 accounted for 65 percent of U. not combustion turbines to Reference meet peak load requirements. lower natural gas prices. The strongest increases in coal-fired electricity generation occur in the Low EUR. Low Gas Price 05. Low Coal Cost. causing an increase in generation from natural gas during the period (Figures 48 and 49). Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Generation from coal begins to recover after 2020. electricity generation from natural gas exceeds generation from coal in 2020. In the GHG15 and GHG25 cases. The same trends are amplifed in cases with lower natural gas prices and more coal-fired capacity retirements and muted in cases with higher natural gas prices and fewer coal-fired capacity retirements. When lower natural gas prices. 2011-2035 (gigawatts) the dispatch of combined-cycle plants to meet base and 0 25 50 75 intermediate load requirements. generally the coal with the highest cost. and Low Economic Growth cases as a result of additional retirements of coal-fired capacity. it never again reaches the 2010 share of 45 percent. where demand in 2015 is slightly lower than in 2010. because there is no significant growth in new coal-fired capacity. Reference 05 High EUR Low EUR Low Gas Price 05 High Coal Cost Low Coal Cost High Economic Growth Low Economic Growth FRCC NPCC/NY ERCT/TRE NPCC/NE SPP MRO WECC SERC RFC In the Reference case. utilization of existing coal-fired power plants increases. despite an increase of only 5 percent in overall electricity generation. and High Economic Growth cases. even in the Low EUR case (where it reaches 40 percent in 2035). Higher coal prices. higher coal prices. In cases where the opposite assumptions are incorporated.

cases with more retirements have fewer retrofits and vice versa (Figure 50). In the GHG15 and GHG25 cases. The largest growth in renewable generation is projected in the GHG15 and GHG25 cases. Nuclear Generation from nuclear power plants does not change significantly from Reference case levels in any of the non-GHG cases. However. As a result of the requirement for FGD or DSI systems.Issues in focus alternative to coal. nuclear power plants become more competitive with fossil plants. the relative cost of FGD units is higher because of the short payback period. respectively. and an FGD unit 95 percent. Because retirement is the only other option. In the GHG15 and GHG25 cases. will remove 70 percent of a coal plant’s SO2 emissions. combined with a fabric filter. Emissions SO2 emissions are significantly below 2010 levels in 2015 in all cases. as a result of coal-fired capacity retirements and the installation of pollution control equipment to comply with MATS. generation from nuclear power is 57 percent and 121 percent higher. in 2035 than in 2010. 2010 and 2035 (trillion kilowatthours) Coal 2010 Reference Reference 05 High EUR Low EUR Low Gas Price 05 High Coal Cost Low Coal Cost High Economic Growth Low Economic Growth GHG15 GHG25 2035 Natural gas Nuclear Renewables Figure 50. it is assumed that all coal-fired plants must have either FGD or DSI systems installed by 2015 to comply with environmental regulations.S. Electricity generation by fuel in eleven cases. In the GHG25 case. Electricity generation by fuel in eleven cases. the increasing cost of generating electricity with natural gas causes the growth in natural gas generation to slow. Cumulative retrofits of generating capacity with FGD and dry sorbent injection for emissions control. due to the high cost of new nuclear plant construction relative to natural gas and renewables. making DSI a relatively more attractive option. AEO2012 assumes that a DSI system. Renewables Generation from renewable energy sources grows by 77 percent from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 49 . natural gas combined-cycle plants with CCS play a role in CO2 mitigation. because they do not emit CO2 and are needed to replace coal-fired capacity that is retired due to the cost of CO2 emissions. The change in renewable generation over the 2010-2035 period varies from a 102-percent increase in the High Economic Growth case to a 62-percent increase in the Low Economic Growth case. A price on CO2 emissions makes generation from renewables more competitive with fossil plants without CCS. Most of the growth in renewable electricity generation is a result of State RPS requirements. Federal tax credits. Figure 48. In the Reference 05 and Low Gas Price 05 cases. 2011-2020 (gigawatts) FGD Reference Reference 05 High EUR Low EUR Low Gas Price 05 High Coal Cost Low Coal Cost High Economic Growth Low Economic Growth Dry sorbent injection 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 50 100 150 U. with 34 gigawatts of natural gas combined-cycle capacity added between 2022 and 2035. where renewable generation increases by about 150 percent from 2010 and 2035 in both cases. and—in the case of biomass—the availability of low-cost feedstocks. 2010 and 2020 (trillion kilowatthours) Coal 2010 Reference Reference 05 High EUR Low EUR Low Gas Price 05 High Coal Cost Low Coal Cost High Economic Growth Low Economic Growth GHG15 GHG25 2020 Natural gas Nuclear Renewables Installations of retrofit equipment As discussed above. as CO2 prices rise over the projection period. all coal plants larger than 25 megawatts that did not have FGD units installed in 2010 significantly reduce their SO2 emissions after 2015 by 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 49.

335 per kilowatt of capacity. based on interactions with EIA stakeholders with significant experience in implementing power plant uprates. average electricity prices in the GHG15 and GHG25 cases in 2035 are 25 percent and 33 percent higher. depending on the size and type of the uprate project. than in the Reference case. In addition to the reported plans for capacity uprates. New builds Building a new nuclear power plant is a tremendously complex project that can take many years to complete. Reported data come from Form EIA860 [78]. as coal-fired generation increases with rising natural gas prices. which also contributes to the decline in emissions. and therefore the cases with the highest projected levels of coal-fired generation also project the highest levels of SO2 emissions. The nuclear share of overall generation. Both the GHG15 and GHG25 cases assume that costs for CO2 emission allowances are passed through directly to customers. Therefore. reflecting increased shares for natural gas and renewables. electricity generation from nuclear power in 2035 is 10 percent above the 2010 total. Specialized highwage workers. Electricity prices Real electricity prices in 2035 are 3 percent above the 2010 level in the Reference case. CO2 emissions from the electric power sector are 46 percent below 2010 levels in 2035. A total of 6. Because DSI and FGD retrofits do not remove all the SO2 from coal-fired power plant emissions. and 2010 emissions levels already were close to the cap. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must approve all uprate projects before they are undertaken and verify that the reactors will be able to operate safely at higher levels of output. Uprates Power plant uprates involve projects that are intended to increase the licensed capacity of existing nuclear power plants and permit those plants to generate more electricity. declines from 20 percent in 2010 to 18 percent in 2035.5 gigawatts) and power uprates at operating nuclear power plants (7.5 gigawatts of capacity. In all cases. Also. The increase is relatively modest because natural gas prices increase slowly.7 billion for a dual-unit 2. although they are still much lower than comparable 2010 levels. In the AEO2012 Reference case.8 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity is added from 2010 through 2035. In the GHG15 case. including both new builds (a total of 8.g.8 gigawatts of new capacity.. In 2010. After a sharp drop in 2015. mercury emissions begin to rise slowly as coal-fired generation increases in all non-GHG cases. Power plant uprates can increase plant capacity by 1 to 20 percent. as the requirement for a 90-percent reduction in uncontrolled emissions of mercury remains binding throughout the projection. EIA assumed that additional power uprates over the period from 2011 to 2035 would add another 6. real electricity prices decline relative to the Reference case. the level of SO2 reduction is proportional to the amount of coal-fired generation. the overall market conditions for new nuclear power plants are challenging.S. When lower natural gas prices are assumed. such as turbines). 15.Issues in focus installing control equipment. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . mainly because compliance with CSAPR NOx regulations is required in only 26 States. which together would add a total of 0.S. expensive materials and components.g. Nuclear power in AEO2012 In the AEO2012 Reference case. The GHG15 and GHG25 cases do not include any of the rebates to electricity consumers included in some other GHG policy proposals. the overnight capital costs associated with building a nuclear power plant planned in 2012 are assumed to be $5. given the current uncertainty about likely lifetimes of nuclear plants now in operation and the potential for new builds. increases in coal-fired generation result in higher SO2 emissions.3 gigawatts). mercury emissions in 2035 still are significantly below 2010 levels. In the Reference case. Emissions reductions relative to 2010 levels are small throughout the projection period in most cases. AEO2012 includes several alternative cases to examine the impacts of different assumptions about future nuclear power plant uprates and operating lifetimes. and in the GHG25 case they are 76 percent below 2010 levels. The U. and engineering and construction expertise are required. but the largest reductions occur in the GHG15 and GHG25 cases.200-megawatt power plant. with most of the retirements coming after 2030. The projections for mercury emissions are similar. In developing projections for nuclear power. respectively. 9.. which would reduce the impact on electricity prices. installing a more accurate sensor) or significant (e. operators reported that they intended to complete uprate projects sometime during the next 10 years. and only a select group of firms worldwide can provide them. which requires all nuclear power plant owners to report any plans for building new plants or making major modifications to existing plants (such as uprates) over the next 10 years. and several alternatives for complying with the environmental regulations are available. but both annual and seasonal cap-and-trade programs are included in CSAPR. SO2 emissions increase after 2020 in all non-GHG cases. Nuclear power plants are among the most expensive options for new generating capacity available today [79]. In the current economic environment of low natural gas prices and flat demand for electricity. coal-fired generation is down overall. However.1 gigawatts of nuclear capacity is retired in the Reference case. replacing key plant components. NOx emissions are not directly affected by MATS. Capital expenditures may be small (e. However. which translates to $11. EIA relies on both reported data and estimates. The overnight costs 50 U. however. CO2 emissions from the electric power sector fall slightly in cases that project declines in coal use.

and the credit is limited to the first 6 gigawatts of new nuclear plant capacity. by allowing fuel diversification and providing a hedge in the future against potential GHG emissions regulations or natural gas prices that are higher than expected. the plant’s owner has reported to EIA that it will be retired in 2019. With this assumption. New Jersey. H.8 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity over the projection period. The High Nuclear case also assumes that all existing nuclear power plants will receive their second license renewals and will operate through 2035.B. the next nuclear plant retirement occurs in 2029 in the Low Nuclear case. there were 7 reactors that received their initial full power operating licenses over 40 years ago. In addition to reported plans for new nuclear power plants. As reported on Form EIA-860. Oyster Creek Unit 1 was the first reactor to operate for over 40 years. EPACT05 also provides a PTC of $18 per megawatthour for electricity produced during the first 8 years of operation for a new nuclear plant [83].8 gigawatts already planned. plants with active license applications at the NRC are constructed.5 billion is available. recovering demand for electricity. Figure 51 shows nuclear capacity retirements in the Low Nuclear case by NERC region. and the need to make up for the loss of a limited amount of nuclear capacity all play a role in the additional builds. It should be noted that after the retirement of Oyster Creek in 2019. however. In the High Nuclear case. and R. Point Beach 1. and Watts Bar Unit 2) are expected to be operational by 2020 [84]. 2011. The nuclear power industry is preparing applications for license renewals that would allow continued operation beyond 60 years. several States provide favorable regulatory environments for new nuclear plants by allowing plant owners to recover their investments through retail electricity rates. the NRC is reviewing license renewal applications for 15 reactors and expects to receive applications from another 14 reactors between 2012 and 2016 [87]. The AEO2012 Reference case includes this reported early retirement.S.2 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity is added relative to the Reference case. and assessing the integrity of concrete structures. allowing them to operate for a total of 60 years [86]. NRC regulations do not limit the number of license renewals a nuclear power plant may be granted. in addition to plants already under construction. Some aging nuclear plants may. Industry research on long-term reactor operations and aging management is focused on identifying challenges that aging facilities might encounter and formulating potential approaches to meet those challenges [88]. New nuclear plants must be operational by 2021 to be eligible for the PTC. typically based on economics and the ability to meet NRC requirements. which the Tennessee Valley Authority reflects in its Integrated Resource Plan [85 ]. Several utilities are moving forward with plans to deploy new nuclear power plants in the United States.S.5 gigawatts of new capacity (Vogtle Units 3 and 4. Also.3 gigawatts associated with the construction of Bellefonte Unit 1. 6. Long-term operation of the existing nuclear power fleet The NRC has the authority to issue initial operating licenses for commercial nuclear power plants for a period of 40 years.E. It should be noted that although the Oyster Creek Generating Station in Lacey Township. based on uncertainty related to issues associated with long-term operations and aging management [89]. after receiving its initial full power operating license in August 1969. 5. The Reference case also includes 1. Ginna. the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05) established a loan guarantee program for new nuclear plants completed and in operation by 2020 [81].3 billion has been conditionally committed to the construction of Southern Company’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 [82].1 gigawatts of nuclear power plant capacity is retired by 2035. Among this set of reactors. The Reference case reflects those plans by including 6. In addition to Federal incentives. such as the AP1000. the NRC had granted license renewals to 71 of the 104 operating reactors in the United States. retirements prompted by potential new NRC regulatory requirements for safety retrofits). interest carried forward. Despite the cost. of which $8. As of January 2012.8 gigawatts of unplanned capacity is built in the later years of the Reference case.Issues in focus do not include additional costs such as financing. provided that they have a tentatively scheduled mandatory hearing before the NRC or Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and deploy a currently certified design for the nuclear steam supply system. As of December 31. after 50 years of operation. Incentive programs exist to encourage the construction of new reactors in the United States. such as high operation and maintenance costs or the need for large capital expenditures to meet NRC requirements. given the evolving nature of the NRC’s regulatory response to the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011. Robinson Unit 2. Higher natural gas prices. In the Reference case. Sensitivity cases The AEO2012 Low Nuclear case assumes that only the planned nuclear plant uprates already reported to EIA will be completed. Summer Units 2 and 3. At the Federal level. The first application seeking approval to operate for 80 years is tentatively scheduled to be submitted by 2013. pose a variety of issues that could lead to decisions not to apply for a second license renewal. deployment of new nuclear capacity supports the long-term resource plans of many utilities. No new nuclear plants are built in the Low Nuclear case beyond the 6. resulting in a 30. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 51 . nuclear power capacity from 2010 to 2035. The Low Nuclear case also assumes that all nuclear power plants will be retired after 60 years of operation. Currently. Uprates in the U. Monticello. Typical challenges involve materials degradation. safety margins. A total of $18. The decision to apply for an operating license renewal is made by nuclear power plant owners. received a license renewal and could operate until 2029. an additional 6.9-gigawatt reduction in U. 1. however. Uprates that are currently under review or expected to be submitted to the NRC are not included. the Reference case does not include retirements directly related to the accident (for example. and peripheral infrastructure updates [80]. Oyster Creek Unit 1 was followed by Dresden Units 2 and 3.

Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River.0 million barrels per day. CO2 emissions from the electric power sector in 2035 are 3 percent higher than in the Reference case as a result of switching from nuclear generation to natural gas and coal. Real average electricity prices in 2035 are 1 percent lower in the High Nuclear case than in the Reference case. average electricity prices in 2035 are 5 percent higher than in the Reference case as a result of the retirement of a significant amount of nuclear capacity.9 gigawatts of nuclear capacity that is retired after 60 years of operation. stated that oil pipeline transportation problems could begin when throughput falls below 550. an additional 12 gigawatts of nuclear capacity would be shut down between 2035 and 2040.000 barrels per day of oil was produced on the North Slope.000 barrels per day. due to the loss of 30. electricity prices in the Low Nuclear case are 7 percent higher than in the Reference case for the NERC MRO Region. Nuclear power plant retirements by NERC region in the Low Nuclear case. generation from nuclear power in 2035 is 30 percent lower than in the Reference case. Potential impact of minimum pipeline throughput constraints on Alaska North Slope oil production Introduction Alaska’s North Slope oil production has been declining since 1988. the nuclear share of total generation is reduced to 13 percent. which make new nuclear power plants a more competitive option for new electric capacity. but unplanned additions are lower. The loss of generation is made up primarily by increased generation from natural gas (12 percent higher than in the Reference case in 2035). Even in regions where no nuclear capacity is retired. In the Low Nuclear case.5 gigawatts of new nuclear power plant capacity is added from 2010 to 2035. planned capacity additions are almost double those in the Reference case. including the 6. and the nuclear share of total generation is 20 percent. The additional planned capacity in the High Nuclear case also reduces the need for new unplanned capacity. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska). 8. In the High Nuclear case. and renewables (3 percent higher). The impacts of nuclear plant retirements on retail electricity prices in the Low Nuclear case are more apparent in regions with relatively large amounts of nuclear capacity. nuclear generation in 2035 is 10 percent higher than in the Reference case. both which produce more CO2 emissions. Unplanned capacity is added starting in 2030 in response to rising natural gas prices. For example. 2010-2035 (gigawatts) FRCC 10.000 barrels per day and become increasingly severe with further declines [90]. In the Low Nuclear case. High Nuclear. about 600. coal (1 percent higher). Mid-Atlantic. With all nuclear power plants being retired after 60 years of operation in the Low Nuclear case.S. and Southeast regions. Table 12 summarizes key results from the AEO2012 Reference. Recently. No unplanned capacity is added in the Low Nuclear case. and Low Nuclear cases. The only retirement included in the High Nuclear case is the announced early retirement of Oyster Creek in 2019. the decline of North Slope production has resulted largely from depletion of the North Slope’s two largest fields. CO2 emissions from the power sector are slightly (1 percent) lower than in the Reference case. The Reference case projections for CO2 emissions also are affected by changes in assumptions about nuclear plant lifetimes. In the High Nuclear case. The increase in nuclear capacity in the High Nuclear case contributes to an increase in total electricity generation. the operator of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). In the Low Nuclear case. and its replacement with natural gas capacity. Nuclear power generation in 2035 reflects the differences in capacity that occur in the nuclear cases. which has higher fuel costs that are passed through to consumers in retail electricity prices. The price of natural gas delivered to the power sector in the High Nuclear case is lower than in the Reference case. As a result. as compared with 18 percent in the Reference case. because higher demand for natural gas in regions with nuclear plant retirements affect prices nationwide.8 gigawatts reported to EIA (referred to as “planned”) and 1. there are small increases in electricity prices relative to the Reference case. Alyeska estimates that TAPS operational problems could become considerable when throughput falls below 350. In the High Nuclear case. The decline of both North Slope oil production MRO NPCC SERC RFC 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 52 U.Issues in focus High Nuclear case are consistent with those in the Reference case. when average annual production peaked at 2. Figure 51. making the economics of nuclear power plants slightly less attractive. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . lowering the marginal price of electricity. which has relatively low operating costs. Although new North Slope oil fields have started production since 1988. in spite of lower levels of generation from natural gas (4 percent lower than in the Reference case in 2035) and coal and renewables (less than 1 percent lower for each fuel). and 6 percent higher in the Northeast. Results In the Reference case. as slightly less natural gas capacity is dispatched. In 2010.8 gigawatts built endogenously in NEMS (referred to as “unplanned”).

Alyeska reconfigured and refurbished TAPS.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil resources.5 1. As the types and severity of problems multiply. Currently.8 6. 2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu) CO2 emissions from electric power generation. but Federal oil and gas leasing in ANWR currently is prohibited [95 ].3 13.6 141.1 126. Finally. Other potential operational issues at low flow rates include sludge dropout. pipeline shutdown and restart. 2010-2035 Projection Nuclear plant cumulative retirements (gigawatts) Generating capacity cumulative additions (gigawatts) Coal Natural gas Nuclear capacity uprates Planned nuclear capacity additions Unplanned nuclear capacity additions Renewables Average delivered electricity price. such as a new smalldiameter pipeline running parallel to the TAPS route [96] or a new offshore oil terminal for North Slope production. 2011 [94].1 16. In August 2008. reduction in pipeline leak detection efficiency.1 7.000 barrels per day. The crude oil is then transported by tankers to West Coast refineries.8 67. The Alyeska study identified the following potential problems that might occur as TAPS throughput declines from the current production levels: • Water dropout from the crude oil. the investment required to mitigate these is expected to increase significantly. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 53 .5 10. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is also estimated to hold approximately 10.2 7. Potential sources of significant North Slope oil production are located offshore in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and onshore in shale and heavy oil deposits.8 -73.S.000 or 350. High Nuclear. Summary of key results from the Reference. Mitigating the decline of North Slope oil production Although much of the public focus has been on the operational capability of TAPS at low flow rates.8 1.000 barrels per day in the absence of any mitigation. TAPS currently is the only means for transporting North Slope crude oil to refineries and the petroleum consumption markets they serve. Alaska. Although TAPS low flow problems could begin at volumes around 550.000 barrels per day. reduced ability to remove wax. in the absence of new North Slope petroleum supplies.3 6.0 7.6 8. Alyeska initiated its Low Flow Impact Study. Alyeska is conducting tests and analyses to determine the likely efficacy and costs of different remedies. with the existing oil fields plugged and abandoned sometime before 2035.Issues in focus and TAPS throughput raises the possibility that North Slope oil production might be shut down. 2035 (2010 cents per kilowatthour) Average delivered natural gas price for electric power.9 18. the more fundamental issue is declining oil production. and the running of pipeline pigs that both clean the pipeline and check its integrity. as well as alternatives that could prolong the life of North Slope oil fields and TAPS beyond 2035. 2035 (million metric tons) Reference 6.404 U. considerable investment could be required to keep the pipeline operational below that threshold. however.4 10.330 High Nuclear 0.00 2. with a potential minimum mechanical throughput rate thought to be about 200. spending about $400 million to $500 million [91] both to reduce operating expenses and to permit TAPS to operate at lower flow rates. Another potential source of new TAPS volumes would be the conversion of North Slope natural gas resources to either methanol or Fischer-Tropsch petroleum products that could be transported to market via TAPS.4 10. Table 12.03 2. which was released on June 15. their severity is expected to increase as throughput declines further. The TAPS low flow issue would be alleviated most readily by discovery and production of large new sources of oil on the North Slope. From 2004 through 2006. As North Slope oil production has declined. That possibility is discussed here. which could cause pipeline corrosion • Ice formation in the pipe if the oil temperature drops below freezing • Wax precipitation and deposition • Soil heaving.21 2.6 7. concern about TAPS operation under low flow conditions has grown [93].301 Low Nuclear 30. alternative crude oil transportation facilities could be developed.000 barrels per day at that time [92]. The Alyeska study does not provide any estimates of what it might cost to keep the pipeline operational below either 550. Background Declining TAPS throughput TAPS is an 800-mile crude oil pipeline that transports North Slope oil production south to the Alyeska marine terminal in Valdez.9 147.6 0.3 64. and Low Nuclear cases. Because of the many and diverse operational problems expected to occur at throughput volumes below 350.6 16.

Aside from the question of what it might cost to keep TAPS operating at lower flow rates. causing a shutdown of the TAPS pipeline. Using those percentages to scale up ConocoPhillips maintenance capital expenditures so that they represent total capital expenditures for North Slope maintenance. If maintenance capital expenditures increased at the same rate (150 percent) over the next 10 years. and lead times. water typically enters the formation. the field operator can drill in-fill wells into those portions of the reservoir where oil cannot flow to existing production wells. wells are plugged and abandoned. Even if the continued operation of TAPS were not in question. Consequently. Under those circumstances. The diminishing returns from new in-fill and EOR wells is demonstrated in recent remarks by a ConocoPhillips official who noted that approximately $630 million was to be spent on maintenance capital expenditures in 2011.4 percent and 39. Because the future success of North Slope oil exploration and development is unknown. Similarly. Because the cost per barrel for handling and reinjecting reservoir water typically is relatively constant. then total North Slope maintenance costs can be estimated at about $640 million in 2001 and $1. it is prudent to consider the circumstances under which North Slope oil production might cease altogether. Currently. because the North Slope oil fields would be shut down before a TAPS solution could be implemented. each North Slope oil field’s production will eventually decline to a point at which it is no longer economical to keep the field operating. production generally can be sustained profitably at lower production rates when oil prices are higher. AEO2012 adopts the 350. a TAPS throughput of about 350. causing the water-to-oil ratio to increase exponentially over time as oil production volumes decline [102]. First.000 barrels per day. Alaska North Slope wells completed during 2010 in selected oil fields Production unit Colville River Kuparuk River Prudhoe Bay Subtotal Total North Slope Miscible hydrocarbon EOR Yes Yes Yes In-fill development wells 8 25 68 101 Gas/water injection wells 6 26 8 40 Total wells 14 51 76 141 168 54 U. At that point. there is a risk that any solution(s) could be both too little and too late. ConocoPhillips provided 37. the operating cost per barrel of oil produced increases exponentially over time. there is also a significant risk that production from existing North Slope fields might decline much faster than anticipated and/or that the cost of operating those fields might escalate much faster than expected. the development of new oil fields. As oil is produced from a reservoir. In 2001 and 2010. the types of low flow problems that might develop. which is referred to as “miscible hydrocarbon” EOR [97].000 barrel per day figure as Table 13.Issues in focus Which of these potential low-flow solutions (or combination thereof) may ultimately come to fruition is impossible to determine at this time. and the potential development of new transportation facilities. Moreover. Not only does each solution entail its own set of risks. How quickly TAPS flows will decline. Several basic strategies have been employed to mitigate declining oil production and revenues from existing oil fields. they could be as high as $4 billion in 2021. of total North Slope oil production [100]. low-viscosity oil is less problematic to TAPS operations than heavy. Another method for extending oil production is to produce increasing amounts of water relative to oil [101]. Drilling in-fill and EOR injection wells requires investments that are paid for through “maintenance” capital expenditures [98]. Second. as less oil typically is recovered with each new in-fill or EOR well. Shutdown and abandonment assumptions According to the Alyeska study. the economic feasibility of mitigating the problems arising from TAPS low flow rates improves when oil prices are higher. For example. viscous oil. and the land is remediated to meet State and Federal requirements. Both activities provide diminishing returns over time.S. compared with about $240 million in 2001 [99].000 barrels per day appears to be the threshold at which significant investment would be required to permit lower TAPS throughput. respectively. Oil and gas fields typically are shut down and abandoned when operating and maintenance costs exceed production revenues.1 percent. the continued operation of TAPS at lower flow rates. surface equipment is removed. each solution comes with its own unique set of costs. the operator can use enhanced oil recovery (EOR) that involves injecting steam or gases (along with water) to reduce viscosity and increase oil volumes as an aid to moving oil to the production wells. risks. an additional question is what it might cost to keep the existing North Slope oil fields producing.6 billion in 2011—a 150-percent increase over a period in which total North Slope oil production declined from 931. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . revenues generated by North Slope oil production will play a pivotal role in determining the continued economic viability of existing North Slope oil fields.000 barrels per day to 562. Table 13 shows the number of in-fill and gas/water injection wells completed in 2010 at the three largest North Slope oil fields. Although the cost structure of North Slope field production as production declines is unknown. causing the cost per barrel of oil recovered to rise over time. methane and natural gas liquids are being reinjected with water into many North Slope oil fields to achieve this outcome. and the degree of mitigation required depend on the success or failure of current offshore and onshore oil exploration and development programs and the quality of the oil produced.

In reality.17 to $20. it is a reasonable estimate in light of the sum of current maintenance capital expenditures ($1.000 barrels per day and $5 billion per year thresholds. in-fill and EOR well drilling requirements could escalate to about $4 billion per year by 2021 [106]. Given the lack of public information. oil prices are sufficiently high both to stimulate the Figure 52. 2010-2035 (million barrels per day) 0. As noted earlier.Issues in focus the threshold for either making significant investments in TAPS or the alternatives. a $5 billion revenue level would equate to almost $1 billion in royalties. For example. In the AEO2012 analysis. this analysis endeavors to determine both future North Slope production revenues in alternative oil price cases and an order-ofmagnitude estimate of wellhead production costs. which shows both TAPS throughput and North Slope oil revenues falling below the 350.6 billion). Alaska North Slope wellhead oil revenue in three cases. or how they might grow in the future.56 billion per year in annual operating expenses.07 per barrel in 2010. or shutting down and decommissioning TAPS and the North Slope oil fields [103]. two conditions would need to be met simultaneously: TAPS throughput at or below 350. and a royalty cost of about $1 billion. Although the $5 billion North Slope revenue figure is not conclusive with regard to the actual annual costs faced by North Slope field operators in the future.56 billion). The appropriate revenue threshold is uncertain. the oil production revenue threshold serves to either advance or delay the date when TAPS and North Slope oil production would be shut down. how those costs have grown historically as production has declined. Similarly. As discussed below. At 350. in order for the North Slope fields to be shut down. estimated operating expenses at 350. assuming no minimum revenue requirement. Of course.S.67 per barrel [108]. average production cost being $10. TAPS would be decommissioned and dismantled. respectively. the shutdown and decommissioning of TAPS and the North Slope oil fields are also conditional on whether North Slope wellhead oil production revenues fall below a specific level. Projections A shutdown of North Slope oil production before 2035 is projected only in the Low Oil Price case. Moreover. an order of magnitude estimate of operating costs can be made by examining what oil companies report for their annual production expenses. AEO2012 assumes that.5 percent [107 ]. plugged.28 to $2. because there is little or no information available to the public on operating and maintenance costs for existing oil fields.28 to $2. Alaska North Slope oil production in three cases.S. there are no public data available on what it might cost to keep TAPS operating as throughput declines [104].25 10 Low Oil Price 0 2010 Low Oil Price 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Reference 20 U. In both the Reference and High Oil Price cases.000 barrels per day ($1. 2010-2035 (billion 2010 dollars per year) 50 High Oil Price 40 0. in 2026 (Figures 52 and 53). the actual shutdown of North Slope oil production might be extended over a number of years and could begin either before or after the year in which the criteria employed by North Slope producers are met. production costs could well exceed $20 per barrel as North Slope oil production declines. It is also assumed that if those two conditions were met. Also. and abandoned.50 30 Reference 0. and North Slope oil exploration and production activities would cease [105 ]. a North Slope operating expense of $10 to $20 per barrel would equate to $1.000 barrels per day and total North Slope oil production revenues at or below $5 billion per year. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 55 .000 barrels per day. with the State of Alaska royalty rate currently at about 18. with the U.75 High Oil Price Figure 53. The $5 billion threshold for North Slope oil production revenue used in AEO2012 is not intended to be conclusive regarding the conditions under which the North Slope oil fields and TAPS would remain in operation. The final assumption is that a complete shutdown of North Slope oil production would occur in the year in which both the throughput and revenue criteria are satisfied. ExxonMobil reported a range of regional production costs per barrel of oil equivalent (excluding taxes) of $6.

The remainder of this discussion describes how estimates of remaining U. especially offshore. Texas-Louisiana-Mississippi Salt. AEO estimates of TRR for shale gas and tight oil [111] have changed significantly in recent years (Table 14) [112]. unproved resources become proved reserves and. well spacing. The USGS has not published an assessment of the Utica play in the Appalachian Basin. domestic crude oil and natural gas as an energy source is the remaining technically recoverable resource (TRR). based on the application of current technology [110]. The USGS seeks to assess the recoverability of shale gas and tight oil based on the wells drilled and technologies deployed at the time of the assessment. as well as the inclusion of shale gas and tight oil resources not yet assessed by USGS. and as the productivity of new wells increases with technology improvements and better management practices. whether existing oil fields remain sufficiently profitable to continue operating. unproved technically recoverable resources of shale gas and tight oil are developed for AEO.S.000 barrels per day are economically feasible. and whether the investments required to keep TAPS operating at flow rates below 350. in the past year the USGS has released resource assessments for five basins: Appalachian (Marcellus only).S. if the minimum North Slope revenue requirement were $7. The shale gas and tight oil formations in those five basins were the primary focus of EIA’s resource revisions for AEO2012. Unproved resources are additional volumes estimated to be technically recoverable without consideration of economics or operating conditions.S. EIA may revise the well spacing assumptions in future AEOs to reflect evolving drilling practices. (3) percentage of area untested. If the Low Oil Price case represents a low-probability outer boundary for future oil prices. Those two factors will determine whether new oil fields are developed.9 trillion cubic feet. and (5) EUR per well [114]. For example.S. shale gas and tight oil TRR had not been assessed previously. as determined by U. and recovery techniques. U. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .” Proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas are the estimated volumes expected to be produced.Issues in focus development of new North Slope oil fields. The AEO2012 Low and High Oil Price cases suggest that North Slope oil production will remain viable across a wide range of oil prices. underlying details have been published only for the Marcellus shale play in the Appalachian basin. with reasonable certainty. crude oil and natural gas resource uncertainty A common measure of the long-term viability of U. Arkoma. a shutdown of North Slope production could occur as soon as 2020. The remaining TRR consist of “proved reserves” and “unproved resources. Western Gulf. 11. but only in the Low Oil Price case. Of the five basins recently assessed by the USGS. and how uncertainty in those estimates could affect U. particularly in emerging plays where few wells have been drilled. production. crude oil and natural gas markets in the future. AEO2012 assumptions for the other shale plays are based on geologic surveys provided from State agencies (if 56 U. and academia. and to provide sufficient oil production revenues to keep the North Slope producing oil through 2035. Proved reserves are also company financial assets reported to investors. the updated USGS estimate for Marcellus was 84 trillion cubic feet (see the following article for more discussion). Early estimates tend to vary and shift significantly over time as new geological information is gained through additional drilling. In 2002. The AEO TRRs incorporate current drilling. Thus. requiring adjustments to the USGS estimates. in 2011. ultimately. Estimating technically recoverable resources of shale gas and tight oil The remaining unproved TRR for a continuous-type shale gas or tight oil area is the product of (1) land area. EIA analyzes the decline curve of producing wells to calculate the expected EUR per well from future drilling.S. Figure 53 shows the projected North Slope oil production revenue stream over time in the three price cases. however.S. (4) percentage of area with potential. As wells are drilled and field equipment is installed. based on new well performance data and United States Geological Survey (USGS) resource assessments. If well production data are available. In particular. as long-term productivity is clarified for existing wells. under existing economic and operating conditions [109]. industry. (2) well spacing (wells per square mile). if not longer.5 billion. Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. the estimates of shale gas TRRs have changed significantly since the AEO2011 was published. There is considerable uncertainty about the long-term viability of North Slope oil production and continued operation of TAPS through 2035. The USGS periodically publishes shale gas resource assessments that are used as a guide for selection of key parameters in the calculation of the TRR used in the AEO. the USGS estimated Marcellus TRR at 1. then the likely future outcome is that North Slope oil production will continue until at least 2035. TRR estimates used by EIA for each AEO are based on the latest available well production data and on information from other Federal and State governmental agencies. the USGS assumptions for land area. The two most important determinants of their future viability are the wellhead oil price that North Slope producers receive and the availability and cost of developing new North Slope oil resources. completion. Only in the Low Oil Price case are North Slope wellhead oil revenues sufficiently low to cause a shutdown of North Slope oil production. and percentage of area with potential typically are used by EIA to develop the AEO TRR estimates. with North Slope oil production continuing even after production volume and revenue requirements are no longer met in the Low Oil Price case. Estimates of TRR are highly uncertain. For the four other basins. and Anadarko [113]. When USGS assessments and underlying data become publicly available.

4 5. Unproved technically recoverable resource assumptions by basin Basin Appalachian Fort Worth Michigan San Juan Illinois Williston Arkoma Anadarko TX-LA-MS Salt Western Gulf Columbia Uinta Permian Greater Green River Black Warrior Shale gas total Tight oil (billion barrels) Williston San Joaquin/Los Angeles Rocky Mountain basins Western Gulf Permian Anadarko Tight oil total -------3.7 1. For a given EUR level. For example. in the Marcellus. because there has been a dramatic change from drilling vertical wells to drilling horizontal wells in most tight oil and shale gas plays since 2003.6 --29. EURs vary widely not only across plays but also within a single play.1 5. the shape of the annual well production profiles associated with the EUR varies substantially across the plays (Figure 54). The length of time over which the rapid growth can be sustained depends on the size of the Table 14.7 3. analysis of available production data. average. the range of well performance encompassed by representative EURs can change substantially (Table 17).6 0. and below average. nearly 65 percent of the well EUR is produced in the first 4 years.6 0.7 6. of the well EUR is produced in the first four years.Issues in focus available).5 5.2 AEO2006 (as of 1/1/2004) 15 40 11 10 3 4 ---------83 AEO2007 (as of 1/1/2005) 15 39 11 10 3 4 42 3 -------126 AEO2008 (as of 1/1/2006) 14 38 11 10 3 4 42 3 -------125 AEO2009 (as of 1/1/2007) 51 60 10 10 4 4 49 7 72 ------267 AEO2010 (as of 1/1/2008) 59 60 10 10 4 4 45 6 72 18 51 7 ---347 AEO2011 (as of 1/1/2009) 441 20 21 12 11 7 54 3 80 21 41 21 67 18 4 827 AEO2012 (as of 1/1/2010) 187 19 18 10 11 3 27 13 66 59 12 11 27 13 5 482 Shale gas (trillion cubic feet) U. To capture the economics of developing each play.1 5.6 15.S. in the Haynesville and Eagle Ford plays. For AEO2012. and analogs from current producing plays with similar geologic properties (Table 15). respectively. only eight plays are included in the tight oil category (Table 16). For every AEO. In addition.6 15. Additional tight oil resources are expected to be included in the tight oil category in future AEOs as more work is completed in identifying currently producing reservoirs that may be categorized as tight formations.4 5. so that changes in average well performance can be captured.7 -----3. In contrast.2 31. Annual reevaluations are particularly important for shale gas and tight oil formations that have undergone rapid development. increased “front loading” of the production profile improves well economics.7 3. and then into three productivity categories: best. Although the average EUR per well for a play may not change by much from one AEO to the next. and as new tight oil plays are identified and incorporated. and Woodford shale gas plays. high initial well production rates result in significant production growth as drilling activity in the play increases. the unproved resources for each play within each basin are divided into subplays—first across States (if applicable).5 5. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 57 . but it also implies an increased need for additional drilling to maintain production levels. A key assumption in evaluating the expected profitability of drilling a well is the EUR of the well.7 -----3. EURs for those plays based on vertical well performance are less useful for estimating production from future drilling. the EUR for each subplay is determined by fitting a hyperbolic decline curve to the latest production history.6 1. given that most new wells are expected to be primarily horizontal.7 3. 95 percent and 82 percent.3 33.7 3.4 13.7 -----3. At the beginning of a shale play’s development. Fayetteville. For example.

313 1.97 1. 2010 Area (square miles) 104.783 Table 16.350 Basin/Play Appalachian Marcellus Utica Arkoma Woodford Fayetteville Chattanooga Caney TX-LA-MS Salt Haynesville/Bossier Western Gulf Eagle Ford Pearsall Anadarko Woodford Total.067 16.600 1.500 5.13 0.000 5.767 27. production growth tapers off as high initial production rates of new wells in “sweet spots” are offset by declining rates of existing wells.200 3.372 13.461 393 1.385 a Basin/Play Western Gulf Austin Chalk Eagle Ford Anadarko Woodford Permian Avalon/Bone Springs Spraberry Rocky Mountain basins Niobrara Williston Bakken San Joaquin/Los Angeles Monterey/Santos Total tight oil a Average well spacing (wells per Percent of square mile) area untested 3 5 6 4 6 8 2 12 72 100 100 100 99 97 77 98 Percent of area with potential 61 54 88 78 72 80 97 93 Average EUR (million barrels per well) 0.28 0.722 TRR (billion cubic feet) 140.242 3.S.30 0.520 Includes Sanish-Three Forks formation.981 318.817 10.665 16.890 9.085 4.219 8.451 9.99 0. maintaining a stable production rate requires a significant increase in drilling. the rate at which drilling activity increases. selected shale gas plays Total.Issues in focus technically recoverable resource in each play.216 13.617 1.678 13.522 2. Table 15. 58 U. Attributes of unproved technically recoverable tight oil resources as of January 1.120 1.34 2. 2010 Area (square miles) 16.627 21. In the longer term. all U. and as drilling activity moves into less-productive areas.05 0.688 2.36 1.420 3. shale gas plays Average well spacing (wells per Percent of square mile) area untested 5 4 8 8 8 4 8 6 6 4 99 100 98 93 100 100 98 99 100 99 Percent of area with potential 18 21 23 23 29 29 34 47 85 29 Average EUR (billion cubic feet per well) 1.39 0.584 219.375 4.50 Number of potential wells 21.796 181.56 1.636 127.593 510 6.226 6.135 65.67 2.285 7. in the later stages of a play’s resource development.860 50.165 8.S.240 1.11 0. Attributes of unproved technically recoverable resources for selected shale gas plays as of January 1.320 7.369 24.712 10.590 3.22 2.729 TRR (million barrels) 2.55 0.89 Number of potential wells 90.709 33.825 481.13 1.078 3.085 20. As a result.633 3.181 1.02 0.853 696 2.565 15. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . and the extent of the play’s “sweet spot” area [115 ].936 5.428 10.714 410.

06 2.22 0. 1.13–8. the economics of developing the TRR and the timing of the development determine the projections for production of domestic crude oil and natural gas. and consumption.00–5.40–4.97 1. cumulative These High and Low EUR cases are not intended to represent a confidence interval for the resource base.66 1. 1. two cases were created to examine the impacts 100 of higher and lower TRR for tight oil and shale gas by varying Haynesville 80 1.65–4.10–3. prices.22 0.62 -0.02–7. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 59 .28 0. shale gas and tight oil resources into production.74 -0.25–0.37 2.80 0.54 3. To emphasize this point. and operating a well—determined largely by wellhead prices for oil and natural gas in the area. and natural gas plant liquids). It takes time and money to evaluate.68–5. EUR assumptions wells in major U.Issues in focus The amount of drilling that occurs each year depends on company budgets and finances and the economics of drilling. the well spacing for shale gas and tight oil drilling ranges from 2 to 12 wells per square mile.43–4.S.30–6.34 0.250 1.10–2. more than 630.36 1. not all the wells that would be needed to develop each play fully can be drilled in one year—for example. Average production profiles for shale gas formation where the wells will be drilled.65 3.86–4. but rather to illustrate how different EUR assumptions can affect projections of domestic production.89 4. completing. depending on the application of new and/or improved technologies as well as the geology of the Figure 54.49 -0.59 1. In the AEO2012 Reference case.12–2.500 total oil and natural gas wells were drilled in the United States.42 0.29 -2.30 0.73–7. current high crude oil prices and low natural gas prices are directing drilling toward those plays or portions of plays with a high concentration of liquids (crude oil.000 750 500 250 0 1 5 10 Year of operation 15 20 Woodford Marcellus Fayetteville 60 40 20 0 1 5 10 15 20 Percent of total EUR.56 1. depending on the application of new and/or improved technologies as well as the geology of the formation where the well is being drilled. and produce hydrocarbon resources. In 2010.99 --4.93 0.14–1.99 0. Thus.89 1. significant variation in the overall TRR does not always result in significant changes in projected production. roughly 37.75 1.66 -1.86–2.94 0.91–2. Clearly.41–4.05–0.22 2. The EUR for future wells is highly uncertain. develop.750 For AEO2012. Well spacing is also highly uncertain.76 2. Table 17.32 0. For example. TRR adjustments that affect resources which are not economical to develop during the projection period do not affect the AEO projections.82 --3. Although changes in the overall TRR estimates are important.500 Eagle Ford the assumed EUR per well. shale plays by years of operation typically have more impact on projected production than do (million cubic feet per year) any of the other parameters used to develop TRR estimates.S.19 -1.08–5.67 1.19–3.S.000 new wells would be needed to bring total U.03 --0. Estimated ultimate recovery for selected shale gas plays in three AEOs (billion cubic feet per well) AEO2010 Basin/Play Appalachian Marcellus Utica Arkoma Woodford Fayetteville Chattanooga Caney TX-LA-MS Salt Haynesville/Boosier Western Gulf Eagle Ford Pearsall Anadarko Woodford --2.32 -2.63 -0.58 0. EUR sensitivity cases and results Estimated ultimate recovery per well is a key component in estimates of both technically recoverable resources and economically recoverable resources of tight oil and shale gas.91 2.85 1.13 AEO2011 Average Range Average AEO2012 Range Average Range U. an additional case was developed that combines a change in the assumed well spacing for all shale gas and tight oil plays with the EUR assumptions in the High EUR case. condensates.73 --2.

Bakken crude oil production (excluding NGPLs) increases from roughly 270.8 10. and 1. NGPL production is discussed in conjunction with tight oil production. decreasing the per-unit cost of developing the resource. and the EUR per tight oil or shale gas well is assumed to be 50 percent higher than in the Reference case.9 2.000 barrels per day lower in the Low EUR case. Table 18.000 barrels per day higher in the High EUR case.2 3.5 8. Relative to the Reference case.7 9.0 1. 410. which assumes both higher EUR per well and generally lower drainage area per well than in the Reference case.3 billion barrels compared to 5.3 billion barrels in the Reference case.S.6 1.1 9.7 2. and prices in four cases. the total unproved tight oil TRR is increased to 89 billion barrels and the shale gas TRR is increased to 1.S. crude oil Tight oil share of total U. because the domestic oil and natural gas markets are distinctly different markets.S. oil market is affected in the three sensitivity cases. and prices for oil and for natural gas are significantly different in magnitude.8 million barrels per day in 2035.4 billion barrels—which supports a continued dramatic production increase through 2015 and a longer plateau at a much higher production level through 2035 than in the Reference case.2 3. each well has an average drainage area of 80 acres).000 barrels per day in 2015 before reaching over 1 million barrels per day in 2021 and remaining at that level through 2035 in the High TRR case.3 4. tight oil production from 2020 to 2035 is approximately 450. demand.0 4.2 2.0 1. changing the EURs directly affects NGPL production. with the Bakken formation accounting for most of the increase.9 5.000 barrels per day higher in the High EUR case.7 3.6 11. the following discussion focuses first on how the U.Issues in focus Low EUR case. nearly 320.0 5 12 10 15 19 14 9 17 23 50 37 41 34 27 36 41 32 24 60 U. as compared with 33 billion barrels of tight oil and 482 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in the Reference case. the well spacing for all tight oil and shale gas plays is assumed to be 8 wells per square mile (i. natural gas market is affected in the three cases. more than twice the TRRs for tight oil and shale gas wells in the Reference case.000 barrels per day in the Reference case.1 5. the EUR per tight oil or shale gas well is assumed to be 50 percent lower than in the Reference case.e. Tight oil production is highest in the High TRR case.7 4. 2020 and 2035 2020 Projection Low-sulfur light crude oil price (2010 dollars per barrel) Total U. compared with 4. tight oil production increases from roughly 400.5 billion barrels in the High TRR case.S. and the shale gas TRR is decreased to 241 trillion cubic feet.3 10. The TRR estimate for the Bakken is more than 7 times higher in the High TRR case than in the Reference case—39. High TRR case. increasing the per-unit cost of developing the resource. The effects of the changes in assumptions in the three cases on supply. compared with peak tight oil production of roughly 530.6 2.8 0. In the Low EUR case. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .000 barrels per day lower in the Low EUR case than in the Reference case.5 0. Crude oil and natural gas liquid impacts The primary impact of the Low EUR. On average.S.8 4.. because significant volumes of NGPL are produced from tight oil and shale gas formations. followed by a separate discussion of how the U.091 trillion cubic feet.0 5. and 1. Cumulative crude oil production from the Bakken from 2010 to 2035 is roughly 8.S. net import share of petroleum product supplied (percent) 2010 Reference Low EUR High EUR High TRR Reference 2035 Low EUR High EUR High TRR 79 127 128 125 122 145 147 143 140 7. In the HIGH EUR case.0 million barrels per day higher in the High TRR case. High EUR case. NGPL production in 2035 is more than 350.8 2.3 1.1 5. The total unproved tight oil TRR is increased to 50 billion barrels and the shale gas TRR is increased to 723 trillion cubic feet. In the High TRR case.3 million barrels per day higher in the High TRR case than in the Reference case (Figure 55). Petroleum supply.000 barrels per day in 2010 to nearly 2. In the High TRR case. High EUR. Thus.6 5.9 11. In addition. the EUR per tight oil or shale gas well is assumed to be 50 percent higher than in the Reference case. and High TRR cases with respect to oil production is a change in production of tight oil and natural gas plant liquids (NGPL) (Table 18).1 0. Consequently.5 3.S. tight oil production increases more slowly in the Low EUR case and more rapidly in the High EUR and High TRR cases.8 8. consumption.6 5. crude oil and NGPL production (percent) U.000 barrels per day in 2010 to nearly 800.4 2. The total unproved tight oil TRR is decreased to 17 billion barrels. production of crude oil and natural gas plant liquids (million barrels per day) Tight oil Natural gas plant liquids Other U.

changes in shale gas production have a commensurately larger impact on North American natural gas prices than tight oil production has on world oil prices.38 per million Btu lower than the Reference case price.0 2. from 41 percent in the Low EUR case to 24 percent in the High TRR case. production of tight oil in four cases. The natural gas prices projected in the Low EUR case are sufficiently high to enable completion of an Alaska gas pipeline. consumption of liquid fuels varies little across the cases. In the Low EUR case. a difference of 8. with operations beginning in 2031. additional downstream infrastructure may be required to process the high levels of NGPL production in the High EUR and High TRR cases. However.5 1.S. Figure 55. because U.S. In the High TRR case. In 2035. respectively. the 2035 Henry Hub natural gas price of $5.26 per million Btu in 2035 (2010 dollars) is $0. the U. In the High EUR case. and lower natural gas prices in the High EUR and High TRR cases increase consumption in 2035 to 28.S.S.Issues in focus Every incremental barrel of domestic crude oil production displaces approximately one barrel of imports. In comparison with the Reference case.0 trillion cubic feet in the High EUR case and 20. or 7 percent of total world crude oil production of 73. natural gas production in 2035.12 per million Btu less than the Reference case price.99 per million Btu is $1. Consequently. U.0 1. total U. The 2035 price spread of $4. natural gas supply. because any change in domestic oil production is diluted by the much larger world oil market.S.9 trillion cubic feet. crude oil and NGPL production and 1 percent of world crude oil production.S.6 trillion cubic feet in the Reference case. U.0 trillion cubic feet in 2035.9 million barrels per day in 2010 and is projected generally to maintain that share of world crude oil production through 2035 in the Reference case. prices.0 trillion cubic feet production between the two cases. Second. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 61 .01 per million Btu across the cases is reflected in the projected levels of U. total shale gas production varies from 9. the 2035 Henry Hub natural gas price of $4. Because an Alaska gas pipeline would make up for some of the reduction in Lower 48 shale gas production. and consumption in 2035 are somewhat less than would otherwise be expected. as compared with 13.89 per million Btu higher than the Reference case price of $7.1 trillion cubic feet in the High TRR case. natural gas production ranges from 26. and prices than that projected for crude oil and petroleum products for two reasons (Table 19). The United States produced 5. the Henry Hub natural gas price of $8.S. production of shale gas in four cases.5 0 2000 History 2010 Projections High TRR Figure 56. Natural gas impacts The EUR and TRR cases show more significant impacts on U. the projected share of net petroleum imports in total U.S. As a result.6 trillion cubic feet in the Reference case (Figure 56). shale gas production accounts for 49 percent of total U.S. The projections for domestic shale gas production are highly sensitive to the assumed EUR per well. the large changes in shale gas production result in commensurately large swings in total U.S.5 2. liquid fuel consumption in 2035 varies considerably across the EUR and TRR cases. Because shale gas production accounts for such a large proportion of total natural gas production in 2035. natural gas market constitutes the largest regional submarket within the relatively self-contained North American natural gas market. consumption.37 per million Btu. while tight oil production accounts for only 14 percent of total U.5 million barrels per day. in the Reference case. natural gas consumption. 2000-2035 (million barrels per day) 3. differences between the Reference and Low EUR case projections for natural gas production. per-unit production costs are nearly double in the Low EUR case and about one-half in the High EUR case.25 per million Btu is $3.5 trillion cubic feet in the High TRR case.0 0.S.1 trillion cubic feet in the Low EUR case to 34. natural gas production. compared with 26. Changes in domestic oil production have only a modest impact on domestic crude oil and petroleum product prices.S. as compared with 36 percent in the Reference case. In 2035.4 trillion cubic feet and 31. First. 2000-2035 (trillion cubic feet) 25 History 2010 Projections 20 High EUR Reference 10 Low EUR 5 High TRR High EUR Reference Low EUR 15 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 U. Higher natural gas prices in the Low EUR case reduce total natural gas consumption to 25.7 trillion cubic feet in the Low EUR case to 16.

compared with 9. High EUR.6 11.S.2 16.4 -1.0 4.5 8.1 2.4 7.8 4.7 7.2 2.S. and 12. would dampen the extent of the price difference across the resource cases.04 3.9 25.4 25.0 13. imports of natural gas (trillion cubic feet) Total U.1 2. opportunities to switch fuels generally are limited to when a new facility is built or when a facility’s existing equipment is retired and replaced. result in lower natural gas imports from Canada and higher natural gas exports to Mexico.4 7.Issues in focus The variation in total U.6 trillion cubic feet in the High TRR case.1 22.2 trillion cubic feet in the High TRR case. with lower natural gas prices resulting in higher net exports. In 2035.6 3. Natural gas prices.9 trillion cubic feet from 2020 through 2035.0 13.0 8. natural gas consumption between the High EUR and High TRR cases is reflected to some degree in each end-use category.5 7.2 26.4 28.9 3.4 3.6 21. as compared with 17. The variation in levels of net U.S.2 trillion cubic feet in the Low EUR case to 2.3 trillion cubic feet in the Low EUR case to 19.6 0.6 2. supply.S. and trade.7 -2.0 12.0 2.3 2. Collectively.5 26.1 7. In 2035.4 0.99 4.6 2.S.4 25.1 26.6 7.1 4.7 2.2 -1.5 6. 10. The sensitivity cases in this discussion are not intended to provide a confidence interval for estimates of recoverable resources of domestic tight oil and shale gas but rather to illustrate the significance of key assumptions underlying the tight oil and shale Table 19.0 7.7 trillion cubic feet in the Low EUR case.6 18.3 0.2 26.3 24.8 62 U.4 2.9 10. because of the inherent complexities and uncertainties of projecting foreign natural gas production.4 4.S. natural gas production Total net U.4 trillion cubic feet in the Reference case.5 4. as in the High TRR case. for all the end-use sectors. which in turn is determined largely by the costs of competing fuels—especially coal and natural gas.26 5.7 trillion cubic feet in the Reference case.7 11.4 trillion cubic feet in the High TRR case.2 9.7 3.6 9. the High TRR.8 4.S.2 6.9 12.6 10.1 31.0 11.2 -0.7 20.02 7.6 2.31 4.7 4.8 30.S.7 0.1 21. consumption. because much of the electric power sector’s fuel consumption is determined by the dispatching of existing generation units based on the operating cost of each unit.3 27.9 3. 2020 and 2035 2020 Projection Henry Hub natural gas spot price (2010 dollars per million Btu) Total U. It is likely.9 12.5 11.0 25. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .39 4.6 0.2 23 39 34 42 48 49 37 53 60 2. natural gas exports shown in Table 20 reflects the impact of domestic natural gas prices on natural gas pipeline imports and exports.2 34.3 28. which in turn. gross exports of LNG remain constant at 0.3 23.6 3.1 27.6 4.9 trillion cubic feet across the cases. The electric power sector shows the greatest sensitivity to natural gas prices.4 24.7 4. however.1 trillion cubic feet in the High EUR case.5 9.0 7.9 2.0 12. natural gas production (trillion cubic feet) Onshore lower 48 Shale gas Other natural gas Offshore lower 48 Alaska Shale gas production as percent of total U.8 3.3 0.3 0.37 8.1 2. The projected volumes of net exports vary. and Low EUR cases assume that U.3 29.7 12.0 2.2 6.3 26. with natural gas use for electricity generation being more responsive to changes in fuel prices than is consumption in the other sectors.9 2.S. prices.9 3. consumption of natural gas (trillion cubic feet) Electric Power Residential Commercial Industrial Other 2010 Reference Low EUR High EUR High TRR Reference 2035 Low EUR High EUR High TRR 4.2 -1.0 trillion cubic feet in the Reference case. and consumption in four cases. In the end-use consumption sectors.4 10.2 2.5 0. as compared with 1. from 17.25 21.5 7.3 23.9 4. Natural gas consumption in the electric power sector in 2035 totals 7.7 5.6 7.6 31.2 0.3 0. net natural gas exports from the United States vary from 1.6 14. that actual levels of net LNG exports would be affected by changes in U.8 2. Generally.8 3. natural gas consumption in 2035 varies by only about 1.58 5.7 2. the United States is projected to be a net exporter of natural gas in all the cases.6 0. lower natural gas prices.1 1. However.

if any.8 trillion cubic feet to 3. The Interior Assessment Unit EURs developed by EIA reflects the current practice of horizontal drilling and well production data through June 2011 for Pennsylvania and West Virginia [120]. For its 2011 assessment. however. EIA adopted the 2011 USGS estimates of the Marcellus assessment areas. an independent consultant was hired to estimate the Marcellus TRR as the available USGS TRR estimate issued in 2003 was clearly too low. consumption. the USGS EURs were used for the States in those areas. most of the well production data available were for vertical wells drilled in West Virginia. the assumption for average well spacing may be revised.7 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas resources existed in the Marcellus. 34 percent) (Table 21). In 2011. Since 2003. The revised Marcellus EUR for AEO2012 is close to the EUR used in AEO2011 but nearly 70 percent higher than the EUR used in the 2011 USGS assessment. 80 acres per well) and Canada a lower percentage of area with potential (18 MI percent vs. the State of Pennsylvania had maintained a 5-year embargo on the release of well-level production data. as more wells are drilled over a broader area. For AEO2012. TRR estimates are likely to continue evolving as drilling continues and more information becomes publicly available. Interior. Estimates of the Marcellus shale TRR. but most of the drilling to date has been in two areas of northeast Pennsylvania and southwest Pennsylvania/northern West Virginia. EIA examines available well production data each year to estimate shale EURs for use in the AEO (Table 20).S.9 trillion cubic feet [116]. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 63 .000 square miles in parts of eight States. and prices. Even with more data available. Although the Marcellus shale resource estimate will be updated for every AEO. given both the short production history of current producing wells and the concentration of most producing wells in two small areas. which severely limited the publicly available information about Marcellus well production. Northeast Pennsylvania and Southwest Pennsylvania/Northern West Virginia. and percent of area with potential. are no exception. The newer horizontal wells have higher EURs [117 ] than the older vertical wells. drilling in the Western Margin and Foldbelt Assessment Units. The Marcellus shale gas play covers more than 100.S. the USGS released an updated assessment for the Marcellus resource. shale gas are updated each year for the AEO. Figure 57. Also. The Marcellus EURs are expected to change as additional data are released and the methodology for developing EURs is refined. The resulting AEO2012 estimate for the Marcellus TRR is 67 percent lower than the AEO2011 estimate. estimates of crude oil and natural gas TRR are uncertain. Instead. development. Because there has been very little. well spacing. NY CT OH PA MD DE KY VA Assessment Units Interior Marcellus Marcellus Foldbelt Western Margin Marcellus WV NJ TN The estimation of Marcellus shale gas resources is highly uncertain.Issues in focus gas TRRs used in AEO2012. shale gas plays to determine the EUR distributions for its three Marcellus assessment units—Foldbelt. which have received considerable attention over the past year. Now Pennsylvania provides well production data on a cumulative basis—annually for the years before 2010 and semi-annually starting in the second half of 2010. the USGS evaluated well production data from Pennsylvania and West Virginia that were available in early 2011 and determined that the data were “not sufficient for the construction of individual well Estimated Ultimate Recovery distributions” [119]. and Western Margin (Figure 57). However. with a mean estimate of 1. the USGS estimated that 0. NC U. the USGS chose analogs from other U. For AEO2011.S. since cumulative production from the Marcellus shale was on a path to exceed it within a year or two. United States Geological Survey primarily as a result of increased well spacing Marcellus Assessment Units (132 acres per well vs. it is still a challenge to estimate TRR for the Marcellus play. and production. with a mean estimate of 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered TRR (ranging from 43 trillion cubic feet to 144 trillion cubic feet) [118]. 12. At that time. Until 2010. Evolving Marcellus shale gas resource estimates As discussed in the preceding article. TRR estimates are highly uncertain and can be expected to change in subsequent AEOs as additional information is gained through continued exploration. revisions will not necessarily have a significant impact on projected natural gas production. Estimates of the TRR for U. and as operators optimize well spacing to account for evolving drilling practices. technological improvements have led to more-productive and less-costly wells. In 2002.

56 TRR (billion cubic feet) 757 17 316 14 298 113 137.30 0.03 0.9 4.80 2.11 0. Marcellus unproved technically recoverable resources: AEO2011.03 0.13 0.582 653 10.18 0.79 0.35 0.18 0. 2010) Area (square miles) 19.374 84.03 0.156 39.374 2.13 0.989 39.21 0.33 2.03 0.951 353 7.492 2.844 207 7.95 0.06 0.21 1.107 11 424 718 350 35 569 140.50 0.41 0.03 0.515 6.35 0.11 0.067 19.11 0.541 Table 21.833 45.80 2.02 0.067 Assessment Unit/State Foldbelt Maryland Pennsylvania Tennessee Virginia West Virginia Interior Maryland New York Ohio Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Western Kentucky New York Ohio Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Total Marcellus Well spacing (wells per square mile) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 EUR (billion cubic feet per well) Percent Percent of of area area with untested potential 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 99 98 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 99 5 5 5 5 5 5 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 18 High 0.52 0.13 TRR (billion cubic feet) 410.901 104. USGS 2011.35 0.21 0.677 629 40.11 0.03 0.5 4.844 Well spacing Acres 80 132 149 149 117 132 149 149 117 Estimate AEO2011 (as of 1/1/2009) Marcellus USGS (2011 assessment) Marcellus Foldbelt Interior Western AEO2012 (as of 1/1/2010) Marcellus Foldbelt Interior Western Wells per square mile 8 4.03 0.198 765 81.11 1.844 104.52 2.35 0.62 0.02 7.79 0.182 264 8.56 0.18 0.063 45.15 0.50 0.30 0.50 0.13 0. and AEO2012 Area (square miles) 94.02 0.50 0.3 4.381 361 23.21 0.18 1.Issues in focus Table 20.93 0.18 0.161 39.52 2.02 0.13 Low 0.11 0.03 0.05 Mid 0.11 0.059 140.21 0.43 0.50 0.02 0.03 0.124 296 88.067 19.985 13.13 1.13 0.07 0.03 0.95 0.02 7.063 435 7.107 64 U.02 2.43 0.9 4.S.13 0.21 0.35 5.13 1.18 0.03 0.50 6. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .07 0.21 1.893 104.677 2.30 1.161 763 10.541 757 137.3 5.063 45.52 0.03 0.346 321 9.30 1.35 0.02 0.3 5.3 4.182 2.21 1.35 0.05 Average 0.5 Percent of area untested 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 100% Percent of area with potential 34% 18% 5% 37% 7% 18% 5% 37% 7% Average EUR (billion cubic feet per well) 1.03 0. Marcellus unproved technically recoverable resources in AEO2012 (as of January 1.13 0.

254. “Plug-in Electric Vehicles: A Practical Plan for Progress.chevy.gov/afdc/fuels/stations_query. 2012). which provides vehicle rebates and fueling grants.  For this analysis. and Phoenix. Crossovers.  Toyota.” Federal Register. 2011). Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.energy. Trucks. Accessed June 30. are distinct from shale oil and also from tight oil.S.  Oil shale liquids. Vehicles can be designed to operate on a blended mode that uses both charge-depleting and charge-sustaining modes while in operation. Neandross & Associates.house.energy. Trucks.pdf. and Chevrolet. The EISA2007 RFS requirement for increasing volumes of biofuels results in a significant number of FFVs in both the Reference case and the CAFE case.  U. website www. “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.” website www.S.com. 231 (Washington. 57. 2009 RECS Survey Data.indiana.com.gladstein.S. corresponding to Gross Vehicle Weight Rating classes 3 through 8 vehicles. “Nissan Cars.S. www. “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Trucks.” website www.gov/vehiclesandfuels/technologies/systems/index.135.” website www.chevy. Note: Miles per gallon equivalent. “Toyota Cars. DC: December 1. which is classified by EIA as crude oil.nhtsa. 2012). depending on the drive cycle.fueleconomy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.S. 48.html. Energy Information Administration.eere.001 pounds and higher.org. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 47. Proposed Rule.tx. is derived by the U. “Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center.autoblog. Chargesustaining mode occurs when battery electric power is coupled with power provided by the internal combustion engine. DC: June 3.  Indiana University. Trucks.pdf.toyota. Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report (Washington. SUVs. “2012 Cars.afdc. House Research Organization. Note: Miles per gallon equivalent. 53.toyota.fueleconomy. “2012 Cars.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/ cafe/2017-25_CAFE_NPRM. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. website www. Environmental Protection Agency. derived from heating kerogen. www. “Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). Oil shale is not expected to be produced in significant quantities in the United States before 2035. Environmental Protection Agency. “Toyota Cars. DC: April. Department of Energy. Department of Energy. Vol. CA: February 2.” website www.7/consumption/residential/data/2009. website www.nhtsa.com.Issues in focus Endnotes for Issues in focus Links current as of June 2012 41.” Federal Register.com.  U.nissanusa. The Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor was developed in 1996.” website 205. and Accessories.  National Petroleum News. 76.gov. 76. Crossovers. 2011).energy. is derived by the U. DC: December 1.html.energy. 43. “Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor” (Santa Monica.S. Crossovers & Vans.  Battery electric vehicle charge-depleting mode occurs when the vehicle relies on battery power for operation.state.” autobloggreen. as listed by automotive manufacturers.afdc.S. Vol. & SUVs. Nissan USA.hro.  The Texas Clean Transportation Triangle is supported by Texas State Senate Bill 20. No. “Nissan Cars. But Nissan Leaf Still Wins 2011 Plug-in Sales Contest.edu/~spea/pubs/TEP_combined. 54.pdf. Nissan USA. See West. See Gladstein.  U. & SUVs. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 65 . 52. 51.nissanusa.afdc. 2012. “Alternative Fueling Station Database Custom Query” (Washington.  U. website green. No.” website www. and Accessories.com.  U. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.  Toyota. Trucks. 42.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_apr_12. and Chevrolet.” website www.” website www. Market Facts 2011.us/pdf/ba82r/sb0020. SUVs.com. The corridor is now partially established with LNG truck refueling infrastructure in California and to Reno.  U.pdf. website www. “Bill Analysis: SB 20” (Austin.S. 231 (Washington.S. Crossovers & Vans.” website www.com/2012/01/04/chevy-volt-has-best-month-ever-but-nissan-leaf-still-wins-2011.  S. U. as listed by automotive manufacturers.S. 49. Bianco.gov.gov. “Vehicle Technologies Program. 44. School of Public and Environmental Affairs. 45. 58. 2011). Las Vegas. 55. heavy-duty vehicles include trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10. U. Department of Energy. TX: May 21. 50. 2010). Proposed Rule.pdf. SUVs.” website www. “Chevy Volt Has Best Month Ever. 56. Trucks. SUVs. website ictc. Williams. website www. Department of Energy.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/ cafe/2017-25_CAFE_NPRM. 46.

S. 2011)..” website www. website www.gov/ compliance/resources/policies/civil/erp/mats-erp. see Civic Impulse.epa. LLC. 62. Environmental Protection Agency. No. website marcelluscoalition. DC: May 29. L. DC: September 7.and nonpetroleum-based refined products and blendstocks.000 pounds CO2 per megawatthour. 68. 61. v.federalregister. LNG peak shaving.  U.S. 2011).epa. Census Bureau. 2012). “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Project Awards” (Washington. 75. 73. PA: April 5. Electric Power Annual 2010 (Washington.S. and liquid and non-liquid end-use products. 77. “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” (Washington.  See Appendix F for a map of the EMM regions. and the proposed rule does not apply to plants already under construction. “U.gov/airtransport/pdfs/CourtDecision. website www. Environmental Protection Agency.S. The EPA is proposing that new fossil-fuel-fired power plants begin meeting an output-based standard of 1.pdf.S.S. website www.  U.html. DC: December 16. 76. 72. 63.pdf. website www.S. 76.epa. 2008” (Washington. Department of Energy. sponsored by the Marcellus Shale Coalition. 2011). DC: December 30.  U. 70.gov/articles/2011/09/15/2011-20740/ greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-and-fuel-efficiency-standards-for-medium--and-heavy-duty-engines#p-3.gov/ airtransport.” Federal Register Vol.  Developed from e-mail correspondence with Graham Williams. 3832: LNG Excise Tax Equalization Act of 2012” (Washington.gov/articles/2011/09/15/2011-20740/ greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-and-fuel-efficiency-standards-for-medium--and-heavy-duty-engines#p-3. 69.eia. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. see U.  For information on the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2012.xpd?bill=h112-3832.html.10. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium.  U.  The liquid fuels production industry includes all participants involved in the production of liquid fuels: producers of feedstocks. DC: March 27. would require the tax treatment of LNG and diesel fuel to be equivalent on the basis of heat content. 2011).pdf.Issues in focus 59. Energy Information Administration. Environmental Protection Agency.eere. “H.S. 60.S. U. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . “A Road Map to a Natural Gas Vehicle Future” (Canonsburg. 66 U.S.S.  United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The LNG Excise Tax Equalization Act of 2012.  The Pennsylvania Clean Transportation Corridor was proposed in a report.federalregister.  U.gov/mats. website legacy. 2012). 66. DC: September 15.energy. “H. 179 (Washington. 71. 65.us/congress/bill.cfm.html.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/actions.epa. 2008). LLC. website www.” Federal Register Vol. website www.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ ngpipeline/lngpeakshaving_map.  U.xpd?bill=h112-1380. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. See U. website www. LNG Peaking Shaving and Import Facilities. 64. and emissions allowance credits. DC: May 29. The EPA proposal is not included in AEO2012. 67.epa.  Other components of variable cost include emissions control technology.html. DC: December. 1380: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011” (Washington. “Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants” (Washington. website legacy.  U. 2012).us/congress/bill. The AEO2012 Early Release Reference case was prepared before the final MATS rule was issued and.S. DC: September 15.R. No. 179 (Washington. DC: May 23. 2011). 2012).govtrack. “EME Homer City Generation. DC: May 29. Table 3. 1991 through 2010.census. “Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) (discontinued after 2002)” (Washington. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy Information Administration.P. “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)” (May 25. 4/11/12.govtrack.  For a map of U.10. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium.gov/cleancities/ projects. 2012). website www.eia.S. 76. proposed in the U. waste disposal.and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. 2011) website www1. 2012). Environmental Protection Agency” (Washington. “The Environmental Protection Agency’s Enforcement Response Policy for Use of Clean Air Act Section 113(a) Administrative Orders in Relation to Electric Reliability and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard” (Washington.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has provided more than $300 million toward cost-sharing projects related to alternative fuels. therefore. “Number and Capacity of Existing Fossil-Fuel Steam-Electric Generators with Environmental Equipment. See Civic Impulse. petroleum.R. did not include MATS.gov/electricity/annual/html/table3. November 2011).org/wp-content/ uploads/2011/04/MSC_NGV_Study. DC. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. 74. website www.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Existing coal plants without CCS will not be able to meet that standard. House of Representatives.gov/econ/overview/se0501.

2011).  U.S. Energy Information Administration.usgs. CA: June 4.pdf.petroleumnews.S. Houseknecht and Kenneth J. 95. DC: June 4. pp. AK: July 19. Geological Survey. Alaska.gov/ technologies/oil-gas/publications/AEO/ANS_Potential. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Alan Bailey.alyeska-pipe.com/ ProgramTab.  U. Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas – A Promising Future or an Area in Decline? (Addendum Report).com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/May-2009/Alyeska-invests-in-new-methods-to-extend-pipeline-life/. DC: April 2001).gov/ forecasts/aeo/assumptions. 29 (Anchorage. alaskajournal. 85.eia.eia. Energy Information Administration.  U. com/Inthenews/LowFlow/LoFIS_Summary_Report_P6%2027_FullReport.nrc. U. 14. Public Law 109-58. website www. at an estimated cost of about $3 billion.  In 2004. 2006).nrc. Bird. DC: May 22. 88. 2012). Tim Bradner. website www. 91.gov/cneaf/ electricity/page/eia860. Form EIA-860. Government Printing Office. at www.eia. “Status of License Renewal Applications and Industry Activities: Completed Applications” (Washington. 1002 Area.  Electric Power Research Institute. 81.eia.  Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.” website www. DC: April 8.” Petroleum News. U. Oil and Gas Resources of the Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1732–A (Washington. Number 3 (Anchorage.cfm.shtml (subscription site). “A TAPS bottom line.html. 90.S.com/environment/ reports/irp/index. “Status of License Renewal Applications and Industry Activities: Completed Applications” (Washington.epri. 2009). Title XVII—Incentives for Innovative Technologies. 93.aspx?sId=NUC&rId=210&pId=6177.  U.S. website www. Public Law 109-58. com/Inthenews/LowFlow/LoFIS_Summary_Report_P6%2027_FullReport.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications. CO: August 5.com/ pntruncate/225019711. “Energy Policy Act of 2005. 89.S. website www. 83. Energy Information Administration. “TAPS transitioning to a low flow future. 84. DC: March 2012). Final Report (Anchorage.petroleumnews.  Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. 1998. 82.htm.pdf. DC: May 1998). USGS Fact Sheet FS-028-01 (Washington. 638. Vol. U.S. paras.pdf. TN: March 2011). website lpo. 988.pnnl. Government Printing Office. website www.  U.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.pdf. DC: November 30. Title XVII—Incentives for Innovative Technologies” (Washington.  U. 94.gov/?projects=georgia-power-company.netl.alyeska-pipe. “Long-Term Operations (QA)” (Palo Alto. and David W. 2012).gov. “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012” (Washington. Department of Energy.S. DC: October 31. Volume 17. 2011).  U. National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2011).  U.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.htm. Department of Energy. 1-4 and 1-5. Final Report (Anchorage. 2012).pdf. DC: August 8. 2012).S.Issues in focus 78. DC: May 22.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs0028-01. and 1306” (Washington. “Alyeska Invests in New Methods to Extend Pipeline Life.  U.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/html/PLAW109publ58.  Tennessee Valley Authority. 2011). August 2005).gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW109publ58/html/PLAW-109publ58. Energy Information Administration.S. AL: June 15. DC: June 2012). AL: June 15. 2009).usgs. website www. 2012).usgs.” Petroleum News. website ifram. Department of the Interior. “Inaugural Meeting of the International Forum for Reactor Aging Management (IFRAM)” (Colorado Springs.S. 86. 79. AK: January 15.gpo.com/pntruncate/5456274. 92. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2009).gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860. website pubs. website www. U. website www.S.html. BP commissioned a study that examined the possibility of building a 20-inch pipeline to Fairbanks and using the Alaska railroad to transport the oil to Valdez.S. website portfolio.htm.tva.S. website www.gpo. “Loan Guarantee Program: Georgia Power Company” (Washington. Including Economic Analysis. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 67 .gov/of/1998/ofr-98-0034/ ANWR1002. 87. Geological Survey. U. “Annual Electric Generator Report. 2005). “Annual Electric Generator Report” (Washington.S. DC.doe.S. Open File Report 98-34 (Washington. html#completed. Low Flow Impact Study. 80.shtml. website www. website pubs. Form EIA-860. Loan Programs Office. Petroleum Assessment.pdf. Low Flow Impact Study. No. at www. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Source: Alan Bailey. html#completed. The Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area. website www.  International Forum for Reactor Aging Management (IFRAM). website pubs. DOE/NETL-2009/1385 (Washington.” Alaska Journal of Commerce (June 1. “Assumptions to AEO2012 ” (Washington. “Energy Policy Act of 2005. website www.  U. 96.gov/pp/pp1732/ pp1732a/pp1732a.energy. “Integrated Resource Plan” (Knoxville.

gov/fs/2011/3092/pdf/fs2011-3092. The USGS methodology for assessing continuous petroleum resources is at pubs. Anadarko: pubs. Natural Gas.usgs. 2011). 99.usgs.  U. TX-LA-MS Salt and Western Gulf: pubs. Appalachian: pubs.pdf. pubs. 111. Economics of Undiscovered Oil in Federal Lands on the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska. To estimate production on a comparable basis. Well-level production for wells drilled in West Virginia is provided on a monthly basis. using current technology without consideration of economic or operating conditions.Issues in focus 97. 113. and Prudhoe Bay field units and from the oil production reports of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources—Oil and Gas Division. 108. 105.” November 30. Because wells drilled before 2008 are vertical wells and do not reflect the technology currently being deployed. This would be especially true in the Chukchi Sea. website www. 2010. Volume 108. source for 2001 CP capital expenditures—Petroleum News. 120. 43 (October 23. and shale formations. “Sunrise or Sunset for ConocoPhillips in Alaska?” (October 27.gov/ds/547/downloads/DS547. 116.usgs. Source: Oil and Gas Journal.gov/of/2011/1298/OF11-1298.” p. which has much less of an ice pack problem during the winter than the Beaufort Sea. 115.  “Sweet spot” is an industry term for those select and limited areas within a shale or tight play where the well EURs are significantly greater than the rest of the play.  A well’s estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) equals the cumulative production of that well over a 30-year productive life. 103. 104. 98. these decisions would have to be made some time before the 350. “U.usgs. and offloading facilities (FPSO).  USGS Fact Sheet FS-009-03.pdf. 112.” 102. Figures A-2 (Alpine Field) and A-3 (Kuparuk Field). at best they have estimates that might or might not turn out to be true. These figures were derived from the CP ownership shares of the Colville River. pubs. carbonate.pdf for basin locations. well-level production is converted to an average daily rate by dividing gas quantity by gas production days. the USGS undiscovered technically recoverable resources are comparable to the EIA unproved resources. Petroleum News.000-barrel-per-day threshold is reached so they would be ready for implementation either prior to reaching the threshold or when that threshold is reached. “Eagle Ford Could Nudge Alaska for COP” (May 8.  USGS Open-File Report 2011-1298.  The most common miscible gas EOR technique is to alternate the injection of gas and water.gov/oil_gas/rpd/shale_gas. The assumption that all North Slope exploration activity would cease with the decommissioning of TAPS might not be entirely realistic because some offshore oil fields might be economic to develop using floating production.pdf. referred to as water-alternatinggas or WAG. 107. 100.  See shale gas map at www.  “Tight oil” refers to crude oil and condensates produced from low-permeability sandstone.gov/fs/2010/3043/.  A well’s EUR equals the cumulative production of that well over a 30-year productive life. Crude Oil. 2011). Special Report: EOR/Heavy Oil Survey: 2010 worldwide EOR survey. Kuparuk River.gov/fs/2011/3020/. 119. and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves.  Well-level production from Pennsylvania is provided in two time intervals (annual and semi-annual).gov/ oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/cr. storage. No. “Johansen: Urgency Lacking on Throughput” (October 16. 2011). Source for 2011 CP capital expenditures—Petroleum News. Arkoma: pubs. Open-File Report 03-44 (January 2003).  The further delineation of unproved resources into inferred reserves and undiscovered resources is not applicable to continuous resources since the extent of the formation is geologically known. Maintenance capital expenditures could also decline if the field operators determined that drilling more wells was unprofitable. Issue 14. 2010.usgs.eia. 101. Table entitled: “Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Earnings. 114.usgs.eia. 2010 Financial & Operating Review.usgs. 68 U. 70. 117.S. page 2. “Who Produces Crude Oil in Alaska?” Vol. 16.gov/fs/fs-009-03/FS-009-03-508. Geological Survey. 118. only wells drilled after 2007 are considered in the EUR evaluation. published April 19. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .gov/of/2011/1298/.pdf. source for 2001 and 2011 CP split in capital expenditures—Petroleum News.  USGS Fact Sheet 2011-3092. sometimes as much as ten times greater than the lower production areas within a play. pubs. by Emil Attanasi. 110. using current technology without consideration of economic or operating conditions.  Capital expenditures can be split into two categories—maintenance and development—with development expenditures allocated to the development of new fields that have not yet reached peak production.  In fact.usgs.  The owners of TAPS and operators of the North Slope fields might not know either at this junction what these future costs might be for both operating TAPS and the North Slope fields as volumes decline.S.  See also EIA.S. For continuous resources. 2002). 106. 109.  The volume of water produced relative to the volume of oil produced is referred to as the “water cut.  ExxonMobil.gov/fs/2011/3003/.html.

Many of the events that shape energy markets are random and cannot be anticipated. as well as market. Projections are highly dependent on the data. Energy Information Administration (EIA) are not statements of what will happen but of what might happen.Market trends Projections by the U. and policy changes. and assumptions used in their development. given the assumptions and methodologies used for any particular case. Most cases in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) generally assume that current laws and regulations are maintained throughout the projections. energy models are simplified representations of energy production and consumption. The Reference case projection is a business-as-usual estimate. and resources cannot be foreseen with certainty. Energy market projections are subject to much uncertainty. and producer and consumer behavior. given known technology. Many key uncertainties in the AEO2012 projections are addressed through alternative cases. they should serve as an adjunct to. Behavioral characteristics are indicative of real-world tendencies rather than representations of specific outcomes. world oil prices. rates of technology progress. . EIA has endeavored to make these projections as objective. future developments in technologies. and technological trends. Such projections provide a baseline starting point that can be used to analyze policy initiatives. model structures. a complete and focused analysis of public policy initiatives. While energy markets are complex. methodologies. demographics. In addition. reliable. however. and useful as possible. demographic. EIA explores the impacts of alternative assumptions in other cases with different macroeconomic growth rates.S. regulations. not as a substitute for.

Figure 59. recovery from the 2007-2008 recession has been slower than past recoveries (Figure 59). and productivity. The short-term outlook (5 years) in each case represents current thinking about economic activity in the United States and the rest of the world.S.0 percent in the Low Economic Growth case. government expenditures. 2010-2035 (percent per year) 8 Government Consumption Gross domestic product Imports Investment Exports 2. Figure 60 compares the average annual growth rates for output and its major components in each of the three cases. and nonfarm labor productivity in three cases. and Low. U. fast investment growth. Opportunities for trade are assumed to expand in each of the three cases. The High Economic Growth case assumes high growth and low inflation. Average annual growth rates for real output and its major components in three cases.S.Trends in economic activity Recovery in real gross domestic product growth continues at a modest rate Figure 58. labor force. U. The average rates of growth are strong starting from the trough of the recessions. and imports grow more slowly in all three cases. resulting in real trade surpluses by 2018 that continue through 2035.0 0 0 Real GDP Labor force Productivity Actual. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . economic growth ­ (Figure 58). investment growth from 2010 to 2035 is faster in all three cases. 1985-2010 Low Economic Growth Reference High Economic Growth AEO2012 presents three views of U. as compared with about 3. Differences among the Reference case and the High and Low Economic Growth cases reflect different expectations for growth in population (specifically. and about potential risks to economic activity. AEO2012 presents three economic growth cases: Reference. the world economy experienced shocks that included turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa.0 Low Economic Growth Reference 3. recessions in 1975. and an ever-improving trade surplus Figure 60. The average annual growth rate for real gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case is 2.S. 2010-2035 (percent per year) 4. and 2008 (percent per year) 1975 Real GDP Real consumption Real investment Nonfarm employment Unemployment rate 1982 1991 Projected 2008 -10 -5 0 5 10 70 U. about the impacts of domestic fiscal and monetary policies. Compared with the 1985-2010 period. whereas consumption.S. 1991. and an earthquake in Japan. Average annual growth rates of real GDP.0 percent in the High Economic Growth case and about 2. and. which are above trend in the High Economic Growth case and below trend in the Low Economic Growth case. labor force. a Greek debt crisis with financial impacts spreading to other Eurozone countries.5 percent.0 4 2 1. all leading to slower economic growth. the Low Economic Growth case assumes low growth and high inflation. The long-term outlook projects smooth economic growth. following the most recent recession. growth in nonfarm employment has been slower than in any other post-1960 recovery [121]. 1982.0 High Economic Growth 6 Slow consumption growth. assuming no shocks to the economy. growth projections in part reflect those world events. Average annual growth rates over 5 years following troughs of U. High. In 2011. A feature of economic recoveries since 1975 has been slowing employment gains.S. capital stock. net immigration).

5 percent from 2010 to 2035.1 percent. exports.S.5-percent annual growth for food processing.S. These factors weigh heavily on the energy-intensive manufacturing sectors. As the economy recovers from the 2008-2009 recession.S.5 percent from 2010 to 2035. with variation by industry ranging from 0.S.8 percent from 1970 to 2010.1 percent. with imports meeting a growing share of demand for industrial goods. Energy end-use expenditures as a share of gross domestic product. 2010-2035 (percent per year) Industrial sector total Energy expenditures decline relative to gross domestic product and gross output Figure 62. Energy end-use expenditures as a share of gross output. and machinery industries. 2. Energy expenditures as a share of gross output show roughly the same pattern as do energy expenditures as a share of GDP. stimulates U. After 2020. and 0.8-percent annual growth for bulk chemicals to 1. Total U. Figure 63 provides an approximation of total energy expenditures relative to total sales. The projected average shares of gross output relative to expenditures for total energy. energy expenditures decline relative to GDP in the AEO2012 Reference case (Figure 62) [123].9 percent per year. Strong growth in exports is an important component of projected growth in the transportation equipment.1 percent per year. real exports of goods and services grow by an average of 5. current account balance.5 percent. Sectoral composition of industrial output growth rates in three cases. which is below the historical average of 8. Figure 63.S. Gross output corresponds roughly to sales in the U. 1970-2035 (nominal expenditures as percent of nominal GDP) 15 History 2010 Projections Non-energy-intensive manufacturing Low Economic Growth Reference High Economic Growth 10 All energy Energy-intensive manufacturing 5 Petroleum Natural gas Nonmanufacturing 0 1 2 3 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2035 Industrial sector output has grown more slowly than the overall economy in recent decades.6 percent per year (Figure 61). while both the industrial sector as a whole and its manufacturing component grow by 1. growth in manufacturing output slows due to increased foreign competition. combined with modest growth in unit labor costs.Energy trends in the economy Output growth for energy-intensive industries remains slow Figure 61. real GDP grows at an average annual rate of 2. petroleum. A decline in U. eventually improving the U. respectively. and higher energy prices.0 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. 1987-2035 (nominal expenditures as percent of nominal gross output) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1987 2000 2010 Natural gas 2020 2035 Petroleum History 2010 Projections All energy U. at 4. which taken together grow at a slower rate of about 1. and natural gas are close to their historical averages. dollar exchange rates. From 2010 to 2035. and real imports of goods and services grow by an average of 4.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 71 . averaging 7. electronics.S. slower expansion of domestic production capacity. The projected share of energy expenditures falls from 2011 through 2035. economy. In the AEO2012 Reference case. whereas the service sector has grown more rapidly [122]. growth in U. manufacturing output in the Reference case accelerates from 2010 through 2020.

and producing countries develop stable fiscal policies and investment regimes that encourage resource development. light crude oil (West Texas Intermediate [WTI]) delivered to Cushing. and high prices make other liquids more attractive. The Reference case assumes that the current price discount for WTI relative to similar “marker” crude oils (such as Brent and Louisiana Light Sweet) will fade when adequate pipeline capacity is built between Cushing and the Gulf of Mexico. resulting in lower demand for petroleum and other liquids. defined in terms of the average price of low-sulfur.S. The supply response also varies across the price cases. High Oil Price. span a broad range that reflects the inherent volatility and uncertainty of oil prices (Figure 64). The alternative oil price cases reflect shifts in both supply and demand. In the Low Oil Price case. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . GDP growth in countries outside the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (nonOPEC) is slower than in the Reference case. and the consuming countries turn to more expensive production from other liquids sources to meet demand. driving up demand for petroleum and other liquids. non-OPEC resources become more economic. supplies of other liquids are more plentiful than in the Reference case. non-OECD petroleum and other liquids consumption is lower in the Low Oil Price case and higher in the High Oil Price case than it is in the Reference case. 1980-2035 (2010 dollars per barrel) 250 History 2010 Projections Trends in petroleum and other liquids markets are defined largely by the developing nations Figure 65. World petroleum and other liquids supply and demand by region in three cases. demand in non-OECD regions—where future economic uncertainty is greatest— drives the price projections. at 53 million barrels per day. and low prices have a negative impact on non-OPEC crude oil supplies relative to the Reference case. In the High Oil Price case. with OECD consumption falling to 46 million barrels per day in 2035 and fast-growing non-OECD use—driven by higher GDP growth—increasing to 67 million barrels per day in 2035. with the result that total consumption and production levels do not vary widely. That is. Average annual oil prices in three cases. Production of crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) is restricted by political decisions and limits on access to resources (such as the use of quotas and fiscal regimes) compared with the Reference case. the OPEC share averages 40 percent). Because noncrude oil technologies achieve much lower costs in the Low Price case. In the High Oil Price case the opposite occurs. OPEC restricts production. U. The High Oil Price case depicts a world oil market in which total GDP growth in countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (non-OECD) is faster than in the Reference case.International energy Oil price cases depict uncertainty in world oil markets Figure 64. The AEO2012 price paths are not intended to reflect absolute bounds for future oil prices but rather to provide a basis for analysis of the implications of world oil market conditions that differ from those assumed in the AEO2012 Reference case. OPEC nations increase production. Although demand in the OECD countries is influenced primarily by price. 2010 and 2035 (million barrels per day) 120 Supply Demand 200 High Oil Price 150 Reference 80 Non-OECD Non-OPEC 40 Other OPEC 100 OECD 50 Low Oil Price OPEC Middle East 0 2035 2010 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2035 Low Oil Reference High Price Oil Price Oil prices in AEO2012. Oklahoma. while non-OECD use grows to 61 million barrels per day. OECD petroleum and other liquids use in 2035 is higher than in the Reference case. 72 Total use of petroleum and other liquids in the AEO2012 Reference. OPEC’s ability to constrain market share is weakened. and Low Oil Price cases in 2035 ranges from 107 to 113 million barrels per day (Figure 65). In the Low Oil Price case. In the Low Oil Price case. achieving approximately a 46-percent market share of total petroleum and other liquids production in 2035. OECD petroleum and other liquids use grows in the Reference case to 48 million barrels per day in 2035. but demand in the slow-growing non-OECD economies in the Low Price case rises to only 54 million barrels per day. Petroleum and other liquids production in the major producing countries is reduced (for example.

7 trillion cubic feet in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case.5 trillion cubic feet in 2035. and extra-heavy oil.S. U. 2010 and 2035 (million barrels per day) 20 U.5 and 1.S. In 2035. bitumen. increasingly expensive projects become more economically competitive as a result of rising oil prices and advances in production technology. U.3 trillion cubic feet to U. and Brazilian biofuels and Canadian bitumen account for more than 70 percent of the total world increase in petroleum and other liquids production from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case. markets in 2010 (Figure 67). In addition.S. Canada and Mexico were the largest suppliers of U. The higher levels of production from other resources result from declining technology costs in the Low Oil Price case and from higher oil prices in the High Oil Price case. U. On the other hand. rising prices support increased development of nonpetroleum liquids. 2010-2035 (trillion cubic feet) 4 U.S.S.8 million barrels per day. The United States. or about 5 percent of all petroleum and other liquids production. Imports U.S. The energy markets of the three North American nations (United States. 16. With prospects for domestic U. respectively. petroleum and other liquids imports in 2010. bitumen.6 million barrels per day. In the Reference case.1 million barrels per day (15 percent of the total) in the High Oil Price case (Figure 66). currently relies on Canada and Mexico for supplies of petroleum and other liquid fuels. which is by far the region’s largest energy consumer. and 17.S. particularly for extra-heavy oil production. and Mexico’s imports grow from 0. Bitumen in Canada and biofuels in the United States and Brazil are the most important components of production from sources other than crude oil and NGL. the need for imported natural gas declines.S. Excluding crude oil and NGL.3 million barrels per day.3 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 1. In the AEO2012 Reference case. natural gas grow from 0.S. exporting 3. Canada’s imports of U.4 million barrels per day of petroleum and other liquid fuels from Canada in the Reference case. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 73 . but imports from Mexico fall to 0.0 million barrels per day (about 12 percent of total global production of petroleum and other liquids) in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case. providing 2. the United States still imports 3. Production from those other sources grows to 13. which assumes significant declines in technology costs. natural gas exports to both Canada and Mexico increase. In the High Oil Price case.S. Canada.4 trillion cubic feet in 2025 in the Reference case and remain relatively flat through the end of the projection. natural gas production continuing to improve. Total world production of nonpetroleum liquids. world production of liquid fuels from resources other than crude oil and NGL totaled 4. energy trade between the United States and the two other North American countries continues. and Mexico) are well integrated. Assumptions about the development of other liquids resources differ across the three cases. Canada supplies the United States with substantial natural gas supplies. imports of natural gas from Canada fall to 2. A smaller increase is projected in the Low Oil Price case.International energy Production from resources other than crude oil and natural gas liquids increases Figure 66. Exports 15 3 5 1 0 2010 Low Oil Price Reference High Oil Price 0 Canada Mexico 2010 2015 2025 2035 Canada 10 2 Mexico In 2010. and extra-heavy oil in three cases.2 million barrels per day (15 percent of the total) in the Low Oil Price case.7 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 1. with extensive infrastructure that allows cross-border trade between the United States and both Canada and Mexico. North American natural gas trade. Bitumen and biofuels continue to be the most important contributors to this supply category through 2035. U.S. reliance on imported natural gas from Canada declines as exports grow Figure 67.

Now. rising by 91 percent from 2010 to 2035. Before the Fukushima event. compared with an 18-percent increase in OECD energy use. including severe damage to several reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Even China announced a temporary suspension of its approval process for new reactors pending a thorough safety review. making renewables the world’s fastest-growing source of energy in the outlook. and 62 percent in the Middle East. Worldwide. 1990-2035 (quadrillion Btu) 800 After Fukushima. World energy consumption by region. Given expectations that oil prices will remain relatively high. Japan’s nuclear capacity is expected to contract by about 3 gigawatts from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 69). 41 gigawatts in India. 74 U. petroleum and other liquids are the world’s slowest-growing energy sources. As a result. Energy consumption in non-OECD Asia. prospects for nuclear power dim in Japan and Europe but not elsewhere Figure 69. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . In the aftermath. strong growth also occurs in much of the rest of the non-OECD regions: 69 percent in Central and South America. as strong growth in demand for electric power and concerns about security of energy supplies and the environmental impacts of fossil fuel use encourage further development of nuclear power in nonOECD countries. In OECD Europe. 2010 and 2035 (gigawatts) 150 OECD Non-OECD 600 Non-OECD Asia 100 OECD 200 Central and South America Middle East Africa Non-OECD Europe 1990 2000 2010 2015 2025 2035 and Eurasia 50 0 0 United OECD Japan Other Russia China India States Europe OECD 2010 2035 400 Other nonOECD World energy consumption increases by 47 percent from 2010 through 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case (Figure 68). governments in several countries that previously had planned to expand nuclear capacity—including Japan. with total nuclear capacity more than quadrupling. High energy prices and concerns about the environmental consequences of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions lead a number of national governments to provide incentives in support of the development of alternative energy sources. Switzerland. Total non-OECD energy use grows by 72 percent. Most of the growth is projected for emerging economies outside the OECD. and Italy—reversed course. Installed nuclear capacity in OECD and non-OECD countries. where substantial gains in energy efficiency are achieved through replacement of inefficient Soviet-era capital equipment. nuclear power capacity increases by a net 109 gigawatts in China. Germany’s outlook has been revised to reflect a phaseout of all nuclear power by 2025.International energy China and India account for half the growth in world energy use Figure 68. The slowest growth among the non-OECD regions is projected for non-OECD Europe and Eurasia (including Russia). the use of energy from all sources increases in the projection. EIA had projected that all regions of the world with existing nuclear programs would expand their nuclear power capacity. 65 percent in Africa.S. From 2010 to 2035. The earthquake and tsunami that hit northeastern Japan in March 2011 caused extensive loss of life and infrastructure damage. However. however. Significant expansion of nuclear power is projected to continue in the non-OECD region as a whole. Germany. led by China and India. and 28 gigawatts in Russia. the projected net increase in OECD Europe’s nuclear capacity in the AEO2012 Reference case is only 3 gigawatts from 2010 to 2035. shows the most robust growth among the non-OECD regions. where robust economic growth is accompanied by increased demand for energy.

Growth in energy use is linked to population growth through increases in housing. 1980-2035 (index. as do efficiency gains in the electric power sector.000 2010 Projections In the United States.400 Btu in 2035. Energy use per dollar of GDP is projected to be about 4. as older. The shift in the industrial sector away from energy-intensive manufacturing toward services is one reason for the projected decline in industrial energy intensity (energy use per dollar of GDP). In Brazil and the developing nations of Asia. Wind-powered generating capacity has grown swiftly over the past decade. compared to an average of 1. 2005-2035 (billion kilowatthours) 2. However. solar remains a minor part of the renewable mix even in 2035. the service sectors increased from a 69-percent share of total industrial output to a 75-percent share. waste. inefficient coal and other fossil steam electricity generating plants are retired in anticipation of lower electricity demand growth. as compared with solar’s 12 percent (Figure 70). solar power also grows rapidly Figure 70. but energy use per capita remained fairly constant. and new environmental regulations. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 75 .0 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. average energy use per person declines from 2010 to 2035 Figure 71.S.7 percent. because it currently accounts for only 0. Efficiency gains in household appliances and personal vehicles have a direct. lowering energy use in relation to GDP. changes in fuel prices. Hydropower is well-established worldwide. 1980 = 1) 1. accounting for 83 percent of total renewable electricity generation in 2010. excluding hydropower.and large-scale hydropower plants are expected.6 0.6 percent per year for total world energy consumption.4 1.2 1.000 500 Solar 0 2005 Geothermal 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0. Energy use per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product.700 Btu. but its impact on energy consumption per capita is less direct (Figure 71). energy use per capita declines to 274 million Btu in 2035. U. between 330 and 350 million British thermal units (Btu) per person.U. increasing by an average of 3.8 Biomass.0 History 2010 Projections 1. significant builds of mid. World renewable electricity generation by source. downward impact on energy use per capita. Increases in the efficiency of freight vehicles and the shift toward output from the service sectors are projected to continue through 2035. U. or about one-third of the 1980 level. while energy use per dollar of GDP dropped from about 10.2 0 1980 Energy use per 2005 dollar of GDP 1995 2010 2020 2035 Renewable energy is the world’s fastest-growing source of marketed energy in the AEO2012 Reference case. Solar power is the fastest-growing source of renewable energy in the outlook. tidal/wave/ocean 0. These changes affect not only the level of energy use but also the mix of fuels consumed. commercial floorspace. when its share reaches 3 percent.4 percent of total renewable generation.S. Growth in hydroelectric generation accounts for about one-half of the world increase in renewable generation in the Reference case. and the two regions together account for two-thirds of the total world increase in hydroelectric generation from 2010 to 2035. In many parts of the world. energy demand Wind power leads rise in world renewable generation. Wind generation accounts for the largest increment in nonhydropower renewable generation—60 percent of the total increase.S. with annual growth averaging 11. and goods and services. Changes in the structure of the economy and in the efficiency of the equipment deployed throughout the economy also have an impact on energy use per capita. As a result. transportation. The rate of wind generation slows markedly after 2020 because most government wind goals are achieved and wind must then compete on the basis of economics with fossil fuels.500 Energy use per capita Wind 0.500 to 7. concerns about the security of energy supplies and the environmental consequences of GHG emissions have spurred government policies that support rapid growth in renewable energy installations. from 18 gigawatts of installed capacity in 2000 to an estimated 179 gigawatts in 2010. From 1990 to 2007.

4 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. when it is still 4 percent below the 2010 level. and another 1. By the end of 2012. or by just over 1 quadrillion Btu each from 2010 to 2035. The largest growth. at 0. In the residential sector.S. is the highest among the end-use sectors.9 gigawatts with carbon sequestration capability. account for 10 percent of all petroleum and other liquids consumption in 2035. grows by 0.7 quadrillion Btu in 2023 (the lowest point since 1998) before increasing through 2035. is in the commercial sector. Natural gas consumption grows by about 0. attributable to increased production of biofuels to meet the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007) renewable fuels standard (RFS) as well as increased use of natural gas in some industries. remaining below 2010 levels until after 2031. including 0. and ethanol blended into motor gasoline (up to 15 percent).0 percent average annual growth in commercial floorspace. and State renewable portfolio standard (RPS) programs. The petroleum and other liquids share of fuel use declines as consumption of other liquids increases. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . With the exception of petroleum and other liquids. The renewable share of total energy use (including biofuels) increases from 8 percent in 2010 to 14 percent in 2035 in response to the Federal RFS.7 percent per year. light-duty vehicle (LDV) energy consumption declines after 2012 to 14. Primary energy use by end-use sector. propelled by 1. the growth rate for commercial energy use. increased efficiency reduces energy use for space heating. The total increase in industrial energy consumption is 2. including electricity generation at CTL plants.2 percent per year. As a result.1 quadrillion Btu from 2010 to 2035.3 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. including biodiesel blended into diesel. Growing production from tight shale keeps natural gas prices below their 2005-2008 levels through 2035.9 quadrillion Btu in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case (Figure 72). Even as standards for building shells and energy efficiency are being tightened in the commercial sector. while renewable fuel use grows rapidly (Figure 73). 3. energy demand Industrial and commercial sectors lead U. The industrial sector. a total of 9. Biofuels. 76 U. which currently accounts for the smallest share of end-use energy demand. Primary energy use in both the residential and transportation sectors grows by 0.S. including fuels used for electricity generation.U. availability of Federal tax credits for renewable electricity generation and capacity. led by the use of natural gas in electricity generation. consumption of all fuels increases in the AEO2012 Reference case. In the transportation sector.3 quadrillion Btu from 2010 to 2035. such as food and paper. growth in primary energy use Figure 72. energy use 32% 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2035 Total primary energy consumption.1 quadrillion Btu from 2008 to 2035. which falls through 2032 before increasing slightly in the last 3 years of the projection. shows the second-largest increase in total primary energy use. Primary energy use by fuel. at 3. to 106. the aggregate fossil fuel share of total energy use falls from 83 percent in 2010 to 77 percent in 2035.S. which was more severely affected than the other end-use sectors by the 2008-2009 economic downturn. E85.3 gigawatts of coal-fired power plant capacity currently under construction is expected to come online.1 percent per year from 2010 to 2035.S. 2010-2035 (quadrillion Btu) 125 Renewable energy sources lead rise in primary energy consumption Figure 73. Additional coal is consumed in the coal-toliquids (CTL) process to produce heat and power. coal consumption increases at a relatively weak average rate of less than 0.7 gigawatts is added after 2017 in the Reference case. 1980-2035 (quadrillion Btu) 120 100 80 History 2010 Projections 11% 4% 26% 9% 20% 100 Renewables (excluding biofuels) Liquid biofuels 7% 1% Commercial 75 Industrial 60 Natural gas Nuclear Coal 25% 9% 21% 50 Transportation 25 Residential 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 40 20 Petroleum and other liquids 37% Share of total U. to generate their own electricity. and clothes washers and dryers. In addition. Almost all consumption of liquid biofuels is in the transportation sector. lighting.

cooling.8 0. The increase in efficiency. Despite a decrease in electricity consumption per household. earlier availability. general-service lamps that provide 310 to 2. and ventilation Laundry and dishwashing Refrigeration and cooking Water heating TVs and set-top boxes PCs and related equipment Other 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -1. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . 77 U.2 percent. household energy intensity also falls as older appliances are replaced with 2011 vintage equipment.600 lumens of light are required to consume about 30 percent less energy than typical incandescent bulbs. and light-emitting diode (LED) lamps continue to replace low-efficacy incandescent lamps. Most residential end-use services become less energy-intensive. compact fluorescent. Electricity use by other household electrical devices. averaging 1.5-percent growth in the number of households reduces the average energy intensity of each household. but a 27. and more frequent energy-efficient purchases for some advanced equipment.000 -500 0 500 1.8-percent annual growth from their 2010 level. Residential delivered energy intensity in four cases. Without further gains in efficiency for residential equipment and building shells. driven by new standards and improved technology.2 0 2005 2011 Demand Technology Reference High Demand Technology Best Available Demand Technology 2010 Projections Electricity use increases with number of households despite efficiency improvement Figure 75.3 percent of total delivered electricity consumption in 2035.1 percent per year.7 percent in the High Demand Technology case and by 37. Over the next two years. is not high enough to offset the growth in the number of households and electricity consumption in “other” uses. from 2010 to 2035. increases by 1. total delivered electricity use in the residential sector grows at an average rate of 0. household energy intensity declines by 27. 2005 = 1) 1. The 2011 Demand Technology case assumes no improvement in efficiency for end-use equipment or building shells beyond those available in 2011. 2005-2035 (index. Population shifts to warmer and drier climates also contribute to a reduction in demand for space heating.4 0. Three alternative cases show how different technology assumptions affect residential energy intensity.6 percent of residential electricity consumption in 2035. 2012.Residential sector energy demand Residential energy use per household declines for a range of technology assumptions Figure 74.7 percent per year in the AEO2012 Reference case. lower cost.9 million Btu per year in 2035 (Figure 74).8 percent.000 In the AEO2012 Reference case. The High Demand Technology case assumes higher efficiency. for which market penetration increases with little coverage by efficiency standards.8 percent annually and accounts for nearly onefourth of total residential electricity consumption in 2035. Portions of the Federal lighting standards outlined in EISA2007 went into effect on January 1. defined as average energy use per household per year. In the 2011 Demand Technology case. with space heating accounting for more than one-half of the decrease.S.6 0. accounting for 7. Electricity consumption for three groups of electricity end uses increases on a per-household basis in the Reference case. In 2035. declines by 19. the total decline from 2010 to 2035 is only 13.0 0. Total delivered energy use in the residential sector remains relatively constant from 2010 to 2035. residential sector energy intensity. The Best Available Demand Technology case limits customers who purchase new and replacement equipment to the most efficient model available in the year of purchase—regardless of cost— and assumes that new homes are constructed to the most energy-efficient specifications. delivered energy for lighting per household in the Reference case is 827 kilowatthours per household lower.3 percent per year. while natural gas use and petroleum and other liquids use fall by 0. High-performance incandescent.2 percent and 1. From 2010 to 2035. to 81. Change in residential electricity consumption for selected end uses in the Reference case. Personal computers (PCs) and related equipment account for 4. or 47 percent below the 2010 level (Figure 75).9 percent in the Best Available Demand Technology case. respectively. Electricity use for televisions and set-top boxes grows by an average of 1. 2010-2035 (kilowatthours per household) Lighting Heating.

2035 to 2010) Natural gas space heating Electric space cooling Lighting Reference High Demand Technology Extended Policies Best Available Demand Technology Tax credits could spur growth in renewable energy equipment in the residential sector Figure 77. In the Reference case. in the Extended Policies case. In the Extended Policies case. The Reference. the enactment of new standards is based on the U. Consistent with current law. Residential market penetration by renewable technologies in two cases. from 2010 to 2035.5 percent in 2035. High Demand Technology.6 million fewer installations than in the Extended Policies case. In the AEO2012 Extended Policies case. after adding nearly 3. 2020. and Best Available Demand Technology cases include different levels of efficiency improvement without anticipating the enactment of new appliance standards. energy consumption for some end uses is lower in 2035 than in 2010. averaging 15. installations increase by 2. respectively. Ratio of residential delivered energy consumption for selected end uses (ratio. Among electric end uses. population shifts towards warmer and drier climates also reduce consumption. which already has an EISA2007-based standard that is scheduled to go into effect in 2020. without the ITC extension.0 1. and 2035 (percent of households) Solar photovoltaics Wind Ground-source heat pump Solar thermal water heater Solar photovoltaics Wind Ground-source heat pump Solar thermal water heater Solar photovoltaics Wind Ground-source heat pump Solar thermal water heater 2035 Reference Extended Policies 2020 2010 Refrigeration Televisions and set-top boxes 0 0. the ITCs are extended through 2035. and in several cases their overall market penetration falls because growth in households exceeds the rise in new renewable installations (Figure 77). and penetration rates for all renewable technologies continue to rise.5 million units. more than triple the Reference case share. respectively. with annual growth averaging 18. The enactment of these new standards holds energy use for televisions and set-top boxes at or near their 2010 levels through 2035. photovoltaic (PV) and wind capacities grow by average rates of 10. with 1. The Extended Policies case assumes the enactment of new rounds of standards. 2010. In the Reference case.5 percent annually in the Extended Policies case. future standards are not assumed until 2026. compared with 7. 78 U. Despite continued growth in the number of households and number of appliances. the opposite is true for electric space cooling. The ITCs also affect the penetration of renewable spaceconditioning and water-heating equipment. fostering their adoption.5 percent annually from 2010 to 2035. generally based on improvements seen in current ENERGY STAR equipment.9 percent per year. For lighting. Televisions and set-top boxes.8 percent and 9. The current credits can offset 30 percent of installed costs for a variety of distributed generation (DG) technologies. lighting has the largest percentage decline in energy use (more than 50 percent) in the Best Available Demand Technology case from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 76).0 gigawatts in 2035. are assumed to have new standards in 2016 and 2018.6 gigawatts in 2035.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 The AEO2012 Reference case and three alternative cases demonstrate opportunities for improved energy efficiency to reduce energy consumption in the residential sector.2 percent per year. implying that improved energy efficiency offsets the growth in service demand. Installations slow dramatically after the ITCs expire. residential PV capacity increases to 54.S. In the Reference case.6-percent market share in 2035 in the Extended Policies case.5 1. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Ground-source heat pumps reach a 2.5 percent in 2035. Department of Energy’s multi-year schedule. Market penetration of solar water heaters in the Extended Policies case is 2.1 percent.Residential sector energy demand Residential consumption varies depending on efficiency assumptions Figure 76. which are not currently covered by Federal standards. and wind capacity grows to 11. existing investment tax credits (ITCs) expire at the end of 2016 in the AEO2012 Reference case. their market penetration is only 1.S. In the Extended Policies case. In the case of natural gas space heating.

0 percent from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 78).Commercial sector energy demand For commercial buildings. and lighting contribute most to the decrease in intensity.0 percent). improved efficiency of commercial equipment slows the growth of purchased electricity over the projection period. Three alternative cases show the potential impact of energyefficient technologies on energy intensity in commercial buildings. account for much of the growth in commercial electricity consumption in the Reference case. cooling.3 percent annually for both cooking and refrigeration. space cooling. Energy consumption for “other” office equipment— including servers and mainframe computers—increases by 2. The 2011 Demand Technology case limits equipment and building shell technologies in later years to the options available in 2011. the intensity of commercial energy use in the 2011 Technology Demand case declines by 5. Commercial delivered energy intensity in four cases. and ventilation). 2010 and 2035 (thousand Btu per square foot) Other Heating.0 0. “Other” electric end uses.7 percent annually for space conditioning (heating. Electricity. intensity decreases faster in the High Demand Technology case (16. earlier availability of some advanced equipment.2 percent per year and in 2035 accounts for 38 percent of total commercial electricity consumption. and decisions by commercial customers that place greater importance on future energy savings. 2005 = 1) 1.6 0. Electricity consumption for “other” electrical end uses—including video displays and medical devices— increases by an average of 2.0 percent) and fastest in the Best Available Demand Technology case (20. Growth in commercial floorspace (26. refrigeration. and by 0.4 0.5 percent annually for lighting. From 2010 to 2035. 2005-2035 (index. as commercial floorspace grows at an average annual rate of 1 percent and new electric end uses become more prevalent.8 2011 Demand Technology Reference High Demand Technology Best Available Demand Technology 2010 Projections Efficiency standards reduce electric energy intensity in commercial buildings Figure 79.9 percent) leads to an increase in delivered energy use (18. Electricity intensity decreases by 1.S. increases to 56 percent in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case. U.9 thousand Btu per square foot of commercial floorspace in 2035. defined as the ratio of energy consumption in these appliances to floorspace. End uses such as space heating and cooling. to 101. Despite such growth. decreases for most electric end uses from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case (Figure 79). The Best Available Technology case assumes more efficient buildings shells for new and existing buildings than in the High Demand Technology case and also requires commercial customers to choose among the most efficient models for each technology when replacing old or purchasing new equipment. Space heating. and ventilation Lighting Refrigeration Office equipment: non-PC Office equipment: PCs Water heating Cooking 2010 2035 0. The High Demand Technology case assumes higher efficiencies for equipment and building shells. cooling.2 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 5 10 15 20 25 In the AEO2012 Reference case.3 percent per year from 2010 to 2035.1 percent). Commercial energy intensity in this figure. some of which are not subject to standards. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 79 . but efficiency improvements in equipment and building shells reduce energy intensity in commercial buildings. with space heating accounting for significantly more than cooling and lighting combined. as demand for high-speed networks and internet connectivity continues to grow. which accounted for 52 percent of total commercial delivered energy use in 2010. In comparison. pace of decline in energy intensity depends on technology Figure 78.0 percent. Energy intensity of selected commercial electric end uses. water heating. and lighting are covered by Federal efficiency standards that act to limit growth in energy consumption to less than the growth in commercial floorspace. lower costs. average delivered energy use per square foot of commercial floorspace declines by 7. by 0.

2035 (percent change from 2010 installed stock efficiency) Lighting Electric water heating Ventilation Electric space heating Refrigeration Electric space cooling Natural gas space heating Natural gas water heating 0 50 100 150 200 Fuel cells 0 1 2 3 4 Best Available Demand Technology Reference 2011 Demand Technology Microturbines Conventional natural-gas-fired CHP Wind Reference Extended Policies Investment tax credits could increase distributed generation in commercial sector Figure 81.7 percent annually from 2010 through 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference Case. Additional efficiency improvements could also come from an expansion of standards to include some of the rapidly growing miscellaneous electric applications.2 percent of the 11. compared with 1. and PV accounts for 40.4 percent. led by lighting. followed by lighting and electric space heating (Figure 80). water heating. U. and the growth rate in the Extended Policies case is only slightly higher.4 percent in the Reference case. Growth in small-scale wind capacity more than doubles in the Extended Policies case relative to the Reference case. Although most ITCs are set to expire at the end of 2016. In the Reference case. air conditioning. however. ground-source heat pumps. the microturbine share of total DG capacity in 2035 is 25. Extending the ITCs to all DG technologies through 2035 in the AEO2012 Extended Policies case causes PV capacity to increase at an average annual rate of 5. their share falls to 53 percent. with significant efficiency gains coming from high-efficiency variable air volume ventilation systems. the tax credit for solar PV installations reverts from 30 percent to 10 percent and continues indefinitely. led by office equipment other than computers and other electric end uses.3 percent per year. The percentage gains in efficiency in the Reference case are highest for refrigeration. and ventilation. Those technologies are relatively costly.2 percent per year from 2010 to 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case.Commercial sector energy demand Technologies for major energy applications lead efficiency gains in commercial sector Figure 80. In the Extended Policies case. at 18. increasing at an average annual rate of 11.S. 80 ITCs have a major impact on the growth of renewable DG in the commercial sector. ventilation. the share of total commercial delivered energy use in the core end uses falls to 49 percent in 2035. renewable energy accounts for 53 percent of all commercial DG capacity. In 2035. Although ITCs affect the rate of adoption of renewable DG by offsetting a portion of capital costs. Wind accounts for 9.4 percent from 2010 to 2035. In the Extended Policies case. centrifugal chillers. and refrigeration uses in the commercial sector grows by an average of 0.6 percent. as compared with 33. cooking. Energy consumption for all the remaining end uses grows by 1. high-efficiency rooftop heat pumps.1 gigawatts of total commercial DG capacity in 2035 in the Extended Policies case. 2010-2035 (gigawatts) Solar photovoltaics Delivered energy consumption for space heating. Electric space cooling shows the next-largest percentage improvement. microturbine capacity using natural gas grows by an average of 18.0-percent annual growth in commercial floorspace. water heating. compared with about 37 percent in the Reference case. Efficiency gains for selected commercial equipment in three cases. Additions to electricity generation capacity in the commercial sector in two cases. The core end uses.6 gigawatts in 2035.6 percent. LED lighting. In the Best Available Demand Technology case.1 percent per year from 42 megawatts in 2010 to 2. Commercial PV capacity increases by 2. The Best Available Demand Technology case demonstrates significant potential for further improvement—especially in electric equipment. their potential effects on nonrenewable DG technologies are offset by rising natural gas prices. which frequently have been the focus of energy efficiency standards. accounted for just over 60 percent of commercial delivered energy demand in 2010. and solar water heaters. lighting. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . and thus unlikely to gain wide adoption in commercial applications without improved economics. as a result of provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and EISA2007.7 percent (Figure 81).

The remaining consumption consists of nonfuel uses of energy—primarily. As a result.Industrial sector energy demand Manufacturing heat and power energy consumption increases modestly Figure 82. Industrial energy consumption by fuel. with the stronger growth in refining.6 percent from 2010 through 2035 in the Reference case. The increase in heat and power energy consumption in manufacturing in the Reference case is primarily a result of a large increase (2 quadrillion Btu) in total energy use in the petroleum refining industry. are consumed as a feedstock in the bulk chemicals industry and also are used for heat in other sectors. then declines as competition from foreign producers slows the growth of domestic production. food products. Industrial delivered energy consumption by application. as well as efficiency improvements across industries. primarily as a result of rising standards for motor efficiency.and biomass-to-liquids (CBTL). feedstocks for chemical manufacturing and asphalt for construction. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 81 . including production increases for CTL. Although energy use for most of the energy-intensive industries continues to grow after 2012. industrial delivered energy consumption increases by only 15 percent from 2010 to 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case. which offsets purchased electricity requirements. the renewable share of industrial energy use expands. Heat and power consumption in the nonmanufacturing industries (agriculture. The mix of fuels changes slowly. such as plastics. reflecting a shift in the share of shipments from energy-intensive manufacturing industries (which include bulk chemicals. cement. and biomass pyrolysis oil production. and glass) to other. and other industries that consume biomassbased byproducts. and coal (37 percent). 2025 and 2035 (quadrillion Btu) 15 Petroleum and other liquids Natural gas Electricity Coal Renewables 15 10 10 5 5 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2035 0 2010 2025 2035 Despite a 49-percent increase in industrial shipments. A decline in the electricity share of industrial energy consumption reflects modest growth in combined heat and power (CHP). reflecting limited capability for fuel switching with the current capital stock (Figure 83). paper products. reflecting relatively low natural gas prices. declines in the energy intensity of heat and power production offset some the growth in their energy use. mining. iron and steel. After 2016. Industrial use of all petroleum and other liquids increases slightly from 2010 to 2035. and construction) is flat in the Reference case projection. paper. increased use of coal for CTL and CBTL production fully offsets the decline in the steel industry and boiler fuel use. 2010-2035 (quadrillion Btu) 20 Manufacturing heat and power Nonmanufacturing heat and power Nonfuel uses Reliance on natural gas and natural gas liquids rises as industrial energy use grows Figure 83. 33 percent of delivered industrial energy consumption is met with natural gas in 2035. U. Led by increasing use of natural gas. The share of total industrial energy consumption represented by nonfuel use increases by 1. total delivered industrial energy consumption grows at an annual rate of 0.6 percent from 2010 to 2020 as a result of increased shipments of organic chemicals.S. The second-largest share is met by petroleum and other liquids (30 percent) and the remainder by renewables. less energy-intensive industries. an increasingly valuable liquid component of natural gas processing. aluminum. accounting for about 16 percent of total industrial energy consumption over the 2010-2035 period. 2010. With growth in lumber. The share of industrial delivered energy consumption used for heat and power in manufacturing increases from 64 percent in 2010 to 71 percent in 2035 (Figure 82). petroleum refineries. and transportation equipment. and in 2035 the chemical industries use nearly one-half of the total as feedstock. Coal use in the industrial sector for boilers and for smelting in steelmaking declines as more boilers are fired with natural gas and less metallurgical coal is used for steelmaking. NGL. Industrial natural gas use grows by 8 percent from 2010 to 2035. electricity. coal. computers.

grow sharply from 2012 to 2025 with the increased use of NGL as feedstock. 2010-2035 (trillion Btu) Cement Food products Paper products Aluminum Glass Bulk chemicals Iron and steel Liquids refineries -500 0 500 1. After 2025. shipments from the bulk chemical industry level off as a result of foreign competition. The paper industry shows a far less noticeable improvement in energy efficiency because of greater demand for more energy-intensive products such as paperboard by consumers. including cement. Cumulative growth in value of shipments from energy-intensive industries in three cases. U. Low Growth. Production of alternative fuels is inherently more energy-intensive than production of traditional fuels. but energy use declines by 12 percent due to a shift from the use of blast furnace steel production to the use of recycled products and electric arc furnaces. In each of the three Economic Growth cases (Reference. paper. because they supply downstream industries that are sensitive to GDP growth. while shipments from the liquids refinery industry lag. Construction is a downstream industry for both iron and steel and cement. Others. also affect energy consumption. which grow in proportion to population and are resistant to recessions. steel industry shipments grow by 23 percent in the AEO2012 Reference case from 2010 to 2035. and High Growth). Paper. following a decline in iron and steel shipments. the increase in liquids refinery industry energy consumption exceeds the growth in shipments over the projection period as a result of increased use of coal after 2015 for CTL and CBTL production. iron and steel. and aluminum take less than 10 years to return to their 2006-2007 pre-recession levels. because demand for transportation fuels is moderated by increasing vehicle efficiencies. Shipments in the metal durables industry levels off after 2020. Shipments of bulk chemicals. The continued decline of primary aluminum production and concurrent rise in less energy-intensive secondary production lead to a similar decline in aluminum industry energy use despite an increase in shipments. The energy-intensive iron and steel and cement industries show the greatest variability in shipments across the three cases (Figure 84). the value of shipments in the bulk chemicals. 82 Changes in energy consumption from 2010 to 2035 in the energy-intensive industries ranges from almost nothing in the Low Economic Growth case to 0. and cement all show strong short-term recoveries from 2010 levels. Change in delivered energy for energyintensive industries in three cases. take longer. have not shown the same recession-related decline as the other industries. 2010-2035 (percent) Cement Food products Paper products Aluminum Glass Bulk chemicals Iron and steel Liquids refineries -50 0 50 100 Low Economic Growth Reference High Economic Growth Energy use reflects output and efficiency trends in energy-intensive industries Figure 85. The only industrial subsector that shows an increase in energy intensity is refining. shipments from all industries grow over the projection period. and glass.8 percent per year or 5 quadrillion Btu in the High Economic Growth case (Figure 85). Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . For example. Food shipments.S. however.2 percent in the High Economic Growth case. especially organic chemicals.000 Low Economic Growth Reference High Economic Growth Total shipments from the energy-intensive industries grow by an average of 1 percent per year from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case. The iron and steel and glass industries show flat to moderate growth in the near term. Changes in energy consumption by the industrial subsector largely reflect the corresponding changes in gross shipments. Among the energy-intensive industries. because they are refined from solids with relatively low energy densities. aluminum. The post-recession recovery in shipments is uneven among the industrial subsectors. bulk chemicals.6 percent in the Low Economic Growth case and 1. as compared with 0. and the metalbased durables industry is a downstream industry for iron and steel.Industrial sector energy demand Iron and steel and cement industries are most sensitive to economic growth rate Figure 84. Starting from low levels of economic activity in 2010. Energy efficiency improvements and changes in manufacturing methods and requirements. Shipments from the liquids refinery industry do not reach prerecession levels by 2035.

not as raw materials or feedstocks.7 trillion (2005 dollars) in shipments in the Reference case—a 57-percent increase from 2010. shipments from the non-energy-intensive manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries generally exceed pre-recession levels by 2017. in particular.3 percent per year in the transportation equipment industry over the projection period in the AEO2012 Reference case. Recovery in the two subsectors from 2010 to 2015 is rapid because of increased U. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 83 . In the three cases. competiveness in the transportation equipment and machinery industries. Overall. U. the combined energy intensity of the non-energyintensive manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries declines by 25 percent in the Low Economic Growth case and 29 percent in the High Economic Growth case. those industries together account for more than 40 percent of the projected increase in total industrial natural gas consumption. based on production of high-tech. which saw residential starts bottom out in 2010.000 Construction Agriculture and mining Metal-based durables manufacturing Low Economic Growth Reference High Economic Growth Nonmanufacturing and transportation equipment lead energy efficiency gains Figure 87. Cumulative growth in value of shipments from non-energy-intensive industries in three cases. In the Reference case.S. growth in those shipments averages 1.2 percent per year in the Low Economic Growth case and 2. the growth is more moderate. 15 percent or 1. Change in delivered energy for non-energyintensive industries in three cases. Non-energyintensive manufacturing and nonmanufacturing are segments of the industrial sector that primarily consume fuels for thermal or electrical needs. high-value goods and strong supply chain linkages between energyintensive manufacturing and many non-energy-intensive manufacturing industries (such as machinery and transportation equipment produced for the metals industries). 2010-2035 (percent) Nonmanufacturing Construction Agriculture and mining Metal-based durables manufacturing Transportation equipment Computer and electronic products Machinery Electrical equipment and appliances Fabricated metal products Other Other manufacturing 0 Low Economic Growth Reference High Economic Growth 50 100 150 Transportation equipment Computer and electronic products Machinery Electrical equipment and appliances Fabricated metal products Other Other manufacturing 0 250 500 750 1.Industrial sector energy demand Transportation equipment shows strongest growth in non-energy-intensive shipments Figure 86. total energy consumption in the nonenergy-intensive manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industrial subsectors changes by 2 percent or 178 trillion Btu in the Low Economic Growth case. yielding an annualized decline in energy intensity of 1. non-energy-intensive manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industrial subsectors account for $6. and 30 percent or 2. In each of the three cases. compared with 1. The transportation equipment and construction industries account for roughly 20 percent of the projected increase in energy use but approximately 40 percent of the projected growth in total industrial shipments in all cases. respectively. Pre-recession shipment levels are exceeded in 2015 and 2024 in the High Economic Growth and Low Economic Growth cases.5 percent in the High Economic Growth case. shows a rapid decline in energy intensity from 2010 to 2035. reflecting a slow and extended economic recovery. Energy consumption increases by 37 percent from 2010 to 2035 and production doubles. From 2010 to 2035.134 trillion Btu in the Reference case. The transportation equipment industry. From 2010 to 2035. as well as a recovering construction industry. 2010-2035 (trillion Btu) Nonmanufacturing In 2035.8 percent in the Reference case (Figure 86). shipments from the two subsectors grow at roughly twice the annual rate projected for energy-intensive manufacturing.S. After 2015.282 trillion Btu in the High Economic Growth case (Figure 87). The more rapid decline in the High Economic Growth case is consistent with an expectation that energy intensity will fall more rapidly when stronger economic growth facilitates additional investment in more energy-efficient equipment.

2010 and 2035 (quadrillion Btu) Light-duty vehicles Heavy-duty vehicles Air 30 Pipeline Marine Rail Total 0 10 20 30 20 2010 2035 Reference case 2035 CAFE Standards case CAFE and greenhouse gas emissions standards boost vehicle fuel economy Figure 89. In the AEO2012 Reference case. The slower growth results primarily from improvement in fuel economy for both LDVs and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). Over the two decades that followed. fuel economy fell to between 24 and 26 mpg as sales of light-duty trucks increased from 20 percent of new LDV sales in 1980 to almost 55 percent in 2004 [124].Transportation sector energy demand Transportation energy use grows slowly in comparison with historical trend Figure 88. and heavy-duty pickups and vans) increases by 21 percent. as industrial output grows and more coal is transported.6 quadrillion Btu to 28. The proposal calls for a projected average LDV CAFE of 49. Air freight use of energy grows as a result of export growth. and 35.S. Energy use for pipelines also increases. with LDV fuel economy increasing moderately to 37. as well as relatively modest growth in demand for personal travel. LDV energy demand falls by 3. Higher incomes and moderate growth in fuel costs encourage more personal air travel.6 mpg by 2025 together with a GHG standard equivalent to 54. with the increase more than offset by existing GHG standards for model year (MY) 2012 to 2016 and by EISA2007 fuel economy standards for MY 2017 to 2020.2 mpg in 2010. despite improvements in LDV technology. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . CAFE standards remain constant. Personal travel demand rises more slowly than in recent history. much slower than the 1. vocational vehicles. With the inclusion of the proposed LDV CAFE standards. Delivered energy consumption for transportation by mode in two cases. in 2010 announced CAFE and GHG emissions standards for MY 2012 to MY 2016.2-percent average from 1975 to 2010.8 mpg in 2016.6 quadrillion Btu). Energy demand for HDVs (including tractor trailers. After 2020. or 1. LDV fuel economy in the CAFE Standards case increases by nearly 30 percent in 2035 compared to the Reference case. NHTSA and EPA proposed more stringent attribute-based CAFE and GHG emissions standards for MYs 2017 to 2025 [127 ]. In December 2011. reduce LDV energy demand by 20.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1978 to 26.0 percent (3.1 percent from 2010 to 2035 (from 27. Energy consumption for marine and rail travel also increases.9 mpg in 2020 (Figure 89). buses. coupled with tighter CAFE standards for light-duty trucks starting with MY 2008. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) introduced attribute-based CAFE standards for MY 2011 LDVs in 2009 and.9 mpg in 2035 as a result of more widespread adoption of fuel-saving technologies. from 2010 to 2035.5 quadrillion Btu) from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 88). or 0.5 mpg. 84 U. as a result of increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as economic output recovers. The introduction of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for LDVs in 1978 resulted in an increase in fuel economy from 19. together with the U. led to a rise in LDV fuel economy to 29. Inclusion of the proposed standards for MY 2017-2025.3 quadrillion Btu from 2010 to 2035. which are not included in the Reference case. Fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards temper growth in energy demand even as more miles are traveled overall. Energy demand for aircraft increases by 11 percent.1 quadrillion Btu.S.0 mpg in 2011. The subsequent rise in fuel prices and reduction in sales of light-duty trucks.2 mpg in 1987. the fuel economy of new LDVs [126] rises to 30.2 percent (0.2 quadrillion Btu) from 2010 to 2035. the resulting increase in energy use offset by gains in aircraft fuel efficiency. EISA2007 further requires that LDVs achieve an average fuel economy of 35 mpg by MY 2020 [125 ]. 33. even though more natural gas production occurs closer to end-use markets. Average fuel economy of new light-duty vehicles in two cases. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980-2035 (miles per gallon) 50 History 2010 Projections CAFE Standards 40 Reference 10 0 1980 1995 2010 2020 2035 Transportation sector energy consumption grows at an average annual rate of 0.

which is the largest share for vehicles that use electric storage. Micro hybrids. measured as VMT per licensed driver. Gasoline-electric and diesel-electric hybrid vehicles account for 5 percent of total LDV sales in 2035. and 2035 (million vehicles sold) 8 Total Flex-fuel Micro hybrid Electric hybrid Diesel Plug-in and all-electric Gaseous and fuel cell 6 10 4 5 2 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2035 0 2010 2020 2035 Personal vehicle travel demand. 1970-2035 (thousand miles) 15 History 2010 Projections Sales of alternative fuel. Although the real price of motor gasoline in the transportation sector increases by 48 percent from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case. VMT per licensed driver still grows as real disposable personal income climbs by 81 percent. Also. hybrid.700 miles per driver because of a spike in the cost of driving per mile and the economic downturn. and plug-in and all-electric hybrid vehicles account for 3 percent of LDV sales and 9 percent of sales of vehicles using diesel. or all-electric systems.1 percent from 1970 to 2007.700 miles per driver in 1970 to 12. Light-duty gaseous and fuel cell vehicles account for less than 0. which use start/stop technology to manage engine operation while at idle. 85 U. Sales of diesel vehicles also increase. at 17 percent of all new vehicle sales. Flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs).350 miles per driver in 2035 (Figure 90). from about 8.2 percent per year. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . LDVs that use diesel. Sales of hybrid electric and all-electric vehicles that use stored electric energy grow considerably in the Reference case (Figure 91). to 4 percent of total LDV sales in 2035. as well as offering fuel savings in the face of higher fuel prices. hybrid-electric. Sales of such vehicles increase from 14 percent of all new LDV sales in 2010 to 35 percent in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case.Transportation sector energy demand Travel demand for personal vehicles increases more slowly than in the past Figure 90. Vehicle miles traveled per licensed driver. to 13. grew at an average annual rate of 1. represent the largest share of vehicles. or all-electric systems play a significant role in meeting more stringent GHG emissions and fuel economy standards.S. Sales of light-duty vehicles using nongasoline technologies by fuel type.800 miles per driver in 2007. VMT per licensed driver grows by an average of 0. Increased travel was supported by rising incomes. Between 2007 and 2010. fuel flexible. Faster growth in income than in fuel prices ensures that travel demand continues to rise by reducing the percentage of income spent on fuel. and hybrid vehicles rise Figure 91. Although LDV sales increase through 2035. 2020. further tempering the increase in personal travel demand. In addition. unemployment remains above pre-recession levels in the Reference case until later in the projection. account for 6 percent of total LDV sales in 2035. other alternative fuels. 2010.5 percent of new vehicle sales throughout the projection because of the limited availability of a fueling infrastructure and their high incremental cost. declining costs of driving per mile (determined by fuel economy and fuel price). Manufacturers selling FFVs currently receive incentives in the form of fuel economy credits earned for CAFE compliance through MY 2016. which can use blends of ethanol up to 85 percent. VMT per licensed driver declined to around 12. Several demographic forces play a role in moderating the growth in VMT per licensed driver despite the rise in real disposable income. and demographic changes (such as women entering the workforce). In the AEO2012 Reference case. the effect of rising fuel costs is moderated by a 30-percent improvement in new vehicle fuel economy following the implementation of more stringent GHG and CAFE standards for LDVs. FFVs also play a critical role in meeting the RFS for biofuels. alternative fuels. the number of vehicles per licensed driver remains relatively constant (at just over 1 per licensed driver). Sales would be even higher with consideration of the proposed fuel economy standards covering MYs 2017 through 2025 that are not included in the Reference case (see discussion in “Issues in focus”).

electricity demand growth rebounds somewhat from those low levels but remains relatively slow.8-percent annual rate of growth from 1949 to 1959 to only 0. from 8. from 3. Higher fuel economy for HDVs partially offsets the increase in their VMT. rising fuel costs more than offset lower costs for transmission and distribution. vocational vehicles. as fuel-saving technologies continue to be adopted for economic reasons (Figure 92). Average annual electricity prices (in 2010 dollars) increase by 3 percent from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case.5 million in 2035. and it grows by only 2 percent from 2010 to 2035. Still. 1995-2035 (quadrillion Btu) 8 History 2010 Projections Residential and commercial sectors dominate electricity demand growth Figure 93.S. The gain in fuel economy is primarily a consequence of the new GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards enacted by EPA and NHTSA that begin in MY 2014 and reach the most stringent levels in MY 2018 [128]. and continued population shifts to warmer regions with greater cooling requirements. Residential demand grows by 18 percent over the same period. Electricity demand in the transportation sector is small. The total number of miles traveled annually by all HDVs grows by 48 percent from 2010 to 2035. and buses—increases from 5. Commercial sector electricity demand increases by 28 percent. In the industrial sector. to 1.S. but it is expected to more than triple from 7 billion kilowatthours in 2010 to 22 billion kilowatthours in 2035 as sales of electric plug-in LDVs increase.2 quadrillion Btu in 2035.2 mpg in 2035. as growing demand for electricity services is offset by efficiency gains from new appliance standards and investments in energy-efficient equipment (Figure 93).6 mpg in 2010 to 8. as average new vehicle fuel economy increases from 6.6 percent.7 percent per year in the first decade of the 21st century. for an average annual increase of 1.716 billion kilowatthours in 2035. at an average annual growth rate of 0. 3-year moving average) 12 10 History 2010 Projections 6 8 6 Trendline 3-year moving average 4 4 2 0 2 0 1995 2005 2010 2015 2025 2035 -2 1950 1970 1990 2010 2020 2035 Energy demand for HDVs—including tractor trailers.8 percent. slowed by increased competition from overseas manufacturers and a shift of U. as increases in VMT are offset by improvements in fuel economy following the recent introduction of new standards for HDV fuel efficiency and GHG emissions. electricity demand growth.877 billion kilowatthours in 2010 to 4. 1950-2035 (percent. led by demand in the service industries. rising disposable income. After 2020.S. Heavy-duty vehicle energy consumption. 86 U. heavy-duty pickups and vans. from a 9.699 billion kilowatt­ hours in 2035. Electricity demand grows by 22 percent in the AEO2012 Reference case.Electricity demand Heavy-duty vehicle energy demand continues to grow but slows from historical rates Figure 92.718 billion kilowatt­ hours in 2035. spurred by population growth. generally falling through 2020 in response to lower fuel prices used to generate electricity. Fuel economy continues to improve moderately after 2018. electricity demand has been generally declining since 2000. The rise in VMT is supported by rising economic output over the projection period and an increase in the number of trucks on the road. In the AEO2012 Reference case.9 million in 2010 to 12.1 quadrillion Btu in 2010 to 6. U. to 1. the increase in energy demand for HDVs is lower than the 2-percent annual average from 1995 to 2010. from 234 billion miles to 345 billion miles. Electricity demand (including retail sales and direct use) growth has slowed in each decade since the 1950s. which is the highest among transportation modes. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . manufacturing toward consumer goods that require less energy to produce.

Some older nuclear capacity is retired. in combination with relatively low capital costs. nuclear power plants increases by 10 percent from 2010 to 2035. Electricity generation by fuel. and 2035 (billion kilowatthours) 2. Competition from natural gas and renewables is a key factor in the decline. and rising prices for fossil fuels increase the competitiveness of renewable and nuclear capacity. in 2020 and 2035 its projected share of total generation is 39 percent and 38 percent.Electricity generation Coal-fired plants continue to be the largest source of U. makes natural gas the primary choice to fuel new generation capacity. natural gas prices are higher than in the Reference case and new natural gas fired capacity from 2011 to 2035 accounts for 102 gigawatts. In the High Tight Oil and Shale Gas Resource case. and the choice of fuel for new capacity. electricity generation Figure 94. compared with 29 percent for renewables. 2020. generation.000 2010 2020 2035 Most new capacity additions use natural gas and renewables Figure 95. coal. Generation from U. and its share of total generation increases from 24 percent in 2010 to 28 percent in 2035. Most of the growth in renewable electricity generation comes from wind and biomass facilities. total generation grows faster and the nuclear share falls. the availability of lowcost feedstocks and the RFS. The relatively low cost of natural gas makes the dispatching of existing natural gas plants more competitive with coal plants and. with 7. raising its share of total generation from 10 percent in 2010 to 15 percent in 2035. which reduces overall nuclear generation. Decisions to add capacity.S. Generation from natural gas grows by 42 percent from 2010 to 2035. Overall. 235 gigawatts of new generating capacity (including end-use combined heat and power) are projected to be added between 2011 and 2035 (Figure 95). or 66 percent of total new capacity.S. which benefit from State RPS requirements. and. which include nuclear. 7 percent for coal. However. in the case of biomass. Uncertainty about demand growth and fuel prices also affects capacity planning. particularly coal. 2010. Although new nuclear capacity is added by new reactors and uprates of older ones. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Federal tax credits. Generation from renewable sources grows by 77 percent in the Reference case. including combined heat and power. Electricity generation capacity additions by fuel type. but its share declines significantly. 2011-2035 (gigawatts) 50 40 Natural gas Renewables/other Nuclear Coal 1. Total capacity additions from 2011 to 2035 range from 166 gigawatts in the Low Economic Growth case to 305 gigawatts in the High Economic Growth case. 87 U. and 4 percent for nuclear. depend on a number of factors [129]. delivered natural gas prices are lower than in the Reference case and natural gasfired capacity additions by 2035 are 155 gigawatts. Nuclear capacity grows from 101 gigawatts in 2010 to 111 gigawatts in 2035. and renewables. Natural-gas-fired plants account for 60 percent of capacity additions between 2011 and 2035 in the Reference case. State energy programs. In the AE02012 Low Tight Oil and Shale Gas Resource case. Current Federal and State environmental regulations also affect fossil fuel use.500 30 1. With growing electricity demand and the retirement of 88 gigawatts of existing capacity. Uncertainty about future limits on GHG emissions and other possible environmental programs also reduces the competitiveness of coal-fired plants (reflected in AEO2012 by adding 3 percentage points to the cost of capital for new coal-fired capacity). In 2010.5 gigawatts of new capacity between 2010 and 2035. coal accounted for 45 percent of total U. which represents 47 percent of total additions. Federal tax incentives.S. respectively. Escalating construction costs have the largest impact on capital-intensive technologies.3 gigawatts of additional uprates and 8. coal-fired generation in 2035 is 2 percent higher than in 2010 but still 6 percent below the 2007 pre-recession level.000 20 500 10 0 Coal Natural gas Nuclear Renewables 0 20112015 20162020 20212025 20262030 20312035 Coal remains the dominant fuel for electricity generation in the AEO2012 Reference case (Figure 94). but the share of total generation declines from 20 percent in 2010 to 18 percent in 2035.S.

The energy crises of the 1970s and 1980s.0) 20 History 2010 Projections 15 Power sector generating capacity 40 10 20 5 Electricity sales 0 1985 1995 2010 2025 2035 0 1949 1965 1985 2010 2035 Typically. More recently. averaging 24 gigawatts per year [130].Electricity sales Additions to power plant capacity slow after 2012 but accelerate beyond 2020 Figure 96. In 2000. Of those early builds. Annual builds drop significantly after 2012 and remain below 9 gigawatts per year until 2025. and they grow at similar rates through 2035. the capacity and demand indexes tracked closely. uncertainty about deregulation of the electricity industry caused a downturn in capacity expansion. However. average annual builds increase to 11 gigawatts per year. which has recovered only partially in the post-recession period. During that period. quickly bringing capacity back into balance with demand and. A construction boom in the early 2000s saw capacity additions averaging 35 gigawatts a year from 2000 to 2005. while older capacity is retired. Electricity sales and power sector generating capacity. in the late 1990s. Annual additions in 2011 and 2012 remain relatively high. as well as changes in the industry. Over the long term. the slow economic recovery creates excess generating capacity in the AEO2012 Reference case. in fact. growth in electricity generating capacity parallels the growth in end-use demand for electricity. 1949-2035 (index. a boom in construction of new natural gas fired plants began. as excess capacity is depleted and the rate of total capacity growth is more consistent with electricity demand growth. Construction of new intermittent wind capacity that sometimes needs backup capacity also began to grow after 2000. In combination with slow near-term growth in electricity demand. Periods of slower growth have been followed by strong growth in response to changing expectations for future electricity demand and fuel prices. 1949 = 1. More than 70 percent of the capacity additions from 2025 to 2035 are natural gas fired. the 2008-2009 economic recession caused a significant drop in electricity demand. Then. Between 2025 and 2035. given the earlier construction boom and relatively slow growth in electricity demand after the economic recession. During the 1950s and 1960s. creating excess capacity. average annual builds have dropped to 17 gigawatts per year from 2006 to 2010. capacity growth and demand growth are in balance again.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . together with other factors. 88 U. and another period of imbalance followed. much higher than had been seen before. unexpected shifts in demand or dramatic changes affecting capacity investment decisions can cause imbalances that can take years to work out. given the higher construction costs for other capacity types and uncertainty about the prospects for future limits on GHG emissions. Figure 97 shows indexes summarizing relative changes in total generating capacity and electricity demand. about 40 percent are renewable plants built to take advantage of Federal tax incentives and to meet State renewable standards. existing capacity is adequate to meet growth in demand in most regions. Since then. including new plants built not only in the power sector but also by end-use generators. capacity additions between 2011 and 2035 total 235 gigawatts. slowed electricity demand growth. and capacity growth outpaced demand for more than 10 years thereafter. as planned units continued to come on line. Capacity currently under construction is completed in the Reference case. Additions to electricity generating capacity. In the AEO2012 Reference case. Demand and capacity did not align again until the mid-1990s. investments in electricity generation capacity have gone through “boom and bust” cycles. 1985-2035 (gigawatts) 60 History Other/renewables Natural gas/oil Nuclear Hydropower Coal 2010 Projections Growth in generating capacity parallels rising demand for electricity Figure 97. such as restructuring (Figure 96). In 2025. with growth in electricity demand exceeding capacity growth. but only a limited amount of additional capacity is built before 2025.

Four advanced reactors. when an additional 1.8 gigawatts in the Low Economic Growth case to 19. largely as a result of plant retirements.S. new plants must satisfy local and Federal emissions standards and must be compatible with the utility’s load profile. The capacity increase through 2025 includes 7.8 gigawatts is added.7 gigawatts in 2025. and transportation costs. excluding subsidies. nuclear power plants in three cases. with the largest rate of decline in new technologies. An additional 5. nuclear. before declining to 110. whereas operating (fuel) expenditures make up most of the costs for natural gas capacity [131]. New coal plants may require carbon control and sequestration equipment.9 gigawatts in 2035 (Figure 99). Fuel costs vary with operating efficiency. and transmission costs. Electricity generating capacity at U. Oyster Creek. and 2035 (gigawatts) History 2010 Natural gas combined cycle Coal 2035 Nuclear Wind Natural gas combined cycle Technology choices for new generating capacity are based largely on capital. Capital costs can decline over time as developers gain technology experience. High construction costs for nuclear plants. Nuclear capacity additions vary with assumptions about overall demand for electricity. are also assumed to be brought online by 2020 and to be eligible for Federal financial incentives.2 gigawatts in the High Economic Growth case. and operating costs. resulting in higher material. nuclear power capacity increases from 101. 2010. Capital costs depend on such factors as equipment costs. their costs are not directly affected by regulatory uncertainty in this area. In the AEO2012 Reference case.5 gigawatts of nuclear capacity is assumed to be retired by 2035. fuel price. which assumes that they will apply for and receive operating license renewals. In the AEO2012 Reference case.3 gigawatts of expansion at existing plants and 6. The decline continues at a progressively slower rate as more units are built. interest rates. is expected to be retired at the end of 2019.Electricity capacity Costs and regulatory uncertainties vary across options for new capacity Figure 98. One nuclear unit. then decline as project developers gain experience. In addition to considerations of levelized costs [132]. All other existing nuclear units continue to operate through 2035 in the Reference case. 2020 and 2035 (2010 cents per kilowatthour) Coal 2020 Nuclear Wind Incremental transmission costs Variable costs. some technologies and fuels receive subsidies. see “Issues in focus”). including in some cases a second 20-year extension after 60 years of operation (for more discussion. 2025. the capital costs of new technologies are adjusted upward initially to compensate for the optimism inherent in early estimates of project costs. labor. Operating efficiencies also are assumed to improve over time. which includes completion of two conventional reactors at the Watts Bar and Bellefonte sites. Coal. and cost recovery periods. Regulatory uncertainty also affects capacity planning. the economics of keeping existing nuclear power plants in operation are favorable. as announced by Exelon in December 2010. resulting in reduced variable costs unless increases in fuel costs exceed the savings from efficiency gains. Because nuclear and renewable power plants (including wind plants) do not emit GHGs. U. With costs for natural gas fired generation rising in the Reference case and uncertainty about future regulation of GHG emissions. such as production tax credits and ITCs.S. and renewable plants are capital-intensive (Figure 98). including fuel Fixed costs Capital costs Reference High economic growth Low economic growth Reference High economic growth Low economic growth 0 5 10 15 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 2035 2025 Nuclear power plant capacity grows slowly through uprates and new builds Figure 99. reported as under construction. Alternatively. Levelized electricity costs for new power plants. nuclear capacity additions from 2011 to 2035 range from 6. Across the Economic Growth cases. operating. make additional options for new nuclear capacity uneconomical until the later years of the projection. especially relative to natural gas fired plants.2 gigawatts in 2010 to a high of 114.8 gigawatts of new capacity. coal plants without carbon controls could incur higher costs for siting and permitting. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 89 . Also.

2010-2035 (gigawatts) 125 Nonhydropower renewable generation surpasses hydropower by 2020 Figure 101. primarily in response to the Federal RFS. increasing from 39 gigawatts in 2010 to 70 gigawatts in 2035. is dispatchable and grows to levels approaching wind generation by the end of the projection. for the remainder of the current decade. including renewables. and as a result their contributions to the generation mix are less than their contribution to the capacity mix. Most of the growth in biomass generation comes from CHP units used in the production of biomass-based liquid fuels. but they start from smaller levels. Hydropower and other renewable electricity generation. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Solar generation increases by an average of nearly 10 percent per year. and Federal tax credits. While end-use solar capacity grows throughout the projection. Total renewable capacity—particularly. the growth of solar capacity in the electric power sector is concentrated primarily in the last decade of the projection period (2025-2035) when the technology becomes more cost-competitive. Renewable capacity additions are supported by State RPS programs. at 145 billion kilowatthours in 2035. nonhydropower renewable generation surpasses hydroelectric generation in 2020 in the Reference case (Figure 101). nonhydropower renewable generation grows at an average annual rate of 3. and biomass generation increases by 6 percent per year. both solar and biomass generation grow at faster annual rates. wind and solar—grows rapidly in the near term in the AEO2012 Reference case. Geothermal capacity nearly triples over the projection period. In the AEO2012 Reference case. including end-use generation. resulting in a resurgence in renewable capacity growth.Renewable capacity Wind dominates renewable capacity growth. Wind accounts for the largest share of that new capacity. as compared with 194 billion kilowatthours for wind-powered generation. the Federal RFS. Generation from nonhydropower renewable sources has been small historically in comparison with hydroelectric generation. Biomass co-firing and end-use generation play an important role in satisfying State RPS mandates. relatively little projected need for new generation capacity of any type. Excluding new projects already under construction. particularly from 2010 to 2020. total nonhydropower renewable generating capacity more than doubles in the AEO2012 Reference case (Figure 100). Although wind remains the largest source of nonhydropower renewable generation through 2035. Both solar capacity and biomass capacity grow at faster rates than wind capacity. The share of the total electricity generation accounted for by nonhydropower renewable generation increases from about 4 percent in 2010 to 9 percent in 2035. including enduse capacity. Both solar and wind energy are intermittent resources. 2010-2035 (billion kilowatthours) 500 Nonhydropower renewables 100 Wind 75 400 300 Hydropower 50 Solar 25 200 100 Biomass Geothermal MSW/LFG 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 From 2010 to 2035. PV accounts for nearly all solar capacity additions both in the end-use sectors (where 11 gigawatts of PV capacity is added from 2010 to 2035) and in the electric power sector (8 gigawatts added from 2010 to 2035). but in 2035 it still accounts for only about 5 percent of total nonhydropower renewable generating capacity.9 percent. There is. primarily because there is an abundance of existing natural gas fired capacity that can be operated at higher capacity factors.S. when overall capacity growth is modest. After 2020 there is a need for new generation capacity in the Reference case. 90 U. but solar and biomass gain market share Figure 100. Biomass-fired generation. on the other hand. Nonhydropower renewable electricity generation capacity by energy source. however. however. nearly tripling from 2010 to 2035.

However. 2010. 1990-2035 5 4 3 2 1 0 1990 History 2010 Projections 2000 2010 2020 2035 U. At current (2012) price levels. Ratio of low-sulfur light crude oil price to Henry Hub natural gas price on energy equivalent basis. Figure 104.) The three largest contributors to the total are wind. with 1.1 percent per year from 2010 through 2035 in the Reference case. Henry Hub spot prices for natural gas rise by 2. 93. Annual average Henry Hub spot natural gas prices. the vast majority of which comes from hydroelectric sources. see Appendix F. The two regions are not known for a strong solar resource base. where both the Reliability First Corporation/East (RFCE) and the Reliability First Corporation/West (RFCW) regions have large amounts of end-use solar generation. the past few years have been relatively quiet in terms of State program expansions. (For a map of the electricity regions presented. State RPS programs heavily influence the growth of solar capacity in the eastern States.37 per million Btu (2010 dollars) in 2035. As of January 1. to an annual average of $7.203 trillion cubic feet. 1990-2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu) 10 History 2010 Projections 8 6 4 2010 2035 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2035 Regional growth in renewable electricity generation is based largely on two factors: availability of renewable energy resources and the existence of State RPS programs that require the use of renewable generation. natural gas prices are below average replacement cost. respectively. whose area approximates the California State boundaries. 2010-2035 (billion kilowatthours) CAMX NWPP MRO RFCW ERCT SRSE SRVC NEWE MORE SPNO AZNM SPSO RFCE SRCE RMPA SRDA FRCC NYUP SRG RFCM NYLI NYCW Natural gas prices are expected to rise with the marginal cost of production Figure 103. many of which are in the Southeast. over time natural gas prices rise with the cost of developing incremental production capacity (Figure 103). Although the Western and Southwestern States have the most projected solar installations. After a period of robust RPS enactments in several States. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 91 . and the installations are in response to the ITC as well as solar requirements embedded in State RPS programs.9 billion kilowatthours. solar. primarily due to the subdued economic climate. The region encompassing the Pacific Northwest has more overall renewable generation. The highest level of nonhydroelectric renewable generation in 2035. but oil prices remain at least three times higher than natural gas prices through the end of the projection (Figure 104). After 2017.7 billion kilowatthours and 1. U. and geothermal generation. total proved and unproved natural gas resources are estimated at 2. including end-use generation. occurs in the WECC California (CAMX) region (Figure 102).S. Most biomass capacity—confined largely to the end-use sectors—is built at the sites of cellulosic ethanol plants.S. natural gas prices rise in the AEO2012 Reference case more rapidly than crude oil prices. natural gas prices are determined largely by supply and demand conditions in North American markets. Regional growth in nonhydropower renewable electricity generation.Natural gas prices State renewable portfolio standards increase renewable electricity generation Figure 102. Development costs for natural gas wells are expected to grow slowly.9 billion kilowatthours.

a slower increase in the cost of developing new production.S.S. to 27.4 trillion cubic feet (Figure 106). and the Arctic. A recent proposal to build a natural gas pipeline along the route of the Alyeska oil pipeline with an LNG export facility could speed up construction.4 percent per year from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case. and consumption for electric power generation grows by 0. lower rates of economic growth lead to lower levels of natural gas consumption and. natural gas production grows by 1. In the High Economic Growth case. In the High and Low EUR cases. Residential natural gas consumption declines over the same period.Natural gas production Natural gas prices vary with economic growth and shale gas well recovery rates Figure 105. Total U. Future shale gas well recovery rates are an important determinant of future prices.5 trillion cubic feet. 1990-2035 (trillion cubic feet) 30 History 2010 Projections Net exports. As a result. and net imports. with a similar effect on prices. 2035 5% 8 6 4 2 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2035 2000 2010 2020 2035 The rate at which natural gas prices change in the future can vary. particularly from deepwater reservoirs. causing more rapid depletion of natural gas resources and a more rapid increase in the cost of developing new incremental natural gas production. respectively. natural gas production. Growth in domestic natural gas consumption depends on many factors.S. importing 2.0 percent per year. natural gas exports are highly uncertain and depend on many factors that are difficult to anticipate. to 26.3 trillion cubic feet from 2010 to 2035.6 trillion cubic feet in 2035. including the rate of economic growth and the delivered prices of natural gas and other fuels. such as the development of new natural gas production capacity in foreign countries.S.9 trillion cubic feet in 2035.6 trillion cubic feet from other countries. natural gas consumption grows at a rate of 0. the United States become a net exporter of natural gas Figure 106. an Alaska gas pipeline starts operating in 2031. Two important factors are the future rate of macroeconomic growth and the expected cumulative production of shale gas wells over their lifetimes— the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) per well. Natural gas consumption in the commercial and industrial sectors grows by less than 0. 1990-2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu) 10 History 2010 Projections Low EUR High economic growth 25 Reference Consumption 11% Net imports. 2010 Low economic growth High EUR 20 Domestic production 0 1990 With rising domestic production. the pipeline begins operation in 2035. Annual average Henry Hub spot natural gas prices in five cases. U. Conversely. shale gas deposits. The United States consumed more natural gas than it produced in 2010. Alternative cases with different assumptions for these factors are shown in Figure 105. 92 U. the EUR per shale gas well is increased and decreased by 50 percent. In the AEO2012 Reference case. depending on a number of factors. ultimately. or by a total of 2. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . more than enough to meet domestic needs for consumption.5 percent per year through 2035. U.S. Changes in well recovery rates affect the long-run marginal cost of shale gas production. consumption. The prospects for future U.8 percent per year. by a total of 0. which in turn affects both natural gas prices and the volumes of new shale gas production developed (further analysis and discussion are included in the “Issues in focus” section of this report). accompanied by a dip in natural gas prices. domestic natural gas production grows more quickly than consumption. In the Low EUR case. the United States becomes a net exporter of natural gas by around 2022. and in 2035 net exports of natural gas from the United States total about 1. which allows for exports. Higher rates of economic growth lead to increased consumption of natural gas.

4 percent per year. Lower 48 onshore natural gas production by region.0 trillion cubic feet from 2010 to 2035. but declines in production from other natural gas fields in the region offset some of the gains. natural gas production in 2035. After 2014 offshore production continues to rise throughout the remainder of the projection period. resource of 2. and the extensive pipeline infrastructure that already exists in the Northeast. regions. In the Northeast. In the Reference case.0 trillion cubic feet of the expected increase. its proximity to major natural gas consumption markets. production growth in the Rocky Mountain region is offset in part by production declines in the region’s other natural gas fields.4 trillion cubic feet.Natural gas production Shale gas provides largest source of growth in U. or a total of 3. Offshore natural gas production declines by 0. Regional production growth largely reflects expected increases in production from shale beds.8 trillion cubic feet and shale gas production by 0. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 93 . In the Gulf Coast region. there is relatively little change in production levels from tight formations.8 trillion cubic feet from 2010 through 2014. and offshore fields.S. natural gas production grows by 2. at an average rate of 1. natural gas supply Figure 107. Shale gas is the largest contributor to production growth.2 percent per year.8 trillion cubic feet per year. coalbed methane deposits. Natural gas production from the Haynesville/ Bossier and Eagle Ford formations increases by 2. As in the Gulf Coast region. In the Rocky Mountain region.1 trillion cubic feet of production per year from 2010 to 2035. so that the net increase in production for the region as a whole is only about 2 trillion cubic feet. averaging 6.S. natural gas production in the Reference case. as exploration and development activities in the Gulf of Mexico focus on oil-directed activity.S. Natural gas production by source. which accounts for 3. out of a total U.S. Coalbed methane production remains relatively constant throughout the projection. natural gas production growth is led by shale gas development Figure 108.S.S. is the largest contributor to the projected growth in total U. with tight sandstone and carbonate production increasing by 0. U. natural gas production grows by an average of 5. The Marcellus shale. is particularly attractive for development because of its large resource base.S.9 trillion cubic feet from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 108). following the 2010 moratorium on offshore drilling. Tight gas produced from low permeability sandstone and carbonate reservoirs is the second-largest source of domestic supply in the Reference case. Shale gas production. estimated proved and unproved shale gas resources amount to a combined 542 trillion cubic feet.9 trillion cubic feet from 2010 through 2035. natural gas supply regions. Estimates of shale gas resources and well productivity remain uncertain (see “Issues in focus” for discussion). 1990-2035 (trillion cubic feet) 30 25 20 15 Tight gas 10 5 0 1990 Lower 48 onshore conventional Alaska 2000 2010 Lower 48 offshore Coalbed methane 2020 2035 Rocky Mountain In most U. averaging 1. natural gas production grows by 0.203 trillion cubic feet. which more than doubles from 2010 to 2035.8 trillion cubic feet over the period. Shale gas accounts for 49 percent of total U. 2010 and 2035 (trillion cubic feet) Northeast 2010 2035 2010 2035 2010 2035 2010 2035 2010 2035 2010 2035 History 2010 Projections Gulf Coast Shale gas Other gas Shale gas Coalbed methane Tight gas Midcontinent Southwest West Coast 0 2 4 6 8 The increase in natural gas production from 2010 to 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case results primarily from the continued development of shale gas resources (Figure 107). See Figure F4 in Appendix F for a map of U. more than double its 23-percent share in 2010.

U. Net natural gas imports from Canada decline over the next decade in the Reference case and then stabilize at about 1. future U. The growth in biofuels consumption (including ethanol) is attributable to the EISA2007 RFS mandates. becomes a net natural gas exporter Figure 109.1 million barrels per day in 2035. the facilities could ship 0. primarily to Mexico. U. so that early in the next decade exports exceed imports. U. while Mexico’s production grows at a slower rate. Motor gasoline. At full capacity. Diesel fuel consumption increases from 3. displaced by increased ethanol use in the form of higher blends in gasoline and by E85 consumption.1 trillion cubic feet per year (Figure 109).S. In general. increasing volumes of imported natural gas from the United States fill the growing gap between Mexico’s production and consumption.3 million barrels per day in 2010 to 4. an increase of 0. lower 48 States become high enough to motivate Canadian producers to expand their production of shale gas and tight gas. Net U.1 billion cubic feet per day goes into operation in 2016. The growth in diesel fuel use results primarily from increased sales of light-duty diesel vehicles needed to meet more stringent CAFE standards. With the exception of the transportation sector. exports of LNG depend on a number of factors that are difficult to anticipate and thus are highly uncertain. where consumption grows by about 0. 1990-2035 (million barrels per day) 25 History 2010 Projections 20 Total 5 2000 2010 2020 In 2010. 1990-2035 (trillion cubic feet) 4 3 Canada 2 15 1 Overseas LNG 0 -1 -2 1990 Mexico 10 Industrial Electric power 2035 0 1990 2000 2010 Buildings 2020 2035 Transportation History 2010 Projections Transportation uses lead growth in consumption of petroleum and other liquids Figure 110. petroleum and other liquids consumption remains relatively flat. In 2035. as well as high crude oil prices.4 trillion cubic feet (about 4 billion cubic feet per day).S. when natural gas prices in the U. In Mexico. because LNG imports to the New England region are projected to continue.8 trillion cubic feet of LNG to overseas consumers per year.6 million barrels per day from 2010 through 2035.7 million barrels per day).S.S. and jet fuel are the primary transportation fuels. half of which is exported overseas as liquefied natural gas (LNG). however. net natural gas exports are about 1. LNG exports supplied from lower 48 natural gas production are assumed to start when LNG export capacity of 1. natural gas production grows faster than consumption.S.9 million barrels per day from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case. consumption of petroleum and other liquids totals 19.S. supplemented by biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Consumption of petroleum and other liquids by sector. which increases from virtually zero in 2010 to 0. Petroleum-based motor gasoline consumption drops by approximately 0. LNG exports are somewhat lower than those figures imply. The other half is transported by pipelines. the United States imported 11 percent of its total natural gas supply.S. An additional 1. Biodiesel and a number of next-generation biofuels account for a large share of the increase in petroleum and other liquids consumption (excluding ethanol) for transportation from 2010 to 2035 (about 0.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . In the AEO2012 Reference case.S. As a result. U. ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.S.1 billion cubic feet per day of capacity is expected to come on line in 2019. with a corresponding increase in domestic production of diesel fuel.8 million barrels per day in 2035. Proposed fuel economy standards covering MYs 2017 through 2025 that are not included in the Reference case would further reduce projected petroleum use (see “Issues in focus”). natural gas consumption shows robust growth through 2035. net imports of natural gas by source. 94 U. The transportation sector accounts for 72 percent of total petroleum and other liquids consumption in 2035.Petroleum and other liquids consumption The U. U.9 million barrels per day in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case.7 million barrels per day over the 2010 total (Figure 110).

Petroleum and other liquids supply
Biofuels and natural gas liquids lead growth in total petroleum and other liquids supply
Figure 111. U.S. production of petroleum and other liquids by source, 2010-2035 (million barrels per day)
15

U.S. crude oil production increases, led by lower 48 onshore production
Figure 112. Domestic crude oil production by source, 1990-2035 (million barrels per day)
8 History 2010 Projections Total

Natural gas liquids 10 xTL Biofuels

6 Lower 48 onshore 4

5

Crude oil

2

Lower 48 offshore Alaska

0 2010

Other 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

0 1990

2000

2010

2020

2035

In the AEO2012 Reference case, domestic production of petroleum and other liquids grows by 3.1 million barrels per day from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 111). Total production grows rapidly, from 9.7 million barrels per day in 2010 to 12.1 million barrels per day in 2020, as production of crude oil and NGL from tight oil formations (including shale plays) increases sharply. After 2020, total U.S. production of petroleum and other liquids grows more slowly, to 12.7 million barrels per day in 2035, as tight oil production levels off despite continued increases in crude oil prices. As production of other liquid fuels increases, the crude oil share of total domestic petroleum and other liquids production declines from 56 percent in 2010 to 47 percent in 2035. NGL production increases by more than 0.9 million barrels per day, to 3.0 million barrels per day in 2035, mainly as a result of strong growth in production of both tight oil and shale gas, which contain significant volumes of NGLs. Biofuels production grows by 0.8 million barrels per day from 2010 to 2035 as a result of the EISA2007 RFS, with ethanol and biodiesel accounting for 0.7 and 0.1 million barrels per day, respectively, of the increase in the Reference case. The increase in domestic ethanol production reduces consumption of petroleum-based motor gasoline components by about 6 percent in 2035 on an energy-equivalent basis. In the early years of the projection, ethanol is used primarily for blending in E10 (motor gasoline blends containing up to 10 percent ethanol) and E15 (15 percent ethanol). In 2035, 37 percent of domestic ethanol production is used in E85 (85 percent ethanol) and 63 percent in E10 and E15 blends. In addition, growth in next-generation “xTL” production, which includes both biomass-to-liquids and CTL, contributes significantly to the growth in total U.S. petroleum and other liquids production, particularly after 2020, adding about 0.6 and 0.3 million barrels per day of production, respectively, from 2010 to 2035.

As world oil prices increase in the AEO2012 Reference case, U.S. production of tight oil (liquid oil embedded in low-permeable sandstone, carbonate, and shale rock) and production using carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) techniques add to the projected increase in domestic crude oil production from 2010 to 2035 (Figure 112). Growth in lower 48 onshore crude oil production comes primarily from the continued development of tight oil resources, mostly from the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations. Tight oil production surpasses 1.3 million barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to about 1.2 million barrels per day in 2035 as “sweet spots” are depleted. AEO2012 also includes six other tight formations in the projections for tight oil production: the Austin Chalk, Avalon/Bone Springs, Monterey, Niobrara, Spraberry, and Woodford formations. Additional tight oil resources are likely to be identified in the future as more work is completed to identify currently producing reservoirs that may be better categorized as tight formations, and as new tight oil plays are identified and incorporated (see next column). Crude oil production using CO2-EOR increases significantly after 2020, when oil prices are higher, the more profitable tight oil deposits are depleted, and affordable anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) are available. It plateaus at about 650,000 barrels per day from 2032 to 2035, when its profitability is limited by reservoir quality and CO2 availability. From 2011 through 2035, CO2-EOR production exceeds 4 billion barrels of oil. Lower 48 offshore oil production remains relatively constant in the Reference case. The decline in currently producing fields is offset primarily by exploration and development of new fields in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and, after 2029, in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf. 95

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

Petroleum and other liquids supply
U.S. crude oil production varies with price and resource assumptions
Figure 113. Total U.S. crude oil production in six cases, 1990-2035 (million barrels per day)
10 History 2010 Projections High TRR High Oil Price High EUR

U.S. net imports of petroleum and other liquids fall in the Reference case
Figure 114. Net import share of U.S. petroleum and other liquids consumption in three cases, 1990-2035 (percent)
75 History 2010 Projections

8

50 6 Reference Low EUR Low Oil Price 25

Low Oil Price Reference

4

High Oil Price

0 1990

2000

2010

2020

2035

0 1990

2000

2010

2020

2035

U.S. crude oil production varies with changes in assumptions about the extent of productivity improvement and well spacing in emerging tight oil resources examined in the High Technically Recoverable Resources (TRR) case and in the High and Low EUR cases (see discussion in “Issues in focus”) and with changes in assumptions about crude oil prices in the Low and High Crude Oil Price cases (Figure 113). In the High TRR case, assumptions for tight oil allow for more rapid growth in crude oil production in the short and long term than in the Reference case, with production reaching nearly 8 million barrels per day in 2020. In the Low EUR case there is very little growth in domestic crude oil production over the projection period. Higher oil prices lead to an increase in the level of investment in new oil projects. However, the returns from increased investment diminish as the average size and quality of available reservoirs decline. For example, in the High Oil Price case tight oil production is, on average, 225,000 barrels per day higher from 2020 to 2030 than in the Reference case but returns to Reference case levels in 2035. In contrast, low oil prices result in less investment in new oil projects and encourage producers to plug and abandon existing fields at earlier dates. For example, in the Low Oil Price case, oil production from the Alaska North Slope is shut down by around 2025, when the projected operating costs exceed wellhead production revenues (see “Issues in focus”). From 2020 to 2035, tight oil production is, on average, roughly 300,000 barrels per day lower in the Low Oil Price case than in the Reference case.

U.S. imports of petroleum and other liquids (including crude oil, petroleum liquids, and liquids derived from nonpetroleum sources) grew steadily from the mid-1980s to 2005 but have declined since then. In the AEO2012 Reference and High Oil Price cases, U.S. imports of petroleum and other liquids continue to decline from 2010 to 2035, even as they provide a major part of total U.S. supply. Tighter fuel efficiency standards, increased use of biofuels, and greater production of domestic petroleum and other liquids contribute to the decrease in the share of imports. The combination of higher prices and renewable fuel mandates leads to more domestic production of petroleum and biofuels, which, combined with declines in the petroleum share of finished products after 2015, results in sustained net product exports. The net import share of U.S. petroleum and other liquids consumption, which fell from 60 percent in 2005 to 50 percent in 2010, continues to decline in the Reference case, with the net import share falling to 36 percent in 2035 (Figure 114). In the High Oil Price case, the net import share falls even lower to a 22-percent share in 2035. In the Low Oil Price case, the net import share remains flat in the near term but rises to 51 percent in 2035, as domestic demand increases and imports become cheaper than crude oil produced domestically. As a result of increased domestic production and slow growth in consumption, the United States becomes a net exporter of petroleum products, with net exports in the Reference case increasing from 0.18 million barrels per day in 2011 to 0.34 million barrels per day in 2035. In the High Oil Price case, net exports of petroleum products increase to 0.9 million barrels per day in 2035.

96

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

Petroleum and other liquids supply
U.S. consumption of cellulosic biofuels exceeds renewable fuels standard in 2035
Figure 115. EISA2007 RFS credits earned in selected years, 2010-2035 (billion credits)
40 EISA2007 renewable fuel standard Biomass-to-liquids 15 Cellulosic ethanol Biodiesel

Infrastructure hurdles limit near-term growth in consumption of E15 and E85 fuels
Figure 116. U.S. ethanol use in blended gasoline and E85, 2000-2035 (billion gallons per year)
20 History 2010 Projections Blended ethanol

30

20

10 E85 5

10 Other ethanol 0 2010 2015 2020 2025

Corn-based ethanol Imports 2030 2035

0 2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Although biofuel production increases substantially in the AEO2012 Reference case, it does not meet the mandated RFS of 36 billion gallons in 2022 (Figure 115). Financial and technological hurdles delay the start of many advanced biofuel projects, particularly cellulosic biofuel projects. Three consecutive years of substantial reductions in the cellulosic biofuels mandate [133, 134, 135 ] have significantly reduced the possibility that the original RFS levels mandated in EISA2007 will be reached by 2022. Between 2012 and 2022, it is expected that the EPA will evaluate the status of biofuel capacity annually and revise the production mandates for the following year, according to provisions in the RFS [136]. In 2011, after the EPA reduced the cellulosic biofuel mandate for both 2010 and 2011 from 100 million and 250 million gallons, respectively, to approximately 6 million gallons in both years, it also reduced the 2012 mandate from 500 million gallons to about 8 million gallons. Taking into account those modifications and anticipated future changes, only 22.1 billion of RFS credits are generated in 2022 in the Reference case, with 15 billion gallons of credits coming from domestic production of corn-based ethanol. In the Reference case, the remainder of the biofuel supply consists of imported ethanol, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and smaller volumes of next-generation biofuels. U.S. consumption of cellulosic ethanol grows from 0.6 billion gallons in 2022 to 7.2 billion gallons in 2035, when imports of ethanol and biodiesel total 2.2 billion gallons and 0.2 billion gallons, respectively.

A number of factors have recently limited the amount of ethanol that can be consumed domestically. Currently, given the limited availability of E85, the primary use of ethanol is as a blendstock for gasoline. With rapid growth in ethanol capacity and production in recent years, ethanol consumption in 2010 approached the legal gasoline blending limit of 10 percent (E10). As of January 2011, the EPA increased the blending limit to 15 percent for vehicles built in 2001 and later [137 ]. Once the final requirements are put in place, blenders will no longer be prohibited from blending beyond 10 percent for the general stock; however, a number of issues are expected to limit the rate at which terminals and retail outlets choose to take advantage of the option. Liability from potential misfueling and infrastructure problems is one of the top concerns expected to slow the widespread adoption of E15. Retailers are hesitant to sell E15, even with the EPA’s warning label, if they are not relieved of responsibility for damage to consumers’ vehicles that may result from misfueling with the higher ethanol blend or from malfunctions of storage equipment or infrastructure. Consumer acceptance of the new fuel blend will also play a part, and warning labels may deter customers from risking potential damage from the use of E15, which potentially could void vehicle warranties. In light of those potential issues, ethanol blending in gasoline increases slowly in the Reference case, from 13.2 billion gallons in 2010 (about 9 percent of the gasoline pool) to 15.0 billion gallons in 2020 (about 11 percent) and 15.8 billion gallons in 2035 (12.5 percent). Given the blending limitations, the remaining growth in ethanol use is in E85, which grows from about 0.6 billion gallons in 2018 to 9.5 billion gallons in 2035 (Figure 116).

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

97

Coal production
Shifts in fuel consumption guide future investment decisions for refiners
Figure 117. U.S. motor gasoline and diesel fuel consumption, 2000-2035 (million barrels per day)
10 History 2010 Projections Motor gasoline 8 Petroleum content only (excluding biofuels) Diesel Petroleum content only (excluding biofuels) 10 West Interior 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 1970 1985 2000 2010 2020 2035 20 Total

Early declines in coal production are more than offset by growth after 2015
Figure 118. Coal production by region, 1970-2035 (quadrillion Btu)
30 History 2010 Projections

6

4

Appalachia

2

Tighter vehicle efficiency standards for LDVs require new LDVs to average 35 mpg by 2020, and newly issued regulations require increased use of ethanol. The Reference case does not include the proposed fuel economy standards covering MYs 2017 through 2025 that would raise vehicle efficiency standards even higher. Demand for motor gasoline declines in the Reference case. In combination with a tighter market for diesel fuel, the decrease in gasoline consumption leads to a shift in refinery outputs and investments. As some smaller and less integrated refineries begin to idle capacity as a result of higher costs, new refinery projects are focused on shifting production from gasoline to distillate fuels. The restructuring results in a net reduction in refinery capacity of 2.4 million barrels per day over the projection period. In the Reference case, new capacity that was planned before the economic downturn of 2008-2009 comes on line early in the projection period, adding approximately 400,000 barrels per day of new refining distillation capacity from 2010 to 2015. As a result of refinery economics and concerns about the potential for enactment of legislation that could constrain carbon emissions, raise refiners’ costs, and limit the growth in demand for petroleum and other liquids, no additional refinery capacity is built after 2015 until around 2030. Total refining capacity in the United States declines gradually after 2015 as additional capacity is idled. Motor gasoline consumption and diesel fuel consumption (either including or excluding biofuels) trend in opposite directions in the Reference case (Figure 117). Consumption of diesel fuel increases by approximately 0.8 million barrels per day from 2010 to 2035, while motor gasoline consumption falls by 0.9 million barrels per day. 98

Although higher coal exports provide some support in 2011, U.S. coal production declines for four years thereafter as a result of low natural gas prices, rising coal prices, lack of growth in electricity demand, and increasing generation from renewables. In addition, new requirements to control emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and air toxics (such as mercury and acid gases), result in the retirement of some coal-fired generating capacity, contributing to the reduction in demand for coal. After 2015, coal production grows at an average annual rate of 1.0 percent through 2035, with coal use for electricity generation increasing as electricity demand grows and natural gas prices rise.More coal is also used for production of synthetic liquids, and coal exports increase. Western coal production grows through 2035 (Figure 118) but at a much slower rate than in the past, as demand growth continues to slow. Low-cost supplies of coal from the West satisfy much of the additional need for fuel at coal-fired power plants east of the Mississippi River and supply most of the coal used at new CTL and CBTL plants. Coal production in the Interior region, which has trended downward slightly since the early 1990s, recovers to near historic highs in the AEO2012 Reference case. Additional production from the Interior region originates from mines tapping into the substantial reserves of mid- and high-sulfur bituminous coal in Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky and from lignite mines in Texas and Louisiana. Appalachian coal production declines substantially from current levels, as coal produced from the extensively mined, higher cost reserves of Central Appalachia is supplanted by lower cost coal from other supply regions. An expected increase in production from the northern part of the Appalachia basin, however, moderates the overall production decline in Appalachia.

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

Coal production and prices
U.S. coal production is affected by actions to cut GHG emissions from existing power plants
Figure 119. U.S. total coal production in six cases, 2010, 2020, and 2035 (quadrillion Btu)
40 High Oil Price Low Coal Cost High Economic Growth Reference Low Economic Growth GHG15

Average minemouth price continues to rise, but at a slower pace than in recent years
Figure 120. Average annual minemouth coal prices by region, 1990-2035 (2010 dollars per million Btu)
6 History
6

2010

Projections

Average price (nominal dollars)

30

4 20 2 10

0 1990

2035

Appalachia Interior U.S. average West

0

2010

2020

2035

0 1990

2000

2010

2020

2035

U.S. coal production varies across the AEO2012 cases, reflecting different assumptions about the costs of producing and transporting coal, the outlook for economic growth, the outlook for world oil prices, and possible restrictions on GHG emissions (Figure 119). As shown in the GHG15 case, where a CO2 emissions price that grows to $44 per metric ton in 2035 is assumed, actions to restrict or reduce GHG emissions can significantly affect the outlook for U.S. coal production. Assumptions about economic growth primarily affect the projections for overall electricity demand, which in turn determine the need for coal-fired electricity generation. In contrast, assumptions about the costs of producing and transporting coal primarily affect the choice of technologies for electricity generation, with coal capturing a larger share of the U.S. electricity market in the Low Coal Cost case. In the High Oil Price case, higher oil prices stimulate the demand for coal-based synthetic liquids, leading to more coal use at CTL and CBTL plants. Production of coal-based synthetic liquids totals 1.3 million barrels per day in 2035 in the High Oil Price case, more than four times the amount in the Reference case. From 2010 to 2035, changes in total annual coal production across the cases (excluding the GHG case) range from a decrease of 1 percent to an increase of 26 percent. In the earlier years of the projections, coal production is lower than in 2010 in most cases, as other sources of electricity generation displace coal-fired generation. From 2010 to 2020, changes in coal production across the cases (excluding the GHG case) range from a decline of 13 percent to virtually no change, with a 6-percent decline projected in the AEO2012 Reference case.

In the AEO2012 Reference case, the average real minemouth price for U.S. coal increases by 1.5 percent per year, from $1.76 per million Btu in 2010 to $2.56 in 2035, continuing the upward trend in coal prices that began in 2000 (Figure 120). A key factor underlying the higher coal prices in the projection is an expectation that coal mining productivity will continue to decline, but at slower rates than during the 2000s. In the Appalachian region, the average minemouth coal price increases by 1.7 percent per year from 2010 to 2035. In addition to continued declines in coal mining productivity, the higher price outlook for the Appalachian region reflects a shift to higher-value coking coal, resulting from the combination of growing exports of coking coal and declining shipments of steam/thermal coal to domestic markets. Recent increases in the average price of Appalachian coal, from $1.28 per million Btu in 2000 to $2.77 per million Btu in 2010, in part a result of significant declines in mining productivity over the past decade, have substantially reduced the competitiveness of Appalachian coal with coal from other regions. In the Western and Interior coal supply regions, declines in mining productivity, combined with increasing production, lead to increases in the real minemouth price of coal, averaging 2.3 percent per year for the Western region and 1.0 percent per year for the Interior region from 2010 to 2035.

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

99

Emissions from energy use
Concerns about future GHG policies affect investments in emissions-intensive capacity
Figure 121. Cumulative coal-fired generating capacity additions by sector in two cases, 2011-2035 (gigawatts)
50

Projected energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remain below their 2005 level
Figure 122. U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector and fuel, 2005 and 2035 (million metric tons)
4,000
4,770 5,996
Total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions

5,758

40 End use

3,000
0 1980

30

2005

2035

Petroleum Natural gas Coal Electricity

2,000 20 Electric power 1,000

2005

2035

10

0

0 Reference No GHG Concern

Residential Commercial

Industrial Transportation Electric power

In the AEO2012 Reference case, the cost of capital for investments in GHG-intensive technologies—including new coalfired power plants without carbon capture and storage (CCS), new CTL and CBTL plants, and capital investment projects at existing coal-fired power plants (excluding CCS)—is increased by 3 percentage points to reflect the behavior of utilities, other energy companies, and regulators concerning the possible enactment of GHG legislation that could require owners to purchase emissions allowances, invest in CCS, or invest in other projects to offset their emissions in the future. The No GHG Concern case illustrates the potential impact on energy investments when the additional 3 percentage points added to the cost of capital for GHG-intensive technologies is removed. In the No GHG Concern case, the lower cost of capital leads to 40 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity additions from 2011 to 2035, up from 17 gigawatts in the Reference case (Figure 121). As a result, additions of both natural gas and renewable generating capacity are lower in the No GHG Concern case than in the Reference case. In the end-use sectors, all new coal-fired capacity additions in the No GHG Concern case are at CTL and CBTL plants, where part of the electricity is used to produce synthetic liquids and the remaining portion is sold to the grid. As a result, production of coal-based synthetic liquids totals 0.7 million barrels per day in 2035, compared with 0.3 million barrels per day in the Reference case. Total coal consumption (including coal converted to synthetic fuels) increases to 24.3 quadrillion Btu in 2035 in the No GHG Concern case, 2.6 quadrillion Btu (12 percent) higher than in the Reference case. Energy-related CO2 emissions in 2035 are 5,900 million metric tons in the No GHG Concern case, about 2 percent higher than in the Reference case and 2 percent lower than their 2005 level.

On average, energy-related CO2 emissions in the AEO2012 Reference case decline by 0.1 percent per year from 2005 to 2035, as compared with an average increase of 0.9 percent per year from 1980 to 2005. Reasons for the decline include an expected slow and extended recovery from the recession of 2008-2009, growing use of renewable technologies and fuels, efficiency improvements, slower growth in electricity demand, and more use of natural gas, which is less carbon-intensive than other fossil fuels. In the Reference case, energy-related CO2 emissions remain below 2005 levels through 2035, when they total 5,758 million metric tons—238 million metric tons (4.0 percent) below their 2005 level (Figure 122). Petroleum remains the largest source of U.S. CO2 emissions over the projection period, but its share falls to 40 percent in 2035 from 44 percent in 2005. CO2 emissions from petroleum use, mainly in the transportation sector, were at relatively low levels in 2009. Although they increase somewhat from 2025 to 2035, emissions from petroleum use remain fairly stable, as improvements in transportation fuel economy and the expanded use of ethanol and other biofuels outweigh expected increases in travel demand. CO2 emissions from petroleum would be even lower if proposed fuel economy standards covering MYs 2017 through 2025 were included in the Reference case. Emissions from coal, the second largest source of CO2 emissions, remain below 2005 levels through 2035 in the Reference case. Coal’s share of total U.S. CO2 emissions remains relatively unchanged through 2035, because the percentage decline in emissions from coal combustion is roughly the same as the percentage decline in total CO2 emissions over the period. The natural gas share of CO2 emissions increases from just under 20 percent in 2005 to 25 percent in 2035 as the use of natural gas to fuel electricity generation and industrial applications increases.

100

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

which totaled 2. Annual NOX emissions from electricity generation dropped by 43 percent from 2005 to 2010 due to implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).Emissions from energy use Power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide are reduced by further environmental controls Figure 123. coal plants must have either flue gas desulfurization (FGD) or dry sorbent injection (DSI) systems installed by 2015. As a result. Annual emissions of NOX from the electric power sector. which led to the installation of additional NOX pollution control equipment.4 10 6 10.9 1. in order to continue operating. or low-NOX burners. 1990-2035 (million short tons) 20 15.7 2 1. which are used to reduce acid gas emissions. The type of retrofit used depends on the specific characteristics of the plant. From 2010 to 2035. also reduce SO2 emissions.3 1. From 2010 to 2035. NOX emissions are 5 percent below 2010 levels in 2035.6 1.1 1. SO2 emissions increase slowly from 2016 to 2035 (Figure 123). and 29 percent with low-NOX burners. The drop in emissions is a result primarily of CSAPR [139]. However.1 5 5. Although SO2 is not directly regulated by the MATS. because MATS contributes to a reduction in coalfired generation overall. as total electricity generation from coalfired power plants increases.2 History Projections Nitrogen oxide emissions show little change from 2010 to 2035 in the Reference case Figure 124. electric power sector fall from 5. 28 gigawatts of coalfired capacity is retrofitted with NOX controls in the Reference case: 69 percent with SCR.7 million short tons in the 2015-2035 projection period.7 5. Coal-fired power plants can be retrofitted with one of three types of NOX control technologies: selective catalytic reduction (SCR). AEO2012 assumes that. In the AEO2012 Reference case.7 15 11. DSI systems can achieve 70-percent efficiency when they include a baghouse filter. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity generation. all operating coal-fired power plants are assumed to have either DSI or FGD systems installed on units larger than 25 megawatts. and another 58 gigawatts is retrofitted with DSI systems. SO2 emissions from the U. selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR). 101 U.3 1.S.3 to 1. it indirectly reduces NOX emissions in the power sector in States without CSAPR where coal. 1990-2035 (million short tons) 8 6. A slight rise in NOX emissions after 2015 corresponds to a recovery in coal-fired generation as natural gas prices rise in the later years of the projection period. the reductions are achieved as a result of the technology requirements for acid gas and non-mercury metal controls on coal-fired power plants.1 million short tons in 2010 to a range of 1. after a 75-percent decrease from 2010 to 2015. despite a 2-percent increase in coalfired electricity generation over the same period.0 million short tons from 2015 to 2035 (Figure 124). which also is assumed to be needed for compliance with the non-mercury metal component of the MATS. The MATS does not have a direct effect on NOX emissions.5 1.and oilfired units are used. range between 1.9 1.1 million short tons in 2010. approximately 48 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity is retrofitted with FGD units in the Reference case. because none of the potential technologies required to comply with MATS has a significant impact on NOX emissions. including the boiler configuration and the type of coal used.6 2.3 History Projections 4 3. EIA assumes a 95-percent SO2 removal efficiency for FGD units and a 70-percent SO2 removal efficiency for DSI systems.8 1. Nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation. The reduction occurs in response to the EPA’s CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) [138].0 0 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 0 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 In the AEO2012 Reference case. Both technologies.9 2. 3 percent with SNCR.8 and 2. which includes both annual and seasonal cap-and-trade systems for NOX in 28 States. By 2015.S.

“EPA Finalizes Regulations for the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program for 2010 and Beyond.pdf. website www.C.” website www.gov/otaq/ renewablefuels/420f10007.  The 24 gigawatts include the 1.  U.” Federal Register. “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 129. 531. “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012.” EPA-420-F-11-044 (Washington.S.  The factors that influence decisionmaking on capacity additions include electricity demand growth.  In the recessions highlighted in Figure 46.  EISA2007.  U.gov/airtransport. Environmental Protection Agency. fuel prices. 128. The energy-intensive manufacturing sectors include food. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.epa. percentage changes in annual GDP relative to the previous year were negative. bulk chemicals. website www. the need to replace inefficient plants.gov/news/releases/ aprjun12/0426_board. 49 CFR Parts 523. pp. pdf.gov/otaq/regs/ fuels/additive/e15. cement.htm. No.gov/fuel-economy. State RPS programs.  S.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation. Proposed Rule. “EPA Finalizes 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards.gpo.gov/data/index.gov/oms/ fuels/renewablefuels/420f10056.S.shtml. and the availability of Federal tax credits for some technologies.S. Transportation Energy Databook: Edition 30.” website epa.pdf.” Federal Register.” website www. the term “capacity” in the discussion of electricity generation indicates utility. and R. No. Section 211(o)(7) of the Clean Air Act.  U.epa. 57106-57513.  For detailed discussion of levelized costs.S.  Unless otherwise noted. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.nhtsa.gov/mats. and aluminum.nhtsa.Endnotes for Market trends Links current as of June 2012 121.gov/otaq/ fuels/renewablefuels/documents/420f11044. Vol. petroleum refining. see U. Davis.12 gigawatt Watts Bar 2 unit in 2012 that was subsequently delayed by TVA until 2015 due to cost overruns.  U.S. the costs and operating efficiencies of different generation options.S.” website www.  LDV fuel economy includes AFVs and banked credits toward compliance. Boundy. “Light Vehicles and Characteristics. 76.  Energy expenditures relative to GDP are not the energy share of GDP. Chapter 4. 179 (Washington. Vol. Diegel. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. DC: December 2011).G. The AEO2012 Reference case does not include the proposed LDV GHG and fuel economy standards published by the EPA and NHTSA in December 2011.S.  U.epa.” website www. “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. U.) 126. “EPA Finalizes 2011 Renewable Fuel Standards. DC: February 2010). glass. 133. The energy share of GDP corresponds to the share of value added by domestic energy-producing sectors. December 1. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . and mining.ornl. 536.eia. agriculture.  U. and 537.” website cta. steel. S. 124. 2011).epa. Environmental Protection Agency.htm. Energy Information Administration. DC.” EPA-420-F-10-056 (Washington. because they include energy as an intermediate product. (See “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.epa. www.” EPA-420-F-10-007 (Washington. excluding the value of energy as an intermediate product.tva. “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.cfm. Final Rule. TN: June 2011). and CHP capacity. nonutility.S.gov/ staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-25_CAFE_NPRM.pdf. U. 134. DC: September 15.S. 125. DC: November 2010). 136. Environmental Protection Agency.W. 122. 127. website www. ORNL-6986 (Oak Ridge. 137.  The industrial sector includes manufacturing. 135. Environmental Protection Agency. Costs reflect the average of regional costs. construction. 138. website www. 139. 131. 132. 2011). 76. 102 U.S. 533.gov/fdsys/ pkg/FR-2011-09-15/html/2011-20740. 130. website www. Environmental Protection Agency. paper. 123. 231 (Washington. “E15 (a blend of gasoline and ethanol). Environmental Protection Agency.

and useful as possible. None of the EIA or any of the other contributors shall be responsible for any loss sustained due to reliance on the information included in this report. not a substitute for. they should serve as an adjunct to. however. a complete and focused analysis of public policy initiatives.Comparison with other projections Energy Information Administration (EIA) and other contributors have endeavored to make these projections as objective. reliable. .

Comparison with other projections Only IHS Global Insight (IHSGI) produces a comprehensive energy projection with a time horizon similar to that of the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012). Other organizations, however, address one or more aspects of the U.S. energy market. The most recent projection from IHSGI, as well as others that concentrate on economic growth, international oil prices, energy consumption, electricity, natural gas, petroleum, and coal, are compared here with the AEO2012 Reference case.

1. Economic growth
The range of projected economic growth in the outlooks included in the comparison tends to be wider over the first 5 years of the projection period than over a longer period, because the group of variables—such as population, productivity, and labor force growth—that are used to influence long-run economic growth is smaller than the group of variables that affect projections of shortrun growth. The average annual rate of growth of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2015 (in 2005 dollars) ranges from 2.4 percent to 3.4 percent (Table 22). From 2010 to 2020, the 10-year average annual growth rate ranges from 2.5 percent to 3.1 percent. From 2010 to 2015, real GDP is projected to grow at a 2.5-percent average annual rate in the AEO2012 Reference case, lower than projected by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Blue Chip Consensus (Blue Chip), Social Security Administration (in The 2011 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds), ExxonMobil, and the Interindustry Forecasting Project at the University of Maryland (INFORUM) and higher than projected by Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. (SEER). The AEO2012 projection of GDP growth is similar to the IHSGI average annual rate of 2.5 percent over the same period. The average annual GDP growth of 2.5 percent in the AEO2012 Reference case from 2010 to 2020 is at the low end of the range of outlooks, with OMB, INFORUM, and the Social Security Administration projecting the strongest recovery from the 20082009 recession. INFORUM projects average annual GDP growth of 3.1 percent from 2010 to 2020, while OMB and the Social Security Administration project annual average growth of 3.0 percent over the same period. The CBO, ExxonMobil, Blue Chip, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) November 2011 World Energy Outlook Current Policies Scenario, and SEER also project higher growth than the AEO2012 Reference case from 2010 to 2020, ranging between 2.6 and 2.8 percent per year over the next 10 years. There are few public or private projections of GDP growth for the United States that extend to 2035. The AEO2012 Reference case projects 2.5-percent average annual GDP growth from 2010 to 2035, consistent with trends in labor force and productivity growth. IHSGI, ExxonMobil, and the Social Security Administration project GDP growth averaging 2.5 percent per year from 2010 to 2035, and INFORUM (at 2.7 percent) and SEER (at 2.8 percent) project higher GDP growth than in the AEO2012 Reference Case over the same period. IEA projects a slightly lower rate of 2.4 percent per year from 2010 to 2035.

2. Oil prices
In the AEO2012 Reference case, oil prices [West Texas Intermediate (WTI)] rise from $79 per barrel in 2010 to about $117 per barrel in 2015 and $127 per barrel in 2020 (Table 23). From the 2020 level, prices increase slowly to $145 per barrel in 2035. This price trend is slightly higher than the trend shown in last year’s AEO2011 Reference case.

Table 22. Projections of average annual economic growth, 2010-2035
Average annual percentage growth rates Projection AEO2012 (Reference case) AEO2011 (Reference case) IHSGI (November 2011) OMB (January 2012) CBO (January 2012)
a a

2010-2015
2.5 3.0 2.5 3.1 2.7 3.4 3.3 -a

2010-2020
2.5 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7

2020-2035
2.6 2.6 2.5 --2.4 2.1 2.4 -2.3 2.8

2010-2035
2.5 2.7 2.5 --2.7 2.5 2.4 -2.5 2.8

INFORUM (January 2012) Social Security Administration (August 2011) IEA (2011)
b

Blue Chip Consensus (October 2011) ExxonMobil SEER

2.6 2.7 2.4

-- = not reported. a OMB, CBO, and Blue Chip forecasts end in 2022, and growth rates cited are for 2010-2022. b IEA publishes U.S. growth rates for certain intervals: 2009-2020 growth is 2.6 percent, and 2009-2035 growth rate is 2.4 percent.

104

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

Comparison with other projections Market volatility and different assumptions about the future of the world economy are reflected in the range of price projections for both the short term and the long term; however, most projections show prices rising over the entire course of the projection period. The projections range from $82 per barrel to $117 per barrel in 2015 (a span of $35 per barrel) and from $98 per barrel to $145 per barrel in 2035 (a span of $47 per barrel). The wide range underscores the uncertainty inherent in the projections. The range of the projections is encompassed in the range of the AEO2012 Low and High Oil Price cases, from $58 per barrel to $182 per barrel in 2015 and from $62 per barrel to $200 per barrel in 2035. The measure of oil prices is, by and large, comparable across projections. EIA reports the price of low-sulfur, light crude oil, approximately the same as the WTI price widely cited in the trade press. The only series that do not report projections in WTI terms are IEA, with prices in the Current Policies Scenario expressed as the price of imported crude oil, and INFORUM, with prices expressed as the average U.S. refiner acquisition cost (RAC) of imported crude oil.

3. Total energy consumption
Five projections by other organizations—INFORUM, IHSGI, ExxonMobil, IEA, and BP—include energy consumption by sector. To allow comparison with the IHSGI projection, the AEO2012 Reference case was adjusted to remove coal-to-liquids (CTL) heat and power, biofuels heat and co-products, and natural gas feedstock use. To allow comparison with the ExxonMobil projection, electricity consumption in each sector was removed from the AEO2012 Reference case projections. To allow comparison with the IEA and BP projections, the AEO2012 Reference case projections for the residential and commercial sectors were combined to produce a buildings sector projection. BP does not include the electric power sector in its projection for total energy consumption; however, it does include conversion losses that allow comparison on the basis of total energy consumption. The IEA projections have a base year of 2009, as opposed to 2010 in the other projections, and BP’s projections extend only through 2030, not 2035. Total energy consumption is higher in all projection years in both the IHSGI and INFORUM projections than in the AEO2012 Reference case. ExxonMobil, IEA, and BP show lower total energy consumption in all years (Table 24). ExxonMobil and BP include a cost for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in their outlooks, which helps to explain the lower level of consumption in those outlooks. While the IEA reference case also includes a cost for CO2 emissions, the IEA Current Policies Scenario (which assumes that no new policies are added to those in place in mid-2011) was used for comparison in this analysis, because it corresponds better with the assumptions in AEO2012. The INFORUM projection of total energy consumption in 2035 is almost 8 quadrillion Btu higher than the AEO2012 Reference case projection, with the industrial and electric power sectors each about 2 quadrillion Btu higher and the transportation sector about 3 quadrillion Btu higher. For the transportation sector, the difference appears to result from a higher number of light-duty vehicle miles traveled in the INFORUM results, which offsets slightly higher motor gasoline prices in the INFORUM projection. Vehicle efficiency is essentially the same in the INFORUM and AEO2012 projections. INFORUM also projects higher revenue passengermiles for air travel than AEO2012. Diesel prices are lower in the INFORUM projection, which leads to higher demand (about 1 quadrillion Btu) than in AEO2012. In the industrial sector, INFORUM projects industrial shipments in 2035 that are approximately 1.5 times the level of those in the AEO2012 Reference case, which helps to explain the higher level of industrial energy consumption in the INFORUM projection relative to AEO2012. IHSGI projects significantly higher electricity consumption for all sectors than in the AEO2012 Reference case, which helps to explain much of the difference in total energy consumption between the two projections. In the IHSGI projection, the electric power sector consumes 13 quadrillion Btu more energy in 2035 than in the AEO2012 Reference case. The greater use of electricity in the IHSGI projection, including 300 trillion Btu used by electric vehicles, also results in higher electricity prices than in the AEO2012 Reference case.

Table 23. Projections of oil prices, 2015-2035 (2010 dollars per barrel)
Projection AEO2012 (Reference case) AEO2011 (Reference case) EVA IEA (Current Policies Scenario) INFORUM IHSGI Purvin & Gertz SEER 2015
116.91 95.41 82.24 106.30 91.78 99.16 98.75 94.20

2020
126.68 109.05 84.75 118.10 105.84 72.89 103.77 101.57

2025
132.56 118.57 89.07 127.30 113.35 87.19 106.47 107.13

2030
138.49 124.17 94.78 134.50 117.83 95.65 107.37 111.26

2035
144.98 126.03 102.11 140.00 116.76 98.08 107.37 121.94

Although there are differences in energy consumption by sector between the ExxonMobil and BP projections, in both cases total energy consumption declines from 2010 levels and is lower than in the AEO2012 Reference case. The difference appears to result primarily from the inclusion of a tax on CO2 emissions in both the ExxonMobil and BP projections, which is not considered in the AEO2012 projection. Energy consumption in the transportation sector declines from 2010 levels in both the ExxonMobil and BP projections, driven by policy changes and technology improvement; however, BP projects a much larger drop in transportation energy consumption, a total of 4 quadrillion Btu (or four times the decline in the ExxonMobil projection) between 2010 and 2030. Although energy consumption in all sectors in the IEA projection is higher in 2035 than in 2010, energy consumption in the transportation and industrial sectors declines from 2020 to 2030, by less than 1 quadrillion Btu in each sector. 105

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

Comparison with other projections IEA projects little change for energy use in those two sectors from 2030 to 2035, with industrial energy consumption declining very slowly and transportation energy consumption increasing very slightly. IEA projects total energy consumption that is higher than BP in 2030 and higher than ExxonMobil in 2035 but considerably lower than in the AEO2012 Reference case.

4. Electricity
Table 25 compares summary results for the electric power sector from the AEO2012 Reference case with projections by Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA), IHSGI, and INFORUM. In 2015, total electricity sales range from a low of 3,753 billion kilowatthours in the AEO2012 Reference case to a high of 4,173 billion kilowatthours in the IHSGI projection. IHSGI shows higher sales across

Table 24. Projections of energy consumption by sector, 2010-2035 (quadrillion Btu)
Sector Residential Residential excluding electricity Commercial Commercial excluding electricity Buildings sector Industrial Industrial excluding electricity Losses
b

AEO2012 Reference
11.7 6.7 8.7 4.2 20.4 23.4 20.1 0.8 0.5 22.0 27.6 39.6
c

INFORUM
11.4 6.5 8.5 3.9 20.0 23.1 19.9 ---27.4 40.1 12.8 27.3 97.8 -11.2 6.4 9.5 4.3 20.7 27.4 23.9 ---29.0 41.6 13.6 28.0 105.1 --

IHSGI
11.2 6.2 8.6 4.0 19.8 ----21.4 26.6 40.8 12.8 --95.8

ExxonMobil
-6.0 -4.0 10.0 -20.0 ---27.0 37.0 --94.0 --6.0 -4.0 9.0 -20.0 ---28.0 39.0 --96.0 --

IEA
----19.1 22.9
a a

BP
----21.8 23.0 ----22.8 --23.1 90.7 -----21.9 23.4 ----21.0 --23.7 90.1 --

2010

----22.9 35.6 14.3
a a a

Natural gas feedstocks Industrial removing losses and feedstocks Transportation Electric power Less: electricity demand Electric power losses Total primary energy Excluding losses and feedstocks Residential Residential excluding electricity Commercial Commercial excluding electricity Buildings sector Industrial Industrial excluding electricity Lossesb Natural gas feedstocks Industrial removing losses and feedstocks Transportation Electric power Less: electricity demandc Electric power losses Total primary energy Excluding losses and feedstocks
-- = not reported. See notes at end of table.
b b

12.8 26.8 98.2 96.8 11.4 6.4 9.2 4.3 20.5 24.6 21.2 1.2 0.5 22.9 27.3 40.2 13.3 26.9 99.3 97.6

-85.7a -----20.4 24.8 ----23.8 39.3 16.4 -91.4 --

2020
11.8 5.8 9.5 4.0 21.3 ----22.5 27.4 48.6 15.7 --104.1

(continued on next page) 106 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

Comparison with other projections all sectors in 2015 in comparison with the other projections. Total electricity sales in 2035 in the IHSGI projection (5,652 billion kilowatthours) are higher than in the others: 4,415 billion kilowatthours in the AEO2012 Reference case, 4,483 billion kilowatthours in the INFORUM projection, and 4,726 billion kilowatthours in the EVA projection. Although IHSGI projects higher electricity sales in all sectors in 2035, the largest percentage differences between the IHSGI and other projections are in the industrial sector. Electricity sales in the industrial sector in 2035 in the IHSGI projection are 1,387 billion kilowatthours, as compared with 977 billion kilowatthours in the AEO2012 Reference case, 941 billion kilowatthours in the EVA projection, and 968 billion kilowatthours in the INFORUM projection.

Table 24. Projections of energy consumption by sector, 2010-2035 (quadrillion Btu) (continued)
Sector Residential Residential excluding electricity Commercial Commercial excluding electricity Buildings sector Industrial Industrial excluding electricity Losses
b

AEO2012 Reference
11.7 6.2 9.9 4.4 21.6 26.1 22.7 2.4 0.5 23.3 27.9 43.2
c

INFORUM
11.6 6.3 10.6 4.5 22.1 28.8 25.3 ---30.7 45.0 14.8 30.1 111.8 -11.7 6.2 11.1 4.6 22.8 29.1 25.7 ---31.9 46.2 15.3 30.8 114.7 --

IHSGI
12.6 5.7 10.4 4.0 23.0 ----23.0 27.5 54.3 18.1 --109.7

ExxonMobil
-5.0 -4.0 9.0 -19.0 ---26.0 41.0 --94.0 --5.0 -3.0 8.0 -18.0 ---25.0 40.0 --92.0 --

IEA
----22.0 24.1 ----22.9 41.6 17.9 -92.3 -----22.9 23.9 ----23.1 42.5 18.6 -93.4 --

BP
----23.0 23.2 ----18.5 --24.1 88.9 ------------------

2030

Natural gas feedstocks Industrial removing losses and feedstocks Transportation Electric power Less: electricity demand Electric power losses Total primary energy Excluding losses and feedstocks Residential Residential excluding electricity Commercial Commercial excluding electricity Buildings sector Industrial Industrial excluding electricity Lossesb Natural gas feedstocks Industrial removing losses and feedstocks Transportation Electric power Less: electricity demandc Electric power losses Total primary energy Excluding losses and feedstocks
b b

14.5 28.7 104.3 101.5 11.9 6.1 10.3 4.5 22.2 26.9 23.6 3.2 0.4 23.3 28.6 44.2 15.1 29.2 106.9 103.3

2035
13.0 5.5 10.8 4.0 23.8 ----23.3 27.8 57.2 19.3 --112.7

-- = not reported. a IEA data are for 2009. b Losses in CTL and biofuel production. c Energy consumption in the sectors includes electricity demand purchases from the electric power sector, which are subtracted to avoid double  counting in deriving total primary energy consumption.

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

107

Comparison with other projections

Table 25. Comparison of electricity projections, 2015, 2025, and 2035 (billion kilowatthours, except where noted)
Projection Average end-use price (2010 cents per kilowatthour) Residential Commercial Industrial Total generation plus imports Coal Petroleum Natural gasb Nuclear Hydroelectric/other Net imports Electricity sales Residential Commercial/other Industrial Capacity, including CHP (gigawatts) Coal Oil and natural gas Nuclear Hydroelectric/other
f e d c a

2010
9.8 11.5 10.1 6.7 4,152 1,851 37 982 807 449 26 3,749 1,451 1,336 962 1,036 318 459 101 158
a

AEO2012 Reference case
9.7 11.8 9.9 6.5 4,181 1,581 28 1,130 830 583 29 3,753 1,392 1,354 1,008 1,042 286 464 104 188 9.7 11.6 9.9 6.7 4,578 1,786 29 1,140 917 683 22 4,090 1,533 1,525 1,032 1,091 282 493 115 201

Other projections EVA 2015
-12.8 11.5 7.9 4,053 1,591 -1,090 827 515 29 3,921 1,481 1,414 1,025 1,094 289 514 106 185 10.2 12.0 10.7 7.0 4,611 1,905 45 1,223 839 576 24 4,173 1,563 1,489 1,121 1,101 309 491 104 197 10.9 12.8 11.4 7.4 5,417 1,774 45 1,760 918 896 25 4,942 1,887 1,793 1,261 1,274 283 566 114 312 -10.5 9.3 6.2 -------3,854 1,365 1,438 1,051 ------10.5 9.3 6.2 -------4,167 1,468 1,660 1,039 ------

IHSGI

INFORUM

2025 Average end-use price (2010 cents per kilowatthour) Residential Commercial Industrial Total generation plus imports Coal Petroleum Natural gas Nuclear Hydroelectric/other Net imports Electricity sales Residential Commercial/other Industrial Capacity, including CHP (gigawatts) Coal Oil and natural gas Nuclear Hydroelectric/other
f e d c b

9.8 11.5 10.1 6.7 4,152 1,851 37 982 807 449 26 3,749 1,451 1,336 962 1,036 318 459 101 158

-13.2 11.7 8.0 4,514 1,653 -1,335 870 629 27 4,298 1,650 1,679 969 1,119 267 518 110 224

-- = not reported. See notes at end of table.

(continued on next page) 108 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012

including CHP (gigawatts) Coal Oil and natural gas Nuclear Hydroelectric/other f e c b a 2010 9.415 1.8 cents per kilowatthour in 2010 to 10. wood.190 285 568 111 226 Other projections EVA 2035 -12.354 1.749 1.3 cents per kilowatthour for the residential sector. other biomass.1 cents per kilowatthour in 2035. hydrogen.178 2.8 cents per kilowatthour in 2010 and 9.618 45 2.1 11.124 28 5. In the AEO2012 Reference case.7 4.336 962 1. wood waste. The lowest prices by sector in 2015 are in the INFORUM projection (10.8 cents per kilowatthour in the residential sector. wood.2 -------4.652 2. wind power. petroleum coke. all municipal waste. d ”Other” includes sales of electricity to government and other transportation services.851 37 982 807 449 26 3. In all the projections.8 11. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 109 . In the IHSGI projection.9 cents per kilowatthour in 2015 to 10.904 968 ------ IHSGI INFORUM -. The highest average electricity prices by sector in 2015 are in the EVA projection (12. and miscellaneous technologies. average electricity prices by sector follow patterns similar to changes in the weighted average electricity price across all sectors (including transportation services).2 cents in 2015.Comparison with other projections Only IHSGI and the AEO2012 Reference case provide average electricity price projections through 2035.5 9.7 cents per kilowatthour in 2015 and 2025 before reaching 10. and 6. represents total oil and natural gas.9 cents per kilowatthour in the industrial sector). geothermal. f ”Other” includes conventional hydro.036 318 459 101 158 AEO2012 Reference case 10. other biomass. pumped storage. pumped storage. municipal waste.S.611 1.778 2. from 9.1 6. a Average end-use price includes the transportation sector.3 cents per kilowatthour in the commercial sector.8 10.1 cents per kilowatthour in 2035. sulfur. Table 25.5 10. and 2035 (billion kilowatthours. pitch. and fuel cells.6 -------4. 9. IHSGI shows real electricity prices rising to 14. 2015.3 6.008 941 -----12. solar and wind  power.2 cents per kilowatthour in the industrial sector).3 12. and 12. The IHSGI price projections are much higher than those in the AEO2012 Reference case.1 cents per kilowatthour for the industrial sector in 2035.199 1.5 cents per kilowatthour for the commercial sector. electricity prices for the residential sector are 11.897 30 1.451 1. electricity prices for the commercial sector increase from 9. 12.1 6. 2025. geothermal. U.= not reported. Comparison of electricity projections. e EIA capacity is net summer capacity. landfill gas. except where noted) (continued) Projection Average end-use price (2010 cents per kilowatthour) Residential Commercial Industrial Total generation plus imports Coal Petroleum Natural gas Nuclear Hydroelectric/other Net imports Electricity sales Residential Commercial/otherd Industrial Capacity. including CHP plants.9 cents in 2025. and 7.5 cents per kilowatthour in the residential sector.483 1.1 5.088 1. and electricity prices for the industrial sector increase from 6. wood waste.8 cents per kilowatthour in both 2015 and 2035.5 8. and 8. the average electricity price rises continuously (with the exception of a small decrease from 2017 to 2018).1 cents per kilowatthour in 2035.9 11.3 7. purchased steam. c ”Other” includes conventional hydroelectric. solar. chemicals.1 7. 11.387 1. When compared with the AEO2012 Reference case prices in 2035. Average electricity prices in the AEO2012 Reference case are 9.5 cents per kilowatthour in the commercial sector.1 cents per kilowatthour in 2035.004 1.398 887 780 12 4.5 cents per kilowatthour in 2015 to 7.726 1. b Includes supplemental gaseous fuels.450 262 665 128 396 -10.030 1. 10. the largest difference is with the IHSGI projection. batteries.152 1.1 14.721 977 1.718 1. For EVA.

the coal share in the IHSGI projection is 26 percent of total generation. respectively. and INFORUM projections show similar levels of natural gas consumption in the electricity generation sector in 2035. From 2015 to 2025. with total natural gas consumption growing from 4 to 31 percent. the AEO2012 Reference case does not assume changes in CO2 emissions policies. and Deloitte projections. however.181 billion kilowatthours in the AEO2012 Reference case. natural gas and oil-fired capacity grows to 568 gigawatts and hydroelectric/other capacity grows to 226 gigawatts in the AEO2012 Reference case in 2035. IHSGI and AEO2012 project increases of 9 percent and 10 percent. and in the INFORUM. Although coal represents the largest share of generation in 2015 in all the projections. nuclear generation totals 1. In the IHSGI projection. The faster growth in natural gas and hydroelectric/other capacity in the IHSGI projection continues through 2035. and INFORUM. the AEO2012 Reference case assumes that current laws and regulations remain unchanged throughout the projection period (including the implication that laws which include sunset dates do. the coal share also decreases but only to 38 percent of total generation. whereas the other projections may include anticipated policy developments over the next 25 years. In 2035. compared with 493 gigawatts in AEO2012 and 518 gigawatts in the EVA projections. 5. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .053 billion kilowatthours in the EVA projection to a high of 4. with average annual growth of 1 percent or less across the projection period. the natural gas share of total generation grows from 2015 to 2035 in all the projections. IHSGI shows the largest increase and INFORUM the smallest. from 2010 to 2035 in the INFORUM and Deloitte projections. ranging from 1. industrial natural gas consumption grows by 6 percent from 2010 to 2035. Total natural gas consumption in the AEO2012. All of the growth in industrial natural gas consumption in the Deloitte and INFORUM projections is between 2010 and 2015. In the AEO2012 Reference case. in contrast. The AEO2012 Reference case shows nuclear generation declining to 887 billion kilowatthours in 2035. In the IHSGI projection. Natural gas and oil-fired capacity grows to 665 gigawatts in 2035. The IHSGI and ExxonMobil projections for natural gas consumption by electricity generators are much higher than the other projections shown in Table 26. become ineffective at the time of those sunset dates). The slower rate of growth in the AEO2012 Reference case reflects relatively slower growth in electricity consumption and faster growth in renewable energy consumption than in the other projections. and EVA) show similar growth in residential consumption through 2030. and the ExxonMobil projection is 77 percent higher than the INFORUM projection. in fact.042 gigawatts in the AEO2012 Reference case to 1. a 3-percent decrease from 2025. and INFORUM and Deloitte are similar through 2035. production. industrial natural gas consumption declines from 2015 to 2035. while the natural gas share increases to 28 percent. and prices (Table 26) vary significantly as a result of differences in assumptions. Nuclear generation in 2015 ranges from a low of 827 billion kilowatthours in the EVA projection to a high of 839 billion kilowatthours in the IHSGI projection. higher than the 201 gigawatts in AEO2012. Natural gas and oil-fired capacity grows to 566 gigawatts in 2025 in the IHSGI projection. 39 percent. IHSGI projects more aggressive growth in total generating capacity. to 870 billion kilowatthours. EVA projects a 5-percent increase in nuclear generation.611 billion kilowatthours in the IHSGI projection. Industrial natural gas consumption is similar across the projections. Natural gas The projections of natural gas consumption.Comparison with other projections Total electricity generation plus imports in 2015 ranges from a low of 4. due to what appears to be a much higher demand projection. Deloitte. Natural gas consumption increases by 23 percent from 2010 to 2030 in the EVA projection and by 23 percent and 11 percent. In the AEO2012 Reference case. Each of the projections shows an increase in overall natural gas consumption from 2010 to 2035. SEER. and the natural gas share is 32 percent. imports. In the AEO2012 Reference case. Hydroelectric/other capacity grows to 312 gigawatts in 2025 in the IHSGI projection. which does not include a carbon tax. with the IHSGI projection showing the largest increase. Deloitte. The levels of commercial sector natural gas consumption are similar across the projections.S. compared with 4. and SEER projections increases from 2010 to 2035. the IHSGI and AEO2012 projections 110 U. in the IHSGI projection industrial natural gas consumption falls from 2010 to 2035. industrial natural gas consumption remains constant over the projection period. The ExxonMobil projection includes an increase of around 20 percent. after an initial increase. particularly IHSGI. but with more rapid growth projected by EVA. while consumption grows by an average of 3 percent in the ExxonMobil and IHSGI projections. The EVA projection shows an increase of 26 percent from 2010 to 2030 (EVA does not extend to 2035). For example.030 billion kilowatthours in 2035. The AEO2012 Reference case. In 2035. SEER. In the ExxonMobil projection. natural gas consumption by electricity generators in the IHGSI projection is more than double the consumption projected by INFORUM. By comparison. Deloitte. In particular. coal has a 33-percent share of total generation in 2025. and the natural gas share is 38 percent.101 gigawatts in the IHSGI projection. total natural gas consumption grows by 5 percent from 2015 to 2035. but projections for the residential sector vary significantly [140]. Total generating capacity by fuel in 2015 is relatively similar across the projections. The IHSGI projection for total natural gas consumption in 2035 is 36 percent higher than the INFORUM projection. IHSGI shows natural gas overtaking coal as a share of total generation by 2035 as a result of the carbon tax assumed in the IHSGI projection and the need to replace existing units that are uneconomical or are being retired for various regulatory or environmental reasons. as units are retired when they reach the end of their useful generation lifetimes. and hydroelectric/ other capacity grows to 396 gigawatts in 2035 in the IHSGI projection. respectively. a 12-percent increase from 2025. but IHSGI shows a much larger decrease in capacity in 2025. Three of the seven projections (INFORUM.

00 -- 24.01 4.87 3.30 0.31 5.00 5.58 2.56 0.85 3.66 1.01 8.00 -- Electricity generators 7.64 3.30 2.40 10.39 4.01 4.13 4.39 AEO2012 Reference case 23.03 -0.25 21.00c 8.82 ----26.20 4.43b 4.51 8.60 7.00 c ----27.82 5.74 27.65 5.39 Henry Hub spot market price (2010 dollars per million Btu) End-use prices (2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet) Residential Commercial Industrial h -- 11.99 5.27 2.47 ----- ----- Electricity generators -.39 4. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 111 .81 6.21 0.12 4.28 ----- ----- 14.47 9.90 0.38 2.41 7.66 25.46 7.30 7.14 7.16 25.78 2.90 3.88 0.28 -0.65 1. See notes at end of table.00 9.16 26.37 24.60 f 10.09 26.81 1.56 8.08 24.95 5.00 9.13 --29.80 8.S.68 8.76 3.07 Deloitte 2015 24.33 10.32 5.90 3.= not reported.80 2.50 2.29 0.60 8.10 4.36 9.44 7.79 -0.20 7.37 24.10 6.06 2.19 5. 2025.32 5.20 1.00 4.23 7.25 12.42 4.29 ---23.50 6. (continued on next page) U. then a partial recovery by 2035.29 1.38 2. The SEER projection for residential natural gas consumption shows a decrease of 4 percent from 2015 to 2025.91 3.64 8.50 --29.52 1.13 4.32 0.00d -8.86 3.00d -8. except where noted) Projection Dry gas productiona Net imports Pipeline LNG Consumption Residential Commercial Industrial Othersg Henry Hub spot market price (2010 dollars per million Btu) End-use prices (2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet) Residential Commercial Industrial h e f 2010 21.22 0.07b 4.17 25.13 -0.20 6.73 1.71 3.74 --- Electricity generators Dry gas productiona Net imports Pipeline LNG Consumption Residential Commercial Industrial Others g e 2025 27.29 Other projections IHSGI 23.43 8.52 12.58 2.52 4.12 --- Electricity generators -- 11.40 26.53 7.12 6.11 4.20 6.05 3.73 11.20 6.80 0.96 7.33 7.19 7.65 5.70 1.70 10.27 -5.05 4.29 ----27. Table 26.60 4.36 9.94 3.65 26.88 6.28 24.82 9.58 2.02 2.36 b 5.25 SEER ExxonMobil INFORUM 23.27 6.23 2.00 3.68 6.64 9.58 2.56 0.21 0.00 1.94 3.62 --25.20 --25. 2015.40 29. Comparison of natural gas projections.47 ----- 11.Comparison with other projections show larger declines in residential consumption of natural gas from 2010 to 2035 (11 percent and 6 percent.61b 4.75 EVA 23.00 1.53 3.63 5.46 -4.08 2.20 27.15 6.73 1.04 4. and 2035 (trillion cubic feet.53 4.30 1.58 10.63 11.70 9.00 13.31 4. respectively).38 0.87 2.57 ---23.

Coupled with a significant decline in net pipeline imports. Comparison of natural gas projections. e Includes consumption for industrial combined heat and power (CHP) plants and a small number of industrial electricity-only plants.70 -0. with the exception of IHSGI.43 7.81 9.18 6. both with increasing production and prices over time.90 2. IHSGI projects a larger increase in natural gas production but at relatively stable prices.58 2.74 27.36 9.09 7.35 2.33 11. a Does not include supplemental fuels. net pipeline imports decline from 2010 levels.37 24. Deloitte. or electricity and heat.93 -1. The AEO2012 Reference case and SEER show similar levels of natural gas production and Henry Hub spot prices.38 2. g Includes lease. 2025. the Henry Hub spot price in the IHSGI projection is 11 percent higher than the price in the SEER projection.35 16.00 --- Electricity generatorsf Henry Hub spot market price (2010 dollars per million Btu) End-use prices (2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet) Residential Commercial Industrial h 11. In particular. the SEER Henry Hub spot price quickly surpasses the IHSGI price. SEER. f Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and CHP plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.31 11.62 ----- ----- 17.72 5.50 --29.54 4. ExxonMobil. SEER.15 13. except where noted) (continued) Projection Dry gas production Net imports Pipeline LNG Consumption Residential Commercial Industrial Others g e a 2010 21. The highest level of natural gas production is projected by IHSGI. excludes consumption by nonutility generators. EVA shows similar levels of natural gas production as the AEO2012 Reference case through 2025.00d -8. although at different rates.20 9.03 3.24 4. production of domestic natural gas over the projection period.21 0.38 3.09 9.07 0. Includes electric utilities. exceeding the ExxonMobil projection by 21 percent in 2035.90 --- 5. and exempt wholesale generators. however.4 trillion cubic feet throughout the projection period. and Deloitte projecting more severe declines than EVA (only through 2030 since EVA does not show 2035).01 4.63 7.60 7. d Natural gas consumed in the residential and commercial sectors. small power producers. production of domestic natural gas between 2030 and 2035. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .13 EVA ----------7. however.60 7. However. and INFORUM did not include price projections.S. with AEO2012.30 9.80 3.00 8. In 2015. Only IHSGI and SEER included delivered natural gas prices that can be compared with those in the AEO2012 Reference case [141].30 b SEER ExxonMobil INFORUM 27.83 8. which shows a decline in U. and it is 50 percent higher in 2035.66 26.00 c 30. Table 26.20 6.S.S.96 2. In all the projections.32 5.28 -0. h The 2010 industrial natural gas price for IHSGI is $6.66b 4.63 4.39 AEO2012 Reference case 27.22 5.13 7.Comparison with other projections With the exception of ExxonMobil.08 27. based on an examination of 2010 price levels. plant.58 2.64 3. and 2035 (trillion cubic feet. and pipeline fuel. with the exception of EVA.71 ---24. and the AEO2012 Reference case project a strong increase in the share of total U. which shows a notable increase in net imports after 2015. b Does not includes lease.64 7.37 2.93 7. and pipeline fuel and fuel consumed in natural gas vehicles. plant.53.00 -0. all the projections show increasing U. net LNG imports remain below the 2010 level of 0.36 -0.46 0.37 -6. and natural gas-to-liquids heat/power production.65 5. natural gas supply accounted for by domestic production.37 Other projections IHSGI 31.87 0.60 7. In all the projections. INFORUM.00 14.99 7. to the public.25 14.94 3.83 3.= not reported. 112 U. plant. c Does not includes lease.75 ----- ----- Electricity generators -.70 26.S. 2015.26 Deloitte 2035 27.37 11.73 7. The other projections show relatively stable and similar percentages for the contribution of domestic natural gas production to total supply. there appear to be definitional differences in the projections. but higher Henry Hub spot prices. and pipeline fuel and fuel consumed in natural gas vehicles.00 2.14 0.36 --33.13 4.

55 5.0 million barrels per day in 2035 in the AEO2012 Reference case. respectively. IHSGI. respectively.56 9.00 3.04 b P&G -98. the U. at 4 percent and 7 percent.S.69 -17. imported RAC (2010 dollars per barrel) Average WTI price (2010 dollars per barrel) Domestic production Crude oil Alaska NGL Total net imports Crude oil Products Liquids consumption Net petroleum import share of liquids supplied (percent) Supply from renewable sources Transportation product prices (2010 dollars per gallon) Gasoline Diesel -.5 percent from 2015 to 2025.1 million barrels per day in 2015. Prices are lower in the INFORUM projection.7 million barrels per day in 2020. The SEER projection also shows the largest increases in residential and commercial delivered prices.52 -0. increase by 49.75 7.39 19.47 0.70 ------- INFORUM 91. and 2035 (million barrels per day.69 --- --8. and BP offer some opportunity to compare other coal outlooks with the AEO2012 Reference case. with the gasoline price consistently higher than the diesel price. INFORUM.95 per barrel in 2035 (Table 27).60 6. The AEO2012 Reference case projects a 26-percent increase in residential delivered natural gas prices and a 28-percent increase in commercial prices.20 --18. RAC for imported crude oil (in 2010 dollars) increases to $113.59 1. ExxonMobil does assume a carbon tax.76 3. then declines to about 6.78 ----3. IEA.25 19.60 2.40 2. over the same period. The BP.13 higher than the 2010 industrial price in the SEER projection (all prices in 2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet). at 51 percent and 40 percent. almost 1.81 8.5 percent higher than the 2015 level).S. From 2010 to 2035. except where noted) Projection Average U. ranging from $91.27 8. 6.56 8. and EVA assumes some additional regulations affecting coal use that are not included in current laws.3 million barrels per day in 2035 (120. and P&G.60 --- 2010 75. Supply from renewable sources increases to about 1. EVA.= not reported.17 50 0. The INFORUM projection shows a steady increase in production.22 20.54 3. In the BP projection.2 million barrels per day in 2035 in the P&G projection.90 AEO2012 Reference case 113.10 43 1. on an energy-equivalent basis. BP.97 116.8 million barrels per day in 2035.5 million barrels per day in 2010 to a peak of 6.56 ---8.5 million barrels per day in 2025 (38.15 0. Domestic crude oil production increases from about 5. 7. supplies from renewable sources. to 5. BP does not report supplies from renewable sources in 2035. Prices for both transportation diesel fuel and gasoline increase through 2035 in the AEO2012 projection. Domestic crude oil production decreases to 3.26 45 1. the production level in 2035 is more than 9 percent higher than the 2010 level. See notes at end of table. The industrial delivered natural gas price for 2010 in the IHSGI projection is $0. with diesel prices higher than gasoline prices.54 2.S. ExxonMobil.87 79.88 higher than the industrial price for 2010 in the AEO2012 Reference case and $1.39 7. Coal Projections from EVA. INFORUM.46 2. and by 86 percent in the SEER projection. the delivered price for electricity generators increases by 7 percent in the IHSGI projection. 2025.17 0.85 3.21 per barrel in 2025. EVA.Comparison with other projections the IHSGI industrial delivered natural gas price is difficult to compare.24 9. 2015.78 --5. and P&G projections do not include delivered fuel prices.91 8.76 per barrel in 2035.43 0. and Purvin & Gertz (P&G) did not report projections of RAC prices.49 -9.92 5. Such assumptions Table 27. $121. IHSGI shows the smallest increases in residential and commercial delivered prices over the projection period.90 0. 2. and $132. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 113 .97 per barrel in 2015.24 --- (continued on next page) U. Overall. and it is not included in the projections by EVA. and more than 2.78 per barrel in 2015 to $116.71 6.05 Other projections BP a EVA 2015 -82.07 9.43 --9. by 40 percent in the AEO2012 Reference case. INFORUM projects rising gasoline prices from 2015 levels but decreasing diesel prices. Liquid fuels In the AEO2012 Reference case.2 percent higher than the 2015 level) in the AEO2012 Reference case. Comparison of liquids projections. Although many of the assumptions used in the other projections are unknown.

S. IHSGI.41 --11.01 7.= not reported.10 7.49 1.Comparison with other projections probably contribute to lower coal consumption levels compared with historical levels and the AEO2012 Reference case. The AEO2012 Reference case has the most pessimistic outlook for coal consumption in the power sector in 2015. One metric ton equals 1.85 --- 2035 -------------102.90 36 2. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .24 -0. and liquids demand data were converted at 8.31 1.47 0.47 0.12 19.31 ----4.95 144.56 9.84572 million barrels per quadrillion Btu. liquids demand data were converted from quadrillion Btus to barrels at 187.45 Other projections BP a EVA 2025 -89.68 -17. imported RAC (2010 dollars per barrel) Average WTI price (2010 dollars per barrel) Domestic production Crude oil Alaska NGL Total net imports Crude oil Products Liquids consumption Net petroleum import share of liquids supplied (percent) Supply from renewable sources Transportation product prices (2010 dollars per gallon) Gasoline Diesel 2.39 7. except where noted) (continued) Projection Average U.34 19.000 kilograms. In contrast.88 21.47 7. Because most coal consumed in the United States is used for electricity generation.38 --- --9.49 3. 2025.20 37 1. 114 U.01 7.87 79.71 -17. the outlooks with the largest declines in total coal consumption also show similar declines in coal use for electric power generation. a For BP.07 11. Comparison of liquids projections.87 79.87 --17.03 4.46 116.45 3. with consumption declining over their respective projection horizons. b For INFORUM.36 8. and IHSGI have the most pessimistic views of coal use.90 3.27 3.56 9.52 -0.60 2.58 20.00 5.99 0.76 3.26 0.39 19.00 75.11 -10.60 2.17 0. ExxonMobil.36 3.S. and BP projections.35 --5.74 --9. it continues to decline in the EVA.40 3.41 6.17 50 0.10 0.162674 barrels per metric ton.00 ------- INFORUM 113. ExxonMobil— which includes a carbon tax—shows the largest decline in coal use for electricity generation compared with the other projections. liquids production data were converted from million metric tons to barrels at 8.18 7.21 132.07 9.39 19.23 0.067817 barrels per metric ton.76 3. Table 27.98 9.30 --2.89 8.44 ----4.17 0. while coal use in the electric power sector recovers after 2015 in the AEO2012 Reference case.85 4.20 ---5.S.00 4.11 ----------- --- -. INFORUM’s projection for coal consumption in 2035 is the highest—12 percent higher than in the AEO2012 Reference case (Table 28).80 --10.07 9.30 34 1.40 0. EVA. BP.00 4.31 b 2010 75.55 5.38 b P&G -106.37 4. 2015. imported RAC (2010 dollars per barrel) Average WTI price (2010 dollars per barrel) Domestic production Crude oil Alaska NGL Total net imports Crude oil Products Liquids consumption Net petroleum import share of liquids supplied (percent) Supply from renewable sources Transportation product prices (2010 dollars per gallon) Gasoline Diesel Average U.37 -3.39 7. ExxonMobil.17 50 0.56 9.17 132.90 AEO2012 Reference case 121.39 -----107. and 2035 (million barrels per day. both the AEO2012 and INFORUM projections show rising coal consumption after an initial decline. however.12 7.76 --5.55 5.

39 1.43 -- ----------------- -----15.81d -916f 54 70 16 32.051 64 82 18 35.27 2.Comparison with other projections and coal consumption in the BP outlook also declines from 2010 levels.66d 17.084 446 638 975 21 0 55 20.2 quadrillion Btu.08 Other projections EVAa IHSGI INFORUM (million short tons) 2015 1. EVA. The IEA projection for coal consumption in the electric power sector in 2035.70 -1.23 --22.114 -----2.26 48.40 --16.58 -- --- --- --- (continued on next page) U. INFORUM’s industrial coal consumption figure.48 0.S.17 2.00g --- 44.35 1.80 -2.70 1.05 2.072f 42 75 33 33.08 2. at 19. IHSGI.038 --927 19 -39 -986 53 73 20 --- 2025 42.25 --18.00 --18. 2030. which appears to include both coking coal consumption Table 28. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 115 .= not reported.144 --1.72 -1.82 1. 2010 1.63d 20.051 64 82 18 35.48 43.48 1. is similar to the AEO2012 Reference case projection.35 --- IEAb ExxonMobilc BPb (quadrillion Btu) ---17.53 -1.26 1.61 1.76 1.76 (quadrillion Btu) 20.00 ------22.118 383 735 952 19 38 55 -1.24 --16. whereas coal consumption returns to 2010 levels in 2030 in the AEO2012 Reference case. with EVA including the most pessimistic outlook.00g --- 1.54 --- --- -2. and 2035 (million short tons.03 --- --995 403 592 847 17 -33 -897 113 118 4 --- -2.16 ---17. 2015.70 0.73 0. See notes at end of table. 2025.27 2.76 1.063 71 115 44 44.79 2.00 ---15.38 2.00 ---19.61 1. and the AEO2012 Reference case all project declining use of coal at coking plants through 2030.002 21 -50 -1.073 70 89 19 --- Projection Production East of the Mississippi West of the Mississippi Consumption Electric power Coke plants Coal-to-liquids Other industrial/buildings Total consumption (quadrillion Btu)e Total consumption (million short tons) Net coal exports Exports Imports Minemouth price 2010 dollars per ton 2010 dollars per Btu Average delivered price to electricity generators 2010 dollars per ton 2010 dollars per Btu Production East of the Mississippi West of the Mississippi Consumption Electric power Coke plants Coal-to-liquids Other industrial/buildings Total consumption (quadrillion Btu)e Total consumption (million short tons) Net coal exports Exports Imports Minemouth price 2010 dollars per ton 2010 dollars per Btu Average delivered price to electricity generators 2010 dollars per ton 2010 dollars per Btu -.02 -1.76 45. Comparison of coal projections.017 411 606 871 20 -42 -933 100 104 4 --- 970 --- --------------- ---1. except where noted) AEO2012 Reference case (million short tons) 993 407 586 839 22 0 53 -914 95 110 15 42. The EVA projection for coal consumption in the electric power sector in 2030 is 13 percent lower than the 2010 level.15 --1.68 ---20.13 2.07d -1.80 -- 44.06 --1.00 ------- --19.084 446 638 975 21 0 55 20.

084 446 638 975 21 0 55 20. except where noted) (continued) AEO2012 Reference case (million short tons) 1.76 44.76 1.14 --19.18 -1.61 1.59 -2.54 43.00 ------17.683 million Btu per toe.137 94 129 36 50.77 --- IEAb ExxonMobilc BPb (quadrillion Btu) ---13.26 1. g Calculated as imports = (consumption – production + exports).S.99 --14.28 2.26 (quadrillion Btu) 23.099 83 117 33 47. f Calculated as consumption = (production .177 -----2.= not reported.85 0.21 -- 50.76 ---16.76 1.56 --24.1b -------- 1.13 0.31 -1.61 1.051 64 82 18 35. excludes coal converted to coal-based synthetic liquids.00 ---11.82 --- ----------------- -2. and regulations for coal combustion residuals under authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.00 ---13. a Regulations known to be accounted for in the EVA projections include MATS. 2025. c ExxonMobil projections include a carbon tax.81 1.Comparison with other projections Table 28. d Coal consumption in quadrillion Btu.56 2. and 2035 (million short tons.58d 21.80 --- --- -2.13 -- --- --- --- -.37d -- ---19. regulations for cooling-water intake structures under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.52 2.60d 20.08 2.277f 8 71 64 33.166 409 757 975 18 51 55 -1.39 Other projections EVAa IHSGI INFORUM (million short tons) 2030 984 --885 19 -35 -938 47 68 20 --- Projection Production East of the Mississippi West of the Mississippi Consumption Electric power Coke plants Coal-to-liquids Other industrial/buildings Total consumption (quadrillion Btu)e Total consumption (million short tons) Net coal exports Exports Imports Minemouth price 2010 dollars per ton 2010 dollars per Btu Average delivered price to electricity generators 2010 dollars per ton 2010 dollars per Btu Production East of the Mississippi West of the Mississippi Consumption Electric power Coke plants Coal-to-liquids Other industrial/buildings Total consumption (quadrillion Btu)e Total consumption (million short tons) Net coal exports Exports Imports Minemouth price 2010 dollars per ton 2010 dollars per Btu Average delivered price to electricity generators 2010 dollars per ton 2010 dollars per Btu 2010 1. 2030.70d -1.2 --1.15 -2.2 --1.03 --1. e For AEO2012.52 926 --837 18 -31 -886 42 63 20 --- 2035 43.212 431 781 998 17 67 56 -1. CSAPR.31 2. 2015.66 1. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . 116 U.22 --18.00 ------- ----------------- 53.06 -- -----19.76 44. INFORUM’s value appears to include coal consumption at coke plants.exports + imports).27 2. data were converted from millions of tons oil equivalent (toe) at 39.1 -------- -----11.156f 41 74 53 33. To facilitate comparison the AEO2012 value also includes coal consumption at coke plants.284 -----2. b For IEA and BP.00g --- 992 396 596 847 16 -31 -894 113 118 5 --- 1.55 --1.81 0.051 64 82 18 35. Comparison of coal projections.084 446 638 975 21 0 55 20.31 3.27 2.

INFORUM. coal imports in the AEO2012 Reference case are just over one-half those in the INFORUM outlook. AEO2012 includes the highest minemouth coal prices. EVA’s estimate of coal production east of the Mississippi is similar to that in the AEO2012 Reference case. The differences in coal production are primarily in basins west of the Mississippi. is higher than projected in the AEO2012 Reference case. The outlook for coal imports varies considerably across the projections. Coal price comparisons can be made only for the AEO2012. coal imports vary little through 2035. and INFORUM projections. BP’s projected coal exports in 2030 are about 70 million tons. Coal exports in 2030 in the AEO2012 Reference case are 1. coal exports. EVA and AEO2012 do differ.0 quadrillion Btu higher than projected by BP. and in the BP projection. imports drop to a negligible 4 million tons early on and remain at that level for the balance of the projection. The most optimistic projections are EVA and AEO2012. but after 2020 IHSGI’s prices change little. in that the AEO2012 Reference case projects stronger growth for coking coal exports. lower than the price in 2010. coal is consumed only for electricity generation after 2015. peaking in 2025 and then falling to 63 million tons in 2035. However. The AEO2012 Reference case appears to be the only projection that includes coal use in CTL production. as implied consumption in all other sectors drops to zero. With respect to exports. Despite much lower total coal consumption than in AEO2012. with little consensus. IHSGI’s projection of exports is the lowest of this group. including BP. The second group of projections. shows a less optimistic outlook for U. IHSGI. whereas prices in the AEO2012 Reference case continue to rise. which show exports remaining above 100 million tons through 2030. and EVA projects stronger growth for thermal coal exports. similar to the INFORUM and IHSGI projections for the same year. Only EVA provides regional production information for comparison with the AEO2012 Reference case. U. The difference may indicate that IHSGI’s more pessimistic coal consumption outlook has less to do with high coal prices than with other factors. which rise by 42 percent from 2010 to 2035. whereas the AEO2012 outlook is more stable. EVA and IHSGI show declines in coal use in the industrial/buildings sector (excluding the coking sector). In the EVA projection. there are no coal imports to the United States after 2015. In the IHSGI projection. where AEO2012 projects 161 million more tons of coal production in 2030 than projected by EVA. and IHSGI. According to ExxonMobil’s projection. Similarly. If BP’s average heat rate for exports is assumed to be similar to that in AEO2012. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 117 .S. In 2035. IHSGI and the AEO2012 Reference case do project similar delivered coal prices to the electricity sector through 2020.Comparison with other projections and coal use at industrial steam plants. INFORUM’s delivered coal price to the electricity sector falls and then remains constant at around 2015 levels through 2035. two broad consensus groups are identifiable among the projections.S.

Comparison with other projections Endnotes for Comparison with other projections Links current as of June 2012 140.S. 118 U. SEER’s prices include a carbon tax. 141. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . ExxonMobil’s projection for residential consumption includes commercial consumption.

S. Environmental Protection Agency EPACT05 Energy Policy Act of 2005 EUR Estimated ultimate recovery EV Electric vehicle EVA Energy Ventures Analysis FEMP Federal Energy Management Program FFV Flex-fuel vehicle FGD Flue gas desulfurization GDP Gross domestic product GHG Greenhouse gas GTL Gas-to-liquids GVWR Gross vehicle weight rating HAP Hazardous air pollutant HB House Bill HCl Hydrogen chloride HD Heavy-duty HDV Heavy-duty vehicle HEV Hybrid electric vehicle Hg Mercury ICE Internal combustion engine IDM Industrial Demand Module IEA International Energy Agency IECC2006 2006 International Energy Conversion Code IEM International Energy Module IHSGI IHS Global Insight INFORUM  Interindustry Forecasting Project at the University of Maryland IOU Invester-owned utility IREC Interstate Renewable Energy Council ITC Investment tax credit LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LDV Light-duty vehicle LED Light-emitting diode LFMM Liquid Fuels Market Module LNG Liquefied natural gas MATS Mercury and Air Toxics Standards MAM Macroeconomic Activity Module mmt Million metric tons MMTCO2e Million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent mpg Miles per gallon MSRP Manufacturer’s suggested retail price MY Model year NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEMS National Energy Modeling System NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NGL Natural gas liquids NGPL Natural gas plant liquids NGTDM Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Module NGV Natural gas vehicle NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOx Nitrogen oxides NRC U.S.and biomass-to-liquids CCS Carbon capture and storage CHP Combined heat and power CI Carbon intensity CMM Coal Market Module CNG Compressed natural gas CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2-EOR Carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule CTL Coal-to-liquids DG Distributed generation dge Diesel gallon equivalent DOE U. Department of Energy DSI Direct sorbent injection E10 Motor gasoline blend containing up to 10 percent ethanol E15 Motor gasoline blend containing up to 15 percent ethanol E85 Motor fuel containing up to 85 percent ethanol EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EIA U. Refiner Acquisition Cost RECS Residential Energy Consumption Survey RFM Renewable Fuels Module RFS Renewable fuel standard RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative RPS Renewable portfolio standard SB Senate Bill SCR Selective catalytic reduction SEER Strategic Energy and Economic Research. Energy Information Administration EIEA2008 Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 EISA2007 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 EOR Enhanced oil recovery EPA U.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns diameter PMM Petroleum Market Module PTC Production tax credit PV Solar photovoltaic RAC U.List of acronyms AB Assembly Bill AB32 California Assembly Bill 32 ACI Activated carbon injection AEO Annual Energy Outlook AEO2012 Annual Energy Outlook 2012 ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ARRA2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ASHRAE  American Society of Heating.S.S.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OMB Office of Management and Budget OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries P&G Purvin & Gertz PADD Petroleum Administration for Defense District PCs Personal computers PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle PM Particulate matter PM2. and Air-Conditioning Engineers Blue Chip Blue Chip Consensus BTL Biomass-to-liquids Btu British thermal unit CAFE Corporate average fuel economy CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CARB California Air Resources Board CBO Congressional Budget Office CBTL Coal. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 119 . Inc. SEIA Solar Energy Industries Association SNCR Selective noncatalytic reduction SO2 Sulfur dioxide STEO Short-Term Energy Outlook TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline System TRR Technically recoverable resource UEC Unit energy consumption UPS Uninterruptible power supply USGS United States Geological Survey VIUS Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey VMT Vehicle miles traveled WTI West Texas Intermediate U.S. Refrigerating.

S. Annual Energy Outlook 2010.pdf. HINUC12.alaska. AEO2012 unproved technically recoverable resources for selected shale gas plays as of January 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium.S. runs REF2010. RIN 2060-AP61. 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2009. 2010: U. 49 CFR Parts 523. Renewable portfolio standards in the 30 States with current mandates: U.” Federal Register.S. model years 2017-2025: U. Table 3.D111809A. Energy Information Administration.and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: Final Rule. Thursday.D030812A. Table 7. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . 2011. DC. gpo. Table 4. Table 2.S. and AEO2010 National Energy Modeling System. Office of Energy Analysis. Table 17.S. Table 14. Federal Register Notice Vol. 2011).htm. High Nuclear. Table 15. 2010-2035: History: U. Office of Energy Analysis. and 535. and 535. Estimated ultimate recovery for selected shale gas plays in three AEOs: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Energy Information Administration. 2011). U. and BESTTECH. 534. etc.S. Estimated average fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards proposed for light-duty vehicles.dsireuse. “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Proposed Rule. The Alpine field is the primary field within the Colville River Unit. website www. No. The North Slope well total includes exploration wells. runs FROZTECH. Table 8.S. Annual Energy Outlook 2011.D032812A. Comparison of operating and incremental costs of battery electric vehicles and conventional gasoline vehicles: U. and U.D032812A. 2127AK74. percent of area untested. Office of Energy Analysis. Alaska North Slope wells completed during 2010 in selected oil fields: Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. 2127-AK74. Thursday. October 2011). percent of area untested. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. September 15. Table 10. DOE/EIA-0384 (Washington. Key analyses of interest from “Issues in focus” in recent AEOs: U. Key assumptions for the residential sector in the AEO2012 Integrated Demand Technology case: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-15/html/2011-20740. Energy Information Administration.D022312A and LOWNUC12. and Low Nuclear cases.S.S. Note: Average well spacing. Office of Energy Analysis. Description of battery-powered electric vehicles: U. water disposal wells.D020112C. 2011.and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.gov/ogc/publicdb. runs FROZTECH. Table 5. website www. DOE/EIA-0383(2009) (Washington. 231 (Washington. Energy Information Administration.D020112C. Energy Information Administration. and percent of area with potential have been rounded to the nearest unit.S. Annual Energy Review 2010. Energy Information Administration. Table 9. Key assumptions for the commercial sector in the AEO2012 Integrated Demand Technology case: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. website www. No. 76. HIGHTECH.S. 76.S. 76.” Federal Register. 120 U. Table 11. 49 CFR Parts 523. Table 12. runs REF2011. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. and BESTTECH. Vol. Vehicle types that do not rely solely on a gasoline internal combustion engine for motive and accessory power: U. DC: December 1. 179. Vol. HD National Program standards for combination tractor greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption: U. Note: Average well spacing. September 15. DC. 57106-57513. DC. Based on a review of enabling legislation and regulatory actions from the various States of policies identified by the Database of States Incentives for Renewable Energy as of January 1. Unproved technically recoverable resource assumption by basin: U. DOE/EIA-0383(2011) (Washington. April 2011). 76. RIN 2060-AP61.S.Notes and sources Table notes and sources Table 1. Office of Energy Analysis. AEO2012 unproved technically recoverable tight oil resources as of January 1. Energy Information Administration. Table 16. runs REF2012.html. DC: September 15. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.D022312b.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/ cafe/2017-25_CAFE_NPRM. 179. DC. 534. HD National Program vehicle regulatory categories: U. HD National Program standards for vocational vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption: U. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.S. Energy Information Administration. 179 (Washington. No. service wells.nhtsa. DOE/EIA-0383(2010) (Washington.D030812A. AEO2011 National Energy Modeling System. Table 13.S. and percent of area with potential have been rounded to the nearest unit. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium. Energy Information Administration. Public Databases Website at doa.D0209A. April 2010). Office of Energy Analysis. March 2009). Office of Energy Analysis. runs REF2012. Energy Information Administration. Federal Register Notice Vol. No. HIGHTECH. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium. Energy Information Administration. pp.S.D032812A. 2010: U. Table 6.org. Summary of key results from the Reference.D032812A.

ExxonMobil: ExxonMobil Corporation. August 2010).worldenergyoutlook. P&G: Purvin and Gertz.com/Corporate/energy_outlook. REF2012. The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022 (Washington. France.html.com/pubs.com/products/global-insight/index. DC. 2015.ihs. REF2012. October 2011). ExxonMobil: ExxonMobil Corporation. World Energy Outlook 2011 (Paris. Inc.HEUR12. MD. consumption. 2012). 2010-2035: AEO2012 (Reference case): AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. website inforumweb.cbo. July 2011). Variable NGHHUUS.com/Corporate/energy_outlook.Notes and sources Table 18. website www. 30-year U.S. INFORUM: “Inforum Lift (Longterm Interindustry Forecasting Tool) Model” (College Park.S.LEUR12.HEUR12. CBO: Congressional Budget Office. DC. org. and percent of area with potential have been rounded to the nearest unit.cfm?Area=1 (subscription site). World Energy Outlook 2011 (Paris. 2012). Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System.REF2012. The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040 (Irving. run AEO2011. Table 24. Projections of energy consumption by sector. run AEO2011. Inc.D020112C.REF2012. 2015-2035: AEO2012 (Reference case): AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. and percent of area with potential have been rounded to the nearest unit. INFORUM: “Inforum Lift (Long-term Interindustry Forecasting Tool) Model” (College Park.D022112A. DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington. November 2011). percent of area untested. Office of Energy Analysis. Inc.aspenpublishers. 2012). Energy Information Administration. November 2011). USGS 2011: USGS 2011 Open-File Report 2011-1298.whitehouse. MD. MD.worldenergyoutlook.D022112A.edu/services/models/lift.com/Topics/Banking-Law-Finance-Economic-Forecast/.pdf. and 2035: AEO2012 (Reference case): AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. and Regional Economic Forecast (Lexington. October 2011). 2012).edu/services/models/ lift. website www. website inforumweb. TX. Energy Information Administration. Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System.D020112C.pdf. 2010-2035: AEO2012 (Reference case): AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.umd. November 2011). 2020 and 2035: History: Crude oil lower 48 average wellhead prices: U. and Alaska crude oil production: U. and Regional Economic Forecast (Lexington. TX. run AEO2012.S. website www. net imports.REF2012. February 2012). Inc. runs REF2012. Table 20. MA. and Regional Economic Forecast (Lexington. 2012).D050412A. DC. IEA (2011): International Energy Agency. France. website pubs. 30-year U. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U. DC. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.. supply.S. Natural gas prices. TX. November 2011). website www.REF2011. DC. website www. Short-Term Energy Outlook Query System.gov/fs/2011/3092. Note: Average well spacing. website inforumweb. MA. IHSGI: IHS Global Insight. DC. Petroleum supply. AE02012: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. run REF2011. and prices in four cases.D020112C. 30-year U.ihs.. and consumption in four cases. July 2011). February 2012).D022112A. DOE/EIA0130(2011/07) (Washington. MA.D020112C. Henry Hub natural gas prices: U. Table 21. e-mail from Ron Denhardt (February 21. World Energy Outlook 2011 (Paris. Office of Energy Analysis. Table 19. lower 48 offshore. and Fact Sheet 2011-3092.com/products/global-insight/index. 2012). 2012).S. and HTRR12. website www. website www. Table 23. February 13. e-mail from Anthony Petruzzo (January 26. SEER: Strategic Energy & Economic Research. Government Printing Office: Washington. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 121 . Table 25. website inforumweb..gov/OACT/TR/2011/tr2011. 2011). aspx.ssa. SEER: Strategic Energy and Economic Research. EVA: Energy Ventures Analysis. e-mail from Mark Finley (January 15.aspx (subscription site).aspx (subscription site). U. 2012). Inc. AEO2011 (Reference case): AEO2011 National Energy Modeling System.D0209A. AEO2011 (Reference case): AEO2011 National Energy Modeling System. November 2011). REF2012.purvingertz. Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. Natural Gas Monthly. Projections of average annual economic growth.gov/of/2011/1298.LEUR12.org. runs REF2012. May 13. e-mail from Anthony Petruzzo (January 26.org.. Monthly Natural Gas Data. Note: Average well spacing.umd. February 2012).S. exxonmobil.html. DC. run REF2012.S.worldenergyoutlook.edu/services/models/lift. SSA: Social Security Administration.aspx (subscription site). Energy Information Administration. Energy Information Administration. and AE02012: Projections: AE02011: AE02011 National Energy Modeling System.D020112C. 2010.usgs. D020911A. 2025. MD. Marcellus unproved technically recoverable resources: AE02011.umd. website www.ihs.ihs. e-mail from Ron Denhardt (February 21. INFORUM: “Inforum Lift (Long-term Interindustry Forecasting Tool) Model” (College Park. Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009. France. November 2011). IHSGI: IHS Global Insight. IHSGI: IHS Global Insight.aspx. run AEO2012. Marcellus unproved technically recoverable resources in AEO2012 (as of January 1.D020112C.D022112A. website www. and other consumption: U. website www.aspx (subscription site). website www. November 2011). Comparison of electricity projections.S. January 31.S. MA. IEA: International Energy Agency. USGS 2011. Energy Information Administration. Energy Information Administration.exxonmobil.S. percent of area untested.. 2012). INFORUM: “Inforum Lift (Long-term Interindustry Forecasting Tool) Model” (College Park. Inc.html.S. February 2012). run AEO2012. IHSGI: IHS Global Insight. website www. website pubs. and HTRR12. BP: BP.edu/services/models/lift. Projections of oil prices. 2020 and 2035: History: Alaska and Lower 48 natural gas production. Table 22. The 2011 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance And Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds (U.gov/sites/default/ files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.REF2012. 30-year U.. 2010): U. website www. Consumption by sector based on: U. run AEO2012.S.S. Blue Chip Consensus: Blue Chip Economic Indicators (Aspen Publishers.html.D020911A. Lower 48 onshore. The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040 (Irving. Annual Energy Review 2010.REF2011. Energy Information Administration. OMB: Office of Management and Budget.gov/publication/42905.S. Other production: U. March 2011). website www.umd. EVA: Energy Ventures Analysis.com/products/global-insight/index. REF2012. and Regional Economic Forecast (Lexington.com/products/global-insight/index. IEA (Current Policies Scenario): International Energy Agency. Government (Washington. Global Petroleum Market Outlook 2011 (Houston.D050412A.usgs.D020112C. DOE/EIA-0487(2009) (Washington.

HD National Program model year standards for gasoline pickup and van greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption. Energy Information Administration.REF2012. 2127-AK74.aspx (subscription site). website www. February 2012). and LM2012.S.D030712A. 30-year U. BP: BP. TX. Figure 8. BP: BP. MD. run REF2012.html. INFORUM: “Inforum Lift (Long-term Interindustry Forecasting Tool) Model” (College Park. 2012).and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. Energy Information Administration. Energy Information Administration. REF_R05. November 2011).HTRR12. 2012).edu/services/models/lift. No.exxonmobil. and net imports. Figure 2. October 2011).S. Table 27. 2012).D020112C. HD National Program model year standards for diesel pickup and van greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption.D050412A. website www. website www. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. 2025. October 2011). Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . February 2012). e-mail from Anthony Petruzzo (January 26.S. Inc.aspx. website www. March 2011). EVA: Energy Ventures Analysis. runs REF2012.umd.org. REF2012. natural gas production. e-mail from Ron Denhardt (February 21. run AEO2012. and 535.D020112C. Total combined requirements for State renewable portfolio standards. July 2011). DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. 2012).S. IHSGI: IHS Global Insight. Inc.D02212A. 2127-AK74. 30-year U. Inc.D022412A. MD. 1980-2035: History: U. 2012). ExxonMobil: ExxonMobil Corporation. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Thursday. Inc. e-mail from Mark Finley (January 15. October 2011). DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. DC. February 2012). Energy Information Administration. 2011. 2012). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium.S. and 2035: AEO2012 (Reference case): AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. e-mail from Anthony Petruzzo (January 26.LEUR12. HEUR12_R05. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Inc.S. website inforumweb. Projection: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 9.D020112C. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.D022312A. Inc. No. 534. 2010.Notes and sources Table 26. 2015.exxonmobil. Global Petroleum Market Outlook 2011 (Houston. MA. October 2011).. U. October 2011).S. consumption.ihs. and Regional Economic Forecast (Lexington. Federal Register Notice Vol..S. runs REF2012.S. Annual Energy Review 2010.D02212A.D022112A.worldenergyoutlook. e-mail from Anthony Petruzzo (January 26.REF2012.D020112C. 2011.aspx (subscription site). RIN 2060AP61. INFORUM: “Inforum Lift (Long-term Interindustry Forecasting Tool) Model” (College Park. The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040 (Irving. MA.edu/services/models/lift. 2012).. 2015. Figure 6. U. runs REF2012. RIN 2060AP61. Annual Energy Review 2010.HEUR12.umd.D031312A.edu/services/models/lift. IHSGI: IHS Global Insight. 2025. DC. HM2012. September 15. Comparison of natural gas projections. 2015. DC.com/Corporate/energy_outlook. dependence on imported petroleum and other liquids. Annual Energy Review 2010. 2012). Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 30-year U. Deloitte: Deloitte LLP.ihs.REF2012. com/products/global-insight/index. Cross-State Air Pollution Fact Sheet (Washington.D020112C. and 2035: AEO2012 (Reference case): AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Environmental Protection Agency. HCCST12. September 15.S. EVA: Energy Ventures Analysis. 2014-2018: U.HEUR12. 2012). website www. and REF2012. 2000-2035: History: U.S.D020112C.LEUR12. MD. U. Figure 3. website www. Inc. IHSGI: IHS Global Insight. 179. D022112A. Projection: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D020112C. website inforumweb.gov/airtransport/pdfs/CSAPRFactsheet.com/products/global-insight/index. DC. 2012).D022412A. 179. 49 CFR Parts 523.aspx.and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. e-mail from Tom Choi (January 26. 2010. Comparison of coal projections. website www. e-mail from Mark Finley (January 15.ihs. Table 28. runs REF2012. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. EVA: Energy Ventures Analysis. website inforumweb. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium. 122 U.. and Regional Economic Forecast (Lexington. 2025. 1990-2035: History: U.D020112C. production of tight oil in four cases. Inc. November 2011). 2015-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.. 2014-2018: U.epa.pdf. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.com/products/global-insight/index. Figure notes and sources Figure 1. DC. TX. 49 CFR Parts 523. ExxonMobil: ExxonMobil Corporation. REF2012.html. 534.umd. Annual Energy Review 2010. The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040 (Irving. 2010. BP: BP. runs REF2012.cfm?Area=1 (subscription site).D020112C.aspx (subscription site).S. P&G: Purvin and Gertz. e-mail from Mark Finley (January 15. 76. Annual Energy Review 2010. REF2012. LCCST12.S. website www. REF2012. Cumulative retirements of coal-fired generating capacity by NERC region in nine cases. Figure 5. IEA: International Energy Agency. Figure 4.com/Corporate/ energy_outlook. run AEO2012. and 2035: AEO2012 (Reference case): AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. DC. Federal Register Notice Vol. France. Energy Information Administration. Thursday. SEER: Strategic Energy and Economic Research.S.purvingertz. Figure 10.. Energy use per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product.D020112C.html. runs REF2012.D031312A. TX. November 2011). Total U. 76.com/pubs.S. MA. INFORUM: “Inforum Lift (Long-term Interindustry Forecasting Tool) Model” (College Park. Figure 7. and Regional Economic Forecast (Lexington. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. States covered by CSAPR limits on emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides: U. November 2011). energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector and fuel. run AEO2012.. and 535. 2005 and 2035: History: U. Comparison of liquids projections. 1970-2035: U. 2010-2035: Projection: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S. World Energy Outlook 2011 (Paris..

run FROZTECH. October 2011). Light-duty vehicle market shares by technology type in two cases. and EXTENDED.D032112A. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. NOSUNSET. October 2011). DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.D032112A.S.D020112C and BATTECH. DC. Figure 21.S. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D032812A. run REF2012.D050612B. October 2011). Annual Energy Review 2010.S. Total carbon dioxide emissions from transportation energy use in two cases.Notes and sources Figure 11.D032112A.D032812A. 2010-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. HIGHTECH.S. Cumulative reductions in commercial energy consumption relative to the Integrated 2011 Demand Technology case.D020112C. Energy Information Administration. 1980-2035: History: U. 2005-2035: History: U. Annual Energy Review 2010. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. and EXTENDED. Figure 27. DC.D022112A. NOSUNSET.D032112A. runs REF2012. Cumulative reductions in residential energy consumption relative to the Integrated 2011 Demand Technology case. 2005-2035: History: U. Energy Information Administration. 2005-2035: History: U. Natural gas wellhead prices in three cases.D032812A.D020112C. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. October 2011). Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. run REF2012. DC. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D050612B. Energy Information Administration.D050612B. runs REF2012. runs REF2012. DC. FROZTECH. Annual Energy Review 2010. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D020112C. Note: U. Consumption of petroleum and other liquids for transportation in three cases.S.D050612B. Figure 19.D020112C.S. Energy Information Administration.D020112C and BATTECH. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D050612B. HIGHTECH.D032812A. Figure 14.D032112A. and BESTTECH. and EXTENDED. 2005-2035: History: U.D020112C and CAFEY. and BESTTECH. HIGHTECH. 2005-2035: History: U. DC. Figure 16.S. Annual Energy Review 2010. and EXTENDED.D020112C. 2012-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Average electricity prices in three cases. 2000-2035: History: U.D020112C. runs REF2012.D020112C and CAFEY. Energy Information Administration. runs REF2012. On-road fuel economy of the light-duty vehicle stock in two cases. Total prices to consumers for compact passenger cars in two cases. NOSUNSET.S. LP2012. Cost of electric vehicle battery storage to consumers in two cases.D032112A. run REF2012. NOSUNSET. runs REF2012. and EXTENDED. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Annual Energy Review 2010. Figure 22. 2011-2035: Projection: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D030812A. Energy Information Administration. and HP2012. 2005-2035: History: U. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. and EXTENDED. U. Energy Information Administration. NOSUNSET. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Annual Energy Review 2010. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. 2011-2035: Projection: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. runs REF2012. October 2011).D020112C. Figure 29. NOSUNSET.D032112A. Energy Information Administration.D020112C. Figure 24. Annual Energy Review 2010. Annual Energy Review 2010. October 2011).S. October 2011). World petroleum and other liquids production. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Energy Information Administration. runs REF2012. Annual Energy Review 2010.S. Figure 23. and BESTTECH.D022112A. run REF2012. DC. October 2011).D020112C and CAFEY.D050612B. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in three cases. 2005-2035: History: U. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. 2005-2035: History: U. DC. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. October 2011). and EXTENDED. run REF2012.D030812A.5 for retail price equivalency Figure 28. DC. Total energy consumption in three cases. Total transportation consumption of petroleum and other liquids in two cases.S.D032812A. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy high-energy battery cost goal includes mark-up of 1. Costs of electric drivetrain nonbattery systems to consumers in two cases. Average annual oil prices in three cases. October 2011). DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. DC.D020112C and CAFEY.D030812A.S. Figure 18.D032112A. run FROZTECH.D032112A. Annual Energy Review 2010.D032112A. run REF2012.D032112A. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 123 . Energy Information Administration. Figure 13. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.D020112C. DC. DC. Renewable electricity generation in three cases. runs REF2012. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. model year 2025: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. 2005-2035: History: U. Figure 25. Electricity generation from natural gas in three cases. 2005-2035: History: U.D020112C. Figure 15.D020112C and BATTECH. Figure 17. 2015 and 2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 12.D050612B. October 2011). 2012-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D032812A. October 2011).S. Figure 26. Energy Information Administration. NOSUNSET.S. Residential and commercial delivered energy consumption in four cases. Figure 20. Annual Energy Review 2010.D032112A. runs REF2012.D032112A.D032112A. Annual Energy Review 2010. DC. run REF2012.

D022412A. runs REF2012. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Figure 41. runs REF2012.HEUR12.D032112A.D020112C and BATTECH. Figure 35. Figure 43.D050412A. runs REF2012.D032112A. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .D121011B and REF_LFMM.D020112C and BATTECH.D031312A. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling 124 U.D031312A. October 2011). runs RFNGV12.D022112A. Office of Energy Analysis. 2005-2035: History: Derived from U. Annual Energy Review 2010. October 2011).HEUR12. March 26. Office of Energy Analysis based on Reuters data. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. DC.D030712A. DC.D050412A.D022412A and HM2012. DC. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 46. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Figure 44.D050412A and NOSUBNGV12. Energy Information Administration. LM2012. Consumption of petroleum and other liquids. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. HCCST12.S. Figure 39.HEUR12. U.S.D050412A and NOSUBNGV12. HM2012. liquids fuels production industry in the LFMM case. runs RFNGV12. html. 2002. DOE/EIA-0487(2009) (Washington. Sales of new heavy-duty natural gas vehicles in two cases. Energy Information Administration. Energy Information Administration.D032112A. Figure 47. website www. New regional format for EIA’s Liquid Fuels Market Module: U. Figure 37. 2010-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D020112C. HM2012. electricity.D020112C and BATTECH. TN: 2011). Energy Information Administration. Transportation Energy Data Book.D050412A and NOSUBNGV12. Figure 48. Annual Energy Review 2010. Figure 49. Energy Information Administration.S. Cumulative retirements of coal-fired generating capacity by NERC region in nine cases. Figure 40. runs REF2012.D050312A. D022112A. Figure 31.S. Historical prices for natural gas transportation fuel and projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. October 2011). 2008-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. REF_R05. 2010-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S.D020112C. Diesel and natural gas transportation fuel prices in the HDV Reference case. Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey.Notes and sources Figure 30. runs REF2012. 2000. 2010-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 36. and total energy by light-duty vehicles in two cases. HEUR12_R05. 2010 and 2020: History: U. U.D022412A. liquids fuels production industry: U. 2008-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. LCCST12.D050412A.S. Edition 30 and Annual (Oak Ridge. RFS mandated consumption of renewable fuels. spot market prices for crude oil and natural gas. and 2035: History: EIA. 1997-2012: History: U.D020112C. Office of Energy Analysis. July 2011).gpo. runs RFNGV12. and LM2012. Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System.S.S. Energy Information Administration. REF2012. Annual Energy Review 2010.D022412A. Natural gas delivered prices to the electric power sector in three cases. DC: October 2011).S. 2005-2035: History: Prices for diesel based on U. Census Bureau. Mass-based overview of the U. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. 2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S.D050412A.D030712A. Energy Information Administration.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-0326/pdf/2010-3851.D022412A. Figure 33. REF2012. Diesel and natural gas transportation fuel prices in two cases.D022312A. DC: August 2010). EPA Final Rule. U.D022412A. Annual Energy Review 2010.D020112C. DC. Figure 42. “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program”. runs REF2012. REF2012. Figure 45.S. Total prices to consumers for small sport utility vehicles in two cases. Sales of new light-duty vehicles in two cases.LEUR12. 2002: Derived from U.D022112A.D050412A. Electricity generation by fuel in eleven cases. 2009-2022: Federal Register. REF2012. Figure 32. 2010-2035: Projection: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.pdf. Figure 34. electricity demand in three cases. 2011. REF_R05.D050412A and NOSUBNGV12.LEUR12. Electricity generation by fuel in eleven cases. HEUR12_R05.LEUR12. 2015 and 2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Reduction in petroleum and other liquid fuels use by heavy-duty vehicles in the HD NGV Potential case compared with the HDV Reference case. Energy Information Administration. run NOSUBNGV12. HCCST12.D031312A. DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington.D022112A. Figure 38.D020112C and BATTECH. and REF2012. 2010.gov/svsd/www/vius/2002. 2015 and 2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs REF2012. Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles in two cases.S.S. Natural gas fuel use by heavy-duty vehicles in tow cases.census. REF2012. run REF2012. run REF2012. runs RFNGV12. 2010 and 2035: History: U.D022112A. 2000-2035: History: Derived from U. and LM2012. D022312A.D022112A.D031312A. website www. LCCST12. Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009. Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. Distribution of annual vehicle-miles traveled by light-medium (Class 3) and heavy (Class 7 and 8) heavy-duty vehicles.S.D032112A.

and LP2012. DC. runs REF2012. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. REF2012. website www. Figure 61. and LP2012.D022112A.D02212A. Energy end-use expenditures as a share of gross output.D022112A.D022412A.HEUR12. run REF2012. Energy Information Administration. Bureau of Labor Statistics (unemployment rate). REF_R05. runs REF2012. HM2012.D022412A.HEUR12. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. International Energy Statistics database (as of January 2012). REF2012. gov/fs/2011/3092/pdf/fs2011-3092. Average production profiles for shale gas wells in major U.D020112C. October 2011). analysis of well-level production from HPDI database. October 2011).D022112A. and HP2012. North American natural gas trade. 2010 and 2035: History: U. HM2012. HEUR12_R05.HTRR12. Average annual growth rates for real output and its major components in three cases.D020112C.us/publicreports/Modules/DataExports/DataExports.S. run LOWNUC12. Figure 62. Figure 51. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. U.S.S.D020112C. World petroleum and other liquids supply and demand by region in three cases. Annual Energy Review 2010.S. runs REF2012. DC. and REF2012. U.D022112A. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D030712A. runs REF2012. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. runs REF2012. REF2012. Figure 60. 1970-2035: History: U. DC. October 2011). D022312A. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 125 . REF2012.D022112A.D022412A.D020112C. Energy Information Administration. 20112020: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D031312A.pdf). LCCST12. 1991. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. D022112A. HEUR12_R05. HM2012. HCCST12.D022112A.D020112C.S. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D022412A. Energy Information Administration. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.HEUR12. 2010-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 58. REF2012.D030712A.D022412A. DC. LCCST12. and extra-heavy oil in three cases. Figure 66. and LM2012.D031312A.D022112A. Total world production of nonpetroleum liquids. Cumulative retrofits of generating capacity with scrubbers and dry sorbent injection for emissions control. Alaska North Slope wellhead oil revenue in three cases. runs REF2012. and LP2012. labor force. Figure 54. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. HP2012. and 2008: History: Bureau of Economic Analysis.S. Figure 67. Projections: Generate World Oil Balance (GWOB) Model and AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D020112C. October 2011).S. United States Geological Survey Marcellus Assessment Units: U.gov/ies. Office of Energy Analysis based on image published by the USGS in their Marcellus assessment fact sheet (USGS Fact Sheet 2011-3092.D020112C.D022312A. Average annual oil prices in three cases. October 2011). REF2012. Figure 56.usgs. U. Figure 59. HM2012. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.HTRR12.state. and LM2012.D022412A.D020112C. Figure 57.eia.D031312A. Energy Information Administration. HCCST12.D022112A.aspx (accessed October 2011).paoilandgasreporting. Figure 52. Annual Energy Review 2010. and LM2012. Figure 50. 1982. runs REF2012. LP2012.LEUR12. Average annual growth rates of real GDP. Annual Energy Review 2010. Average annual growth rates over 5 years following troughs of U. pubs.S.D020112C.D022112A.D022412A. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.D022112A.D022412A.S. Energy Information Administration.D02212A. bitumen. and LP2012.D022112A. 2010-2035: Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 53. Alaska North Slope oil production in three cases.D020112C. HP2012. and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil & Gas Reporting.LEUR12. run REF2011. 1980-2035: History: U.Notes and sources System. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. 2010 and 2035: History: Derived from U. Energy end-use expenditures as a share of gross domestic product. and nonfarm labor productivity in three cases.D020112C.D020112C. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D050412A.pa.D022112A. Figure 63.D020112C.D020112C. HP2012.D022312B. Figure 64.D02212A. REF_R05. Nuclear power plant retirements by NERC region in the Low Nuclear case. HM2012. assuming no minimum revenue requirement.D022412A. Annual Energy Review 2010. REF2012. 2000-2035: History: U.S. DC.LEUR12.D020112C. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.HEUR12. run REF2012.D050412A. runs REF2012. Sectoral composition of industrial output growth rates in three cases. production of tight oil in four cases. website www. recessions in 1975.D022412A.D02212A.S Energy Information Administration. Energy Information Administration. DC. REF2012. and REF2012. and LM2012. 2010-2035: Projections: AEO2011 National Energy Modeling System.S.S.D031312A. October 2011). runs REF2012.LEUR12. Energy Information Administration. run REF2012. Annual Energy Review 2010. Figure 55. runs REF2012. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. 2000-2035: History: U.D022112A. Annual Energy Review 2010.D020112C. runs REF2012. HP2012. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. production of shale gas in four cases.S. 1987-2035: History: U. shale plays by years of operation: U. runs REF2012. Figure 65. and LM2012.

Energy Information Administration.D032812A. Commercial delivered energy intensity in four cases. 2012). Figure 78. runs REF2012.D022412A. Installed nuclear capacity in OECD and non-OECD countries.D022412A.D032112A. Annual Energy Review 2010. Energy Information Administration.S. runs REF2012.D020112C. World renewable electricity generation by source. 1980-2035: History: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.D032812A.S. Figure 77. runs REF2012.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . Average fuel economy of new light-duty vehicles in two cases. World Energy Projections System Plus (2012) model. 1980-2035: History: U.D020112C.Notes and sources Figure 68. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. 2010. FROZTECH.D020112C. DC.D030812A.D020112C. HIGHTECH. website www. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 75. Change in delivered energy for energy-intensive industries in three cases. October 2011). Energy Information Administration. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Residential delivered energy intensity in four cases. DC. runs REF2012.D020112C and EXTENDED.eia. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Projections: U.D030812A.D030812A. Figure 81. Energy Information Administration.S. International Energy Statistics database (as of January. Efficiency gains for selected commercial equipment in three cases. Figure 71.D020112C. Figure 72. run REF2012. Annual Energy Review 2010. Figure 86. and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. and BESTTECH. TN: 2011). Transportation Energy Data Book.D022412A. 2005-2035: History: U.D050612B. BESTTECH. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.gov/ies. Primary energy use by end-use sector. Annual Energy Review 2010. run REF2012. D020112C. 2005-2035: History: U. Edition 30 and Annual (Oak Ridge.D050612B. Cumulative growth in value of shipments from energy-intensive industries in three cases. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. October 2011). 1990-2035: History: U. World Energy Projections System Plus (2012) model.D032112A. World Energy Projections System Plus (2012) model. 126 U. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Change in delivered energy for non-energy-intensive industries in three cases.D020112C.D022412A. Cumulative growth in value of shipments from non-energy-intensive industries in three cases. 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S. 2012).D022412A. Figure 89.S. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 84. 2010 and 2035: U. Projections: U.D020112C and EXTENDED.D020112C. 2010 and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. DC. 2010 and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S. 2025 and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.eia. runs REF2012. BESTTECH. HM2012. Energy Information Administration.S. Additions to electricity generation capacity in the commercial sector in two cases.D020112C.S. Ratio of residential delivered energy consumption for selected end uses: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D020112C. 2005-2035: History: U.D032812A. run REF2012. runs REF2012. Figure 74. Residential market penetration by renewable technologies in two cases. DC. 2010. runs REF2012. World energy consumption by region.D020112C.gov/ies. Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Industrial energy consumption by fuel. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. BESTTECH. Figure 69. runs REF2012. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 82.D020112C and CAFEY.D020112C. Energy Information Administration. Energy Information Administration. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Figure 73. Energy intensity of selected commercial electric end uses. run REF2012.D032812A.D032812A. Industrial delivered energy consumption by application.D022412A. runs REF2012. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Change in residential electricity consumption for selected end uses in the Reference case. 2010-2035: History: U. HM2012.S. FROZTECH. runs REF2012. FROZTECH. Annual Energy Review 2010. International Energy Statistics database (as of January. Energy Information Administration.D050612B.D020112C. Energy use per capita and per dollar of gross domestic product. run REF2012. runs REF2012. Figure 80. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. DC. October 2011). Energy Information Administration. Figure 88. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Delivered energy consumption for transportation by mode in two cases. runs REF2012. Figure 83. website www. Figure 87. excluding hydropower.D022412A. and HIGHTECH. Annual Energy Review 2010.D032812A.D020112C and CAFEY. runs REF2012. Figure 85. 2020. Figure 70.D022412A. 1980-2035: History: U. and LM2012. and LM2012. HM2012.D032812A. and LM2012. Energy Information Administration. and LM2012.D020112C. and EXTENDED. Figure 79. runs REF2012. Primary energy use by fuel.D020112C. October 2011). October 2011). Figure 76. HM2012.S. and HIGHTECH.

D020112C.D020112C. Figure 106.D020112C. Electricity generation by fuel. Natural Gas Annual 2010. Department of Transportation. Figure 102. Figure 104. Figure 96. TN: 2011).D020112C. runs REF2012. runs REF2012. Regional growth in nonhydroelectric renewable electricity generation. DC. Ratio of low-sulfur light crude oil price to Henry Hub natural gas price on an energy equivalent basis.D020112C. U. Energy Information Administration. 1990-2035: History: U.” Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. and HM2012. October 2011).D020112C. Figure 92. Variable NGHHUUS. Federal Highway Administration.S.” Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Natural Gas Annual 2010. Figure 98.S. 2010. runs REF2012. runs REF2012.D020112C. Annual Energy Review 2010. 1949-2035: History: U. DC: 2012). 1995-2035: History: Derived from U. 1990-2035: History: U. Energy Information Administration. and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Federal Highway Administration. 2025.D020112C. 1950-2035: History: U. Annual Energy Review 2010. REF2012. 1970-2035: History: Derived from U. runs REF2012. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. DOE/EIA-0131(2010) (Washington.S. and HM2012. Monthly Natural Gas Data. run REF2012.S. Figure 95. 1990-2035: History: U. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 127 .D022112A. Figure 103. Figure 108. Levelized electricity costs for new power plants. DOE/EIA-0131(2010) (Washington. and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. runs REF2012. December 2011). Sales of light-duty vehicles using non-gasoline technologies by fuel type. “Annual Electric Generator Report. 1985-2035: History: Energy Information Administration. Energy Information Administration. 2010. Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. 2010 and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. D022412A. excluding subsidies.D022412A. Highway Statistics 2010 (Washington. runs REF2012. Lower 48 onshore natural gas production by region. Additions to electricity generation capacity. Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. Energy Information Administration. Heavy-duty vehicle energy consumption. 2011-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Monthly Natural Gas Data. DC. Form EIA-860. Annual average Henry Hub spot natural gas prices. Figure 101.S. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Energy Information Administration. DC: 2012).D022412A. Figure 99. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. LM2012. Figure 91. run REF2012. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.LEUR12. runs REF2012. Annual average Henry Hub spot natural gas prices in seven cases.gov/policyinformation/ statistics/2010. Energy Information Administration. 1990-2035: History: U. Energy Information Administration. runs REF2012. 1990-2035: History: U.D020112C.D020112C. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. “Monthly Foreign Crude Oil Acquisition Report. Energy Information Administration. Highway Statistics 2010 (Washington. Vehicle miles traveled per licensed driver.Notes and sources Figure 90. consumption. December 2011). Figure 94. and U.fhwa. Department of Transportation. Figure 107. and U. Annual Energy Review 2010. Transportation Energy Data Book. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. 2020.S. and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Variable NGHHUUS. Short-Term Energy Outlook Query System. including end-use generation.D020112C.fhwa. electricity demand growth.D020112C. runs REF2012. Figure 100. U. D020112C.dot.D020112C.D022112A.S. runs REF2012.S. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Electricity sales and power sector generating capacity. Figure 97. Electricity generation capacity additions by fuel type. LM2012. 2010.HEUR12. 2020. Form EIA-856.D020112C.D022412A.D020112C. run REF2012. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S.S.S.D020112C. run REF2012. Short-Term Energy Outlook Query System. Electricity generating capacity at U. Natural Gas Annual 2010.D020112C. December 2011). website www. runs REF2012. Natural gas production by source. including combined heat and power.S. Figure 93. 2020 and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S. October 2011). DC: October 2011).D020112. run REF2012. Natural gas production.dot. DC. including end-use capacity. including end-use generation. Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. Edition 30 and Annual (Oak Ridge. Figure 105. Energy Information Administration.S. DOE/EIA-0131(2010) (Washington. runs REF2012.gov/policyinformation/ statistics/2010. Hydropower and other renewable electricity generation. DC. Nonhydropower renewable electricity generation capacity by energy source. nuclear power plants in three cases. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. run REF2012. DC. and net imports. and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. REF2012. website www.

Figure 120. Energy Information Administration.S.D031312A. ethanol use in blended gasoline and E85. The U. crude oil production in six cases. “Power Plant Report”. 1970-1990: Two Decades of Change. runs REF2012. Annual Energy Review 2010.S. Coke Plants”. Figure 119.S. DC. LCCST12. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. LM2012. total coal production in six cases. and Form EIA-920. Annual Energy Review 2010. Note: Coal production includes waste coal. net imports of natural gas by source.D022112A. “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report”. Annual Coal Report 2010. Annual Coal Report 2010. LP2012. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.D020112C. run REF2012. “Quarterly Coal Consumption and Quality Report.D022412A. DC. D020112C. Table 1. coal production includes waste coal. Department of Commerce. Energy Information Administration. U. November 2002). DOE/EIA-0584 (various years). Energy Information Administration. Domestic crude oil production by source. and previous issues. Energy Information Administration. “Annual Coal Production and Preparation Report”.D022112A. U.LEUR. Annual Energy Review 2010. Table 1. and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Energy Information Administration.S. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D020112C. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.S. and HP2012. Form EIA-7A. Form EIA-906.S. DC. History (conversion to dollars per million Btu): 1970-2009: Estimation Procedure: Estimates of average heat content by region and year based on coal quality data collected through various energy surveys (see sources) and national-level estimates of U. Annual Energy Review 2010. Consumption of petroleum and other liquids by sector.S. Figure 111. Form EIA-923. Form EIA-3. DC.D020112C. Figure 118. October 2011). Annual Energy Review 2010. 2000-2035: History: U. and previous issues. DC.D020112C. Form EIA-6A. coal production by year in units of quadrillion Btu published in EIA’s Annual Energy Review. Coal Industry. run REF2012. run REF2012.S. and CO2FEE15. REF2012.D031312A. History (conversion to quadrillion Btu): 1970-2010: Estimation Procedure: Estimates of average heat content by region and year are based on coal quality data collected through various energy surveys (see sources) and national-level estimates of U. DOE/EIA-0559 (Washington. DC.S. Energy Information Administration. 2020. Sources: U. December 2011).S. October 2011). Figure 115. 1970-2035: History (short tons): 1970-1990: U.HEUR12. Form EIA-5. 2000-2035: History: U. Figure 114. 1990-2035: History: U. run REF2012. 1990-2035: History (dollars per short ton): 1990-2000: U. October 2011). DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. October 2011).D022412A. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S. Form EIA-906.S.D022112A. Energy Information Administration. “Coal Distribution Report”. DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington. Coal Industry Annual. HM2012. and HTRR12. Form EIA-5.D020112C. Sources: U. “Coal Distribution Report”. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. 1991-2000: U. “Monthly Report EM 545”. Average annual minemouth coal prices by region.S. Figure 112. run REF2012. November 2011). Net import share of U.D022112A. DC. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Annual Energy Review 2010. Manufacturing and Transformation/Processing Coal Plants and Commercial and Institutional Coal Users”.2. U. Energy Information Administration.D020112C. October 2011).S.D022112A.S. Note: For 1989-2035. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. “Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report”. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.D050412A. DOE/EIA-0584 (various years). U. Coke Plants”. Energy Information Administration. run REF2012. “Quarterly Coal Consumption and Quality Report.S. Form EIA-423. DC. Coal Industry Annual. “Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report”. Energy Information Administration. production of petroleum and other liquids by source. 2010-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Projections: AE02012 National Energy Modeling System. coal production by year in units of quadrillion Btu. EISA2007 RFS credits earned in selected years.S.D020112C. run REF2012. Energy Information Administration. run REF2012. DC. HP2012. July 2011). HP2012. Energy Information Administration. “Power Plant Operations Report”. Natural Gas Annual 2010. DOE/EIA-0131(2010) (Washington. “Power Plant Report”. motor gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. October 2011). 1990-2035: History: U.Notes and sources Figure 109. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. “Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants. Form EIA-7A. DOE/EIA-0584(2010) (Washington. “Combined Heat and Power Plant 128 U. October 2011).D020112C. Manufacturing and Transformation/Processing Coal Plants and Commercial and Institutional Coal Users”. “Annual Coal Production and Preparation Report”. 1990-2035: History: U. 2010. LP2012. Form 423. U. DC.2. Annual Energy Review 2010. and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S. Energy Information Administration.S. REF2012.S.S. run REF2012. Form EIA-920. Total U.S. D020112C. Figure 113. DC.S. “Quarterly Coal Consumption and Quality Report.S. Form EIA-3. Form EIA-423. U. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Coal production by region. Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. petroleum and other liquids consumption in three cases.” Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. Figure 116. November 2011). DC. 1990-2035: History: U. Figure 117.S. run REF2012.D022112A. Bureau of the Census.S. Figure 110. 1990-2035: History: U.D022112A. DOE/EIA-0584(2010) (Washington.D020112C. 2001-2010: U. Form EIA-6A. published in EIA’s Annual Energy Review. “Quarterly Coal Consumption and Quality Report. 2001-2010: U.

website ampd. 2005: U. U. Environmental Protection Agency. “Monthly Report EM 545”. U. U. Figure 121. 1990-1998. Environmental Protection Agency. U. and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.S.S. DC. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 129 .Notes and sources Report”. “Power Plant Operations Report”. Note: Includes reported prices for both openmarket and captive mines.S. Figure 123. run REF2012.D020112C and NOGHGCONCERN. 1990-2035: 1990. 2010 and Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector and fuel.D020112C. website ampd. run REF2012. National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends. 2005: U. Figure 122.S.” Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. 2011-2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Environmental Protection Agency. March 2000). Acid Rain Program Preliminary Summary Emissions Report. 2000. 1990-2035: History: 1990. Form 423. 2010 and Projections: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.S. run REF2012. National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends. DC. Fourth Quarter 2004. run REF2012. “Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants.S.gov/ampd/. EPA-454/R-00-002 (Washington. 1990-1998.gov/ampd/. Sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity generation. Environmental Protection Agency. Fourth Quarter 2004. Cumulative coal-fired generating capacity additions by sector in two cases. U.D020112C. Figure 124. epa. EPA-454/R-00-002 (Washington.D020112C. March 2000). 2000. 2005 and 2035: AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System. Department of Commerce.S. Nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation. run REF2012.D031212A.epa. Acid Rain Program Preliminary Summary Emissions Report.D020112C. Form EIA-923. Bureau of the Census.

This page intentionally left blank .

at the wellhead17 . .38 0. .08 2. . .51 6. . . . . . . . . .4% 0.9% 0. . . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum6 . .85 0. . . . .11 0. . .37 59. . . . . . . . Hydropower . . . . . . .99 13.58 2. . .95 7. Natural gas (dollars per million Btu) at Henry hub . .0% -0. .26 2.51 6.07 2. . .64 50. .8% 2. . . .11 0.47 72. .58 9. . . .94 42.06 -1. . .32 12.95 3. . . . .00 17. . . . .78 22. . .90 4.60 2.05 1. . . . .Total Total energy supply. . . . . .7% -0. . . .25 4. .60 79. . . . . . . . . .70 5. .29 3. . . . . . .63 5. . .50 23.69 20. . . .87 4. . . .44 2. . . .90 4. . . . . . . . .09 21.36 9. .72 4. . .04 3. . .76 8. Natural gas (dollars per thousand cubic feet) at the wellhead17 . . . .8 144. .95 5. . .93 2.91 113. . .25 9. . . . .26 2. .04 4.95 4. . .02 7. .4% 1. .81 0. . . . . .94 28.30 97.8% 3. .4% 1. . . . . disposition. .37 6. . .1% 5. . . . . .0% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 3. Biomass14 . .79 -0. . . . . .39 3. .78 23.93 26.25 104. .10 4. . .28 3. . . . .56 4. . . . . Other imports8 . . . . . .87 4. . . .09 2. .9% 1. . .14 2. .02 9. . . . . . . . .77 3. . . . . Exports Liquid fuels and other petroleum9 . . .49 126. . .18 37. . . . . .38 26. . . . . . Coal (dollars per million Btu) at the minemouth18 . . . . . . . . .24 8. . . . . . . .04 5. . . . . Dry natural gas . . . . . .52 2. .38 9. . . .8 116.8% -0.24 106. . . . . .62 1.22 9. . . .9% -0. . .29 99. .89 3. .22 20. . . .56 121. Other15 .59 9.10 36. .04 1. .02 3. .4% 2. . . . Average electricity (cents per kilowatthour) . . . .44 2. . .43 19.85 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 27. . . . . .51 4. .50 20.71 11. .06 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 40.46 3. . .60 24. . . . . . . . . Total . . . .97 4. .28 2.94 10.9 79.90 3. Other5 . . . . . . . .8% -1. .69 88. . Natural gas .68 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .58 23.67 2. . . .64 18. . . . .67 16. .33 24. . . . .35 2. . . . . . . . . .00 0. . .6% 0.06 2. .99 6. .13 12. . . . . .34 0.45 1. . . . . . . . . .36 2.52 29. . . . . . . .57 21. Imported crude oil16 .81 1.74 9. . . .71 20.73 9.4% 0. . . . . . .32 13.00 5. .86 2.7 126.14 20. . . . . .80 16. . . . . .44 2.08 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 9. . . . . . . . . .88 1. . . . . .3% 2. . . . . .69 47. . . .28 101. . . .39 2. Total .3% 1. .32 9. . . . . . .73 9. . . . . . . .Appendix A Reference case Table A1.04 0. .20 1. Other renewable energy4 .91 22. . . . . . . .08 36. . . . Nuclear / uranium2 . Total . .3% 62. . .91 94.5% 0. . . . . . . . .29 5. . . . . . .61 29. . . . . . . . . . .22 0. . .93 0. . . . . .22 0.81 0.6% 1.82 10. . disposition. .36 2. . . .67 3. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 131 . . .79 91.05 2.39 75. . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas plant liquids . . . . . . . . .23 37. . . . . Natural gas7 .23 3. .72 20. . Discrepancy11 . . . Prices (2010 dollars per unit) Petroleum (dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light crude oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydropower . . . . . . .72 26.07 18.61 16. . Coal13 . Natural gas10 . .71 3.7% -0. . . .48 6.7% 0. . . Coal1 . . . . .56 2.4% 1.23 4. . . . . . .72 24. . .04 36. . . . .99 26. unless otherwise noted) noted) (quadrillion per year.81 0.26 21. . . .80 8. .14 4. . . . . . .9% 1. . . . . . .51 2.37 5.6 132.15 2. .39 4. . . .63 8.40 3.00 3. . . .41 0.75 3. . . .4% 0. . . . .99 0. . . .00 4. .1 2.86 4. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 75. . .84 3. Coal (dollars per ton) at the minemouth18 . . .58 26.56 9. . .64 84.25 24. . . . . . . . .97 19. . .0% 1. . . .56 5. . . . . and prices 2009 Production Crude oil and lease condensate . . . . . . .56 3.14 5. . .59 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% 1. . . . and price summary Table A1. . . . . . . . . . . . and price summary (quadrillion Btu Btu per year. .99 4. . . . .6% 3. . . . . .04 0. .7 138. . . . . . .81 24. .69 4.70 27. . .28 3. . . . .0% 0. . .87 16.1% 0. . . .72 1.15 9. . . . . .74 4. . . . . . . .96 2. Other renewable energy4 . . . .06 4. . .60 2.21 5.49 0.08 2. . . .99 0. Coal . . . . .51 2.44 27.32 94. .4% 0.10 8. . . .41 0. . .68 115. . . . . . Consumption Liquid fuels and other petroleum12 . . Nuclear / uranium2 . . . .62 8. .32 3. . . . . . .43 14.68 2.03 3. . .3% 3. .10 22. . . . . . . . .28 2. . . .68 2. .28 2.49 4.85 11. .14 9. . . . . .23 2. . . . .76 2. . . . .17 3. . . . disposition. . . . . . . . . . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 11. . . . .16 13. .25 0.17 2. . . . . . . . . .1% U. .03 36. .S.4% 0.00 1. . . . . . . . . . . .07 24.98 132. . . . . . . . .73 0. . . .16 35.29 98. . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 1. . . .84 0. . .66 -0. Biomass3 . . . .2% 1. .60 2. . unless otherwise Reference case Supply.58 4.56 3. . . . . .  energy supply.78 2. .61 1. . . .81 9. . . . .72 1. . . Average end-use19 . . . . . . . . .12 44. . . . .04 36.40 3. . . . .79 1. . . . . .04 9. .34 0.79 25. . . . . . . . . Imports Crude oil . . .08 1. . . . .02 4. . . . .84 -0.

such as ethanol and biodiesel. . .09 155. . and non-electric energy demand from wood. DC. . methanol. .26 10.34 2. 12 Includes petroleum-derived fuels and non-petroleum derived fuels. . . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. . Other 2009 and 2010 values: EIA. DC. . unfinished oils. . 4 Includes grid-connected electricity from landfill gas. 16 Weighted average price delivered to U. such as active and passive solar systems. but excludes the energy content of the liquid fuels. . .76 2. . Btu = British thermal unit. 14 Includes grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste. . . which is a solid. and EIA. . 8 Includes coal. . Coal (dollars per ton) at the minemouth18 . . .87 136. biomass. . . . .14 4. . .38 9.24 2. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. . . DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington.87 4. Natural gas (dollars per million Btu) at Henry hub . 3 Includes grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste. . . .= Not applicable.62 4. Natural gas (dollars per thousand cubic feet) at the wellhead17 . . and some domestic inputs to refineries.65 59.s. .80 33. and non-electric energy from renewable sources. DOE/EIA-0340(2009)/1 (Washington.57 56.67 10.06 8. . Sources: 2009 natural gas supply values: U.51 80. . . and renewable fuels such as ethanol. . . . .S. . DC. . 9 Includes crude oil. 6 Includes imports of finished petroleum products.(quadrillion Total energy supply and otherwise disposition summary (continued) Btu per year. . . . and net electricity imports.03 11. . July 2010). 11 Balancing item. . . . . .66 16. 2010 natural gas supply values and natural gas wellhead price: EIA.13 2. 2009 and 2010 coal minemouth and delivered coal prices: EIA. . DC. . . . .0% 3. . . ethanol. . Average electricity (cents per kilowatthour) . . . . .5 197. 13 Excludes coal converted to coal-based synthetic liquids and natural gas. . refiners. . . Petroleum Supply Annual 2009. . wind. . such as corn. . July 2011). . . Energy Information Administration (EIA). disposition. blending components. coal coke (net). . 5 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. . . . Annual Energy Review 2010.10 180. . and biofuels heat and coproducts used in the production of liquid fuels. . .24 45.92 8. .0 4. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 . . DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington. ethers. . These values represent the energy obtained from uranium when it is used in light water reactors. . May 2011).39 4.3% 3. . Office of Natural Resources Revenue. and coal-based synthetic liquids. . . . . and net storage withdrawals. 2009 and 2010 low sulfur light crude oil price: EIA. .02 5.3 170. DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington.8 79. .4 148. . . Department of the Interior. . and prices 2009 Prices (nominal dollars per unit) Petroleum (dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light crude oil . . Imported crude oil16 . gains. . . . . . 2010 petroleum supply values and 2009 crude oil and lease condensate production: EIA.39 75. . Includes unaccounted for supply. Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. . Natural Gas Annual 2009. 7 Includes imports of liquefied natural gas that is later re-exported.8% 3.30 9.0% Includes waste coal. “Monthly Foreign Crude Oil Acquisition Report.01 13. Natural Gas Monthly. at the wellhead17 . . photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. . .28 3. . . petroleum products. 1 2 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 61.Reference case Table A1. DC. .06 4.41 4. . used for liquid fuels production. .23 6. . Annual Coal Report 2010. .  Total energy supply. Also included are natural gas plant liquids and crude oil consumed as a fuel. October 2011). .D020112C.81 4. . . . . .) prices. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . .42 3. . . .8% 3. . December 2010). biogenic municipal waste.93 48. . 15 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. Excludes electricity imports using renewable sources and nonmarketed renewable energy. Other 2009 petroleum supply values: EIA. . non-electric energy from wood. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . Refer to Table A17 for details. Projections: EIA.66 2. . . . July 2011). and export free-alongside-ship (f. . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply. .55 210. DC. .24 1. . Petroleum coke. .S. .. . .3% 4. . . . . DC.95 3. . 10 Includes re-exported liquefied natural gas.47 12. DOE/EIA-0121(2010/4Q) (Washington. . .7% 2. Refer to Table A17 for detailed renewable liquid fuels consumption. .51 11. Excludes imports of fuel used in nuclear power plants. DOE/EIA-0584(2010) (Washington. .95 7.42 6. and price summary (continued) Table A1. . Coal (dollars per million Btu) at the minemouth18 .2% 4. . 132 2 U. .52 7. 19 Prices weighted by consumption. 18 Includes reported prices for both open market and captive mines. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . December 2010).11 67.76 10. .S. Form EIA-856. is included. . DC. . losses. but alternative processes are required to take advantage of it.04 3.71 3.8 125. weighted average excludes residential and commercial prices. .00 4. . .4% 2. 2009 natural gas wellhead price: U. unless noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . .52 2. . . The total energy content of uranium is much larger. disposition. . October-December 2010. . .9 229. liquid hydrogen. . Average end-use19 . and biodiesel. . See Table A17 for selected nonmarketed residential and commercial renewable energy data.S. .” Other 2009 and 2010 coal values: Quarterly Coal Report. . . November 2011). .97 122. .39 4. . . . . liquid hydrogen. . Natural Gas Annual 2009.05 4.16 35.61 1. and electricity (net).a. 17 Represents lower 48 onshore and offshore supplies. . alcohols. . .81 4.86 3.

. .58 20.88 9. .28 23. .50 3. . .88 0. . . .32 0.82 1.00 1. . . . . . .39 -0. .06 0. . . . . . .94 30. . . . . . . Natural gas .93 0. .48 1.57 1. . .09 8.01 0.30 1. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Energy consumption Residential Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . . . . . .01 0. . . .94 3. .36 10. .93 6. unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . .00 1. . .97 0.02 0. .05 0. . . . .18 0.08 0. .3% -1. . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas .33 26.08 0.03 1. . Renewable energy1 . . . .00 1. . . .06 0.21 0. . .66 10.84 0. . . . . . . . .56 0. . .94 0.2% -0. .96 6. . .32 0.38 19. .80 10. . . .76 0.98 1.01 3.3% -9.08 0. . Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases . .33 0.13 22. . . . .67 3. Other petroleum5 . .08 1.00 0. .06 0. .59 8.7% 0.20 0.43 5.89 7.06 2.81 1. .28 0. . . . .03 2. . .50 0.51 10. . . . .08 0. . . .30 3.62 3.50 0. . . .6% -0.1% 0.46 33. . .5% 0. .06 1. .57 7. . . . .3% 0. . . . .16 9.48 9. .52 25. .00 0. . Renewable energy3 .3% 1. . . . .02 1.3% 0. . Distillate fuel oil . . .80 20. . . . . . . . .46 24. . .7% -1. . . . . . . .59 28. . .7% 0. . . . .94 6. .08 0.00 1. .15 0. .05 0. . . Motor gasoline2 . . . .61 0. . .01 0. . . Net coal coke imports . .87 10. . . . . . . .48 10. . . . . . .14 6. . . .09 32. . .01 0. . . .11 4. .00 -0.22 5. . . .11 0. . .02 0.3% -0. .16 0. . . Energy consumption by sector and source (quadrillion Btu per year.08 0. Electricity related losses . . Total . . . . Coal .Reference case Table A2.44 23.89 0. . . .51 0. . . . . . . . . . . .13 9. . . . . .4% 0. . . . . .3% 0. .11 0.87 4. . . .41 0. .61 3.4% 0. . . . . .01 0. . Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . .30 1. . . Coal subtotal . Electricity related losses . . .08 4.32 0. . . . . .18 0. . . . . . .57 8. . .31 3. Metallurgical coal .11 4. .11 5. . . .84 1. . .2% -0. . . . Natural gas subtotal . .62 3.1% 0. .55 1. . .61 0. Residual fuel oil . . . . . . Coal-to-liquids heat and power . .30 1. . . . . .93 0.80 0. . . .75 11. . . . . . . . .43 0. .95 0. .51 0.23 11. . . . .37 6. . . .27 18. . . . . .06 0.53 0. . . .35 23. . . .56 0. Coal .S.52 22. . . . . . . . .34 0. .37 8.64 6. . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . . . .22 2. . . . .60 -0. . . . . . . . .68 3. . . .08 0. .59 8. . . . Lease and plant fuel6 . . .05 0. . . . . .00 -0. . . .8% 0.11 4. Electricity . . . .01 1. . Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . .08 1. .96 1. .0% -0.44 26.54 8.36 0. . . .90 1.52 18. .11 5. . . . Kerosene . . . . . .1% 0. . .01 0. .55 1.68 0. . . . .04 0.00 1. .01 0. . . . . . .01 1. . .31 7.82 20. . . . . .2% -1. . . . .51 0.03 0.46 1. .00 0. . . . .16 0. . .59 0. . . . . . . .0% 0. .02 0. . . . . . . . . .51 0.85 19. . . . . . .97 31. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . . . . . . . .96 11. . . . . . . . .00 0. .25 0. . . .21 7.87 3.1% 0. . .36 -0. . . . . . .14 4. .08 0. .01 0.53 7. . . . . . .08 0.6% 1. . . . . . . .13 7. . . . .59 8.00 -0.81 0. . . . . . . . . . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 3 133 . .02 0. . . .90 2. .43 1. . . . .63 8. . . . .48 -0.82 3.90 0.28 1. . .79 0. .14 0.03 0.62 3. .25 1. . . . . .  Energy consumption by sector and source Table A2. . . Renewable energy7 . . . . . .38 0. . . . . .4% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.00 0. . .39 17.19 0. . .93 11. . .0% 0.12 0.95 3. . . .2% 0. . . . .43 5. . .5% -0.76 0. .15 0. . . . . .63 1. .70 9. .02 0. . .01 0. . . .18 9. . . . . . . .28 0.06 0. . .14 0. .08 1. . . . . . . . .08 0. . .19 8.44 7.27 1.11 4. . .99 7.20 3. .43 8. . .86 11. . . . .83 0. . . . . . . . .00 1. . Residual fuel oil . .19 0. Electricity . . . . .05 6. .42 4. . 0. . .18 0. .43 0. .09 1. . . . . . . . .43 5. . . . .39 22. . .26 0. . . .06 0.23 21.00 0.62 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .3% 1. . . .05 0.62 3. .17 0. . .18 7. . Natural gas . . . .1% 0. . .11 8. Total . Kerosene . .01 0. Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . . .43 4. .60 1. . . .18 0. . . .24 9. . . . .4% -1. . .06 2.73 10.49 1. .37 3. .7% 0. . . . . . .13 7. . . . . .51 9. . .05 0. . .1% 0.86 2.43 4. .04 1. . . . . . . . Delivered energy . . Delivered energy . . . . . .1% -1.62 3.7% -2. . . . . . Electricity related losses . . . . . . . .24 1. .80 0.0% 1.15 0. . .91 4. . . . . . .00 0. .01 4. . . . . . .40 0. . .0% 0. . . . . . . .29 3. . . . . . . . Other industrial coal . .48 1. . . .01 21. .41 0.00 1. . . Industrial4 Liquefied petroleum gases . . .76 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% -1. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . .7% 0. . . . . . . . .55 8. . . . . . . . . . . . .35 0.06 0. . .07 0. .43 4. .06 0.02 0. Total . . .51 0. .08 1.11 5.72 3.69 0. . . .14 0.20 6. .63 0. . . .69 2. . . . Delivered energy . .89 30. . .14 0. .50 2.95 4.66 11.46 8. . . . . .3% -0.5% 0.28 11. . . . . . . .57 1. .92 1. . . . . . . . Petrochemical feedstocks .30 1. .26 -0.95 11.95 22. . . . . .1% 4. .17 0. . . . . . . Motor gasoline2 . Biofuels heat and coproducts . . . . . . . . . Electricity . .05 0. . . .35 0. . . . . . .90 3. .03 0. . . . . . .13 0. .55 11. . . .02 1. .80 9.90 0. . . . .06 0.80 32. . .32 0. . . .81 0.60 0. . . . . .26 0. .06 0.7% 0. . .33 0.

.67 0.09 1.33 0.85 0. . . Residual fuel oil . .17 0. . . . . .9% 0. .36 -0.20 0.80 0.39 0. .86 1. . .48 1. . . . . . . . . . . .37 0.88 0.09 40. .59 0. . . . . . . . .5% 27. Other petroleum12 . . . . . .8% -0. .10 0.94 0. . . . . .09 0.09 39. . . . . . . . . . . . .17 26.09 0.14 28. . . . . . . . Net coal coke imports . . . . .34 36. . . . .06 27.22 2. . . .76 36. .S. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . .2% -1. . .72 14. . . . . .55 0. . .0% 0. . . .57 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% -0. .61 0. . . . Nuclear / uranium15 . .57 0. .09 0.1% -0. . . . .08 0. unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . .07 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .8% 0. . . .13 3. . .53 0.75 29. . . .32 9. . . . . . . . .19 0. . .5% -1. . . . .12 38.0% 1.00 16. . .65 0. Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power .17 27. . Total17 .26 36. . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . .03 6. . . . . . .66 3. .09 0.18 106. .92 2. . Pipeline natural gas . .09 0. . .96 2. . . . . . . .00 0.87 25.00 1. . .41 0.01 16. . . .3% 1. .40 0. . .00 1.17 26. . . Other coal . . . . .17 26. . . . . .2% 0. .08 1.0% 0. . Residual fuel oil . . . . .04 0. . . . .23 8. . . .21 0. . .31 3. . . . . . .65 17.59 25. . .43 15. .04 0. .08 1. . .96 1. . . Petrochemical feedstocks . . . . . . . . . . .38 0. .06 0.29 3. . . . . . .30 3.0% -0. .83 94.14 0. .21 0.00 0. . .16 0. . . . . . . . .00 13. . . . . Metallurgical coal . . .05 27.13 2. . .55 0. .29 8. . . . Renewable energy16 . . . .08 27. . . .06 27.01 16.00 -0. . .75 0. . . . . .99 0.28 15. .00 1.08 42. . . . . . .3% -1. . . . .48 -0.81 71. . . .08 0. . . . . . . .31 8. . . . . . . . .3% -0. Residual fuel oil .17 27.32 0.1% 4.02 27. . . . .00 17.74 0. . . . . . .00 1. . .67 18.99 1. . Delivered energy . .13 8.79 71. . . . . .93 0. .4% 134 4 Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.05 1. . .84 97. . . .24 0. . . .03 0. . Distillate fuel oil10 . . . .6% 0. . Motor gasoline2 . . . . . .28 6.1% 0.83 0. .26 -0. .03 0. E858 .04 0. . . . Natural gas . .30 8.00 0. . . . .03 8. .40 1. . .50 0. . . . .3% -9.03 8.32 0.6% 0. . . .15 8.00 1. . . . Motor gasoline2 . . . . .04 0. . .03 9. . . . . .09 6. . . .32 26. . . . . . . .77 0. .88 0. Electricity related losses . .25 0. . Coal subtotal .00 0.19 7.81 0. .84 98. .22 0. . . .16 0. . . . . .01 1. .68 4. . . .32 0. . . .06 9.0% 0. . .00 0. . .03 2. . . .00 16.67 104. . . . . . . .21 3. .08 1. Delivered energy consumption for all sectors Liquefied petroleum gases . . .46 0.00 1. . . . Compressed / liquefied natural gas . .04 2. . . . .96 0. . .1% 0.04 0. . . . .10 38.15 0. . . . . Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . .63 2. . . . .27 36. . .91 0. . .68 18. . . . . . . .3% 1.3% 0. .2% 0. .9% -2. . Total . . . .4% 0. . Kerosene . .68 15. Distillate fuel oil . .60 0. . . . . . . .59 0. . . .88 3. . . . . . . . . .04 7. . .38 7. . . . . . . .43 1.91 9. .82 1. . . .63 0. . . . .05 43. . Delivered energy . . Pipeline fuel natural gas . . .06 0. . . . . .00 -0. . .04 27.05 27. . . .43 0. . . . . .49 0.11 0. .64 0.09 0. . . . . .04 0. .67 18. . . .60 0. . . . . .69 18. .01 0. . . .72 15. . . .04 44. . .98 5. . Jet fuel9 . . .00 17.12 2.27 68. . .3% 0. . .7% 0. . .75 0. . . . . . . .1% 4.03 8. .79 0. . . . .08 0. . .16 19.91 3.64 28. .03 9.87 15. . .79 0. . .13 15.03 1. .87 0.20 2. .14 0. . . . . . . . .00 12.Reference case Table A2. . . . .61 16. . . . .44 0. . .56 5.54 19. . . . .22 14.11 1. .8% -0. .06 2. . . . .05 0. . .01 0.66 18. . . . . . .46 3. . . Natural gas . . .15 0. .2% 27. . .07 0. . . . .65 0. . . .30 0. . .00 0. . .68 0. . . .92 0.7% -4.7% 0. .96 73.92 28.06 77. . . . . .01 3. .49 1. . .90 3. .09 1. .46 1. . .60 5.05 0. .30 15.51 0. . Electric power14 Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . . .08 15. . .55 9.  Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) Table A2. . . . .03 27.33 72. . . Liquid hydrogen .33 7.00 0. . .62 0. . . . . . .10 14. . .75 0. . . .84 2.39 7. . . . . . .38 15.04 7. . . .4% 1. . . .11 0.90 3.40 0. . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases . .32 0.71 0.25 3. .29 1. . . . . . . .84 2. . . . . . . . . .53 75. . . . . . . . . . .6% 0. . . . . . .02 1. . . . . . . .57 2. . . .22 0. Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook .6% 0.77 0. . .93 0. . . .2% 0. . . . . Electricity . . . . . . . .64 2. . . .89 99. .31 0. . . .21 0. . . . .00 12. .67 0. . . . . . . . .98 0. . . Coal-to-liquids heat and power .09 0.99 1. . .22 14.03 27. . Renewable energy13 . . . . . .2% 5. .25 16. . . . . . .07 101. . . . Other petroleum11 . . .60 -0. .28 5.46 0. .3% 0. . . . Natural gas subtotal .65 0. . . . . . . .11 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 0.07 5. . . . . E858 . . . . .68 17.69 0.04 1. .09 0. .90 0. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal .85 0. . . .91 0. .94 3. .68 0. . . . . . . . . . .00 -0. .02 1. .2% 2. .75 0. . . . .00 13.07 28.15 0. .82 0. . . . .99 0. . Electricity imports .69 1.05 16. . . . . . .36 37. . . . . .90 0. . . .69 3. .27 0. . Biofuels heat and coproducts . Liquid hydrogen .93 0. . .04 0.36 3. .05 27. . . . .53 3.7% 0. .81 2. . . .67 0. . . . . . .81 1. . . .30 14. . . . .17 26. .63 0. . .04 3.03 9. . . . . .27 7. . . .02 27.0% -0. . . .09 0. .00 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 0. . . .22 0.11 28.36 0. .04 18. . . . . . . .00 15. .55 1. .0% 0. . Electricity related losses . . . .72 36. . . . .23 0. Total .01 1. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 0. . . . Lease and plant fuel6 . . . . Electricity . . . .03 0. . . .03 0. .65 0. . . . .43 26. Steam coal . . . . .31 8. . . . . . .02 0.81 0. .20 3. . .00 14. . . .16 26. .44 3.57 0.31 3.10 2. .5% 0.13 15. . . Jet fuel9 .61 36. . .27 2.43 0. . .14 0. . . . .00 12.04 18. . .86 0.

.62 8. . . .03 9. . . . .43 20.60 -0.82 374. . . . . . . . Motor gasoline2 . . .11 0. .12 94. . .2% 0.86 1. . . . . . . . . .85 0. .73 9.21 0.10 97.23 0.90 3.08 101. . . and solar thermal water heaters. . . . . . October 2011 DOE/EIA-0035(2011/10) (Washington. . . .40 19. .3% -0. . .04 20.72 0. . . . still gas.19 0. . .Reference case Table A2. .15 9.00 0.00 1. and solar thermal sources. .45 0. .09 99. Other petroleum12 . . . .00 1. .70 24. 11 Includes aviation gasoline and lubricants.01 16. . . . . Coal-to-liquids heat and power . . . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . .16 14803 5407. . . . and lease operations. . . To address cold starting issues. . aviation gasoline. and solar thermal sources. .07 1. . E858 . . . Excludes ethanol.94 3.02 19. . .6% --2. Kerosene . . Electricity imports .32 1. municipal waste. Metallurgical coal . . . photovoltaic.22 14. .9% 2. .4% -1. . . . .72 1.36 0. . . and miscellaneous petroleum products. . landfill gas. . October 2011). 2009 and 2010 population and gross domestic product: IHS Global Insight Industry and Employment models.00 1. . . . or electricity and heat.99 1. 8 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). .68 0. . DC. . . .01 17. and solar thermal water heaters. . .00 1.07 0. . . . . . . . . buildings photovoltaic systems. . . motor gasoline blending components. 12 Includes unfinished oils. . . . . .36 -0. .13 2.36 37.26 36. . . . . .99 73. . . .65 24. . . . Net coal coke imports . . 16 Includes conventional hydroelectric.92 101.04 8. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Total energy consumption Liquefied petroleum gases .04 7. .D020112C. . . Excludes ethanol and nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps.16 1. . Energy Information Administration (EIA).84 12703 5424. . Sources: 2009 and 2010 consumption based on: U. Distillate fuel oil . . . . .  Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) Table A2.88 3.18 0. .03 8.09 98. . . . . . .05 104. . or electricity and heat.9% 0. . Monthly Energy Review.00 -0. . Other coal . . . . . .29 3.32 0.and off.1% 0.00 0.9 1 Includes wood used for residential heating. .07 1. .07 0.31 3. . . . . . . . . . . . geothermal. .81 7. . .46 19.75 106.38 1.38 23.5% 0. except those whose primary business is to sell electricity. .0% -0. 17 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste not included above. . .02 18.57 8. Nuclear / uranium15 . .S. .57 0.09 21725 5647. Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . .7% 0. . .00 0. . Petrochemical feedstocks . . . and non-electric energy from renewable sources. . . field. . biogenic municipal waste. . .00 17. . . .88 0. .00 17. geothermal. .11 310.96 307. . municipal waste. .60 1. . . . 18 Includes conventional hydroelectric. . . .58 23.32 72. . . . .32 1. . . . net electricity imports. The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast.6 2. . Ethanol consumed in motor gasoline and E85 Population (millions) . . . . . .89 0. . . . . The total energy content of uranium is much larger.71 68. . . . . road oil. . lubricants. Natural gas . . . . . . asphalt. . . . .09 0. . . . . . .69 0.28 2. .26 0. 4 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. . . .61 36. . . . . still gas. .76 37.59 0.43 0.24 0. . .29 0. .92 8. . . . . October 2011). . . . . .32 75. Renewable energy18 .S.3% 0. . .61 23.55 0.01 20. . . . .63 0.43 1.32 1.00 0. See Table A5 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for solar thermal water heating and electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaic sources.2% 1. . .71 0. other biomass.30 15. . ..61 0. .04 3.0% 0. . and in natural gas processing plant machinery.33 0. .25 22. .59 97. Excludes net electricity imports. Carbon dioxide emissions (million metric tons) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 0. . . . .14 0. . . . 9 Includes only kerosene type. . . Annual Energy Review 2010. . wood and wood waste. Total . DC. . . . . . .06 21. . . .01 16740 5434. . buildings photovoltaic systems.72 15. . . . natural gasoline. . August 2011. . . . .2% 27. . 13 Includes electricity generated for sale to the grid and for own use from renewable sources. Residual fuel oil .8 2.25 3.1% 2. . .69 0. .93 77. . .82 5. . . . . . .29 1.31 0.89 1. . . .00 1. . .66 3. .16 71. biogenic municipal waste. . . . . . . . .00 1.7% 0. .11 0.28 0. . .00 0. 10 Diesel fuel for on. . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . . .4% -0.37 0. .09 24539 5757. Excludes ethanol blends (15 percent or less) in motor gasoline. . . . . .57 17.51 0. .2 2.51 0.75 0. .34 36.04 106. and electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaic sources. .86 0.27 0. lubricants. other biomass. Projections: EIA. . . . . . . . . .00 0.3 2. .56 1. . See Table A4 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps. .03 8. . . 3 Excludes ethanol.31 1. .3% 0. . . .68 0. . . . . . Natural gas subtotal . . . . . .49 19. . .84 5.96 7. 6 Represents natural gas used in well.48 18. . .3% 0.59 9. . .0% -9.21 3. . . . . . . . . Liquid hydrogen . and other biomass for combined heat and power. . to the public.22 326.69 27. . . petroleum coke. . . . wood and wood waste.00 1. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . 7 Includes consumption of energy produced from hydroelectric.01 3. . Coal subtotal . Includes commercial sector consumption of wood and wood waste. . . .0% -0. . . .4% 0. . road oil. . . .27 36. . . . . . .89 0.6% 1.41 0. .55 358. . . .5 2. . . . . . . . .20 3. . .71 0. . . .88 0. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 5 135 . 2 Includes ethanol (blends of 15 percent or less) and ethers blended into gasoline. .00 0. . .34 1. .17 1.6% 0. .29 1. . . . . . .32 98. .3% 2.03 20. Jet fuel9 . Pipeline natural gas . . . . . . .3% -1.67 26. . . Total energy use . . . . . . 15 These values represent the energy obtained from uranium when it is used in light water reactors. . . 5 Includes petroleum coke. . . . . to the public. . .48 -0. . . wood and wood waste. wind. . . .94 0.68 26. but alternative processes are required to take advantage of it. . asphalt. . .50 21. . .74 0.98 0. .00 -0. . .83 13088 5633. . . wind. the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. . . . 14 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.76 8. . . . . . Gross domestic product (billion 2005 dollars) . . Btu = British thermal unit.01 0. . .20 0. . . . . . . Lease and plant fuel6 .99 24.68 26. .03 9.00 -0. . . . . 2009 and 2010 carbon dioxide emissions: EIA.27 8. . . solar thermal water heating. Biofuels heat and coproducts .35 342. . . . . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. .46 3.06 19185 5552. . . . . . .72 23. . . . . . and other biomass sources.43 99. .78 1. Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.00 0.03 9. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. . . . .67 26. . . . . . . and miscellaneous petroleum products. Energy use and related statistics Delivered energy use . . .55 20. .64 104. .30 3.15 390. . .93 2. .44 0. .80 8.26 -0. . . .road use. .4% 4.43 71. . . . .= Not applicable.13 15.72 36. photovoltaic. . .69 0. . . . . . . . . . . .6% -0. .2% 0.02 9. .71 0. .4 2. . . .43 0. unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . .03 0. .87 94. . and nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps. .

. . .2% 1. . . . . . . . . .48 28. . unless otherwise noted) (2010 dollars per million Btu.39 21. . . . . . . .36 20.13 31. . . . . .08 1203. . . . . . .99 29. .  Energy prices by sector and source Table A3. . . . . . . .88 268. .08 0. . . .13 184. . . .04 10. . .03 27. . .75 33. . .88 1591. . .58 12. .81 32.53 8. . .03 34. . . . Jet fuel6 . . . . .3% 28.19 28. . . . .87 27. . . .68 9. . . . .8% 1. . .98 28. .60 8. . . .65 10.30 2. . . . . .35 25. . . . . . . .08 28. . . . .78 35. .32 10. . . . . . .89 261. . . . .71 -19. .20 19.92 223. . . . . Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook . .29 -28. .08 28.1% 1. .58 31.04 8. . . .1% 1. . . . . . . . . .55 2. . .27 30.48 32.9% -0. . .4% 0. . .00 4.6% 2. . .88 7. .6% 1. . . . . . .11 3. . . . Metallurgical coal .31 7. . . . .14 2. .63 31.23 30.69 27. . . . .26 -29. . . . Other industrial coal . . . . . . .77 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 8. .74 12. . . . .69 23. . .01 6. . . .15 12.03 27. .3% 1. .4% 1. . .77 7. .16 13. . . . . . . . . . .05 18. . . .S. . . . . . . .2% 1. . . . . Steam coal . . .60 29. . .81 280. . . .00 1613. . . . . . . Non-renewable energy expenditures by sector (billion 2010 dollars) Residential . .77 11. . .26 10. . .07 1082.86 18. .66 9. . .75 33. . . .30 29. .81 34. . . . . . .26 17. . .57 239. . . . .08 33.70 27. . . Industrial1 Liquefied petroleum gases .52 12. .01 21. . Residual fuel oil . . . . . . . . . . .28 25. .64 29. . . . . . . .73 21.64 32.38 31.88 177.54 33. .59 16. . . .56 18. . . . . . . . .74 1542. .22 21. . . . .0% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 13.21 2. .87 21.07 28. . .52 298. . .3% 2. . . . . . . . . . Transportation renewable expenditures . Motor gasoline5 . . . . .42 23.8% 0. Natural gas . . Distillate fuel oil . . . .22 21. . Industrial .49 2. . .66 38.99 -20. . . . . . . Motor gasoline5 . .51 5.87 19.51 7. .62 246. . . . . . .59 27. .29 31. . .54 0. .11 2.38 20. . .65 1669.53 5.52 0. . . . . . . .31 856.41 23. . . . . . . Residual fuel oil . . . . . .50 29. . . . . . .84 2. .60 33. . . .10 29. .91 30. Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)7 . . . . . Natural gas2 .43 25.98 19.81 266.21 11. . .26 18. . .82 27. . .61 3. . . . . .74 24.18 18. .94 1450.37 30.24 27. . . . . .18 24. .98 282.54 8.95 32. . . . . . .40 30. . . . . . . . . . .72 231. . . . . . . . . . .53 25. . .9% 1. . . .6% 1. . . . .98 4. . . . . . . .52 20. . .23 6. . . . . . .22 19.61 2. . . . . . Electricity .27 1. .95 34. . . . . . . . . .03 27. .60 28. .80 21.1% 1.72 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .64 2. . . .84 18.52 1534. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases . .76 19.35 22. . . . .0% 1. . . .32 12. .26 28. .63 26. . . . . . . . . . . . .54 9. . .31 6. . . . . . . . .50 2.03 29. .1% 240. .99 18. . . . . .25 1395. . .68 30. . . . . . . . . Total non-renewable expenditures . Electric power9 Distillate fuel oil .6% 3.58 829. . . . . . .4% 1. . .29 31. . .8% 0. . . .66 25.71 14. . .77 187. .17 212.97 26.84 1395. .30 9.74 27.22 28. . . . . .88 746. . . . .58 3. .88 25. . .98 34. .7% 1.02 10. .0% 1. . . .49 2.6% 2. . . . . Other coal .81 32.73 20. .08 8. . . . .07 9. .2% 1. . . .40 5.8% 1. . . .55 6.92 803. . . . . . Electricity . .21 22. . .2% -0.69 179. . Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . . .75 770. . . . . .15 251. . . . . .65 7. . .4% 0. .17 35. .61 14. .24 10. . .80 26. Average price to all users10 Liquefied petroleum gases . . . .0% 1. . .98 16. .58 2. . . . Jet fuel .6% 2.45 30. . . . . .98 573. . .53 21. .21 4. . . .77 25. .76 25. .92 5. . . . . . . .98 19. . . . . . .96 33.86 1708. . . . . .22 3. . .71 6.75 201. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 13. . . . . .85 2.02 27. . . . . . . .54 26. Coal to liquids .61 251. .80 25. . . .26 23.40 20. . . Electricity . Residual fuel oil . .26 28.72 7. . .40 479. .06 29.84 33. .75 18.7% 1. Residual fuel oil .58 31.82 30.56 1. . Natural gas . .9% 0. .13 20. .61 29. . . . .8% 1. . . . . . . . .45 7.02 29. E854 . . .74 26.60 2. . . . . .12 7. . . .73 10. . . . . . .50 22. . . . . . . .52 22.0% 1. . . . . . . .54 24.72 177. .77 1453. . . . .65 34. . . . .6% 2. . . .20 32. .78 25.84 2. . . . . . . . . . Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases3 .26 28. . . . . . . . .95 14. . .58 30. . . . . . Electricity . .43 24. .33 5. . . . . . .4% 136 6 Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . . . . . . .91 31. .42 20. . . .18 8. .38 20.49 17. . .04 3. . .16 5. . . .31 34. .68 32.11 3. . .87 10. .47 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas .66 1082. . . . . . .91 21.45 29. .08 19. .57 8. .91 30. .61 29. .38 2. E854 . .38 28.18 29. . . .76 19. .21 22. .08 198.71 2. Electricity . .22 2. . . Commercial . .0% 1.82 7. .36 0.38 29.96 27. . .4% 1. . Total expenditures . . . . .22 16. . . .05 25.81 21. . . . .00 29. . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation .84 20. . . .11 2. . . . . .05 16. . .21 29. . . . .51 33. . . . . . .38 4.1% 1.59 2. . . . .06 20.70 16.05 28. . Distillate fuel oil .06 29. . . . . . . .26 23. . . . .02 21. . . . . .75 17. . . Natural gas8 . . . . .4% 2. . . . .96 33. . . . .Reference case Table A3. .10 26.1% 1. . . . . . . . . Natural gas . . . .77 25. . . . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 24.68 30. . .09 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 21. . .21 2. . . .78 1203. . .35 11. . . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Residential Liquefied petroleum gases .93 29. . . . . . Energy prices by sector and source (2010 dollars per million Btu. . . . . . .74 8. . Residual fuel oil . Distillate fuel oil . . .47 12. . . .42 13. . . .37 5.42 12.73 11. .76 34. . . .90 11. Metallurgical coal . . . . .89 5. . . Coal to liquids . . . . . .13 32. . . . . . .81 10.85 2.8% 0. . . . . . . .76 16. .1% 1. . .62 13. .41 1. . . .74 31. . . . .10 26. . . . . . .03 29.

. .73 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 33. . . . . .88 4.53 24. . Steam coal . . . . .69 23. . . . .69 34. . Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases3 . . . . .71 -19. . . . .37 8. . . Electricity . . . . .61 53.27 37. .52 32. . . . .87 2. . . .37 8. . . . Distillate fuel oil . . . . Industrial1 Liquefied petroleum gases . .36 20.35 12. .41 31.86 12.5% 3. . . . . . . Natural gas8 . .78 4. . . . . .98 3. .0% 3. . .40 4. .51 5.28 11.68 10. .5% 4.69 19.89 5. . . . . . . .15 36. . .77 3. . . . . . . .83 17. . . . .1% 3. . . . . . . . .83 41. .42 28. .97 41. . . . . unless otherwise noted) (nominal dollars per million Btu. .78 32. . . . .20 32. . . Electricity . . .40 30. .78 3.29 33. . . Distillate fuel oil .65 29.73 11.10 15.80 21. . . . . . .2% 4. . . . . . . .2% 2. .9% 1. .7% Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . . .97 13. . . . . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 24.55 19.65 39. . .14 54. . . .67 50. . . . . . . . .16 48. Natural gas . . . . Natural gas .71 19. . . . . .74 13. . . . .82 27. . .76 34. .08 20. .72 37. . . . . . . . . .94 39. .18 22. . . . . . . . . . .07 9. . .56 26.53 25.88 25. . . . . . . .12 51. . . . .2% 2. . . Energy prices by sector and source (continued) (nominal dollars per million Btu. Electric power9 Distillate fuel oil . .80 2. . . . .66 29.61 36. .58 29.93 18.86 51. . . . . . . . .01 39. . .71 32. . . . .28 31.54 25. . . .51 15. . . . . . . . . .91 3.46 32. . .26 7.73 11.38 44. . . . . . .31 37. . . .63 26. . . . . . . .5% 5. . . .67 25. .11 37.02 21. .92 5. . .43 2. .70 29. . . . .43 46. .20 29. . . . . .01 14. . . .1% -2. . Residual fuel oil .26 33.52 20.8% 3. . . Coal to liquids . .41 12.52 1. Natural gas . .20 48. Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases . . . .52 19. . .83 25. . . .84 3. . . . .74 39.3% 3. . .08 29. . . . .22 46. . . .75 10. .13 6. . . .82 33. . E854 . .47 23. . . . . . . . . . .51 34. .28 29. . . . . . .66 5. . . . . . . . .90 56. .97 53. . . . . . . . Electricity . . .95 28. . . .43 9. .89 9. . . . . . . .0% 2. Distillate fuel oil . . . . .82 43. .87 10. . . . .15 42. . . . .56 33. . . . .31 14.01 35. . . .14 2. . Other industrial coal . . . . . .25 47.42 5. . . . .Reference case Table A3.16 28. . . . .10 29. . .62 21. . . . . . Metallurgical coal . . .27 29.80 32. . .19 27.56 46.19 33. . .55 44. . .68 34. . . . . . . . .29 12. . .02 40.41 38. . . .43 2.41 22. .70 16.76 49. .86 37. . . .38 40.93 14. . . . .34 2.55 20. . .38 11. .90 2. . .77 11. .42 13. . .43 43. . . . . . .0% 3.42 4. .21 11. . . . . . Motor gasoline5 . . Residual fuel oil .96 -19. . . . . .22 21. .70 5. . . . . . . . . . . .2% 4. . . . . . . . . . . .84 2. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Residential Liquefied petroleum gases . . .68 15. .26 4.9% 3.53 36.59 7. . . . .  Energy prices by sector and source (continued) Table A3. .7% 3.0% 3. . .6% 2. . . .08 40.27 31. . . . .1% 3. . . .25 44. . .32 10. . . . . . .14 11. . . . . . . . . . . .91 43. . . . . . . . . . . . Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)7 . . . . .21 37. . .02 5. . . . . .63 30. . . . .24 7. . . .55 12. .61 17. .47 42. . . . . . . .83 36. . . . .1% 2.7% 2.47 46. . . .82 10. .93 27. .03 26.21 22. . . . . . . .27 5. . . . . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 7 137 .82 16. . . . . .06 23.86 24. . . . . . . . . . .17 34. . . . . . . . . . . . .72 18. . Electricity . . . . . . Jet fuel6 . . Residual fuel oil . .8% 3. . . .55 18. .05 40.49 14. .95 20. . .0% 3. . . . . . .5% 4.19 3. .36 32.59 50.7% 3. . . . . . .82 22.08 33. .02 8. . . . .77 47. . .24 24. . Residual fuel oil . . .95 46.45 17. . . . .78 54. . . .55 2. .38 34. Natural gas2 . . . .17 29. .51 9.8% 2. . . .85 35. . .99 18. . . . . .S. .

. . to the public. .89 220. . Federal taxes. .08 1203. . DOE/EIA-0487(2009) (Washington. . DC. .26 1181. . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Jet fuel . . . . . . DC. 2009 and 2010 electricity prices: EIA. . . .31 2296. .28 31. . .26 2.10 35. Metallurgical coal . . . . .22 46. . 10 Weighted averages of end-use fuel prices are derived from the prices shown in each sector and the corresponding sectoral consumption.78 1203.58 27.6% 2.52 34.08 31. . . .= Not applicable.85 191. . . . . . .26 3. DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington.11 2265. . . .78 31.75 906. . .61 17. . . .26 259. . Residual fuel oil . . . . .86 3. . . July 2011).99 367. .16 40.82 7.52 19. Coal to liquids . .19 1069. . . . DOE/EIA-0214(2009) (Washington. .0% 238.15 36.6% 3. .42 4.04 336. . . . DC. .94 38. .95 7. . . . DOE/EIA0130(2011/07) (Washington. . . . . .19 33. DC. . . . 2010 residential and commercial natural gas delivered prices: EIA.04 36. .16 29. . . . . unless otherwise noted) (nominal dollars per million Btu. . . . . . .24 804.75 1503. . 1 2 3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 15. . . .D020112C. . . . . . Electric Power Monthly. . Distillate fuel oil . .21 22.09 4.53 10.. . .67 36. . . . .94 20. .61 53. 9 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . . . April 2010 and April 2011.S. . . .41 2643. DC.3% Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington. . .93 10. . DOE/EIA-0035(2010/09) (Washington. . . . . .17 50.48 6.87 7.06 1030. . .98 573. or electricity and heat. . . . . . . .94 30. .23 -28. . .27 1503. . Table 4. .29 -28. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. 2009 and 2010 electric power sector distillate and residual fuel oil prices: EIA. . . . . . . .8% 3. . .11 182.65 10. September 2010). DOE/EIA0131(2009) (Washington. . . . Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes.32 2.51 3. . Sources: 2009 and 2010 prices for motor gasoline. . . . . . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. . . Natural Gas Annual 2009. 2009 and 2010 E85 prices derived from monthly prices in the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report.53 2705. . .59 16. .3% 3. . . . . . . . 2010 transportation sector natural gas delivered prices are model results.62 35. . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. State and local taxes. .39 7. .28 25. .01 31. Electricity .77 42. . . .3% 3. . 6 Kerosene-type jet fuel. Transportation renewable expenditures .7% 2. . .68 33.78 251.80 3. . . .34 9. . . .77 47. .01 39. . To address cold starting issues.25 12. . . . . .78 2. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Average price to all users10 Liquefied petroleum gases . .7% 2.53 25. and EIA. . . . . May 2011) and EIA. . . . . distillate fuel oil. .82 295. 2009 and 2010 electric power sector natural gas prices: EIA. . . . July 2011). . . . . December 2010). Other coal . . . . 4 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). . October-December 2010. .S.91 2. Total non-renewable expenditures . . . . . .5% 4. .71 241.52 342. . . . . .08 198. . . . . .9% 3. .Reference case Table A3. . .07 1069. . . Energy prices by sector and source (continued) (nominal dollars per million Btu. . DC. . . .43 281. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey and industrial and wellhead prices from the Natural Gas Annual 2009. Motor gasoline5 .16 5.72 61. . . . . . or electricity and heat. . . . . . . . . . . 2009 transportation sector natural gas delivered prices are based on: EIA. . . .55 0. Energy Information Administration (EIA). . October 2011).33 14. . 2009 and 2010 industrial natural gas delivered prices are estimated based on: EIA. . . . .64 11. . . .60 1.5% 3.72 0. . . . . .43 2. . . . . . .78 46. 2009 and 2010 coal prices based on: EIA. . . . . . . . . Monthly Energy Review. DC.8% -2. Quarterly Coal Report.96 8. .25 43. .41 33. . . State Energy Data Report 2009. . . . 7 Diesel fuel for on-road use. DC. the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. . . . . . . Btu = British thermal unit. . . . . . . . .Natural Gas Annual 2009. . Commercial . . . . . . . DC. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook .73 14. . . . . . to the public. . Includes Federal. . .43 1708. . .22 21.40 3. . . 2009 residential and commercial natural gas delivered prices: EIA. . . . .75 302. 138 8 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . .4% 4.90 43. . . . . . . . . June 2011).31 447.21 1979. . . . . The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. .29 474. . December 2010) and estimated State taxes. Excludes use for lease and plant fuel. Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. . .68 24. . . . .12 50.81 12. . . . Transportation . December 2010) and the Natural Gas Monthly.40 472. Annual Energy Review 2010. . . DOE/EIA-0226. .97 41. 8 Natural gas used as a vehicle fuel. Industrial . . . .97 382. . E854 .24 27. Total expenditures .6% 2. Non-renewable energy expenditures by sector (billion nominal dollars) Residential . . DOE/EIA-0121(2010/4Q) (Washington. . . .68 17. . . Natural gas . . .35 11.69 179. . .D020112C. . . .28 5. . .36 30. .62 265. . Projections: EIA. . . . . . . Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009.01 1356. Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. . except those whose primary business is to sell electricity. DC. . . . .33 23.2% 30. .02 1704. . August 2010). . . . . and jet fuel are based on prices in the U. .84 2. . . .13 175. . .90 2.9% 3. .96 20.  Energy prices by sector and source (continued) Table A3. Note: Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. Natural Gas Monthly. .54 0.58 28. . .56 398. Includes estimated motor vehicle fuel taxes and estimated dispensing costs or charges. . . 5 Sales weighted-average price for all grades.98 1968. . and dispensing costs or charges. . .2. . . . . . .

. . .38 0. Cooking . .1 50. . . .43 0. . . . . . . .4 111.10 0. .97 0.8% 0.3% 1. .02 0.4% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooking .50 0. . . . .01 0. . .1% 1. .73 1684 89. . . . . . . .02 0. . . . . . . . . . . .09 0.19 0.30 1743 102. . .1% -1. . .92 4.03 0. . . . . .06 0. .8 48.5% 0.37 0.11 0. .6% 1. . . . Water heating . .96 3. . .7% -0. .29 0. . .06 4. . .3% 0.50 0. . . . . . . .43 0.03 0.S. .02 0.07 0. .32 0.22 0. .03 0.22 0.4 81. .43 0. . . . .14 0. .27 0.17 0. . .47 0. . . . . . . Other fuels5 . . . Marketed renewables (wood)4 . .0% -0. . . . .48 0. . . . . . . .17 0. . .46 0.22 0. . . . . . .18 0. .19 0. . .03 0. . Mobile homes . . . . .8 166.23 0. . . . . .54 35. . . .00 1. . Natural gas Space heating .03 0. .73 25. . . . . . . . .56 33. . . . . .27 0. . . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 81. . . . . . .5% -1. . .98 6. . .9% 1. . .04 0. . . . . . . . .24 0. .11 25. . .44 0. . . . . . . . Delivered energy consumption by fuel Electricity Space heating .07 4. .34 0.0% 0.50 0. .04 0.22 0. .26 0. . . Water heating . . . . .8% 0. . . .35 0. . . . . . . .38 0. . .2 162. . . . . .3 169. . . . . . .2 104.63 0. .19 0.03 0. . . . . .00 1. .81 0. . . . . . . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Key indicators Households (millions) Single-family . . . .4% 0.26 0.51 0. .31 1. .14 0.04 0. .2% 97. . . .1% 0. . .15 0. Refrigeration . . . . .09 0. . .78 1646 82. .43 0. . .49 26. . . .18 0. .07 0. .30 0. . .17 0. .24 0. . . .22 0.00 1. . . . . . . .30 1. . . . . . . .31 0. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 9 139 . . . . . . . . .70 0. . .15 1.00 1. . . . . . . . .48 0. .3% -1. . . . Delivered energy . . .9 159. . . .11 0. . .06 0.19 0.09 0. . . . . . .23 3. . . . .50 0.04 0. . .43 0. . .Reference case Table A4.46 0. . . . .19 1653 85. . .04 0. . .15 1. .03 4. Other uses2 . . . . . . Distillate fuel oil Space heating . .14 0.06 4. .48 0. . . . . . . .96 7. . . . . .47 0. . Clothes washers1 . . .43 0. .86 3.6 175. . .04 0.75 3. . . . . . .06 5. Space cooling . .3 84. .69 0. .64 1759 0.66 3. . . . . . . . . Liquefied petroleum gases Space heating . . . . .43 0.08 0.44 5.08 0.53 0.20 0.3% -0.33 0.13 0. . . . . . Color televisions and set-top boxes . . .03 0. . . . . . . .40 0.23 0. .8 116. .05 0. . . . . . . .33 1. . . . Total energy consumption . .39 0. . .05 4. .06 0. . . .53 0.9% 1.55 0. . . . .39 0. . . .70 7. Average house square footage . . . . (thousand Btu per square foot) Delivered energy consumption . .2% 0. . . .10 0. . . .3% -1. . . .1 193. . . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . .1% -3. . . . .56 0. . Clothes dryers .51 0. . . . . . .28 0. . . .0% 0. . . . . Other uses3 . .7% -0. . . .4% 1. . . . . . .21 0. . . .32 0. . . . . Clothes dryers .05 0. . Space cooling .3% 0. . . . .25 118.12 0. .4% 1.47 6. . .33 0. .26 31. .82 1705 94. . . . . . .32 0. . .10 0. . . . . . . .6 90. . Total . Freezers . . . .08 0.41 0. .31 0. .14 1. .52 0. .3% -0.84 0. . . . .03 0. . .7% 0. . . .34 1. .8 94. . . . . . . . .92 4. .8 184. . . . . . . . . . .9 -0. . . . . . .52 0. . .10 0.0 59. . .52 6. .10 0. . . . . . . . .28 1. .88 0.34 0. . . .1 90. .03 0.08 0. Energy intensity (million Btu per household) Delivered energy consumption . . . .11 0. .95 3. . . . .08 0. . . . .42 0. . . . . . . .  Residential sector key indicators and consumption Table A4.3 56. . Cooking . .03 0. . . . . . . . . . .38 0. .1 61. . . . . . . . . Delivered energy . . . .76 0. . . . . . . .8 102. . . . . . . . . . Water heating .3 96.37 0. . .33 0.38 0.41 6. . . . .6% Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . . .31 0. . . . . Lighting . . . . . . .9 46. .02 0.26 0.43 0.9 99. . . . . . . . . .19 0. . .53 0. . . .51 0. . . . . . .31 5. . .94 29.04 139. . . . . . .24 0. Residential sector key indicators and consumption (quadrillion Btu per year. . .43 0. . Total energy consumption .18 0. .23 0.10 0. .1% -3.9% -0.08 0. .3 93. . .6% 0. . . . . . . . . .90 0. .95 0.03 0.12 0.03 0. . . . . . .9% -2.27 0.51 0. . . .8% -1.14 0. . . . . . . . . .10 0.4% -0. . . . . . .60 1725 98. .56 125.22 0.65 113. .10 0. .34 0.14 1. . . .04 0. . . .14 145.45 0. .22 0. . . . .06 4.17 0. . . . . . . .60 0. . .18 0. .31 0. . .30 1. . Water heating . . . .03 0. . . Multifamily . . . . . Furnace fans and boiler circulation pumps . . .24 0. . . . . Delivered energy .13 0. . . .16 0. . .37 0.03 0. . . . . .25 0. . .55 3. . . .06 4. . . . . . . . . . .03 0.00 1. Dishwashers1 .00 1.2% -2. . . . . .31 6.90 4.42 0. . . . . . . Delivered energy . . Personal computers and related equipment . . . .6 86. . . .4% -0.18 0. . .50 0.11 0.86 132. .56 114. . .00 1. .22 0. .8 52.16 5.1% -1. .03 0. . . . . .

45 0. . . . . . . . .36 11. . . . . .17 0. . . . .01 0. . . . . . .58 0. .13 0. . .10 0.43 3. .13 1. .1% 6.09 0. .4% 1. .88 0.29 3.01 0.52 0. . . . .58 0.18 0. . . . Furnace fans and boiler circulation pumps . . .67 11. . . Nonmarketed renewables7 Geothermal heat pumps . 6 Includes all other uses listed above.26 0. . . . Total .92 0. . DC. 2009 and 2010 degree days based on state-level data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climatic Data Center and Climate Prediction Center.41 2. . . . . . . .11 4101 1443 4.62 0. .02 0.2% 6. . .02 0. . .10 0. . heating elements.02 0. .39 0. . . . Includes such appliances as outdoor grills and mosquito traps. . Lighting . . .57 0. . .06 1. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . .43 0.10 22.15 1. . . Wind . . . Total . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Delivered energy consumption by end use Space heating . . .02 0. . . . . . . . . . Total energy consumption by end use Space heating . .40 0. Cooking .11 0. . . . . . . . .5% -1. . . .2% 0. . . .37 0. .D020112C. .25 0. Btu = British thermal unit. . . . . . . . .  Residential sector key indicators and consumption (continued) Table A4. . . .S. . .01 0.11 4067 1459 -0. .42 2.31 1.14 1. . . .76 0. . . .9% -0. . .1% 0. .7% -1.26 1. .96 20. . . .1% 1. . . . . . . . . . .14 1. .10 0. . . .35 5. .08 1. . . .3% -1.02 0. . . . Clothes washers1 .4% 0.34 2.12 1. . .35 0. . .52 5. .10 0.93 11.01 0. .70 22.14 0. .4% 0. . . . .38 0.05 0.10 4172 1409 4. . . . . . . . . . . Other uses6 . . . .18 1. . .21 11. .17 0. . . October 2011). .18 0. . . .48 0. .03 0. . .37 0. . .09 11.42 2. . . . Lighting .26 2. . .4% -0.6% -0.00 0. . .01 0. . .18 0.34 0. . . . .. Delivered energy . .36 0. .81 0. . . . . . .7% -0. . . . . . . . . . Annual Energy Review 2010.07 0. . . . . . . .07 0.25 0. . Residential sector key indicators and consumption (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year.46 0.44 3. . . .81 0. . . . .93 1.19 2. . .37 0. .1% 0. .7% 9. . . .02 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 0.70 3. . . . .4% 0. . . . . .91 0. . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. .64 0.39 0. . . . . Solar hot water heating . . . . . 7 Represents delivered energy displaced. . . . .47 0.01 0. . . . . . .01 0. . 140 10 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.08 0. . .02 0. .10 0. .65 0. . . . . .36 0. .37 0. . . . . . . . .09 0.08 11. .1% Does not include water heating portion of load. . . . . . . . .86 1. . . . . . .8% 0.26 1. . . . Dishwashers1 .31 1. Electric vehicles are included in the transportation sector. . . Solar photovoltaic . Personal computers and related equipment .01 0. .03 0. . . .03 0. . . .69 0. . .5% 0. . .40 0. . . . . .Reference case Table A4.00 0.5% -0.03 0. . . . .37 0.06 0. .02 4382 1498 4. . . . . .10 0. . . . .24 0. .29 21.22 0. . . . . . . . . Sources: 2009 and 2010 consumption based on: U. . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . .31 1. . . . .81 1. . . . .05 0. . .60 1.24 0.4% 0. . . . . . . . . .10 0. . . . .02 0. . . . . . . . Clothes dryers . . Clothes washers1 . .44 4. . .10 4136 1426 4. . . . . .65 0. .38 0. . . .6% 0. .2% 1.32 0. . . . . . . Water heating . . . . . . .02 0.3% -0. .25 0. .10 0. . . . . . . . .23 0. . Projections: EIA. . . .15 0. . .01 5. . . . . . . . . .04 11. . .4% 2. . . .58 0. . . . . .04 0. . . . 5 Includes kerosene and coal. . . . Space cooling . . . . . . .53 0.19 0.95 5. . . . . . . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook . . .33 1.94 20.27 0. .41 0. . .08 0. . . . .39 5. . . . . .67 1. . . .02 0. .53 0.30 0. . .58 5. .09 0. . .4% 0. .00 0. .52 11. . . . .90 1. . .11 0.S. . .02 0. unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . . . .03 0.66 10. .00 0. .03 0. . .4% 10. . . .42 3. . Other uses6 . . . . . . . .24 1. .2% 0. Cooking . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. . Personal computers and related equipment .80 5. . . . . . . . . . . .35 0. . .70 0. . .65 0. . .6% 0. . . . .01 1. .24 3. Clothes dryers . . . Furnace fans and boiler circulation pumps . . . . . . . . .90 0.8% 0. . .33 0. . . . . . .26 1. . . . .51 10. . . .15 1. . .14 1. Freezers .78 1. and motors not listed above.6% 0.17 3.36 10.08 0.01 0.08 0.79 0.60 0. .59 0. . .65 2. . . .01 22. . . . . .02 4408 1279 5. . . . .07 0.67 0. . . . . . . . .02 0. Dishwashers1 .25 1. . . . .72 0.26 2.25 0. . . . .43 0.44 4. . .02 0. Water heating .30 1. . .06 2. . . . .94 0. .96 1. . .61 0. .98 0. Refrigeration . . . . .38 0.0% 0.85 1. . .10 0.24 9. .= Not applicable. . Cooling degree days8 .4% 1.87 1. . . . . . . . . .73 10.08 0.36 2. . . . . . . . .13 9. . . 1 2 3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 4. . . . . . . . .42 3. . . . . .06 0.46 0. .17 0. . .52 1. .51 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .98 1. . . . . . . . . . . . Refrigeration . . .64 0. .1% -1.37 3.85 1. . .37 0. . 8 See Table A5 for regional detail. . Color televisions and set-top boxes . . . . Electricity related losses . . . . .32 0.93 0. .9% 1. . .1% 0.26 1. . . Heating degree days8 . . . . . . Freezers .47 23. .52 2. .30 1. . . . . .00 0. . . . . . . . .28 0. . Includes small electric devices. .58 0. . . Color televisions and set-top boxes . . . .14 1. .28 0. . .39 0. .08 1.08 4208 1392 4.59 0. . . Space cooling . . . . .10 0. .25 0. 4 Includes wood used for primary and secondary heating in wood stoves or fireplaces as reported in the Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2005. .05 0. . . . . . . . . Energy Information Administration (EIA). . . .00 0.94 0.24 0.68 0.91 0. .69 0.

. . . . . . . . . .65 0.7% 78. Energy consumption intensity (thousand Btu per square foot) Delivered energy consumption . . . .0 1.3 103. . .02 1. . .96 0.2% -0. .70 0. .2% 1. . .8% 0. . . . . . .2 210.50 0.3 80.34 0.7 84. . . . .06 0.22 0.23 1. . . . Water heating1 . . . .25 1.19 0. . . .03 0. .62 4.33 0. .03 0. . . . Total . . .61 0. .00 0. . .24 1. . . . . . . .35 0. Refrigeration . . . . . . . . Office equipment (non-PC) . .5 104.11 0. .  Commercial sector key indicators and consumption Table A5. .11 0.35 0. . .34 0.04 0. . . .03 0.22 1.58 0.40 1.63 0.04 0.48 1. . . .03 0. unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . . . .51 0. . . . . . . .0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 106.00 0. .9% -1.20 0. .51 0. .30 9. . . .98 0. .3% -0. . Space cooling1 . . . . . . .0 2.40 3. . . . . . . . .21 0. .18 0.21 0.44 0. .48 0. . .1% 0. . .13 10. . . .1 87. . . .14 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 0. . . . . . . .0% -0. . . . .03 0.34 0. . . . . . . .09 0.7% 0.8 109. . . . .31 3. . . . Marketed renewables (biomass) . .21 0. . . .32 0.00 5. . .26 1. . . . . . . .3% 0. .10 0.14 3. . . .30 4. . .88 1. . . . .03 0.35 0. .0% 1. . .26 0.09 8.13 0. . . . .02 1.69 0. . .0% 0. .69 0. . .20 0.16 0.1 110. . .18 0. . .99 8.11 0. . .43 4. . . .54 0. . .26 2.33 0.20 1. . . . . . .1 91. . . . . . . .3% Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Key indicators Total floorspace (billion square feet) Surviving . .54 0.21 0. . .16 0. . .35 0. .03 0. . . . . . . .18 0. . . .0% 2.22 0.4% 0. . . . . . . . . Delivered energy . .23 1. . . Water heating1 . . . . . . .02 1. . . . . . . . . Office equipment (non-PC) . Office equipment (PC) . .58 0. . . . .59 1.3% -0. . Other uses3 .43 0. . .20 0.8 81. . . .54 0. . . .34 2. . . . . . Lighting . .06 0. . Delivered energy .2 100. . .02 1. . Delivered energy . . . . . . Refrigeration . .46 2. . .34 0. . . Lighting . . .34 1. .9% 1. . . . . . .4% 0.01 3. . . . . . . . .50 0.4 1. . .56 0. . . . . . Delivered energy consumption by fuel Purchased electricity Space heating1 .98 3.07 3.6 211.3% 1. . . .1 82. .7 99. . .20 1. .2% -1. . . . .9 2.34 0. . . . .02 1. . .16 0. . . .4% -0. . .11 0.3 79. . . . .41 0. . . . . . . . . . . .44 2. . .4% -0. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 11 141 . . . . . .95 3. .39 0. . . . . Water heating1 .2% -0.16 0. . . . .68 0. . . . . . .63 0. . . .11 0. . .0 208. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03 0.60 0. . . Delivered energy consumption by end use Space heating1 . . . . . . .02 1. . . . . . . . Ventilation . . .22 0. . . . . . . . Office equipment (PC) .03 0. .18 0. . . . . .95 0.0 2.09 0.53 9. . . . .60 0. .53 0. . .7% 0.5% -1.53 0. . .56 0. . . . . . . . .09 0. . . . . . . . .22 5. .09 0. . .9% -0. . . . Space cooling1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 0. . . . .01 0. . . .03 0. . . . 0. .9 96. . .89 0. . . .70 0. .22 1. . .34 0. . Delivered energy .33 1. .20 1. Other uses4 . . . . .0 110. . .61 0. . . . . .21 1. .65 0. .9% 0. .0 117.20 0. . . . . . . . . . .35 1. .19 0.56 0. . . .61 0. . .09 0. . . . . .21 0. . . . .3 224. . . .6 213. . . . . . . . .21 1. .19 0.55 0. . .11 0. Total energy consumption . . .02 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .0 98.20 0. .20 0. . . . . .52 0. . .03 0.64 0. . .19 1. . . . .50 0. . . . .73 0.0% 0. .6% -0. . Other uses6 .19 0. . . . . Electricity related losses . . . .2% 0. .28 -0. . . . . . .5 100. . . . . .11 0. . . . .80 1. . . . . . Cooking .13 0. . . . Water heating1 .09 0. . .51 0. .0 223. . .20 0. .39 0. .8 -0. .03 0. .7 2. . . .51 0. . . . . Other fuels5 . . . .03 0.37 1. . .3% 2.03 0. . . . .21 0. . . . . . . . .16 0. . . .33 1. .46 4. . . .50 0.03 0. . . . . . .0% -1. . . . . . . . . . . .55 0. . . .93 0. .80 9. .60 0. . Commercial sector key indicators and consumption (quadrillion Btu per year. . . . . . . . .10 0.2% -0. . .53 0. . . . New additions . . . . . . . . . . . .36 1. . . . . . Distillate fuel oil Space heating1 . . Natural gas Space heating1 . . . . . .0 107.37 3. . . . .24 1.S.0 89. . . . . . . . . . . .54 0. . . . .52 0. .47 0. .16 0. . . . . .8 103.04 3. . . .16 1. . .00 0. . . . . .41 0. . . . . . . . . . .34 0. .90 8.17 0. .4% 0.28 0.0 93. . . . . . . . .53 0. .44 3.57 0. . .46 1. .01 0. . .40 0. .04 0. Ventilation .29 4.19 0.8% 0. . . .3% 0. . . .56 0. . Space cooling1 . . . . .43 0.0% 1. .80 5. .12 0. . .87 0. . . . .11 0. . . .51 0. . .3 1.25 2. . .6 110. . .6 110. . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 1. . .48 0. .40 0. . . . . . .2 2. .35 0. .Reference case Table A5. . . . .25 3. . . . . . . .7 101. . Cooking . . . . . .2 214. . Cooking . .3 117.97 0. . . . . . . .0% 2. . .2% 0.10 0.34 1. .66 0.53 0. . . . . . . . .31 1. . . .09 0. . . . . .63 0. . .50 0. . .08 0. Other uses2 .51 0.80 0. . .

. . . . .38 2. . . . . . . Mountain . . .71 18.52 2.24 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . such as service station equipment. . . . . .2% -0. . . . . .8% 5. . . . . . .78 1. Wind .63 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . and manufacturing performed in commercial buildings.7% 0. . . . . . . . 142 12 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. .03 0. . Office equipment (non-PC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . liquefied petroleum gases. .57 0. . . . . Solar photovoltaic . . . . .27 2. .25 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . West North Central . . motor gasoline. . . . .50 0.84 0. . . . . . . and combined heat and power in commercial buildings. . . . . . . . . . .01 0.3% 1. . . . . .67 0. . . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Electricity related losses .81 5.03 0.05 6360 5583 6215 6468 2625 3496 2131 4641 3143 4067 516 784 781 973 2165 1655 2619 1658 883 1459 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 0. .27 3. .4% 0. .56 0. . . . . East South Central . . . . . . . . PC = Personal computer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total energy consumption by end use Space heating1 . . . . . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . . . . . . . . . . East North Central . . . . . . 2009 and 2010 degree days based on state-level data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climatic Data Center and Climate Prediction Center. . such as pumps. . . .01 0. . . . .6% 0. . . . . . . . . . . Nonmarketed renewable fuels7 Solar thermal . . . . .01 0. . .8% -0.39 2. . and kerosene. . . . . . . . . . . automated teller machines. . . .7% 1. Energy Information Administration (EIA). . . . .28 3. . . . . . .1% -0. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook .0% -0.69 0. .81 0.12 1. . . . . . . .22 0. . pumps. . . . combined heat and power in commercial buildings. . Btu = British thermal unit. telecommunications equipment. . . . . . . . Projections: EIA. . . Middle Atlantic . .2% 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% 0. .7% -0. liquefied petroleum gases. . . . . . . .6% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 1. . . . . . . . .21 0. . . .00 0. . . . . . . . .4% 0. . . . . . . . . . .75 0. . . . . . . . . . . .75 1. . . .1% 1. . . . . . . . . . .2% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% -0. .35 1. . . . . . Ventilation . .03 5944 5453 6209 6585 3183 4003 2503 4808 3202 4382 655 997 978 1123 2289 1999 2755 1489 746 1498 2015 9. . .00 0. . . . . motor gasoline. . . . United States . . . .27 1. . . . . . . . .05 6358 5585 6215 6466 2651 3491 2137 4677 3140 4101 517 784 781 973 2149 1658 2615 1637 885 1443 2035 11. . . . . . . . . . . .4% 0.82 2.98 18. .1% 0. . . . . .23 2. . . Refrigeration . . . . . .75 1. . . . . . . .56 19. . .50 0. . . . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. . . . . . . .82 1. South Atlantic . . . . Lighting . .04 0. . . telecommunications equipment. . . . . .06 0. . . . . .00 0. . .27 3. . . Cooling Degree Days New England .03 0. . . .77 5. . .66 0. . Water heating1 . and cooking (distillate). . . . . .S. . Annual Energy Review 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . West North Central . .01 0. . .3% -0. . . . . .03 0. . . coal.04 0.00 0. . 1 2 3 2010 9. . . . DC. . unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . . .60 0.3% -0.85 2. . . East South Central . . . . .04 6355 5586 6215 6463 2677 3485 2143 4713 3138 4136 517 783 780 974 2134 1662 2611 1617 887 1426 2030 10.9% -1. . . Includes miscellaneous uses. . . . 6 Includes miscellaneous uses. . . . .82 1. West South Central . . combined heat and power in commercial buildings. .33 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reference case Table A5. . . . . .19 1. . . . . 4 Includes miscellaneous uses.90 0. . . . . Total . such as cooking. . Mountain . Includes miscellaneous uses. . manufacturing performed in commercial buildings. . . . . . .6% -0. . . . . . . . . . and medical equipment. .55 0. . . . . . .21 7. . . . . . .54 0. . . .42 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 1. . .69 0. . .  Commercial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) Table A5. . .06 0.57 0. . . . . . . Commercial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year. .14 1.60 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Represents delivered energy displaced. . October 2011). .01 0. . Heating Degree Days New England . . .77 0.03 6649 5798 6542 6837 2839 3599 2198 4852 3188 4408 363 587 547 720 2047 1491 2582 1551 967 1279 Includes fuel consumption for district services. . . . . . . . . . .57 0.4% 2.81 1.5% -0.1% -0.00 0. . Pacific . . emergency generators. . . . .02 0. . . . . . . . . . . .04 6351 5587 6215 6461 2703 3480 2149 4749 3135 4172 518 783 780 975 2118 1665 2607 1595 888 1409 2025 10. . . . . .29 3. . . East North Central .34 1. .36 8. . . . . . . .32 1. . . . . . . . . Total .0% -0. . . .75 20. . . . . .D020112C. . .58 0. .01 1. . . . . . Office equipment (PC) . . . . .21 1.80 1. coal. . . .02 0. . . . . . . . . emergency generators. . . . . . . . . . . emergency generators. . . . . . . . . . . . .S.1% 9.25 3. . . .58 1.30 7.00 0. . West South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . .04 6349 5588 6215 6456 2728 3474 2156 4780 3130 4208 518 783 779 976 2103 1668 2602 1578 891 1392 2020 9. . Other uses6 . . . . . United States . . . . automated teller machines. . . .62 17. . Space cooling1 . 5 Includes residual fuel oil. . . . . . . . . and kerosene. . .04 0.95 5.28 1. .7% -0. . .00 0. . . . . . . Cooking .10 6. .9% -0. . .02 0.26 3. . . . . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . . . . . . . . . .8% -0.6% 0. . . medical equipment. . . . . . . .59 1. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports.21 1. . . .03 0. . .86 0. . South Atlantic .03 0.00 0. Pacific . Sources: 2009 and 2010 consumption based on: U. . plus residual fuel oil. . . .31 1. . .01 0. . . . . Middle Atlantic .3% 0. such as service station equipment. .1% -0.2% -0. . .15 19.

. . . . . Distillate fuel oil .10 0. . . . Natural gas feedstocks . . . . . . . . .5% 4. .1% 1. . . . . . .11 5. . . . .83 8. . . . . . . . . . Coal for liquids . . . . . . . . Energy prices (2010 dollars per million Btu) Liquefied petroleum gases .7% 4.33 0. . . . .50 1. .65 10. .75 6.5% 3.94 0. . . . . . . . . . . .59 7. . .28 16. . . . . . . . Other industrial coal . . . . Electricity related losses . .40 30. .47 1. Natural gas heat and power . . .80 16. . . . .2% 4. .2% 3. . . . .8% 1. . . . . . . . .3% 2. .1% 0. . . . .0% 3.11 0.19 6. . . . . . Motor gasoline .55 12.74 12. . . . . . . .7% 1.59 4. . . . . .47 1.28 1. . . . .1% 0. . . . . . .91 13. .36 1.04 26. . . . . . Energy consumption (quadrillion Btu)1 Industrial consumption excluding refining Liquefied petroleum gases heat and power . .19 23. (nominal dollars per million Btu) Liquefied petroleum gases . . Electricity . . . .98 1. . .25 0. . . .87 0. . . . . . . Natural gas heat and power . . .05 16. . . . .20 1.23 0. Nonmanufacturing . . .69 0. .48 1. . .11 3. . . .02 4. . . . .45 5. . . . . Natural gas heat and power .52 6. . . . . . .51 1.88 0. . . . . . .18 0.70 10. . .41 1. . . .26 19. . . . Coal for liquids . . .47 1. . . .57 7. . . . .64 2. .19 5. . . .1% 0.12 0. . . . . . . . Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . . . . .2% -0.71 -19. .8% 0.63 36.56 31. . .44 1. . Motor gasoline .96 -19. .5% 0.63 7. Natural gas feedstocks .22 3. . . .63 21. . . . Metallurgical coal . . .42 5. . . .18 0. . . Electricity . . . . Liquefied petroleum gases feedstocks . . . . . . .38 0. . . .6% 2. . . . .09 18.55 7. . . . . . . .22 0.02 6.54 6. . . . . . . .30 1. . .82 3. . . Other industrial coal . . . . . . . . . . .32 5. .39 1. . .23 6.38 5. . Lease and plant fuel3 . . . . .99 -20.95 32. .52 4. . . . .02 1.24 20. .95 3. . . . . . . .53 9.65 0. . .20 32. .76 34.16 6.44 1. .31 6. .81 43.00 0. . . . . . . .33 6. Natural gas subtotal . .14 0.46 26. Industrial sector key indicators and consumption Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Key indicators Value of shipments (billion 2005 dollars) Manufacturing . . .71 10. . .1% 1.37 2. . .79 16. . . . . . .59 6. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 13 143 . .78 5.7% 3. . . .55 29. . . . . . . .94 17. . .84 0. . . . . .19 1. Natural gas feedstocks . . .38 20.1% 0. . . . . . . . . . .15 0. . .32 10.29 0. . . . . .43 7. . . .61 3. . . .27 5. . . .16 5. .45 0. . . . .55 0. . Asphalt and road oil .50 2. Asphalt and road oil .87 4. .40 4.08 1. .44 0. .75 0.08 20.41 5. . . . . . . . . . . .80 16.1% U.48 33. .30 4. . . . . . .78 32.61 3.76 0. . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 4052 1615 5667 4260 1578 5838 4857 1873 6730 5260 2103 7363 5745 2228 7973 6023 2305 8328 6285 2407 8692 1. . . . . . . .21 9.08 19. . . . .69 26.1% -1.19 0.00 0. .2% -0. . . . .52 1. . . .46 1. . . .89 8.36 20.24 19. .26 4. . . . . . . . .38 2.11 6. . . .24 24. . . . . . .3% 0. . . . . .84 2.77 21. .24 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 0. . .15 30.60 16. . . . . . . . . . .01 -0. . .42 1.98 3.68 7. . . .94 0. . . . . . . .7% 3. .7% 0.94 0.90 0. .3% -5. . . .01 0.53 1. . . . . .31 0.24 1.95 53. . . . . . . Motor gasoline . . . . . . .30 6. .02 1. .41 1. .29 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 12.68 5. . .69 6.93 7. .6% 20. . . .40 1. .08 1. . . . . . . . . .33 20. .16 5. .20 19. . . .48 0. . .89 14. . . . Purchased electricity . .87 2. .33 9. . . Residual fuel oil . . .93 27.50 1.50 3.78 50. . Coal subtotal . . .76 30. . . .78 6. .22 21. .58 26.69 6. .8% 0. . .3% -0. . . Residual fuel oil . . . .Reference case Table A6. . . .15 0. . . . .44 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .92 5.67 25. . .84 0. .92 5. . . . . . . . . .30 1.04 6. . . .48 1.78 3. .14 34. . .67 3. . . .05 19.11 0. .09 5.S. Renewables5 .18 33. . . . .18 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6. . . . . . . . . .56 0. . . . .3% -1. . .12 46. .30 2. . .45 1. .60 37. . . Metallurgical coal . . . . . . .82 16.83 21. . Metallurgical coal and coke4 .49 6. . . . .43 29. .37 5. . . . Total . .59 4.39 26.20 0. . .91 3. . . . . . .32 10.00 4.8% 2. . Distillate fuel oil . .08 1. . .02 1. . . . .12 7. Delivered energy .84 8. .90 1. . . . . .98 40. . . . . . . . .24 13. . .34 0.16 28. . . Residual fuel oil . Total . . .93 10. Other industrial coal . . . .25 0. .0% 0. . .0% 0.36 8. . . .97 1. . . . Asphalt and road oil . .23 0.22 19. . . . . .8% 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 20. .77 3.4% 0. . . . . . . . .27 0.26 18.40 1. .13 11. . .87 8.31 0. . . .46 0. .71 -19. . Petroleum coke . .  Industrial sector key indicators and consumption Table A6. . .38 1. . . .30 6. .5% 1. . . . .96 8. . .6% 1.3% 0.11 3. .1% -2.54 0. .37 10. . .05 18. . . . .88 0.78 6. . Miscellaneous petroleum2 .13 0. . . . . . . .78 6. . . Petroleum subtotal . . . . .30 1. . .3% -0. . .17 0. . Petrochemical feedstocks .4% -1. . . . . .77 10.58 3. .27 29.3% 1. . .97 6. .59 4. . .41 22. . . . . . . . .94 4. . . . . . . . .23 10. . .28 0. .74 0. . . . . .98 0.10 30.23 0. . . . . .38 27.43 2. . . .6% 1. . . .4% 3.58 0. .26 1.72 25.14 5. .63 27.51 41.55 25. . . .12 6.20 5.09 1.01 28. . .95 1.27 0.30 1. . . . . .25 0.88 1. .84 2.32 5. .37 6. .16 0. . . . . .08 1. .27 1.49 2.41 1.87 3.25 1. .20 24. . . .88 7. . . .39 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 21. .34 2. .06 27. .12 6.92 0.47 25.77 21. .38 46. . . . . .91 29.12 19. .

2% -0. .01 0.04 0. . . .54 1.34 0.3% 0. . . . .37 3.84 0. . . . . . . .52 25. .60 2. . . .69 0. . . . . . Asphalt and road oil .13 22. .75 0. . .8% 0.39 0. . . . . . .1% -5.48 1. . . . .2% -0. . Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . . .40 4.60 0. . .00 0. . . . . . . . . . . .61 3. . . Biofuels heat and coproducts .96 0.81 1. . . . . .1% -0.32 0. .73 1. .14 8. . Miscellaneous petroleum2 . . . .93 5. Natural gas subtotal . .44 0. . .28 1. . . .25 1.25 0. . . .47 1. . .00 0. . . . . . . . .88 1. . . . .02 2. . . Petroleum coke . . . .3% -0. .00 0.08 0. . . . .20 4. . .45 0.08 1. . . .90 1. .80 0. Liquefied petroleum gases feedstocks . Distillate fuel oil . . . .41 5. . .00 1. .48 1. . .1% 0. . .53 0. . .08 1. . . . .00 0. . . . . .62 0.97 0. . . .50 0. .21 6.46 1. . Petroleum subtotal .36 0. .00 0. . . .20 6. . . .94 6. .51 0.3% -0.63 0.28 0.26 0.91 0. .82 3. . .36 0. . . .64 6. .74 0.37 6. Petroleum coke . . . Residual fuel oil . .38 0.98 1.30 1. .75 0. .39 5. Motor gasoline . . .80 0. . . . . . . . . .53 1.20 0. . .7% 0.21 6.27 0.19 5.02 1. Total industrial sector consumption Liquefied petroleum gases heat and power . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 0. .33 26. . .01 0. .16 0.47 1. .39 0.00 0. .26 0. Delivered energy .94 0.18 0. .00 0. .00 0. . . . . . .71 0. . . . . . . .3% 0. . .97 31.57 8.56 0. . .6% -0. . . . . .61 0. . . . .40 7. . . . . Total . . . . .08 0. .02 2. . . .41 1. .55 0. Renewables5 .54 8. . . .66 0. .42 1. .44 23. .19 0.65 0.4% 0. . .51 0. . . . .00 0. .29 0.48 0. . . . .87 1. . . . . . . . .10 0. .20 4. . . .  Industrial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) Table A6.01 0. . .06 0.51 0.80 32.93 0. . .50 0.51 0. . . . . . . .28 23. .50 0. . .92 1. . Petroleum subtotal . . . .06 0. . .3% -1. . . .89 0. Other industrial coal .00 1. . . . . .24 1. . .0% 4.00 0. . . .00 1. . . Natural gas subtotal .38 0.76 0. . . .00 0.55 0. . . . . . .52 1. . . . . . . . .1% -1. . . .34 0. . . . . . . .49 1. . . . . Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . . . . . . . . .06 2.12 0.36 0.42 1.06 0. .66 0.39 5. . . . . .00 0. . . . . .39 0.76 0. . . . . .08 1. .3% --0. .6% -0. .S. . . . .89 30.59 8. .17 7. . . .44 1. . . .89 6. .01 0.02 1. . . . . .61 0. .53 7.00 0.38 1.95 3. .6% 1.80 0.32 0. . . .1% 0. . . .05 1. . .68 1.01 0. . . Coal-to-liquids heat and power .00 1. .94 1. . . . . .3% 0. .11 0. . . . .41 7. . . .00 1. . . Natural gas feedstocks . . Petrochemical feedstocks .44 0. . . .39 5.46 24. .55 8. .00 0. . . .82 0. .05 0. .1% 0. . . . . .54 0.45 0. . . .1% 0. .3% -1. Electricity related losses . .55 0. . . .87 3. . . . . .58 0.17 0. .00 1.0% 0. .00 1.66 2. . . . . . .42 1. . . . Biofuels heat and coproducts .02 2.49 1.0% -10. . . . . . .60 0. Coal subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . .90 0.28 0. . . . Natural gas heat and power . . . . . . . . . .08 1. . Still gas .57 0. Electricity related losses . . . .94 30. . . Distillate fuel oil . . . . .01 0. . .30 0.18 0.64 0. . . . . . . .06 0. . . . .52 1. .11 0. .30 1.02 2. .5% 0. . Other industrial coal . . . . Metallurgical coal and coke4 . . . . . . .06 0. . . . . . .98 1. .00 0. . .00 1. . . . . .74 0. .06 0. .09 32. . . .46 1. .53 0. . . . . .40 6. . . Lease and plant fuel3 .50 1. . . . .51 1. . . . .05 1. . . .30 0. . . . . . .00 1. . Natural gas heat and power .13 6.92 0.31 0. . Coal subtotal . . . . . . . . . .43 8. . . . . .00 0. .00 1. . . . . Miscellaneous petroleum2 . .96 6. . . .68 0. . .99 6.30 1.01 0. . .82 0. . . . . .46 33.01 0.48 0. . . . .38 0. . .00 0.00 0.27 1. . . .00 0. . .00 0. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .11 1. . . . . . . . .05 6. .14 7. . . . . Total .45 0. . . .3% 1. . . .06 0. . . . .50 0. .06 0. . . Industrial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Refining consumption Liquefied petroleum gases heat and power . .14 0.57 1. . . . .6% 0.39 0.7% 0. . .81 0. . . . . . .4% --0. .26 1. . . .59 0.30 1. .08 0.94 0. .81 0. .55 0.1% 0. .79 0. .44 26.01 0. .74 0.82 1.0% 1. . . .63 8. . . . .93 1. .41 1. .Reference case Table A6. .55 1. . . . . Delivered energy .48 1. Purchased electricity . .96 1.48 0.06 0. . .01 0. . .46 1.86 0. .42 1. Residual fuel oil .20 6. . . . . . .09 1.01 0. .19 4.36 1. . .06 0.37 8. . . .59 28.02 1. . . . . . .67 3. . . . . . .02 1. . .14 8. . . Still gas .51 0. . . . . . . .00 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .31 7.89 0. . . . . .50 0. . . . . .38 1.56 1. .14 6. .86 1. Purchased electricity .20 4. .89 1. . . . .63 0. . . . . . . . .00 1.13 8. . . . .53 1. .94 1. . . . . . . . . . . .00 0.90 0.4% 144 14 U. Coal-to-liquids heat and power .51 1. . . . .13 6.2% 0.1% 4.03 0.01 0. .00 0.50 3. .3% 1. .84 1.1% 1.42 1. . . . .

. . . . . . .5% 1. DC.= Not applicable.51 3. . . . DOE/EIA-0214(2009) (Washington. . and lease operations. July 2011). Natural gas . .94 1.62 0.56 4. . . .10 55. . Renewable fuels5 .24 0.00 1. . 5 Includes consumption of energy produced from hydroelectric. . . . May 2011) and EIA. . . . .36 0. . . .39 0.D020112C. July 2011).24 0. . DC. Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009.40 1.28 0. .92 25. .14 48. . . . . Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey and industrial and wellhead prices from the Natural Gas Annual 2009. .20 0. Delivered energy .52 0. . DC.6% Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. except those whose primary business is to sell electricity. .39 0.24 0. . . July 2010).Reference case Table A6. . . . Other 2009 and 2010 consumption values are based on: EIA. . .57 1.D020112C. .08 130. and other biomass sources. . or electricity and heat. .64 141. .39 0. . .71 235. field. October-December 2010.40 -1. . DC. . wood and wood waste. municipal waste.23 0. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.35 0.17 1. Industrial combined heat and power Capacity (gigawatts) .40 0.27 0.35 35. . Quarterly Coal Report. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012.01 0. Btu = British thermal unit. 4 Includes net coal coke imports. . . DOE/EIA-0121(2010/4Q) (Washington. DC. . 2009 and 2010 shipments: IHS Global Insight. . .45 0. Sources: 2009 and 2010 prices for motor gasoline and distillate fuel oil are based on: U. .09 1. DC. 2009 and 2010 natural gas prices are based on: EIA. .79 341.. . .5% -1. . DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington.3% -0. .  Industrial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) Table A6. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . .55 3. . DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington. DC. . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. Annual Energy Review 2010. Coal .48 201.06 0. . . . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. . . . Global Insight Industry model. . August 2011. . . June 2011). . August 2010). . .0% -1. . . . .24 0. Energy Information Administration (EIA). . . Projections: EIA. .00 25. . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. to the public. . 2009 refining consumption values are based on: Petroleum Supply Annual 2009. . . October 2011). . .2% 3.10 287.0% 3.20 40. . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 15 145 .02 1. . . . .38 168. . December 2010) and the Natural Gas Monthly. . . Annual Energy Review 2010.41 3. . . . Represents natural gas used in well. . . State Energy Data Report 2009. . . U. . . .62 0. . . . . . . DC. Purchased electricity .S. .24 0.38 3. .98 1. . .44 3. . . 2009 and 2010 electricity prices: EIA. . . . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . . .56 30. . . . . and in natural gas processing plant machinery. . . DOE/EIA0340(2009)/1 (Washington. October 2011).40 1. 2009 and 2010 petrochemical feedstock and asphalt and road oil prices are based on: EIA. 2010 refining consumption based on: Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. . . Includes lubricants and miscellaneous petroleum products.36 0. . .07 1. .5% -1. . . 1 2 3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 1.S. . .38 1. DC. Generation (billion kilowatthours) .11 0. 2009 and 2010 coal prices are based on: EIA. . Industrial sector key indicators and consumption (continued) Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Energy consumption per dollar of shipments (thousand Btu per 2005 dollar) Liquid fuels and other petroleum . . .47 3. DOE/EIA-0487(2009) (Washington. .

3% 0. . . .69 0. . . . .5 2.2 33. . .23 0.05 0. . .1% 0. . . . . . . . . . .2 31. . . . . . . .52 0. .14 0. . . Freight trucks greater than 10.8 62. . . . . . On-road new light-duty vehicle5 . .6 14. .4 35. . .45 0. . . . . . . .4 15. . .2 25. . . . . . .63 0. . . . . . Military use .9 32. .5% 1. . . .84 0.5% 0. . .8 41.29 2. .2% 0. .29 5. . . . .59 15. .7 23. .9% 1. .4 29. . . . . . .1 24. . .6 20. . . . Lubricants . . . . . . . New light truck5 . . . .57 0.4 37. . . . . Air . . Light-duty stock6 . .1% 0. . . .3 31. passenger . . . . . .21 4. . . . . . . . . .7 28.3 6. .0% 1. . . . . . domestic . . . . . . (ton miles per thousand Btu) Rail .22 0. . . . . . . .67 27. . .5 20. . New light truck3 . . .9 31. .2% 1. . .4 28.3 30. .0 3. . .8 25.3 63.2 33. .5 37.04 0.06 0. . . . .2 31. .2 35.4 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .05 0. . . . . .0 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 0.2% 1. . .25 2. .59 0. .4 28. .65 27. .0 3. .0 29. .8 3.1 69. .69 28. . .6% 0.8% 1. . . . . . . . . . .7 14. .3 39.3 33. .2 36. . . . . . . . . . . . .67 27. . . .77 0. .2 3. . . . . . .9 42. .3 30. . .0 36.5 2. .27 5. . . .14 0. . . .4 6.5 34.7 62.4 42.0% 1.4 2. . .26 2. . New commercial light truck1 . .Reference case Table A7. . . . . . . . .25 4. . . .28 2. . . .2 30. .71 0.06 0. . . . .40 15.06 0. . .25 14. . . . (billion ton miles traveled) Rail . .9 29. . . . . . . .7 7. . . .90 15. . . . .2 23. . Rail. . . Energy efficiency indicators (miles per gallon) New light-duty vehicle CAFE standard2 . . Pipeline fuel . . . . . .60 -0.9 35. .25 0. . .66 0.2 37.2% 15.9 29. .53 0. .58 0. . . . .4% 0. .9 21. .51 0.48 0. Shipping. .9 18. . . . .2 23. .5 36. . . . . . .9 29. . . . . .06 0. . . . . . . .2 39. . . . . . . . .9 24. . . . . . .61 27. . .46 0.7% 25. . . . .2% 0. . .9% 0. . . . . .55 0.36 0. . .7 8. . . New car3 .52 0. . . . . . .2 23. . . .4 32. .5 1. . . . . . . . .3 39. . . . . .1% 0. . .06 0.9 42. . . . . . .1% 0. . . .55 0. Tested new light-duty vehicle4 . .0 67.8 16. .3 24. . Rail. . .8% 0.6 18.7% 0.0% 1.5 35. . . .9 40. . New car4 .51 0. .64 0. . . . . . .5 30.8 41. . New car2 . . . . . . .6 18. . . . . .0 7.27 2. . .86 0. .8% 0. .61 0.5 37.9 27. . . .26 2. . . . . . .2 27. . .0 18. .76 0. Bus transportation . . Domestic shipping . .39 0.73 0. .89 0.7 25. . . . . . . .3 34. . . . . . .4% 0. .0 30. .5 35.88 0.87 0. . . . . . . . . .66 0. . . . New light truck4 .13 0. . . . . .4 27. . . .44 0. . . . . .8 31. . .7 15. .26 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2. . .05 0. . . New car5 . . . .0 27. . . . . .68 27. Total . . . .43 0. . . . .25 0.31 5. . . .60 14.2 6.0% 1. .13 0. . .4 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 40. . . Energy use by mode (quadrillion Btu) Light-duty vehicles . . . . . . .2% 1. . . . . . .2 33.3 19. . . . Compliance new light-duty vehicle3 .66 0. .8% 1. .17 0.5 28. Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 .0 8.5 2. . .25 0.0% 0. . . .5 2.24 0. .14 0.1 19. . . . freight . . . . . .0% 1. . Freight trucks . . . . New light truck2 . . . international . .6% 0. . . . .4% 0. . . . . . . . . . . .71 0. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 2625 58 240 964 1532 477 2662 64 234 999 1559 522 2710 70 273 1028 1503 549 2881 76 297 1075 1662 587 3111 83 317 1120 1782 604 3363 88 330 1164 1826 617 3583 92 345 1208 1871 627 1. . . . . .0 25.30 5. .6 21. . . .  Transportation sector key indicators and delivered energy consumption Table A7. . . . . . .8 3. . . Shipping. . Recreational boats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% 0. .2 24.82 0. . . . . Domestic shipping .7 65. .2 19.9 29. . . . .4 19.1 19.3% 1.1% 146 16 U.4 26. . . . . .70 0. . . . . . . . . .3 3. . (seat miles per gallon) Aircraft . . .89 0. . . . .000 pounds (billion seat miles available) Air . .7 62. . . .88 0. . .4 2. . .4 15. . . .2 37. . .4 25.7 31. . .8% 1. .6 29. . . .9 25. . .14 0. . .6 35. .77 0. . . . .5 16. . . . . . . .79 0. . .24 2. . . . . . .68 27. . . .3 3. . . . .87 0. . . .S. . . . . .58 0. . . .5% 0. .4% -0.74 0. . . . .2% 0. . . Stock commercial light truck1 . .6 29.7 25.51 0.84 0. . . . . . .57 0. . . .2 31. . . Commercial light trucks1 . . .3 22.501 pounds Commercial light trucks1 . . . . .0 33.0 27. . . Freight truck . . . . . . .04 16. . . .2 37. . .95 0. Transportation sector key indicators and delivered energy consumption Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Key indicators Travel indicators (billion vehicle miles traveled) Light-duty vehicles less than 8.5 35. .

Oak Ridge National Laboratory.81 0. Recreational boats . Total . . . . . . . . .S. .13 1. . .21 0.22 0.32 0. . . 2010). December 2010). . . . . EIA.11 0. . . . . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 17 147 .13 2.1% 0. domestic .32 14. . EIA. .16 1. .31 0. Bus transportation . . . DC.S. . . . . Highway Statistics 2009 (Washington.30 0. State Energy Data Report 2009.32 0. . 2010). . . . February 2011). . .06 0. freight . . .38 0. and United States Department of Defense. . . .02 0. . .11 0. . . . . . EIA.D020112C. . . . . Summary of Fuel Economy Performance (Washington. international .32 14. . 4 Environmental Protection Agency rated miles per gallon. . .31 0. . . 1 2 3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 8. . . . . . . .32 0.06 0. . . . . Annual Energy Review 2010.12 2.72 0. . . . .1% 0. . . . . .14 1. Shipping. 6 Combined”on-the-road” estimate for all cars and light trucks.31 14. . December 2004). . . .32 14. EIA. Natural Gas Annual 2009. .0% 0. . . . Military use . . . . .34 0. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 30 and Annual (Oak Ridge. . .34 0. Commercial light trucks1 . . Energy Information Administration (EIA).07 0. . .38 0. .50 0. . . . CAFE = Corporate average fuel economy. . .  Transportation sector key indicators and delivered energy consumption (continued) Table A7.17 8. . . DC. DC.14 2. . . . National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. . . Lubricants . . . . .03 0. . . . DC. . . . .30 0. .13 2. . . . . . . . .1% 0. . DOE/EIA-0535(2009) (Washington. CAFE standard based on projected new vehicle sales.Reference case Table A7. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . .11 0. . . . Federal Highway Administration. .63 0. . . . . . .05 0. .32 14. April 2010. June 2011).User and Fuel Data). .39 0. . . . . . . . .22 0. . . Research and Special Programs Administration. April 2011).2% 0. 5 Tested new vehicle efficiency revised for on-road performance. . . . . .10 2. . . . . . Sources: 2009 and 2010: U. Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales 2009. Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . . . . .23 0. . . . .03 0. . .31 0. Department of Transportation. . . . . . .30 0.48 8. .06 0. . .37 0. .000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. . . . . . . .8% 1. . . . 2011). . . . . . . . . Rail. .15 2. . DC. . . Projections: EIA. December 2010/2009 (Washington. Btu = British thermal unit. . . . . . .03 0. . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . . .01 8. . .15 1. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.64 0. . . .14 1. .14 2. .05 0. Transportation sector key indicators and delivered energy consumption (continued) Reference case Key indicators and consumption 2009 Energy use by mode (million barrels per day oil equivalent) Light-duty vehicles . . Rail. . .14 8. Defense Fuel Supply Center. . . . . . .35 0. . . . . . .07 0. . .29 13. .S.07 0. .25 0. . . . . . . . . . TN. . passenger . . . . .31 0. . Includes CAFE credits for alternative fueled vehicle sales and credit banking.11 0. . . . December 2010). Air . Pipeline fuel . . .39 0. DC.26 0. . October 2011). . .2% Commercial trucks 8.33 0.25 0. . .23 0.S. .12 0.87 8.28 0.14 1. . .24 0. .36 0. DC. . . . . . .02 0. . Air Carrier Statistics Monthly. . . . October 28. . . . Fact Book (January. DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. .4% -0.” EC02TV (Washington.29 0. . . . . . . .17 0. .4% 0.03 0.68 0.02 0.10 0.18 0. .30 0.5% 0. .07 0. . . Department of Commerce. . .2% 0. . Freight trucks . DOE/EIA-0214(2009) (Washington. . Bureau of the Census. . . . U. .5% 0.501 to 10. . . . .38 0.74 0.95 0. . . . .65 0. . .34 0. . . .6% 0.9% 0. . . . .32 14.27 0. Shipping. .17 8. . Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 2008 (Part II .15 1. DC.08 0. . .38 0. “Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey. . .39 0. . . . . U.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% -2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% 0. . . . . . . Pumped storage/other4 . . . . . Net available to the grid . . . . .6% 4. . . . . . . . . . . . Total electricity generation . and emissions Table A8. . . . . . . Total . prices. .2% 1. . . . . Total electricity use . . . unless otherwise noted) (billion kilowatthours. Other11 . . . . .2% 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% -5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear power . . .6% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% -0. . . . . . . .1% 0.3% 0. . Other gaseous fuels8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 1712 32 723 799 2 384 0 3651 29 4 118 5 159 3810 14 3796 15 3 80 10 31 4 143 107 36 1756 39 921 799 420 19 3953 3832 34 1364 1307 917 7 3596 121 3717 1799 32 776 807 2 390 0 3806 32 3 122 5 165 3971 16 3955 20 3 84 11 34 4 155 112 43 1851 37 982 807 429 21 4126 3998 26 1451 1329 962 7 3749 128 3877 1531 25 903 830 2 504 0 3796 30 1 126 4 160 3956 13 3942 20 2 101 16 55 3 197 149 48 1581 28 1130 830 562 21 4152 3990 29 1392 1346 1008 8 3753 162 3915 1604 26 874 887 2 544 1 3937 30 1 124 5 160 4097 13 4084 38 2 113 16 65 3 237 180 57 1671 28 1113 887 614 21 4334 4141 26 1454 1431 1013 9 3907 193 4100 1710 26 882 917 2 579 2 4118 31 1 124 5 161 4279 13 4265 46 2 132 15 78 3 277 208 69 1786 29 1140 917 662 21 4556 4335 22 1533 1513 1032 12 4090 221 4311 1757 27 983 914 2 594 3 4279 31 1 124 5 160 4439 13 4426 54 2 160 15 103 3 338 243 95 1841 29 1270 914 702 21 4777 4521 14 1626 1607 1009 16 4258 256 4514 1803 27 1074 887 2 630 4 4427 31 1 123 4 159 4586 13 4572 63 2 198 15 125 3 406 288 118 1897 30 1398 887 760 21 4992 4691 12 1718 1699 977 22 4415 302 4716 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 . Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook .8% 0. .1% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined heat and power6 Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7% -0. . . . . . . . . . . Electricity supply. . . . . . Natural gas3 . . . Electricity sales by sector Residential .7% -0. . . . . . . . . . .9% 3. . . . . . . . . . . disposition. . Distributed generation (natural gas) . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial . disposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . .8% 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum . . . . . Net generation to the grid . . . Renewable sources . . . . . Renewable sources5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . Total sales to the grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources5 . . . Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation . . . .  Electricity supply.7% 1. . End-use sector7 Coal . Net imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and emissions (billion kilowatthours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reference case Table A8. . . .9% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4% -0. . disposition. . Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . prices.9% 0. . . . . . . . . . . Total electric power sector generation . . . . .7% 0. . .0% -0. . . . .1% 4.4% 2.8% 0. Less direct use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4% -1. .0% 0. . . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply. .8% 1.8% 148 18 Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . Petroleum . . . . . .0% -0. . . . . and emissions 2009 Generation by fuel type Electric power sector1 Power only2 Coal . . . . . . . . . . .6% 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8% 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . .5% 1. .7% 3. . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% 0. . . . . . . .7% 3. . . . . . .5% 0. . . . . . . .1% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Less direct use . prices. . . Total electricity generation by fuel Coal . . . . . . . . . . Total end-use sector generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reference case

Table A8.  Electricity supply, disposition, prices, and emissions (continued) Table A8. Electricity supply, disposition, prices, and emissions (continued) (billion kilowatthours, unless otherwise noted) (billion kilowatthours, unless otherwise noted)
Reference case Supply, disposition, prices, and emissions 2009 End-use prices (2010 cents per kilowatthour) Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All sectors average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (nominal cents per kilowatthour) Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All sectors average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prices by service category (2010 cents per kilowatthour) Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (nominal cents per kilowatthour) Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electric power sector emissions1 Sulfur dioxide (million short tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . Nitrogen oxide (million short tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . Mercury (short tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 2 3

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent)

11.6 10.3 6.8 12.2 9.9 11.5 10.1 6.8 12.0 9.8

11.5 10.1 6.7 11.3 9.8 11.5 10.1 6.7 11.3 9.8

11.8 9.9 6.5 10.4 9.7 12.7 10.7 7.0 11.2 10.4

11.6 9.8 6.5 10.1 9.6 13.6 11.5 7.6 11.9 11.3

11.6 9.9 6.7 10.8 9.7 14.9 12.7 8.6 13.8 12.5

11.6 9.8 6.8 11.1 9.8 16.5 13.9 9.6 15.8 13.9

11.8 10.1 7.1 11.5 10.1 18.7 15.9 11.2 18.3 16.0

0.1% -0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 2.0% 1.8% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0%

6.1 1.0 2.9 6.0 1.0 2.8 5.72 1.99 36.25

5.9 1.0 2.9 5.9 1.0 2.9 5.11 2.06 34.70

5.6 1.1 3.0 6.0 1.2 3.3 1.26 1.79 6.44

5.7 1.1 2.8 6.7 1.3 3.3 1.31 1.87 6.74

6.0 1.1 2.7 7.7 1.4 3.4 1.55 1.92 7.24

6.1 1.1 2.6 8.7 1.6 3.7 1.62 1.94 7.51

6.4 1.1 2.6 10.2 1.8 4.1 1.71 1.96 7.86

0.3% 0.3% -0.5% 2.2% 2.2% 1.4% -4.3% -0.2% -5.8%

Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the public. Includes plants that only produce electricity. Includes electricity generation from fuel cells. 4 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2010 approximately 6 billion kilowatthours of electricity were generated from a municipal waste stream containing petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. See U.S. Energy Information Administration, Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non-Biogenic Energy, (Washington, DC, May 2007). 5 Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste, biogenic municipal waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, and wind power. 6 Includes combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public (i.e., those that report North American Industry Classification System code 22). 7 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in the commercial and industrial sectors; and small on-site generating systems in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation, but which may also sell some power to the grid. 8 Includes refinery gas and still gas. 9 Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste, all municipal waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, and wind power. 10 Includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies. 11 Includes pumped storage, non-biogenic municipal waste, refinery gas, still gas, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies. - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2009 and 2010 electric power sector generation; sales to the grid; net imports; electricity sales; and electricity end-use prices: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Review 2010, DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington, DC, October 2011), and supporting databases. 2009 and 2010 emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Database. 2009 and 2010 electricity prices by service category: EIA, AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012.D020112C. Projections: EIA, AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012.D020112C.

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook

19

149

Reference case

Table A9.  Electricity generating capacity Table A9. Electricity generating capacity (gigawatts) (gigawatts)
Reference case Net summer capacity
1

2009 Electric power sector2 Power only3 Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil and natural gas steam4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combustion turbine/diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear power5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pumped storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distributed generation7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined heat and power8 Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil and natural gas steam4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combustion turbine/diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cumulative planned additions9 Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil and natural gas steam4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combustion turbine/diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pumped storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distributed generation7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cumulative unplanned additions9 Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil and natural gas steam4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combustion turbine/diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pumped storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distributed generation7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cumulative electric power sector additions . Cumulative retirements10 Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil and natural gas steam4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combustion turbine/diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pumped storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total electric power sector capacity . . . . . . . . .

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent)

305.9 109.1 167.7 133.1 101.1 22.2 0.0 120.3 0.0 959.5 5.3 0.7 25.8 2.8 0.8 35.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 994.9

308.1 107.4 171.7 134.8 101.2 22.2 0.0 125.2 0.0 970.6 5.2 0.7 26.3 2.8 0.9 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1006.5

276.7 90.0 187.4 138.7 103.6 22.2 0.0 144.4 0.2 963.2 4.8 0.7 26.3 2.8 0.9 35.5 9.3 0.0 14.3 5.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 43.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.2 12.4 56.1 41.0 17.4 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 65.2 998.7

269.8 89.4 187.7 145.6 111.2 22.2 0.0 145.8 0.5 972.1 4.8 0.7 26.3 2.8 0.9 35.5 9.3 0.0 14.3 5.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 49.3 0.9 0.0 1.9 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.5 23.2 72.5 48.9 18.0 0.2 7.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 75.2 1007.6

269.8 88.9 197.6 152.7 114.7 22.2 0.0 151.2 0.8 997.8 4.8 0.7 26.3 2.8 0.9 35.5 9.3 0.0 14.3 5.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 49.3 0.9 0.0 11.8 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.8 49.1 98.5 48.9 18.5 0.2 10.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 78.9 1033.3

269.9 88.0 218.3 158.6 114.3 22.2 0.0 156.1 1.3 1028.7 4.8 0.7 26.3 2.8 0.9 35.5 9.3 0.0 14.3 5.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 49.3 1.0 0.0 32.5 30.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.4 1.3 82.5 131.8 48.9 19.4 0.2 11.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 81.4 1064.2

270.4 87.2 246.0 169.0 110.9 22.2 0.0 169.3 2.1 1077.0 4.8 0.7 26.3 2.8 0.9 35.5 9.3 0.0 14.3 5.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 49.3 1.7 0.0 60.2 41.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 30.5 2.1 137.8 187.1 49.0 20.3 0.2 12.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 88.4 1112.5

-0.5% -0.8% 1.4% 0.9% 0.4% 0.0% 2.7% 1.2% -0.4% -0.3% 0.0% -0.0% -0.0% 0.2% -0.0% ------------------------------0.4%

150

20

Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.S. Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook

Reference case

Table A9.  Electricity generating capacity (continued) Table A9. Electricity generating capacity (continued) (gigawatts) (gigawatts)
Reference case Net summer capacity
1

2009 End-use generators11 Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other gaseous fuels12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cumulative capacity additions9 . . . . . . . . . . .

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent)

3.6 0.7 14.7 1.8 6.7 0.6 28.0 0.0

4.3 0.7 14.7 1.7 7.6 0.6 29.6 0.0

4.2 0.7 17.7 2.5 17.6 0.6 43.3 13.7

6.6 0.7 19.8 2.5 21.1 0.6 51.3 21.7

7.7 0.7 22.9 2.5 23.4 0.6 57.8 28.2

8.8 0.7 27.4 2.5 27.1 0.6 67.1 37.4

9.9 0.7 33.2 2.5 30.6 0.6 77.5 47.9

3.4% 0.3% 3.3% 1.5% 5.7% 0.0% 3.9% --

1 Net summer capacity is the steady hourly output that generating equipment is expected to supply to system load (exclusive of auxiliary power), as demonstrated by tests during summer peak demand. 2 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the public. 3 Includes plants that only produce electricity. Includes capacity increases (uprates) at existing units. 4 Includes oil-, gas-, and dual-fired capacity. 5 Nuclear capacity includes 7.3 gigawatts of uprates through 2035. 6 Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste, all municipal waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, and wind power. Facilities co-firing biomass and coal are classified as coal. 7 Primarily peak load capacity fueled by natural gas. 8 Includes combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity and heat to the public (i.e., those that report North American Industry Classification System code 22). 9 Cumulative additions after December 31, 2010. 10 Cumulative retirements after December 31, 2010. 11 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in the commercial and industrial sectors; and small on-site generating systems in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation, but which may also sell some power to the grid. 12 Includes refinery gas and still gas. 13 Includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, and miscellaneous technologies. - - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. Sources: 2009 and 2010 capacity and projected planned additions: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric Generator Report” (preliminary). Projections: EIA, AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012.D020112C.

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook

21

151

Reference case

Table A10.  Electricity trade Table A10. Electricity trade (billion kilowatthours, unless otherwise noted) (billion kilowatthours, unless otherwise noted)
Reference case Electricity trade 2009 Interregional electricity trade Gross domestic sales Firm power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.1 231.9 464.0 237.5 137.0 374.4 14244.9 6611.0 20855.9 139.1 206.3 345.3 8341.5 8320.2 16661.8 104.4 211.9 316.3 6259.9 10576.4 16836.3 47.1 235.4 282.5 2824.5 14143.6 16968.1 24.2 230.1 254.3 1450.4 13529.2 14979.5 24.2 235.8 260.0 1450.4 14541.9 15992.2 -8.7% 2.2% -1.4% -8.7% 3.2% -1.1% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent)

Gross domestic sales (million 2010 dollars) Firm power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13923.7 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9065.6 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22989.2 International electricity trade Imports from Canada and Mexico Firm power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exports to Canada and Mexico Firm power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 33.1 52.4 3.3 14.7 18.1

13.7 31.4 45.1 3.7 15.7 19.4

24.3 24.7 49.0 3.0 16.9 19.9

17.1 27.7 44.8 2.1 16.7 18.8

5.2 34.7 39.9 0.6 17.0 17.6

0.4 31.0 31.4 0.0 17.0 17.0

0.4 28.2 28.6 0.0 16.5 16.5

-13.3% -0.4% -1.8% -0.2% -0.7%

- - = Not applicable. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. Firm power sales are capacity sales, meaning the delivery of the power is scheduled as part of the normal operating conditions of the affected electric systems. Economy sales are subject to curtailment or cessation of delivery by the supplier in accordance with prior agreements or under specified conditions. Sources: 2009 and 2010 interregional firm electricity trade data: North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), Electricity Sales and Demand Database 2007; NERC, 2011 Summer Reliability Assessment (May 2011); and NERC, Winter Reliability Assessment 2011/2012 (November 2011). 2009 and 2010 Mexican electricity trade data: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power Annual 2010 DOE/EIA-0348(2010) (Washington, DC, November 2011). 2009 Canadian international electricity trade data: National Energy Board, Electricity Exports and Imports Statistics, 2009. 2010 Canadian international electricity trade data: National Energy Board, Electricity Exports and Imports Statistics, 2010. Projections: EIA, AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012.D020112C.

152

22

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook

Reference case

Table A11.  Liquid fuels supply and disposition Table A11. Liquid fuels supply and disposition (million barrels per day, unless otherwise noted) (million barrels per day, unless otherwise noted)
Reference case Supply and disposition 2009 Crude oil Domestic crude production1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lower 48 states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gross imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other crude supply2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total crude supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other petroleum supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas plant liquids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net product imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gross refined product imports3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unfinished oil imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blending component imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refinery processing gain4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product stock withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other non-petroleum supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supply from renewable sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other biomass-derived liquids5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liquids from gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liquids from coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total primary supply7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liquid fuels consumption by fuel Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E858 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motor gasoline9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jet fuel10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distillate fuel oil11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Residual fuel oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by sector Residential and commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electric power14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discrepancy15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent)

5.36 0.65 4.72 8.97 9.01 0.04 0.01 14.34 3.59 1.91 0.75 1.27 0.68 0.72 1.92 0.98 -0.04 0.81 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 18.74

5.47 0.60 4.87 9.17 9.21 0.04 0.08 14.72 3.50 2.07 0.39 1.23 0.61 0.74 2.19 1.07 -0.03 1.00 0.87 0.85 0.88 -0.02 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 19.22

6.15 0.46 5.69 8.52 8.56 0.03 0.00 14.67 3.25 2.56 -0.25 0.78 0.64 0.66 2.32 0.95 0.00 1.22 1.05 0.94 0.94 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.17 19.14

6.70 0.49 6.21 7.15 7.19 0.04 0.00 13.85 3.73 2.91 -0.12 0.73 0.54 0.64 2.03 0.94 0.00 1.52 1.22 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.19 19.10

6.40 0.40 6.00 7.24 7.27 0.03 0.00 13.64 3.80 3.01 -0.12 0.79 0.51 0.65 2.07 0.91 0.00 1.86 1.48 1.19 1.17 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.17 0.21 19.29

6.37 0.44 5.94 7.14 7.17 0.03 0.00 13.52 3.70 3.05 -0.25 0.78 0.50 0.65 2.17 0.89 0.00 2.36 1.89 1.40 1.37 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.22 0.25 19.57

5.99 0.27 5.72 7.52 7.55 0.03 0.00 13.51 3.52 3.01 -0.34 0.82 0.50 0.66 2.31 0.85 0.00 2.96 2.37 1.65 1.59 0.06 0.13 0.13 -0.00 0.59 0.00 0.28 0.31 19.99

0.4% -3.2% 0.6% -0.8% -0.8% -1.1% --0.3% 0.0% 1.5% --1.6% -0.8% -0.5% 0.2% -0.9% -4.4% 4.1% 2.7% 2.4% -9.2% 7.9% -23.2% --3.6% 0.2%

2.13 0.00 9.00 1.39 3.63 3.18 0.51 2.15 1.05 4.24 13.54 0.17 18.81 -0.07

2.27 0.00 8.99 1.43 3.80 3.32 0.54 2.14 1.12 4.31 13.82 0.17 19.17 0.05

1.94 0.01 8.88 1.46 4.19 3.71 0.56 2.06 1.00 4.17 13.80 0.13 19.10 0.05

2.11 0.09 8.48 1.49 4.24 3.81 0.56 2.04 0.96 4.31 13.62 0.13 19.02 0.09

2.21 0.21 8.29 1.54 4.33 3.92 0.57 2.06 0.94 4.41 13.71 0.14 19.20 0.10

2.22 0.49 8.17 1.58 4.38 3.99 0.57 2.06 0.92 4.41 14.00 0.14 19.47 0.10

2.21 0.83 8.09 1.61 4.48 4.11 0.58 2.10 0.91 4.44 14.41 0.14 19.90 0.09

-0.1% 27.0% -0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 0.3% -0.1% -0.9% 0.1% 0.2% -0.7% 0.1% --

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook

23

153

7 Total crude supply plus other petroleum supply plus other non-petroleum supply.5 85.9 43.8 36. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports.6 243.9% Includes lease condensate.2% -1.  Liquid fuels supply and disposition (continued) Table A11. road oil. the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. . DOE/EIA-0340(2009)/1 (Washington.2% 1. DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington. 10 Includes only kerosene type. 16 End-of-year operable capacity. Net expenditures for imported crude oil and petroleum products (billion 2010 dollars) . . other hydrocarbons. special naphthas.= Not applicable. have a lower specific gravity than the crude oil processed. 8 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). 4 The volumetric amount by which total output is greater than input due to the processing of crude oil into products which.0 49. .D020112C.S.. Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. .2 90.7 83.2 373. . 12 Includes aviation gasoline. Petroleum Supply Annual 2009. . lubricants. Includes other hydrocarbons and alcohols. 14 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. Net import share of product supplied (percent) . .58 15. Other 2009 data: EIA. . and ethers. Energy Information Administration (EIA).18 17. Other 2010 data: EIA. methanol.8 322.0 51.6 35. Sources: 2009 and 2010 product supplied based on: U. . . . Liquid fuels supply and disposition (continued) (million barrels per day. waxes. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook .6% 0.9 206. and gains. Strategic petroleum reserve stock additions plus unaccounted for crude oil and crude stock withdrawals minus crude product supplied.1 37. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply and disposition 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) Domestic refinery distillation capacity16 . . . . or electricity and heat. 154 24 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. which produces electricity and other useful thermal energy. DC. .07 17.0 344. 5 Includes pyrolysis oils. Capacity utilization rate (percent)17 . . . July 2010).4 89. biomass-derived Fischer-Tropsch liquids. 17 Rate is calculated by dividing the gross annual input to atmospheric crude oil distillation units by their operable refining capacity in barrels per calendar day. asphalt.6 86. . Projections: EIA. . in total.4 353. and miscellaneous petroleum products. . 6 Includes domestic sources of other blending components. July 2011). 9 Includes ethanol and ethers blended into gasoline. losses.5 90.03 15.8 36. 13 Includes consumption for combined heat and power. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. petrochemical feedstocks. still gas. . 11 Includes distillate fuel oil and kerosene from petroleum and biomass feedstocks.55 15. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . petroleum coke.8 89.00 15. To address cold starting issues. . . Annual Energy Review 2010. The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. . DC.S. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.97 -0. 15 Balancing item. Includes unaccounted for supply. October 2011). unless otherwise noted) (million barrels per day. .Reference case Table A11. to the public. crude oil product supplied. 1 2 3 17. . .2 389. and renewable feedstocks used for the on-site production of diesel and gasoline. DC.

. . . . .23 3. .37 1. .85 2. . .68 115. . . .93 1.90 3. . .77 2. .4% 2. .30 2. . .19 3.85 2. .72 79. . . . .69 2. Refined petroleum product prices8 Liquefied petroleum gases . .98 1. .39 75. . . . . . .37 59. Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . . . . . .4% 1. . . . .54 4. .70 2. . . . Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . . . .97 3. . . . . Motor gasoline4 . . . . . .47 1. . . Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . .59 2. . . Ethanol wholesale price . .03 3. .0% 0. . . .35 3. . . . .97 2. .40 1.28 2. . . .85 2. . .00 1. .16 3. . . . .6% 1.19 133.57 4.47 2. .52 3. . Commercial Distillate fuel oil . .54 3. .19 2. . . . . .05 3. . . .37 2. . . . . .33 3.03 3. .17 2. .71 3. . . .2% 2. . .29 3.8% 1. . .19 1. . . . . .05 3.17 3.73 2. . . . .S. . . . .02 2. . . . . . .73 3.71 3.8% 1. .66 69. Imported crude oil1 . . .02 1. . .58 3. . . .62 2.09 3. . .21 138.00 3. . . . .11 130. .70 2.6% 3. . Residual fuel oil .71 2. . . . . . .85 3. . . .89 3.32 3. . . Distillate fuel oil . .62 68.72 2. Residual fuel oil . .34 56. . . . .88 120.80 159.93 4. . .16 4.54 2. . . . . . .83 160.56 65.07 2. . . .52 3. .65 2. . .6% 2. . . . . .67 3.25 136.Reference case Table A12. . . .15 3. . . . . . .46 2. . .53 2.73 4.8% 2. .03 3. .49 126. . . Electric power7 Distillate fuel oil .5% 2.93 4. .44 1.18 133. . .18 3. . . .77 1. .21 3. . . .87 116. . .23 3. . .95 3. . .14 3. .32 2. . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and fuel 2009 Crude oil prices (2010 dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light . . . . Motor gasoline4 . . . . .60 3. . . .8% 1.26 4. . . .83 118. .4% 2. .63 4. .73 114. . . . .97 126.86 3. 2.94 2. . . .41 3.56 121.58 1.10 2. Average . .25 136. .14 131. . . .42 101. . .83 1. .30 1. .78 2.30 3. .54 3. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 25 155 . . .86 3. . . . . .74 2.75 2.85 119. . . . . .04 127.60 1. . . . . . .63 110. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 144.85 161. .09 129. . . . Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . . . .1% 3.36 3. . . . . . . . .51 2. . .85 119. . . .72 4.60 1. . . . . . . . . . .1% 1. . . . . . .70 2. . . .07 129. . . . . . . . . . . .46 1.35 3. .0% 1. .1% 1. . . .6% 2. .8% 2. . .78 3.21 3. . . . .32 3. .93 4.04 85.65 153. . . . . . . .73 2. . .54 3. . . .93 123.74 132. Residual fuel oil .72 2. .71 2.74 3. Industrial2 Liquefied petroleum gases . . .63 68. .7% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 62.44 144. . . Residual fuel oil . .4% 1. . . .76 2.68 3.57 66. . .70 2. .97 1. . . . .74 115.65 2. . . .8% 2.38 1. Jet fuel5 . Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) .78 74. . . .09 3. . . . . unless otherwise noted) (2010 dollars per gallon. . . . Distillate fuel oil .83 2. . Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)6 . . . Ethanol (E85)3 .72 2. . . . .24 136.31 1.41 3. .70 2. .62 3. . . . . . Delivered sector product prices Residential Liquefied petroleum gases .82 4. . . .50 3. .6% 2. .3% 2. . . . . .97 3. . .98 132. . .95 3. Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases . . .9% 1.22 135.91 2. . .32 2. . . . . . . .59 66. . . . .3% Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . . . . . . .00 2. . . .73 4. . .95 3.93 2. .  Petroleum product prices Table A12. . . . . . . . . .2% 1.85 2.60 2. . . .7% 1. .33 3. .38 3. .71 2. . . . Jet fuel5 . . .80 2.23 2.72 4.57 4. Petroleum product prices (2010 dollars per gallon. . .70 2. . . . . .12 3.53 3.05 2. . . . .8% 1. . .29 2. . . . .91 113. . . .82 76. Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . . .95 2. .44 3.47 2. . .48 3. .53 2. .89 1. .46 2.87 1. . . .10 2.47 2. . . Residual fuel oil .

unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and fuel 2009 Crude oil prices (nominal dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light .7% 4.20 2. Includes energy for combined heat and power plants.62 68. . September 2011).56 65. and jet fuel are based on: EIA.29 2. . . .17 3. . .S. . . .5% 3. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook .19 3. .57 150. . .68 3. .48 4. .98 2. .52 2.2% 4. . . 8 Weighted averages of end-use fuel prices are derived from the prices in each sector and the corresponding sectoral consumption. . Note: Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. .81 2. . . . . . . .62 2.36 4. . . . .76 5.23 7.91 1.56 2. . . . 7 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. DC.4% 4.80 4. . . . . . .31 6. .S. E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable).Reference case Table A12.8% 2.52 197. . .87 1. . . .09 171. .33 55. .4% 4. . . Sources: 2009 and 2010 low sulfur light crude oil price: U. . to the public. . . . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.7% 3. .57 6.59 192. State and local taxes. . . commercial. . . . . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) (nominal dollars per gallon. .4% 4. .77 3. .02 84. . .34 2. . . . .0% 5. Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)6 . . .56 65. . . . . .87 4.16 1. . .65 59. .42 185. .0% 2. . .81 3.58 5. . . . . . . . .51 5. .63 68. . . .95 4. . . . .61 151.2% 2. and transportation sector petroleum product prices are derived from: EIA. .0% 3. . Residual fuel oil (nominal dollars per barrel) Average . . .39 6.40 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast.80 75.6% 3. . .1% 4.81 1. .8% 3.96 1. . .02 170.60 1. . .S. .46 2.45 3. . . . . . . . .S.91 2. . .55 4. .28 1. DC.53 2. .94 4. Residual fuel oil . .57 2. . . .48 188. . . .06 229.41 1. . .01 6.35 2. Jet fuel5 .51 4.61 5. Distillate fuel oil . . .04 2.04 5. . DC. . .29 4. . . Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009. . . . . . . . .76 4. .30 6. . . . Residual fuel oil (nominal dollars per barrel) Industrial2 Liquefied petroleum gases .76 2.93 5.14 4. . .53 2. .85 2.93 1. . the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally.1% 3. . .D020112C. . . Energy Information Administration (EIA).01 4.64 5. . .25 4. . . . . . .61 109.82 3. Includes Federal. .03 4. . . . . . . . . . . . .6% Weighted average price delivered to U. .3% 4.14 2. .36 4.07 3. Projections: EIA. October 2011).35 2. .5% 5.40 3.25 5. . .59 2. .16 2. . Ethanol wholesale price .68 2.10 130. .07 3. . . refiners. . . Motor gasoline4 .35 3. Residual fuel oil . .57 3. .75 3.64 5. .22 5. Residual fuel oil . 1 2 3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 61. . Residual fuel oil (nominal dollars per barrel) Electric power7 Distillate fuel oil . . . . Form EIA-856.32 4. .71 155. .70 2. . 6 Diesel fuel for on-road use. . . .10 256.45 4. . .18 4. Ethanol (E85)3 .70 2. .06 3.57 3. . . . . . .” 2009 and 2010 imported crude oil price: EIA. Delivered sector product prices Residential Liquefied petroleum gases .63 3. . . . . .7% 4.29 180. .10 130.07 128. . . . .97 208. .00 2. .7% 3.40 3. . .97 122. . . . . . . . Jet fuel5 .74 2. . .91 2. . . . . .77 1. . . . . . .57 65. . . . .15 3. . . 2009 and 2010 E85 prices derived from monthly prices in the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report. . . . Residual fuel oil (nominal dollars per barrel) Refined petroleum product prices8 Liquefied petroleum gases . . .42 5. . . . .97 1. . . “Refiners’/Gas Plant Operators’ Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report. . . .66 69. . Form EIA-782A. .66 3. . .3% 3. . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012.70 4.30 4.36 4.23 6. Commercial Distillate fuel oil .5% 4.16 2.7% 3.57 6. .06 2.44 228.42 6. .07 2. . .9% 3. .44 144. . . . . . August 2010). . . Motor gasoline4 . . . .35 1. .08 171. . . . . . . .2% 4. . .  Petroleum product prices (continued) Table A12. . . “Monthly Foreign Crude Oil Acquisition Report.13 215.14 215.10 3. . .71 2.99 4.05 4. . . . . .58 1.10 180. . average rack price. . . . . . . .99 1.64 3. . . . . .65 7. . . .59 2. DOE/EIA-0035(2011/09) (Washington. .12 4. . .95 1. or electricity and heat. . . 156 26 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.39 75. .80 4. . . . .50 3. . Petroleum product prices (continued) (nominal dollars per gallon.94 2.3% 3. . . .12 3. . .67 3. .67 5. .30 6. . Distillate fuel oil .11 6. distillate fuel oil. .23 4. .97 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Sales weighted-average price for all grades.09 155. Annual Energy Review 2010. .01 4. . . . . .95 124. Distillate fuel oil . . 5 Includes only kerosene type.09 4.44 1.84 6.87 136. . . . .19 6. . . .62 194. . .52 2. . .6% 3. . . . .79 4. .88 204. Imported crude oil1 .51 4. . . . except those whose primary business is to sell electricity.7% 4. . Residual fuel oil .08 2. . . . .35 1. . .28 2. .03 4. .40 3.19 4.96 166.17 3. .58 5. .21 3. .19 2. . . .25 3. . Residual fuel oil (nominal dollars per barrel) Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . . . .58 3. . 2009 and 2010 prices for motor gasoline. .39 6. . 2009 and 2010 wholesale ethanol prices derived from Bloomberg U. . . DOE/EIA-0487(2009) (Washington. . . .78 74. . . . or electricity and heat. . . .55 210. . . . . . . .04 79. . . . . .20 5. . . .50 147. . . . . . . . to the public.63 4. .06 170. . .62 4. . . . .00 1. .53 4.81 3.95 4.87 125. .36 4.” 2009 and 2010 electric power prices based on: EIA. . 2009 and 2010 residential. . industrial. . . Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. Monthly Energy Review.05 3. . . . . . . . To address cold starting issues. . . Residual fuel oil .81 148. . .98 4. . .

26 0.29 5. . and prices 2009 Production Dry gas production1 . .73 7. . . .11 4.06 5. .28 0.37 24.60 0. . . .21 0.16 4. . . . . .4% -0. . . . . Average lower 48 wellhead price11 . .08 0. . .06 0. . .2% 0. . . . .S. .89 -0.51 25. . . .53 7.14 0.63 -0. .66 25.25 13. . . . . . . .00 8.37 14. . . .29 3. Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power5 . .00 6.35 1. . . . . . Pipeline fuel . . and prices Table A13.00 0.64 3. . .12 6. Average13 . . . . . . .73 6.67 1. .64 2. . .79 -0. . . . . .66 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 0. .87 0.58 0. .45 4. .38 0.47 0. Pipeline3 . . .22 4. .06 0. . .07 2. .82 5. . . . . . . . Total . . . .53 25. .28 22. .04 0. .2% --0.00 8. . . .87 0.58 2. . . Discrepancy10 . . . . . . . . . . . . Lease and plant fuel9 . . . . . .55 26. . . Natural gas prices (2010 dollars per million Btu) Henry hub spot price . . . . . .48 6. . .16 0.60 1. . . .75 3.01 27. .13 -0. Industrial4 .65 12. .63 5. . . . .39 4. . Transportation12 . . . . . Electric power7 . . . .3% 1. . . .94 3. . .60 7. .19 5.00 5. .0% 1. . . .66 1.53 0.43 7. .00 4. . . . . unless otherwise noted) (trillion cubic feet per year. .96 0. .27 -0. .04 0. . .06 -0.0% -0. . . .09 0.42 23. . . . . . . . .25 10.36 -0. .56 8. . . . . . . . . .94 4. . .67 1. Liquefied natural gas . .07 2. .62 26. . . . . . . .19 5. .11 0. . . .13 0. . .71 6. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 20. . .00 0. .00 1. .93 12. . . . .9% 1. . . . .00 3. . .10 4. .55 11. . . Net imports .33 11. .9% 0. . . . . . . . . . .66 25. . . .50 14.47 0. . .9% 1. .17 0. disposition. . . Industrial4 . . .00 7. . Total supply .52 7.83 12. . . . . (2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet) Average lower 48 wellhead price11 .44 7.2% ---0. . Supplemental natural gas2 . .08 0.06 -0. . . . .00 7. . .70 -0. . . .93 13.81 6. . . .00 0.55 4. . . . . . .52 7. . .00 0.32 5. .69 7. .35 14. . .06 1. .12 6.52 0.78 3. . . .33 7. . . . . . . . Commercial . . .62 7. . . . .86 6. . . disposition. . . . .4% 0.32 4. . . . . . . .08 0. . . . . . . . . . . .65 0. . . . .47 4.  Natural gas supply. .58 0. . . . . .72 3. . . . . . . . .37 6. . . . .93 7.93 0. . .00 8. . . .33 10. .1% 1. .00 7. . . Consumption by sector Residential . . . . . Commercial .00 0. . . . .11 9. . .85 0. . . and prices (trillion cubic feet per year. .04 26. . . . . .76 3. .9% 12. . .06 -1. . . . . . . . . . . .8% 5. . . .33 10.60 11. . . . .08 10. . .10 0. .05 25. . . .4% -- 4.97 14. . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 27 157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .01 -0. . . . . . .68 2. . . .5% 0. . . . . . .73 1. .02 26. . . . . .50 4. . . . . .21 5. . .47 21. . . . . .27 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .7% 0. . . .56 5. . . .2% 0. . . .1% Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . Delivered prices (2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet) Residential . . . . .36 9. Electric power7 . .56 0. .10 23. .85 3.20 6. . . . .66 26. . . . . .63 4. . . . .94 0. .02 8. Transportation8 . . . . .34 24.65 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas supply. . . . . .25 4. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply. . .03 0. .85 4.87 0. . . . . . disposition. .60 26.84 3.39 25.Reference case Table A13. . . . . . . . . .87 9. Natural gas to liquids production6 . . . . . .4% 1.63 1. .66 1. .00 0. . . .83 3. . . .06 4. . .00 0.16 25. .39 0. .58 4. . .73 13. . .01 0. .00 0. . . . .

. plant. Natural Gas Monthly.38 9.23 11. .67 23.36 7. lease.= Not applicable. 3 Includes any natural gas regasified in the Bahamas and transported via pipeline to Florida. 2009 wellhead price: U. and wellhead price: EIA.82 13. DC. .94 7. . . . Transportation12 . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. and lease operations. . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook . . December 2010) and the Natural Gas Monthly.23 6.67 15. .93 7. and EIA.46 11.40 4. and in natural gas processing plant machinery. . and manufactured gas commingled and distributed with natural gas.71 3. and lease.95 7. . . DC.18 7. .11 9. . 2009 residential and commercial delivered prices: EIA.89 12. DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. December 2010) and estimated state taxes. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.39 5. . Industrial4 .48 10. . . . .61 15. . air injected for Btu stabilization.82 6. 2010 residential and commercial delivered prices: EIA. and prices 2009 Natural gas prices (nominal dollars per million Btu) Henry hub spot price . State Energy Data Report 2009. . .S.9% Marketed production (wet) minus extraction losses.9% 3. . disposition. . propane air. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . . Natural Gas Monthly.10 22. . . . . . . . 2010 transportation sector delivered prices are model results. DC. DC.2% 2. Electric power7 . and prices (continued) Table A13.95 5. to the public. Commercial . . Department of the Interior. DOE/EIA0131(2009) (Washington.03 19. .06 10. .8% 2. Average lower 48 wellhead price11 .92 8.16 4.S. as well as gas from Canada and Mexico. Natural gas lost as a result of converting flow data measured at varying temperatures and pressures to a standard temperature and pressure and the merger of different data reporting systems which vary in scope.25 13. . . . . 2009 transportation sector delivered prices are based on: EIA. .70 7. . Weights used are the sectoral consumption values excluding lease. . . . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . . . and EIA.42 6. .Reference case Table A13. July 2011).24 5.92 14. . .39 4. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply. . 10 Balancing item. and pipeline fuel.11 11. DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington. . disposition.69 18.67 10. . Projections: EIA. June 2011). .  Natural gas supply. Other 2009 and 2010 consumption based on: EIA. Natural Gas Annual 2009. Natural Gas Annual 2009. . .57 8. Delivered prices (nominal dollars per thousand cubic feet) Residential . or electricity and heat. 1 2 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 3. . . Natural Gas Annual 2009.32 5. . . (nominal dollars per thousand cubic feet) Average lower 48 wellhead price11 . DC. . Annual Energy Review 2010. biomass gas. . coke oven gas. . . Table 4. . 2009 and 2010 industrial delivered prices are estimated based on: EIA.2. Natural gas supply. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey and industrial and wellhead prices from the Natural Gas Annual 2009. . . . .8% 3. . . . . DC. disposition. . .1% 3.54 15. . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. . . . 2010 supply values. .39 4. DC. to the public.65 5. . . federal taxes. April 2010 and April 2011. .14 4.62 4. . .53 7. 158 28 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. 2009 and 2010 values include net storage injections. . . and pipeline fuel consumption: U. . or electricity and heat. . . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. . . plant. format. . . . DC. . . DOE/EIA-0226. . Average13 . .17 5. . 12 Natural gas used as a vehicle fuel. . . .58 9. Sources: 2009 supply values.51 4.46 9. . .06 8. . . . . DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington. plant. . . .01 13. Price includes estimated motor vehicle fuel taxes and estimated dispensing costs or charges. field. . except those whose primary business is to sell electricity.8% 12. . .11 13. . 13 Weighted average prices.2% 2. .95 3. . July 2011). . .35 17. . . . . . .D020112C. .50 5.0% 3. .33 11. . . and dispensing costs or charges. . 6 Includes any natural gas converted into liquid fuel. December 2010). unless otherwise noted) (trillion cubic feet per year. .08 2. December 2010). Energy Information Administration (EIA). . . . . 5 Includes any natural gas used in the process of converting natural gas to liquid fuel that is not actually converted. 2009 and 2010 electric power prices: EIA.26 10. . definition. 9 Represents natural gas used in well. . 7 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . . October 2011). . . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. .17 18. . . and prices (continued) (trillion cubic feet per year.. DOE/EIA-0214(2009) (Washington. 4 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. Synthetic natural gas. . 11 Represents lower 48 onshore and offshore supplies. December 2010). . July 2011). . . . .80 4.15 15. .06 4. . . . 8 Natural gas used as vehicle fuel. . . In addition. and respondent type.95 12. . and pipeline fuel consumption. Electric Power Monthly. refinery gas. .36 9.S. . . . . Natural Gas Annual 2009. DC. . Office of Natural Resources Revenue. . . DC.81 4. DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington. . .

10 1. . . .36 3.55 124.18 22. . . . .33 2. . . . DC. . . . DC. . . . . .  Oil and gas supply Table A14. . . . DC. . . . DOE/EIA0487(2009) (Washington. .83 3. .10 6. . July 2011).1% 1. .59 2.34 0. .64 27. . . 1 2 3 Represents lower 48 onshore and offshore supplies. . . . . .3% 0. . .40 4. .27 2. . . . . . . Production (million barrels per day)2 United States total . . . . . . . . . . Supplemental gas supplies (trillion cubic feet) 6 57. .83 0.33 117. . . . U. Includes lease condensate. .88 0. . .26 1.9% 1.8% 0. . Projections: EIA. . . .68 0. . . 6 Synthetic natural gas.70 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 16.2% -3. .06 4.D020112C.44 2. . . . . . .75 80.60 0.40 2.06 59. .55 5.93 24. .70 4. . Spraberry. .99 1. Average lower 48 wellhead price1 . Office of Natural Resources Revenue. . .23 0. . . . . .1% 0. . . . . . . and EIA.S. . . . .07 43. . Natural Gas Monthly. . . . .99 4. .56 5.49 23.7% Total lower 48 wells drilled (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . and Monterey. .46 5.75 3. .99 4. .06 49. biomass gas. . . . . . Lower 48 end of year dry reserves4 (trillion cubic feet) .12 26.15 4. . . . .58 17. . . . . .29 1. .37 263.42 6. . . . . . .37 0. . .40 0.48 1.26 2.46 5. . . . . .40 2. . . Lower 48 onshore . . . 2009 Alaska and total natural gas production. coke oven gas. .65 18. .79 0. and manufactured gas commingled and distributed with natural gas. Woodford.65 21. . . . .36 1.80 2. DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. .39 4.23 6. . .69 26. . .71 1. . Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009. . . . .93 6. . . . .41 22. and Alaska crude oil production: EIA.17 0. .70 1.43 1. .2% 1. . . . 2009 and 2010 lower 48 onshore. Natural gas Lower 48 average wellhead price1 (2010 dollars per million Btu) Henry hub spot price . . . .58 0. . . .85 20. . . Niobrara.76 2. . . . . DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington. . . . . . . . . . Lower 48 end of year reserves2 (billion barrels) .85 1. . . .65 0.64 130. . and supplemental gas supplies: EIA.44 24. Lower 48 offshore . . .32 0.67 1. . Eagle Ford.19 4. . . .46 20. . . .50 1.48 1.11 1. . . . Natural Gas Annual 2009. . .47 3. .74 2. . . . . . DC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2010 natural gas lower 48 average wellhead price. . . . . December 2010).25 0. . . . .2% 1. .S. . . Other .09 22. . Alaska . . . . . .40 17.3% 1. . 4 Marketed production (wet) minus extraction losses. . . .25 299.69 1.27 24. . .00 23. .16 21. . . .2% 0. . . . Other 2009 and 2010 values: EIA. . . Department of the Interior.7% -0. (2010 dollars per thousand cubic feet) Average lower 48 wellhead price1 . Natural Gas. . Alaska . . . . . .29 0.77 3. .9% 4. . Non-associated .42 1. .99 1. .00 5. .5% -2. Dry production (trillion cubic feet)4 United States total .71 0. . . . .66 1. . . . . .8% 0. . . .48 6. . . . . .1% -0.27 290.63 1. .00 3. .07 34. . .66 2.21 0.70 0. .59 0.40 23. .23 311. DOE/EIA-0216(2009) (Washington. . .08 8.50 0. . . . . . .S. . . . Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. . . . Associated-dissolved5 .3% -1. . . . .5% 0. . . . . .9% 1. . U. . . . . . .06 9. . . . .34 137.09 0.33 0. .97 1. . . .57 0. . . . . . . . . . .66 1. . . . .79 3. DC.28 23.37 4. .38 0.55 1. . . .32 0. . .86 1. .1% 4. .64 1.07 12. Sources: 2009 and 2010 crude oil lower 48 average wellhead price: U. . . . .63 5. Energy Information Administration (EIA). .74 6. . . Crude Oil.06 60.24 1. .00 0.06 53. . . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . DC. . . . .58 4.94 6. 5 Gas which occurs in crude oil reservoirs either as free gas (associated) or as gas in solution with crude oil (dissolved). . . . .99 3. . . .5% -0. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.0% 1.68 4.Reference case Table A14.55 1. .30 6. November 2010). . refinery gas. lower 48 offshore. . Other . Coalbed methane . .03 2.29 3. 2009 U. .36 260. and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves. . . .4% 0. . . . . . . . air injected for Btu stabilization. . . . Lower 48 offshore . August 2010). .67 0.2% -1. .31 4. . .75 1. . . and supplemental gas supplies: EIA. .10 4.49 2. Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery .56 0. . . Tight oil3 .97 0. . Lower 48 onshore . .96 6.37 6. .77 0. .84 6.70 2. . . . Tight oil represents resources in low-permeability reservoirs.97 6.19 25. . . . Non-associated . . .06 65. . .85 0. . . propane air. .79 4.21 7.94 23.91 1. . . . . .28 2. .23 2. Shale gas . Office of Energy Analysis. . . .61 2. . Tight gas .29 274. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 29 159 .74 0.58 18. crude oil and natural gas reserves: EIA.20 0. . . . . .25 307. . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. . December 2010).82 1. . . . .72 0. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . . . . Natural Gas Annual 2009. . .9% 3. . . Oil and gas supply Reference case Production and supply 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) Crude oil Lower 48 average wellhead price1 (2010 dollars per barrel) . .S.80 5. . . . . . . . . 2009 natural gas lower 48 average wellhead price: U. . .88 0. . . . . . .60 18. . . .26 5. .14 13. . including shale and chalk formations. July 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 1. .17 11. DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington. . .04 0. .S. . . .44 6. . . . . .52 1. .73 2. . . .58 0. . . .54 20.00 0. . . . .3% 4.59 2. . . . Austin Chalk.02 130.94 24. . Associated-dissolved5 . Avalon/Bone Springs. The specific plays included in the tight oil category are Bakken/Three Forks/Sanish. . . . .3% 0. .84 3. . . . . . Alaska and total natural gas production. . . . . .29 5. .52 19.

. .7% 0. . . . . . . West . . .39 225. .43 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delivered prices (2010 dollars per short ton)9 Coke plants . . . .96 2. . . . .1% 0.8% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . disposition. . . . . . . . . .4% 2. . . . .35 49. . . . . . . .6% 1.61 1. .22 46. . . disposition. . . . . . . . . . . . .77 39.8% 1. . . . . . . .90 163. . . . . . . . . . . . .65 45. . . East of the Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumption by sector Residential and commercial . . . . . . .41 300 151 542 407 586 993 15 15 110 -95 914 3 22 50 0 0 839 914 -0 42.17 2. . . . . . .8% 1. . . . . . . . . . Other industrial5 .89 40.18 72. . . . . . . .0% --0. . . . and prices (million short tons per year. . . . . .83 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . .0% 0. . . . . . .48 177. . . . . . . . . . . . .9% 0. . . .45 70. . .28 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 70. . Coal to liquids . . . . . . . . . . . .31 2.4% 1. .13 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Waste coal supplied2 . .8% 0. . . . . .5% 1. . . . . .4% 1. . . . . . .3% -1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2010 dollars per million Btu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net imports Imports3 .59 59. . .41 102. Exports . .28 -44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 1. disposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% -1. . . . . . . . . . .66 -0. . . Coal supply. . .03 271 163 684 383 735 1118 16 44 115 -71 1064 3 19 52 19 18 952 1063 1 44. . . . . . . . . .08 2. . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . .23 212. . . Electric power6 . . .36 75. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 2. . . . .8% -0.68 144. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 56. . . .67 45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discrepancy and stock change7 . .7% 1. . West of the Mississippi . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply. . . . .54 51. . . . Average minemouth price8 (2010 dollars per short ton) . Exports10 . unless otherwise noted) (million short tons per year. . .27 2. . . . . . . . . . .62 -43. .66 54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 282 181 703 409 757 1166 17 33 117 -83 1100 3 18 52 26 25 975 1099 0 47. . Total . . . . . . . . .06 198. . . . . . . . . and prices Table A15. . . . . .09 172. . . . .05 2. . . . . . Total supply4 . . . Other industrial5 . .26 47. . . .56 2. . . . . . . . .4% -0. . . Coal-to-liquids heat and power . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 343 147 585 450 625 1075 14 21 59 -38 1050 3 15 45 0 0 934 997 53 33. . . . .89 262 159 613 377 657 1034 15 28 95 -67 982 3 18 51 13 12 885 982 -0 40. . . . . . . .61 336 156 592 446 638 1084 14 18 82 -64 1034 3 21 52 0 0 975 1051 -17 35. . .Reference case Table A15.53 41. . . . . . . . . . .S. Coal to liquids production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 53. . .6% 160 30 Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. and prices 2009 Production1 Appalachia .14 18. . . . . .03 48. . . . . . . . .  Coal supply. . . .1% 0. . . . .99 155. . . . . . . . .1% -0.08 189. . . . . . . . . . . . (2010 dollars per million Btu) . .66 65. . . . . .20 50. . . .76 153.17 120. . . . . .98 2. . . . .41 49. . . .39 291 198 722 431 781 1212 19 36 129 -94 1138 3 17 53 34 32 998 1137 0 50. . . . . . . . . . .95 140. . . . . . . . . . . . . Coke plants . Electric power (2010 dollars per short ton) . . . . . . . . . .32 78. . Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook . . . Interior .56 238. .

. .83 58. November 2011). . .66 143.31 47. . . . or electricity and heat.35 80. .D020112C.68 2. .34 65.19 45.= Not applicable. 6 Includes all electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . (nominal dollars per million Btu) .24 1. DC.01 64. October-December 2010. .) prices. . . . . to the public. . .30 3.S. .61 1.24 203.03 2. (nominal dollars per million Btu) . . . . . Annual Coal Report 2010.08 61. .80 54. port of exit. . . . and prices 2009 Average minemouth price8 (nominal dollars per short ton) . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . .52 2. except those plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Sources: 2009 and 2010 data based on: U. and export free-alongside-ship (f. .26 47. . 8 Includes reported prices for both open market and captive mines. . . . . . or electricity and heat. .  Coal supply. . . . . . .7% 2. .19 56.41 45.60 209. . unless otherwise noted) (million short tons per year. . . Includes waste coal consumed by the electric power and industrial sectors. .4% 3.6% 3. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . subbituminous coal. .22 83. . .77 84. 10 F. and waste coal supplied minus total consumption. . disposition. . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . . . .S.17 120.59 59. 3 Excludes imports to Puerto Rico and the U.13 2.36 124. .83 151. . . . . . . .43 89. . .s. and prices (continued) (million short tons per year. . . . . bituminous coal. . . weighted average excludes residential and commercial prices. . Average . . .28 -44. .0% -2. . . . . . . . . . .37 50.33 2.41 320. . .78 76. . . . . . . Quarterly Coal Report. Btu = British thermal unit. .44 35. . . to the public. . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply. . 1 2 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 33. . .43 281.7% 3. .3% 3. price at U. . Delivered prices (nominal dollars per short ton)9 Coke plants .25 66. .09 48. and prices (continued) Table A15. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 31 161 .a. . . net imports.Reference case Table A15. disposition. .76 3. and EIA.88 101. DOE/EIA-0121(2010/4Q) (Washington. . . .D020112C. . .a. Coal supply. .s. .00 4.34 2. . .28 3. .87 -43. .27 2. . . . . . . Other industrial5 . . .74 107. . . .25 93. . .05 377. DOE/EIA-0584(2010) (Washington.74 182. . . . . . . . . . Waste coal supplied is counted as a supply-side item to balance the same amount of waste coal included in the consumption data. .22 71.S. . 9 Prices weighted by consumption. . .42 233. .96 3. . .35 57.58 20. . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. .86 272. . 5 Includes consumption for combined heat and power plants. . . . . . . .5% Includes anthracite.70 67.6% 2. Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . Coal to liquids . disposition. May 2011). and lignite. Exports10 . . Projections: EIA.40 4..98 245. . Virgin Islands.53 53. . . . . . .81 48.77 75. . . . DC. Electric power (nominal dollars per short ton) .S. . . Excludes all coal use in the coal-to-liquids process. . .76 153. EIA. 7 Balancing item: the sum of production. . . . . . . . . . . 4 Production plus waste coal supplied plus net imports. . . . . .

.13 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 16. . . . .5% -0. . . . . . . . . Solar photovoltaic5 .20 2. .00 31.16 271. . .03 2. . . .86 20. . . . . .46 94. .79 52.54 24.98 2. .07 25.56 1. . . . . .Reference case Table A16. . . . . .00 2. . . . . .44 103. .66 5. . . . . . .0% -0. .25 17. . . . . . .35 4. .33 2. . .7% 4. . . Solar photovoltaic5 . .43 18.00 0.74 0. . . . .89 14. . . . . . . . .73 8.47 0. .10 305.06 0.2% 4. .47 0. Municipal waste3 . . .00 0. .34 0. .11 78. . .36 2.35 6. . . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Net summer capacity and generation 2009 Electric power sector1 Net summer capacity Conventional hydropower .35 11. . . .30 50. . . . . .46 81. . . .75 583. . . .44 11.5% 6. . . Wind .68 11. . . . . .31 1. Biomass . .10 10. . . .00 126. . . . .65 27. .53 14. . Solar photovoltaic5 . . .31 0. . . . .92 0. . .14 4. . Geothermal . .66 21.75 548.45 0.68 300. .00 2. . .00 0. .1% 16. . . Dedicated plants . Biogenic municipal waste6 . . . .97 60.64 1. Geothermal2 . . . . .41 14. Solar thermal . . Solar photovoltaic5 . . . . . .20 152.40 0. . . .79 96. . .0% 0.20 170. . .79 33. .16 73. Total electric power sector generation .02 26. . . . . . . .4% 7.31 12. .67 57.36 2. . . . Total electric power sector capacity . . .88 2. .0% 2. .32 15.33 0. .05 0.56 11.37 160.1% 14.93 0. . . . .68 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00 2. . . .67 63.77 0. . . . . . . .82 0.16 169. Wind .16 38. Solar thermal . .82 78. . . . . . . . . . .68 1. .36 4. . . . . . . . . . .57 21. . Renewable energy generating capacity and generation (gigawatts. . . . .33 0. . . . . . .56 2.17 20.67 49. .9% 0. . . .24 31.33 0. unless otherwise noted) (gigawatts. . . .36 0.52 0. . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 78. .00 388. .35 8.81 80. . .29 0. . . .37 3.3% 13. .0% -1.00 0. . . Offshore wind .36 7. Geothermal2 .08 11.79 39. . . .31 64. . . . . . .35 13. . . Total end-use sector generation . .33 0. . .22 3.05 0. . . . . . .36 2. . . .88 0.25 6. . .90 13.00 2.45 0.05 1. . Municipal waste9 . . . .8% 8. .8% -1.33 0. . . . . . . . . . End-use sectors7 Net summer capacity Conventional hydropower8 . . . . .50 15. . . . .44 2. . .78 80.27 2. . . . . . . . . .92 2. . .61 150.30 3.28 10. . . . .37 3.86 6. .60 23. . . . . . . . . . . .66 1. . Cofiring .22 0.74 9. . .36 2. . . . . . . .30 2. . . . . . . . . .0% 4.00 2. .10 3. . . . . . . . .49 79.89 1. . .75 507.38 39.0% 0. . . . . . .15 34. . . . . .36 2. . Geothermal .45 3. .17 0. .74 30.22 0. . . . .4% 5. . . . . . .5% 5. . .56 0. .13 11. .00 2. . .34 18. . . . .03 54. .62 150. . .72 1.00 2.49 0.72 1.75 0. .5% 5. . Biomass .35 5. . . Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook .12 1. . . . . .81 45. . .86 4. . .19 310. .1% 0. .34 295.7% -0. .36 2.75 598. . . .8% 4. . . . . . . . .67 51.73 0. .  Renewable energy generating capacity and generation Table A16.34 0. .72 1.47 33. .59 0.75 0. . . . .41 2. .86 3. . . . . .57 1.00 121. . . . . . .01 2.00 394.69 2. .15 1. .37 38. .30 57. . .5% 7. . .48 3. .43 0. . .56 125. Generation (billion kilowatthours) Conventional hydropower8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S.75 634.65 1.2% -1. .54 14. . . .91 3.65 0. . . .8% 8.20 157. .55 2. . .40 39. . . .20 146. Municipal waste9 . . . . Offshore wind .60 13.36 78. . Wood and other biomass4 .64 0. . . . . .36 2.75 0. . . . . . Wood and other biomass . . . . .20 145. . . . .33 0.00 0. .79 76. . . . .36 2. . . . . . . .57 0.57 3. .02 54. . . Generation (billion kilowatthours) Conventional hydropower . .94 0. . . . . . . . .75 0. . . . .75 0. .26 0. . .00 0.81 13.86 3. .40 3. . Wind .72 1. .28 10. . .36 2. . .00 0. . .51 10. . . . .19 189.19 2. . . . . . . . .2% 0.06 255.08 46. . . .88 54. . . . . .05 307.48 0. . . .01 16. . .4% 162 32 Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . . . .03 19. .41 1. . .15 2.30 0. . . . .3% 5.18 6. .40 3. . . . . Total end-use sector capacity . . .21 0. . . . . . . . . . . . Wind . . . . . . .76 0. . . . . . . . . .18 66. .4% 2. . . . . . . . .86 3.36 8.60 2. . .53 17. . . .30 13. .

1 2 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 78.15 39. .41 133. however this potential requires the addition of external fluids for electricity generation and is only available after 2025. . .9 (annual PV shipments. Annual Energy Review 2010. . . . . .89 17.e. . . .85 34.71 14.5% 8. . . 6 Includes biogenic municipal waste.28 24. based on shipment data. .71 16. . . Incremental growth is assumed to be for landfill gas facilities.46 0. .71 11. . . all sectors . . . . October 2011). . It will overestimate the size of the stock. Based on annual PV shipments from 1989 through 2009. Energy Information Administration (EIA). . . provides an upper estimate of the size of the PV stock.72 162. .65 7. . . . .S. Solar5 .99 1. . .98 297.8% 4. . Wind . . . .68 17. and small on-site generating systems in the residential. .58 20.99 5. . 4 Facilities co-firing biomass and coal are classified as coal.88 2. The approach used to develop the estimate.70 257. Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . .37 3. . . Includes both hydrothermal resources (hot water and steam) and near-field enhanced geothermal systems (EGS).96 194. . or electricity and heat. . . . The U.48 3. . .3% Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . . . . .85 562. . . Total capacity.16 36. . Energy Information Administration. . . . DC. . . . .00 2. .6% 9.13 23. Geothermal . . . . 5 Does not include off-grid photovoltaics (PV).25 80. .58 6. .74 63. .76 311. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Wind . . .83 701.05 2. . . . .71 9.51 306.23 759.83 273. . . . . . . .80 302. . .S. and municipal sewage sludge.40 14. . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.59 200.40 613.35 153.38 78. . October 2011). . . . . .44 15. . . . commercial. . Incremental growth is assumed to be for landfill gas facilities.46 91. .46 116. .53 17. .95 428. . .18 18. 3 Includes municipal waste.45 12.5% -0. Wood and other biomass4 . although a portion of the municipal waste stream contains petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. Generation (billion kilowatthours) Conventional hydropower . . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. and municipal sewage sludge. .37 56. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. .0% 0. .12 419. .67 18. . and assorted other non-grid-connected.46 145. See U. . . . . . .90 39. . . . . . Near-field EGS potential occurs on known hydrothermal sites. Projections: EIA. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2010 approximately 6 billion kilowatthours of electricity were generated from a municipal waste stream containing petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. Sources: 2009 and 2010 capacity: U. Energy Information Administration. .83 46. . . .11 28. . . . Municipal waste . . . .59 78. Wood and other biomass . . . plus an additional 558 megawatts in communications. landfill gas. . Total generation. . . .46 3.35 60. to the public. . specialized applications. . "Annual Electric Generator Report" (preliminary). . . 8 Represents own-use industrial hydroelectric power. . .41 17. . . . Table 10. .S. . . .37 3. . . . . . . . and each year some of the PV units installed earlier will be retired from service or abandoned. . . Municipal waste . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Net summer capacity and generation 2009 Total. . Form EIA-860. . . .57 6. 1989-2009). .24 25. . . .45 43. .84 662.57 3. . .2% 4. . . .58 57.87 154.30 3. . . . All municipal waste is included. . .6% 2. . . . . Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non-Biogenic Energy (Washington. See U. . . unless otherwise noted) (gigawatts. .82 74. . .46 133. .9% 2. . .3% 1. . .45 3.85 81.16 15. .6% 2. Renewable energy generating capacity and generation (continued) (gigawatts.S. .  Renewable energy generating capacity and generation (continued) Table A16. .59 37. . All municipal waste is included. . . .08 79. .55 80. . . .S.87 69. . . . . . . . . . . . .54 17.71 8. . 9 Includes municipal waste. because shipments include a substantial number of units that are exported.45 54. . . and municipal sewage sludge. although a portion of the municipal waste stream contains petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. . .42 173. . DC.75 31. . . .3% 5. . . . . . . . . . Only biogenic municipal waste is included. . . . .03 16. .6% 0. . landfill gas.. landfill gas. .37 175. Geothermal . . . . .35 2. . . DC.08 15. . . . . but which may also sell some power to the grid.10 309. transportation. . .D020112C. .71 22.36 2. . . . . . . all sectors Net summer capacity Conventional hydropower . 2009 and 2010 generation: EIA. all sectors . .01 18. .70 127. . . and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation. . May 2007). .47 4. 7 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in the commercial and industrial sectors. . . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. including both grid-based and off-grid PV. . .= Not applicable.07 167. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 33 163 .86 3. .15 184.48 94. . . . . Solar5 . . Annual Energy Review 2010. . .61 4.Reference case Table A16. EIA estimates that as much as 245 megawatts of remote electricity generation PV applications (i. . . . . . .1% 3. off-grid power systems) were in service in 2009. .44 164. ..

.39 0.68 1. . .80 1.82 0. .86 15. . . . . .03 4. .11 3.31 0. . . .09 0. .02 0. . .92 7. .11 2. . .54 1. .16 1.21 0. . .16 0. . . . . . . . . .8% 4.95 0.25 0. .96 1. .43 0.1% 1.00 3. .88 0.19 0. . . .20 1.01 0. . . Cofiring . . .6% 1. .24 0. .48 0. .98 0. . .02 0. . .03 0. . . . . .39 0. . . . . .75 2. . .22 0. . .01 0. . . . . Conventional hydroelectric . . .6% 4.42 0. . . . .20 0. . . . . . .17 0. .08 0. . .9% 0. . . . .00 0. . . . .11 4. . . . . . . . . . . . .11 2.19 0. . .63 0.16 0.27 0. . .09 0. .43 0. . . .03 0. . . . . .02 0. . . . . . . . .15 0.24 0. .01 0. Net imports .39 0.17 0.56 0.1% 16. . . . . .08 1.94 0.40 0. . . . . . . . .02 0. . . Biomass . .42 0.8% 5.5% 0. .0% 0. . .57 3. . .S. . . .04 1. . . . .23 0. . .47 9. . . .18 0. . . . . . . . . . . . Total marketed renewable energy . . .00 1. . . . . .00 0. . . . . . . . . . . .46 0. . . . .66 13. . . . . . Liquids from biomass .09 1. .55 0. .45 0.11 0. . . .16 0. . . .75 0.03 1.03 0. . . .65 0. . . .35 0. .11 0.8% 9.82 0. . . .35 0. .02 0.61 0. . . .2% 1.31 0. .31 0. . .96 2. . . . Municipal waste3 . .46 0. .39 0. . . . . . . Solar photovoltaic . . . . . . . .85 2. . .72 7. . . .02 0.00 0. Total . . Wind . .87 3.9% 27. Industrial2 .49 0. . . . . .18 1. . .10 0.7% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 164 34 Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . . . . . Ethanol used in gasoline blending . . . .11 0.20 1.64 0. . . . . .03 0.18 1. . . .00 1. .00 0.03 0.99 0. . . .42 0. .78 0. .01 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation . .18 1. .18 0. . . Commercial (biomass) .88 0. .45 0.1% 11.  Renewable energy consumption by sector and source Table A17. .11 2.62 1.06 1. . .03 1. . . .79 0. . . . . . .29 1. . . . . . . . . . .60 0.21 0. . .81 1. . . .92 2. .03 0. . . .6% -2. . .43 0. . . . . . . Renewable diesel and gasoline5 . . . .84 1.02 0. .87 1. .43 0. . . . .14 0. . . Dedicated plants . . .52 0.0% 2.0% 56.1% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 1. . .15 0. . . .7% 0.73 0. .43 0.19 0. .18 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .03 1. Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook . Biodiesel used in distillate blending . Ethanol used in E854 .11 2. . .03 6. . . . . . Biofuels heat and coproducts . . . . . . . . .58 11. .09 0. .93 0.27 0.37 1. . . . . . . . . . .34 0.00 0. . 0. . . .03 5. .72 0. Solar thermal . .52 0. . .09 0.14 0.00 1. . . Renewable energy consumption by sector and source (quadrillion Btu per year) (quadrillion Btu per year) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Marketed renewable energy1 Residential (wood) .03 0. . Biomass . . . Geothermal . Electric power6 . . . . . . . . . .03 0. .04 1. . . . . .4% 2. . . . . . . . .0% 0. . Conventional hydroelectric . . . . . . . . . . .32 0.00 0. . . . . . . .11 3.35 0. . . .02 0. .00 -0. . .03 0. . . . . .26 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 0. Biogenic municipal waste7 . . . . . .77 2. . . . . . . . .08 2. . Sources of ethanol from corn and other starch .33 0.34 0. . . . .8% 2. .03 5. .02 0.00 0. . . . . .47 10.2% 4. . .76 2. . . . .04 0. . . . . . . .6% 4. . .22 3.47 1. . . . .16 0. . .40 2. . .04 1. . . . . .Reference case Table A17. . . .13 0. .43 0. .09 0. . . . . . . .4% -0.27 2. .07 0. . . . . . . . .40 0. . .04 1.01 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .01 0.49 0.17 1. . . . . . .95 0. . . .18 0. .22 0. . . . . .03 5. . from cellulose .15 0.2% -6.

9% 2.06 0. .01 0. .02 0.00 0. .02 0. . . . .02 0. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . . Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. See U.04 0. .S. .06 0. . . solar. Methodology for Allocating Municipal Solid Waste to Biogenic and Non-Biogenic Energy (Washington.00 0. and municipal sewage sludge. . . . . . . .00 0. . . 3 Includes municipal waste. .04 0. .01 0. . .04 0. . to the public. . . . . DC. . . Only biogenic municipal waste is included. . . Form EIA-860.01 0. . . . . Solar thermal . Wind . . Office of Energy Analysis. .05 0. . . Sources: 2009 and 2010 ethanol: U. All municipal waste is included. . .03 0. . although a portion of the municipal waste stream contains petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. . . 4 Excludes motor gasoline component of E85. . . . . . either directly or indirectly as an input to marketed energy. 8 Includes selected renewable energy consumption data for which the energy is not bought or sold. . . Energy Information Administration (EIA). and wind.760 Btu per kilowatthour. . . . . .02 0. . . . . Solar photovoltaic .10 0.10 0. landfill gas. .00 0. . . . . . .7% 1.00 0.03 0. . geothermal. . .02 0. .01 0. Actual heat rates used to determine fuel consumption for all renewable fuels except hydropower. . . . . . . . . DC.4% 6.00 0. . . . . . landfill gas.01 0. .8% 5. Energy Information Administration. 0. .04 0. . .00 0. although all transactions may not necessarily be marketed. geothermal. . . . .04 0. 2 Includes all electricity production by industrial and other combined heat and power for the grid and for own use. . . .02 0. and municipal sewage sludge.02 0.03 0. . . . .05 0. . and marketed renewable energy inputs for electricity entering the marketplace on the electric power grid. .S. . .7% 9. . . . .00 0. . . . . Annual Energy Review 2010. Btu = British thermal unit. . . . . . . . . . .01 0. Solar photovoltaic . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Consumption at hydroelectric. . . .01 0. .00 0.3% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 1 Includes nonelectric renewable energy groups for which the energy source is bought and sold in the marketplace.00 6. . .11 0. . . . . . . 6 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.02 0. .11 0.00 0. Renewable energy consumption by sector and source (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year) (quadrillion Btu per year) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Nonmarketed renewable energy8 Selected consumption Residential .Reference case Table A17. .08 0. .S. . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . see Table A2.03 0. . . . . . Projections: EIA. Geothermal heat pumps .= Not applicable. . .03 0. Energy Information Administration does not estimate or project total consumption of nonmarketed renewable energy. . .S. 7 Includes biogenic municipal waste.02 0. Commercial . . . . .4% 2.05 0. 5 Renewable feedstocks for the on-site production of diesel and gasoline. .01 0. . 2009 and 2010 electric power sector: EIA. . . May 2007). .1% 1.01 0. . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 35 165 . Excludes electricity imports. . . . . . . .01 0. . . The U. . . . .  Renewable energy consumption by sector and source (continued) Table A17. Other 2009 and 2010 values: EIA. . Wind . . . .4% 10. .05 0.01 0. . or electricity and heat.01 0. . . .03 0.00 0.00 0. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2010 approximately 0.D020112C. . . . . The U. . .04 0. . . . .01 0. . . . . .S. . . and wind facilities determined by using the fossil fuel equivalent of 9. . Incremental growth is assumed to be for landfill gas facilities. . . .01 0. .03 0. Solar hot water heating . . . . . . . .3 quadrillion Btus were consumed from a municipal waste stream containing petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. .03 0. October 2011). .01 0. solar.. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. "Annual Electric Generator Report” (preliminary). . . . .02 0. .

. . . . . .4% 0. . . . . . Other7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Projections: EIA. . . . to the public. . .8% Emissions from the electric power sector are distributed to the end-use sectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Includes emissions from geothermal power and nonbiogenic emissions from municipal waste. . . . .4% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Includes pipeline fuel natural gas and natural gas used as vehicle fuel. . . . . . . If. . . . .Reference case Table A18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . . . . . . . . . . Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . .1% -0. . . . . Transportation Petroleum4 . . . . . . . 166 36 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. .0% 0. . . . . .2% -1. 4 This includes carbon dioxide from international bunker fuels. . .4% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 -1. . . . . . Total . . . . . . a net positive release of carbon may occur. . . . .  Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector and source Table A18. . Coal . . . . . . . .1 74 264 1 746 1084 44 181 6 721 952 364 445 154 540 1503 1825 39 4 1868 23 438 1539 12 2011 2329 1367 1699 12 5407 16. . From 1990 through 2009. . . .8% -0. . . . except those plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . . . Electric power6 Petroleum . . the direct emissions from biogenic energy sources are excluded from energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.0% 0. . . . . . . . .3% 0. . . . . . . . . Natural gas . Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2% -0. . . . . . .0% -1. . . . .0% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . which are excluded from the accounting of carbon dioxide emissions under the United Nations convention. . . . . . DC. . . . . . . . Total industrial . . . . . . . . .6 85 267 1 879 1232 51 173 6 805 1035 344 408 157 583 1492 1836 36 4 1876 33 399 1828 12 2271 2349 1283 1990 12 5634 18. . . . . . . . . Total residential . . . . . . international bunker fuels accounted for 90 to 126 million metric tons annually. .6% 0. . Coal . . . . . . . . . . Fuel consumption includes energy for combined heat and power plants. . . . Electricity1 . . . . . . . . . . . .0% 0. Total transportation . . Other7 . . . Electricity1 . . . . . . . . . . . Monthly Energy Review. . October 2011 DOE/EIA-0035(2011/10) (Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 59 252 1 907 1218 44 196 6 897 1142 358 456 197 516 1527 1814 45 12 1871 25 485 1809 12 2330 2300 1435 2012 12 5758 14. . . 3 Includes lease and plant fuel. . .6 69 263 1 769 1101 44 186 6 757 993 350 454 170 536 1509 1785 40 5 1831 23 427 1606 12 2067 2271 1370 1781 12 5434 15. . . . . . Industrial2 Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or electricity and heat. . . . . . .0% -0. . . . . . . See "Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by End Use" for the emissions from biogenic energy sources as an indication of the potential net release of carbon dioxide in the absence of offsetting sequestration. . . both civilian and military. . . . . . . . . Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector and source (million metric tons. .0% 0. . . . . .5 61 257 1 862 1181 44 191 6 852 1093 351 455 190 535 1531 1791 44 9 1843 24 459 1763 12 2258 2271 1405 1959 12 5647 15. . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . . . .9% 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or electricity and heat. . . .1% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . increased use of biomass energy results in a decline in terrestrial carbon stocks. . . Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook . . . . . . . . . . to the public. . .D020112C. . . . . . . . . . . Total commercial . . . . . . . . . .2% 0. . . . . .4% 0. . . . Carbon dioxide emissions (tons per person) . . resulting in zero net emissions over some period of time. . . . . . . . . . . . . Electricity1 . . . . . . . . . . .5% 0. . . . . Electricity1 . . . . . . . Note: By convention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . however. . . . . . . .1% -0. . . . unless otherwise noted) (million metric tons. . . . . . . . . Total by fuel Petroleum3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . . Natural gas5 . Energy Information Administration (EIA). . . . . . .S. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 81 259 1 819 1159 49 169 6 785 1009 339 383 128 551 1401 1818 34 4 1856 34 373 1741 12 2159 2320 1218 1876 12 5425 17. . . . . . . . . . . Coal . . . . . . . .1% -0. . . . . . . . . .1% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 65 259 1 816 1141 44 187 6 806 1043 351 459 183 550 1542 1778 42 7 1827 24 427 1717 12 2179 2261 1374 1906 12 5552 15. . The release of carbon from these sources is assumed to be balanced by the uptake of carbon when the feedstock is grown. . . . . . Commercial Petroleum . . . . . . . . Natural gas . .1% -0. . . .5% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . .5% 0. . . . . .S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas3 . Total electric power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Sector and source 2009 Residential Petroleum . . . . . . . Sources: 2009 and 2010 emissions and emission factors: U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9% -0. . . October 2011). . . . .0% 0. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. .

3% -0. . .44 100. .18 159. . .87 8. . . . . . . . . . .10 154.66 0. .20 1043. . .32 53. Food products .13 38. . . . . . . . .49 68. . . . . . . .24 81.13 233. .73 64. . . . . . . .55 18. Discrepancy2 . .86 15.45 90. .46 72.33 3. .64 73. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00 124. .17 183. . . . . Balance of manufacturing .41 74. . . . . .86 317. . . .16 37.73 1159. . .25 108. . . Total manufacturing . . .50 1253. .32 151. . . .60 73. . . . . . . . . . .26 142. .92 1092. . . . .09 69. . . . Clothes washers1 . . .64 13.86 13. . . .20 160. . .16 267.1% 0. . . . .88 30. . . .00 35. .71 71. .84 76. . .82 8. .68 66.50 123.9% -0. . . . . . . . . . . .45 43. . . .32 129. . .58 1509. . . . . . .69 278.79 33. . . .29 91. . . . .21 154. . . .00 71. . . . .19 117. Computers and electronics . . . .67 116. . .55 18.33 41. . . . . . .05 33. . Aluminum . . .1% 0. .91 24. .48 50. .2% 0. .36 5.13 91. . . . . . .2% 0.72 160. . . . . . . . . .69 0.17 118. . . . . . . .23 27.32 33. Ventilation . . .37 76. Other uses . Refrigeration . . . . . . .53 268.09 1541. .98 29. . Freezers . .27 181. . . . . . .57 57. . Total residential .19 13. . . . Refrigeration .00 68. . . . .95 91.83 86. . .73 83.91 30.2% 1. . . .2% 0.1% 0. . .3% --0. .81 72. . .16 84.92 25. Personal computers and related equipment . . . . Office equipment (non-PC) . .47 166. . . .64 29. .74 18.Reference case Table A19. . . . Bulk chemicals . .94 1527. . . . . . . .66 36. . . . . .4% 0. . . .01 1163. .97 77.87 27. .68 156.5% 1. . .8% 0. .94 42. . . .10 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% -0. . . . . . . .71 1142. .59 25.87 17. . . . . . .86 16.64 16. .7% -0.45 41. . Nonmanufacturing Agriculture . . .53 32.78 14. . . . .3% 0.82 69. . . . . .48 288.4% 261. . .60 44. . Other uses4 . . .17 44. .4% -0. . . . . . . . . . . . .69 54. .58 13.7% 1. . . . . .58 111. .00 43. . . . . . . . . .85 56. . . . . . . . . .08 114. . . . . . . . .85 1227. . .5% -0. . . . . .04 15.47 23.80 167. . .99 35. . . . . . . . . . . .15 66.6% 0. . . .52 83. .70 80.3% -0. . . .0% -0. . . .48 54. .7% -0. . . . .5% -0. . .0% -0. . . Wood products . . . .50 13. . .63 32.79 204. .16 61. .38 35. . . . . . . .00 84. .00 1218.95 42.69 55.62 25. . . .03 -0. . . . .46 34. . . . . .21 225. . .73 36. . .13 21. . . . . . . . . . .80 216. .02 0. .68 101. . .44 90. . . .07 45. . . . . Clothes dryers . .02 3. . . . . . .14 33. . . . . .55 322.04 13. . . .96 15.93 173.79 17.20 30.68 49. . . . . . . . . Electrical equipment . . . . . . .1% Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . .63 36. . . .0% 0. .62 345. .06 33. . . Color televisions and set-top boxes . . .1% -1. .11 20. . . . . .74 37. . .6% -0. . . . . .66 41. . . .07 22. . . .16 43. . . . . . . . . . . .77 7. . .67 23. . . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 280. . . .58 61. . . . . . . .76 1502.19 71. . . . .49 36. Dishwashers1 . . .77 20.88 155. . . . . . Space cooling .51 191. . . . . .69 46.1% -0.85 19. .50 33. . . . . .89 36.17 32. .74 58. . . . . Mining . . . .74 30. . . .28 66. .33 37. .46 0. . . . . . .94 104. . . . . . . .68 36. . .14 34. . . .3% -0. . . . .34 41. . . . . . . .05 0. . . Space cooling3 . . .00 1083. . . . .25 23. . . .95 952. . .5% 1. . . . . .62 54.73 120. . . . .36 33. . . . . . .41 1491. . . . . . . .3% -0. . .85 9. . Construction . . . .11 67. . .67 46. . . . . . .18 15. . . . . .80 22. . .70 234. . . .54 68. . .43 24. .31 92. .63 277.96 70. . . . .01 36. . . . . .37 78.23 8.61 82. . .92 71. .97 4. .94 108.46 58. . . . . . . .20 43. .83 203. . . . . .99 1530. . .48 107. . Fabricated metal products .75 58. . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 37 167 . .97 79. . . . . . . . .37 1. . .41 174. .45 193. . . Transportation equipment . . . . .07 264. . . . .17 74. . .47 142.70 21. . .65 19.59 22.3% 0. . . . . . .44 325.04 98. . .18 -0. .90 38. . . . . . .81 215.16 1231. . . .15 29.05 159. .26 272. . . .91 91. . . . .3% 1. . .50 37. . . . . .21 36.88 105. . . . .14 23. . . . . . . .6% -1. . .23 19.68 69.24 36. . . . . .76 33. . . . .83 1400. . . .80 122. .00 1140. . . . . . . .1% -0.17 52. .92 265. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 157. . Cement manufacturing . . . . . . . .75 32. . . . . . . . . .60 0. . . .  Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by end use Table A19. . . . . .17 16. . .62 1218. . . . . . . . . .03 189.96 133.25 37.87 378. . . . . . . .87 259. .70 110. . Total industrial .61 1008. . . .90 142. . .46 36. . .00 237.32 88.3% 0.48 164.09 993. .58 180. . . . .61 71. . . . . . . .14 67. Commercial Space heating3 . . . . . . . . . .0% 0.27 43. .53 57. . .67 43. . . . . . . .4% -0. . . .83 213.08 78. . . . .00 94.75 62. . . Glass .37 197. . .01 28. . .69 22. . . . . . . . . .16 56. .74 17. .14 37.25 1261. . . Plastics .99 124.62 29. . . . . . . .62 122. . . . . . .04 97. . . . . .26 31.63 194. .94 1196. .2% -2.76 13. .23 43. . . . . Lighting . .23 14. . .82 31. . . .16 203.86 138. . .23 202. . .4% 1. . . .90 26. . Water heating . . .77 411. . . . . . . .06 53.43 13.94 303. . . Lighting . . . . . .87 14. Total nonmanufacturing . . .25 1245. . Office equipment (PC) . . .62 39.61 156. . . . . .S.62 298.49 449. Industrial Manufacturing Refining .88 26. .82 229. . Cooking . . . . . Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by end use (million metric tons) (million metric tons) Reference case Sector and end use 2009 Residential Space heating .19 171. . .06 32. . . . .94 14. . . . .81 24. . . .70 56. . . .41 99.97 192. . Cooking . . .00 1180. . . Total commercial . . .26 73. . . . . . . . . .29 133. .04 76. . . . . .33 57. .75 23.94 113. . . Water heating3 . . . . .80 30.14 81. .15 221. . .3% 0. . .25 19.77 4. . .44 129.1% -0. . . . . . . . .55 67.68 34. . . . Furnace fans and boiler circulation pumps . . . . . . .47 83.24 52. . . . . . . . . . .18 1034.00 1101. . .52 3.57 129. . . .89 35.7% 0. . . . . .15 44. .71 30. .13 174. Iron and steel . . . .4% 1. . . . . Discrepancy2 .18 8. . . . . . . . Machinery . . . .4% -0. .43 14. . . . . . . . . . . . .4% -0. . .40 30. . . . . . .08 44. . .62 8. . . . . . . .35 136. . . .25 23. .84 171. .27 5. . . . Paper products . . . . . . . . . . .41 317. . . .37 37.98 69.98 33.47 21.

however. . . . . Ethanol . .53 -1. . . . . . . . . .81 1843. . . .80 68. . . . .23 659. . .37 12. . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook . .45 1830.501 to 10. . . . .2% 0. . . .51 7.71 2. . . . . . . . increased use of biomass energy results in a decline in terrestrial carbon stocks. . .13 18.1% 0.41 8.2% --0. . . . . .03 60. . . . . .05 5.4% 0. . .23 549.34 1855. a net positive release of carbon may occur. . . . . . .79 1. . . . . the emissions from biogenic energy sources are reported here as an indication of the potential net release of carbon dioxide in the absence of offsetting sequestration. . . . . pumps. . . . Biodiesel .95 16. . . . . . Military use .28 36. .43 18.21 179.13 5. . .S. . . Freight trucks . . . . .96 38. . . . . Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by end use (continued) (million metric tons) (million metric tons) Reference case Sector and end use 2009 Transportation Light-duty vehicles . .43 950. . . . . . .91 83. . .5% 0. . . . . . .99 2. . Commercial light trucks5 . plus emissions from residual fuel oil.74 39. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. .65 68. . .27 13.39 1870. . domestic . .73 245. . . . . . Biogenic energy combustion6 Biomass . . . .21 6. . . . .75 17. . . . . . . .7% 9.23 45. . If. 168 38 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.23 146. The release of carbon from these sources is assumed to be balanced by the uptake of carbon when the feedstock is grown. . . .03 1060.11 0. . . Emissions by fuel may reflect benchmarking and other modeling adjustments to energy use and the associated emissions that are not assigned to specific end uses. . . .94 4. . .21 1868. . .95 38. . .20 35.11 75. . .21 241. . . .53 186. . . . .80 56.54 52. . 3 Includes emissions related to fuel consumption for district services.87 60. .96 945. . . . . . . . . . . Biogenic waste . . . .15 69. .10 35. . .61 203. . . . . . . .20 268. Liquids from biomass . .33 6. . Rail. . . Pipeline fuel .21 1014. telecommunications equipment. . Biofuels heat and coproducts . .56 5.87 17.2% -6. . . . . .70 5.17 391. . . .00 0. . Shipping.28 2.27 180. .D020112C. . . .65 271. . . international . . . . . . . .2% 3. . .28 208.68 18. . . . .39 966. October 2011). . .53 49. . .Reference case Table A19. . .67 348.18 95. resulting in zero net emissions over some period of time. . 4 Includes miscellaneous uses. . . . . Total transportation . .24 35. . . . . . 1 2 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 1068. .56 77. . . . . . and kerosene. . . .1% 0. . . . . .70 17. .81 52. .36 2. . . . . . .6% 0. . . .85 356.72 216. .57 268.99 16. .76 40. .16 5..80 2. . . . . .58 17. . . . . . . . . . . .84 32. . . . . . . .20 75. .0% 1.14 1826. 6 By convention. . . . . . . DC. . .91 25. . Energy Information Administration (EIA). . . . . . . .14 17. . . emergency generators. . . .29 18.4% 0. passenger . medical equipment.77 5. . . .55 18. .18 398. . . . . .41 16.21 782. .27 69. . . .23 -0. . . . .00 330.S. . . . . .55 16.1% 0.23 462.30 39. .10 79. . . .23 17. . . . . . . . . .21 119. . . . Discrepancy2 . . . . . .02 33. . .83 162. .15 1875. . . .00 0. . . Electric power sector . . . . motor gasoline. . .51 17. . . . .10 8.81 92.49 208.69 24.51 17. . . .6% 2. . . . Renewable diesel and gasoline .42 57. . . Other sectors . . . . Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. .88 190. . . .16 15. . . . . Bus transportation . .23 -0.52 6. . . . . . . .99 1.13 396. . .2% Does not include water heating portion of load. .24 6.98 37. . . . . Rail. . . .45 172. liquefied petroleum gases. coal.76 30. . . . . .31 67.85 6. . . Lubricants .09 5. . .9% 0. .18 8. . combined heat and power in commercial buildings. . . . .4% 0.08 47.32 409. .94 197. . October 2011 DOE/EIA-0035(2011/10) (Washington. . . . . and cooking (distillate).75 124.70 36. . . . . . . . . .05 957.12 178. .76 2. . . . .19 34. .27 14.07 0. . .06 65. . . . such as service station equipment. . 5 Commercial trucks 8. . . . .19 35. . . . . . .02 17. . . . . . . .00 172.000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating.41 26. .01 2. . .65 5. .3% -0. . . . .05 17. . . . . . .91 38.79 50. .50 355. . . . . . .7% 0. . . . .71 32. . .68 7. . .  Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by end use (continued) Table A19. automated teller machines. freight .81 178. . .6% 4. . . . .73 18. .21 89. . . .76 17. . .97 17. . . . .48 47. . .23 393. .49 8. . . Projections: EIA. . . . . .39 36. . Total . . .83 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . manufacturing performed in commercial buildings.37 8.00 36. . . the direct emissions from biogenic energy sources are excluded from energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. . .32 389. . . .4% 4. . Represents differences between total emissions by end-use and total emissions by fuel as reported in Table A18.97 68. . . . .50 5.39 189.5% 0. .78 19. . Air . . . . .42 183. . . . .75 67. .22 2. . Sources: 2009 and 2010 emissions and emission factors: U.= Not applicable. . . .4% -0. . . Shipping. . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012.90 192. . . .18 3.34 -1. . . Recreational boats .14 106. . . .42 195. . . .28 54. Monthly Energy Review. . . . . Accordingly.81 0. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AA utility bond rate . . . . . . . . . . .4% 4.40 16268 1. . . .2% 0. . . . . . . . . . . .24 20602 5838 1578 4260 1595 2664 26440 310. .6 64. . Macroeconomic indicators (billion 2005 chain-weighted dollars. . .1% 5. Total shipments . . . . . . .18 7. . . . . . .74 22469 6730 1873 4857 1664 3194 29199 326.304 2. .57 5.26 4. . . . . . . . . Components of real gross domestic product Real consumption . .42 7. . . . . . .097 2.5% 2. . . .72 4. . . . . . Real exports . . . . . . . Total energy . .29 2. .93 1. .39 3.07 5. . .40 3. . .0% 1. . Population. . . . .5 47. . . . . . . .8 154. . . Housing starts (millions) .58 3. .1 282. .2 181. .95 3..4 55.30 5. . . .1% ---2. . . August 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 7. .6% 1.41 24967 7363 2103 5260 1786 3474 32329 342.3 174. . . . . . .5 1. . . .9% 2. . .196 2. . . . .8 11. . . .12 2. . .63 81.06 9. . . . Real government spending . .73 1.2% 2.9% GDP = Gross domestic product. . Key indicators for energy demand Real disposable personal income . . . Consumer price index (1982-4=1. .61 2. . .7 1.40 5. .3 162.18 2. . . .17 28029 7973 2228 5745 1901 3844 36002 358. .92 89. . .9% 4. . .9% 0. . . . . .10 2. . .9% 0. . aged 16 and over . . .75 84. . . . . .54 18217 1. . . . . . . . . .5% 1. . .85 5. Price indices GDP chain-type price index (2005=1. . . .26 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 4. . .6 1. . . . . . . . . .36 2. . .04 3. unless otherwise noted) (billion 2005 chain-weighted dollars. . . . .1% 1. . . . . .4 129.8 244. Btu = British thermal unit. . .0% 2.79 3. . . . . . . . . over age 65 . . . . .48 30911 8328 2305 6023 1973 4050 39239 374. .0 18.45 7. . . . .23 2. .58 1. .9% -2. . . . . .00) . . . . . . . .06 7. . . . . .63 10062 0. . . Real investment . Nonfarm labor productivity (1992=1. Population. . .1 147.56 33430 8692 2407 6285 2034 4251 42122 390.64 -2. . . . .83 0.9% 1. Unit sales of light-duty vehicles (millions) .1 158. . .50 1. Commercial floorspace (billion square feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 5. .000) .00) All commodities . . . .3% 4. . . . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Indicators 2009 Real gross domestic product .17 4. . .64 2. . . .85 1.96 93. .9 1. . . .36 1. . .0 269. . . Unemployment rate (percent) . .7% 1. . . . .50 2.16 7. .51 11035 1. . . . .10 9. Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . . . Metals and metal products . .75 5. .0% 1. .21 5. . . . . . . . . . . .9% 1. Energy commodities and services . .424 2. Sources: 2009 and 2010: IHS Global Insight. . .7% 3. .13 4. . . . . . . . . Energy Information Administration. Manufacturing . .1% -2. . .Reference case Table A20. .8 39. .0 1. .15 1. .2 72. Energy intensity (thousand Btu per 2005 dollar of GDP) Delivered energy . . . . .  Macroeconomic indicators Table A20.2 11. . . manufacturing . .2 18. . . .43 4. . . . .00) All-urban . . Global Insight Industry and Employment models.6 77.67 6. .76 0.84 6. . . . .67 2. . .54 14286 1.26 6.46 1. . Total industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 2. . . .12 1. . Employment.D020112C.1 296. . Population and employment (millions) Population. . . nonfarm . . . . .2% 1.60 80. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . . . . . .62 2. . . .01 2. .5 153. Real imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy-intensive . . . .11 3. .9 163. . . Value of shipments (billion 2005 dollars) Service sectors . . . . . .86 2. . 10-year treasury note .1 309. . . .89 103. . . . .4 168.580 3. .0 10. . .8 241. . Industrial commodities excluding energy . .4 12. . .43 2. . . Fuel and power .9% 1. .37 2. . .16 3. .57 2. . . . .7 166. nominal) Federal funds rate . Employment. . . . . .0% 1. . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 39 169 . . . with armed forces overseas .16 4.33 5. . .4% 5.32 1. . . .75 19996 5667 1615 4052 1509 2543 25664 307. . 12703 9037 1454 2540 1494 1853 2010 13088 9221 1715 2557 1663 2085 2015 14803 10218 2457 2355 2289 2463 2020 16740 11250 2888 2407 3096 2800 2025 19185 12697 3472 2525 4235 3516 2030 21725 14359 4063 2667 5484 4461 2035 24539 16220 4836 2818 6953 5690 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 2. . . .2 256. . .80 1. . . . Wholesale price index (1982=1. . . . . . . Interest rates (percent. . . .55 4. .0% -0. . .= Not applicable.29 5. . .1 139. . . Key labor indicators Labor force (millions) .6 1.8 9. . .28 9883 0. . . .22 4. . . .S. .0% 1. .2 1.57 2.59 1.6% 1.42 5. . .3 10.1 11. .50 2. . Projections: U.3 11. Nonmanufacturing . . . .S. . .18 3. . . . .48 4.2 154. . . . .1 16.7 130. . . .81 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 3. . . . . .1 16. . . . .7 11.7% 1. . .08 1.26 5. Non-energy-intensive . . . .94 2. . . .90 98. . . .42 2. . . .93 1.9 17. .47 12472 1. . .3 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .758 3. . . . .6% 1. .87 1. . . . . .

. .15 0. . . .81 126. .30 9. . . . Other .16 6.29 30.91 113. .79 2. . . .19 2.79 1. .26 1. . . . . .65 59. . . .18 91. . . .08 4. .46 0. .3% 4. . . .21 0. Brazil . .65 18.06 4. . . . . . .52 4. . Mexico and Chile . . .24 0. . . . . . .40 1. Total non-OECD petroleum production Total petroleum liquids production . . . . . . Crude oil prices (nominal dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light . .47 2. . . . .70 0.46 3.6% 4. . .55 18. . . . . .00 4. . . . .61 87. .92 4. . .90 1. . .55 1. . . . . . . .58 2. . . . .15 0.5% -0.98 4. . .06 2. . . .28 1. . .29 3. . .07 88. . .23 0. . . . . . .02 132. .62 18.01 29. .69 0. . . . . . . .16 3. . . . . . . . . . .S. . . . . . . . .53 1.72 44. . . .54 4. . .68 3. . . . . . . . . .38 1. . . . . . . . . . .1% 4. . . .71 9. . . . . . .08 2. International liquids supply and disposition summary (million barrels per day. .30 3. . . . . . . . . . . .79 1. . . .92 11. . . . . .75 0. . .05 25.77 1. . .97 2.01 0. .9% -1. . . . . . . . . .22 0. . .19 10. Petroleum liquids production2 OPEC3 Middle East . . . . . . Total other liquids production . . . .76 27. . . . Energy Administration | Annual Energy Outlook . . .51 32. . . .14 84. .58 1. .78 1. . .21 170. . . . .43 2. . . . . .3% 4. . .65 3. .7% 0. .14 3.9% 9.  International liquids supply and disposition summary Table A21. Other Central and South America . .47 101. .2% 0. . .88 95. .37 5. . . . . . . . . . . South America .39 75. .56 2.62 5.04 3. .28 7. . . . . . . .41 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .67 1. . . .13 36. .49 126. . . . . . . .9% 0. . . . .08 1. . .54 17.13 4.68 2. . . . .15 0. . . . .15 96. . .33 0. . . . Canada . .06 144. . . . . . . . . .12 4. .56 121.01 4. Total production . .21 2. .21 0. .32 32. . . . . . . . . . . OECD Europe4 . . . .45 2.40 3. . .43 3. .70 4. . .69 80.55 210. . unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply and disposition 2009 Crude oil prices (2010 dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light . . .39 2. .17 1. . . Other Asia6 . .78 11. . . Middle East . . .05 8. .13 0. OECD Europe4 . . .45 2. . . .7% 0.62 4. . . .Reference case Table A21. . unless otherwise noted) (million barrels per day. . . .14 12. . . . .80 8. . . .18 2.15 0. . . .18 13. . . . Other liquids production7 United States (50 states) .36 0. .01 0. . . . . . .57 1.0% 1.54 4.6% -0. .5% 2. . . . .51 0. . . . .9% 1. . .33 29. . . .98 132.50 1. . . .24 0. . . . . .27 3. . . . . Japan . . . . China .82 1.4% 0. . . . .94 3. . . Africa . . . . .46 10. . . . . .51 197. . . . .04 1. . .54 10. Other North America .29 34. . .82 1.77 3. . .12 3. . . . . . . .80 92. . .44 2.87 116. . . . .15 1. . . . . . .67 34. . . .27 5. . . . . .04 79.96 3. . . . .16 0. .14 0. . . .28 0. . Total OECD petroleum production .52 138. .47 33. . . . . . .0% 0. .7% 0. .4% 2. .89 4.17 0. . .87 136. .65 3. .27 0. .83 0.6% -0. .00 0.35 23. . .31 5. . .16 2. . . .3% -2. . .10 180.78 0.61 9. . . .13 0.58 3.62 3. .65 35. . .08 0. . . .2% 22. . . . . . . .54 3.6% 3. .34 3. . . . . . . . .3% 4. . .59 82.90 0.73 1. . .4% -0. . . . .72 11. . . . . .93 3. . . . . . .22 4. Total OPEC petroleum production .21 1.4% 2.79 42. North Africa .79 3. . . . . . . .97 37. . . . .97 125. . . . . . . . . . . 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 62.27 1. . .43 32. .59 5.37 2.63 85. . .97 3. . . . . . . . . . .87 79.53 17.46 3. .24 0.20 0.91 10. . . Middle East . .1% 1.4% 0. . .72 61. . . . Non-OECD Russia . . . .44 0.65 10. .0% 14. .34 2. . . .68 115. .09 155. .82 96.80 10. . . .16 0. . . . . .17 1.87 2.54 18.7% -1.93 3. . . . . . .31 2.42 5. .70 0.35 1. . . . Africa. .7% -0. .31 1. . .3% -1. . . .37 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 1. .72 2. .99 3. . .02 109.68 4. . . . . . . .90 28. . .22 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .74 148. . .9% 170 40 Energy Information Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U. . .1% 0. .34 33. . .05 2. .67 4. .07 3. .37 59. . . . . . . .7% 1. .53 17. . . West Africa . .70 3. .00 0. . . . .61 0. Non-OPEC OECD United States (50 states) . . Imported crude oil1 .81 1. . . . . Imported crude oil1 . .82 1. . . . . . . .26 0.91 2. .92 40. . .14 0. . . . . . . .93 0.09 2. . . Central and South America . . . . .51 2. . .97 122. .21 1. . . . .52 1. .48 10. . .95 229. . . . . . . . . . . . Other Europe and Eurasia5 .24 0.27 106. Australia and New Zealand . . . . . . .16 4. .38 2. . .31 0. . . . . . . .40 2.39 75. . . .

. and Uzbekistan.47 4. .50 2. . Australia and New Zealand . . . .31 2. .80 3. . . . . . . . . . . Sweden. .0% 0. .35 44.35 33. . .60 40. . . Romania. . . . Brazil . Moldova. . . . .3 19. . . . Other Central and South America . . . .5% 1. . . . China . . . . . .30 14. . Sources: 2009 and 2010 low sulfur light crude oil price: U.43 4.35 1. .54 41. . New Caledonia.15 2. . . . . .35 14.62 2. . Tajikistan. . .03 5. . . . . . Non-OECD Russia . Macau. .6% -- Weighted average price delivered to U. . Sri Lanka.05 58. . . .21 47. Armenia.02 0. . . . Slovenia. . .09 3. . . . Italy. .76 4. . . not to be confused with shale oil/tight oil).60 13. . . . . .36 4. .95 7. .33 39. .0% 1.58 7. 8 Includes both OPEC and non-OPEC consumers in the regional breakdown. Fiji. . .0% -0. .89 9. . .10 0. . . . . . . and the United Kingdom.78 3. .25 1. .50 5. . . .79 9. . . . . . . . Bhutan. . .66 4. .11 45. . . Niue. . 2 Includes production of crude oil (including lease condensate and shale oil/tight oil).55 17. . . . . . . .72 2.61 15. . Czech Republic. . . . . .19 3. Denmark. . . . . . .76 37. Bangladesh. . . Total non-OECD consumption . . . Pakistan. . .7% 0. Hong Kong. . . . . Total OECD consumption . . . . . Iceland. . . . . Vanuatu. . .51 41. . Slovakia. . Form EIA-856. . . . . . . 1 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Annual growth 2010-2035 (percent) 18. . Middle East .7 19. . .17 0.84 3. . . . . . and Vietnam. Belgium. . . Includes both OPEC and non-OPEC producers in the regional breakdown. .80 9. . . . . “Monthly Foreign Crude Oil Acquisition Report. . United States territories .30 12. .16 3. . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. . . . .10 12. .69 3. .57 3. .2% 0. . . .94 2. .07 38.65 87. Net Eurasia exports . .84 3. .34 14.34 51. . . . Greece.16 2. . .13 46. . .5% 1. . .14 4. Brunei.23 2. Africa . .39 2. . .60 2. .0% 0. Generate World Oil Balance Model. . . . . .S. . . .94 41. . . Ireland. .36 2.35 14. . . . . .37 2. . . . . . Non-OPEC production9 . . . October 2011). Serbia. . .24 1. Mexico and Chile . . . Total liquids consumption . . South Korea . . . Saudi Arabia. . . OPEC market share (percent) . Samoa. . . Kyrgyzstan. . . . . . . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . . . Finland. .02 2. . .93 2. Mongolia. .8% 1. .73 2.52 3. Turkey. . . .28 7. . Estonia. . . . . . . Taiwan.97 2. .83 96. Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 2012 U.47 10.63 18. . Indonesia. Guam. Qatar. . . . . Ukraine. . .91 2. . .70 7. . . bitumen (oil sands).9% 2. . . Nauru. . . International Energy Statistics database as of November 2009. .23 57. . . .94 2. . Iraq. .94 2. .01 10. . . .1% 0. .” 2009 and 2010 imported crude oil price: EIA. . .18 6. .25 2. . . . . Singapore.36 2. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 41 171 . . . . Germany. .24 2. . . . . .1% 0. . . . . .40 2. International liquids supply and disposition summary (continued) (million barrels per day. .51 2.1% 1. . .05 62. . OPEC production9 . other hydrogen and hydrocarbons for refinery feedstocks. Tonga.90 0. . .29 2. .50 45. .58 52. .40 8. Poland. Ecuador. Lithuania. . . Myanmar (Burma). Angola. .Austria. . Philippines. Iran. . . . France. Nigeria. .39 14. . Japan . . Spain. . coal. . Bosnia and Herzegovina. . Malta.49 45. . Energy Information Administration (EIA). . North Korea. . .50 14. . . . Nepal. . .20 0.56 1. .10 3. . .35 2. .. .34 2. . . . .16 45. Data for 2009 and 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports.= Not applicable. . . . . . Other non-OECD Asia6 . .7 19. . . Canada . . .30 2. OECD Europe4 . . .8% 2.19 40.0% 0. .65 3.65 4. . . . . .81 54.17 47. .45 16.5 19. 2009 quantities derived from: EIA. Luxembourg. .Reference case Table A21. .7 19. extra-heavy oil.4% 1. . . . Portugal. . . . . Libya. .11 40. Maldives. India . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Bulgaria. and kerogen (oil shale.73 7. . . . Kiribati. Latvia.94 3. . Macedonia. . .82 91. .95 3. . . .43 14. . . . . . . 4 OECD Europe = Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development . .4 19.11 6. . . .33 3.42 2. . .43 6. . .98 3. Laos.45 2.8% 1. .26 109. . . . .60 14.74 4.S. . . . . . Kuwait. .80 4. Other Europe and Eurasia5 . . . . . . . Switzerland. . .30 54. Papua New Guinea. . Georgia. .08 9. . . .5% 0.49 4. . . .53 1. Hungary. . DC. Annual Energy Review 2010. . .81 0.46 11. the Netherlands. . .S.27 2.21 2. .5% 0. .32 2. . . unless otherwise noted) (million barrels per day. . Thailand. .85 41.66 49. . . . . . . . .2% 0.41 84.34 2.15 1. . 5 Other Europe and Eurasia = Albania.51 2. .23 48. . . .53 39.05 34. and Venezuela.15 8.65 5. French Polynesia. . . . . Cambodia (Kampuchea). Azerbaijan. the United Arab Emirates. .25 39. refiners. . . . natural gas. . Belarus. . . . . 2010 quantities and projections: EIA.47 0. .58 4. . . . . . and refinery gains. unless otherwise noted) Reference case Supply and disposition 2009 Liquids consumption8 OECD United States (50 states) . .14 46. Solomon Islands. . . . 6 Other Asia = Afghanistan. .32 101.09 61. .21 2. .  International liquids supply and disposition summary (continued) Table A21.9 0. .D020112C and EIA. . .28 2. . Turkmenistan. . . . . . . . .91 59. . . Malaysia. . Croatia. . . . . . . . Norway.15 3. . 7 Includes liquids produced from energy crops.68 14. . . natural gas plant liquids. . . . .62 106. . Montenegro. 9 Includes both petroleum and other liquids production. Kazakhstan. . .Algeria. .40 8. . . . .3% 0.89 63.35 3. . . . . .9% 1. .46 1.19 2. . . . 3 OPEC = Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries .85 8.

This page intentionally left blank .

. . . . . .50 20. .70 9. . .17 20.24 100.8 116. Total . .56 121. . . .91 94. . . .83 18. .09 37. . . . . . . .72 26.49 2. . .69 4. . .99 0. . Natural gas10 . . . . .01 2. Imported crude oil16 . . .5 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . .69 88. . .07 3.91 113. .71 20. .08 0. .70 2. .60 3.36 2. . .64 18. . . . . . . . .08 36.08 0. . . .14 5. . . .02 3.30 2. . .08 1. . . .96 18. . .60 2. . . .14 3.57 9. .59 2. . . . . .90 4. .93 13. . . .08 2. .99 13.10 9. . . . . . .1 147. Other imports8 . .68 2. .13 12.43 13. .60 80.60 2.60 5. .60 2. . . . .33 24.86 3. . . . . at the wellhead17 . Natural gas (dollars per thousand cubic feet) at the wellhead17 . . . . . . disposition. .15 40. . . . .99 0. . . . .15 6. .81 0. . . . . .68 7. .04 2. .03 36. .9 142. .92 2. . . . . . . . .00 5. .08 2. . . . . . .15 9.24 2.66 -0. . . .40 2.79 3. .75 2. . . .23 3.18 12.18 0. . Liquid fuels and other petroleum6 . . .21 18. .64 0. . . . . . . . . . . .61 16. . . . .79 4. . .04 21.52 2. .73 17. . . Biomass3 .00 17. . . .91 26.11 5.09 12. .46 5. .68 85. . . .38 9. 11. .14 2.84 0.10 8. . .58 118. . . . . . . . .64 0. . . . . . . .96 2.41 2. .04 5. .98 132. .28 106. . .78 10. . . .61 1. . .39 4. .96 13. Average electricity (cents per kilowatthour) .75 1.12 3. Coal (dollars per million Btu) at the minemouth18 . . .60 24.19 27. . . . . . .94 28. .06 0. .07 2. Discrepancy11 . . . .97 4.Appendix B Economic growth case comparisons Table B1. . .11 2. . Natural gas plant liquids . . . . . . . .DRAFT . . Consumption Liquid fuels and other petroleum12 . .06 3.60 2. . .81 1. . . .22 0.95 3. . . . . . .89 0. . and prices 2010 2015 Projections 2025 2035 Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth 13.59 44. . . .99 4.95 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 2.37 5.25 0. . .76 2. . .30 3. . . . . . Coal1 .7 134. Dry natural gas . . . . .68 2. .20 3. . . . . . .37 2. .95 15.95 2. . . . . .51 130.34 26. .95 6. Total .66 6. .10 4. . . . .73 0. . . . . . . . . . .37 0. .93 26.7 132. . . . . .50 19. . . . .24 106. . . . . .60 3. .00 8. Other renewable energy4 .96 13. . . . . unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year.68 2. . .46 3. . . . and price summary (quadrillion Btu per year. .34 0. . . .03 10. . . Exports Liquid fuels and other petroleum9 . . . . . . . . . . . .53 3. .67 16. .6 130. . Natural gas7 . . Other15 . . . . .00 41.78 22.44 27. . . . . . .34 4. . .09 25. . .49 4.16 9. .S.71 8. . .65 44. . . . . . . .25 9. . .28 101. . . . .97 22. .40 4.17 2.57 -0. Coal13 . . . .63 5. . . . . . .25 24. . . .70 27. .28 3. . . . . Coal (dollars per ton) at the minemouth18 . . Prices (2010 dollars per unit) Petroleum (dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light crude oil16 . . Nuclear / uranium2 . .90 4. . .23 28. . . . .25 35.73 9. .04 12. .93 27.83 5.73 9. . . . .12 4. . . Imports Crude oil . . . . . .97 50.81 0. . . . . . Biomass14 .73 42.28 3.68 2.67 0. . .17 25.03 36. . .20 13. . . .47 28.90 3.33 6.44 2. . Hydropower . . .00 4. .93 2. .26 21. . .23 37. .87 4. . .94 42.68 2. .23 9. .00 1.17 3. . . Natural gas . . .50 4.02 19.92 2.39 75. .65 9.29 3.June 12. .91 22.28 20.02 9. .60 79. . Total energy supply.64 75.11 4.48 2. .29 3. . .25 3.14 3.02 6.21 5. . . . .45 1. . . . .07 24. . .78 25.  Total energy supply. . .82 51.07 5.55 2.89 4. . . . . .51 2.44 0.10 22.79 -0. .14 4.05 1. .95 25.90 3. . . . . .18 37.28 97. . . . . .54 4.92 2. . . .93 2. . .34 0. Total . . . . . . .76 0.24 8. . . .23 4. . . . . . Hydropower .48 21. . . . .01 34. .37 6. . . . . .64 23. . . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) Supply. . .81 0. .96 27.91 4. . . . .12 44. . .83 22. .60 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 4. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 173 . . . . .8 144. . . . .63 2. .42 0. . .21 0.30 95. . . .05 12.58 3.74 -0. . .48 6. . .57 3. .95 7. . .06 2. . . .9 116. . . Other renewable energy4 .22 20. .84 3. .23 2.16 35. . . . . . . .68 9. . .42 0. . . . . .48 2. . . . .06 38. . .93 19.73 9. . . . . .38 Production Crude oil and lease condensate . . .38 26. . . .15 2. .06 17. . . .51 4. .82 136. . . .81 24. . .91 9. . .55 9. .26 2. . . . and price summary Table B1. . . .06 8. . .55 4.21 0. .09 18. .89 3. . . .72 2. .83 89. . Coal . disposition. .56 2. .60 78. . . . .57 2. .89 3. .32 3. . .73 9. . . .76 8.7 117. .13 3. .77 3. .90 1. Average end-use19 . . . .56 9.06 4.61 0. . Total .94 10.52 29.10 5. . . . . . . . .18 0. . . .04 9. . . . . 2012 1 U. . . . . .90 9. . . . .29 98. . .24 2. .79 8. . . . .77 124. . .33 10. .90 4. . . . . .44 2. . . . .30 98. . Nuclear / uranium2 . . Other5 . . .82 10.93 99. . .78 3. .27 9. . .66 -0. .80 8. . . .88 1. . . . . . . . . . .32 3. .61 5. . . . . .14 9. . .33 24.73 22. . . .74 0. . . . . . . . . . .21 2. .06 -1. . . . . . .58 26. . . .43 4. . . . .71 91. . . . . .87 -0.93 27. . . .50 4. . .19 3. . . . .08 2. . .16 79. . . . .64 50. .36 15.05 2. .25 114. . . .36 8.17 8. .44 0.43 10.30 9.87 4. . . .05 25. . . .68 4. Natural gas (dollars per million Btu) at Henry hub .86 0. . . .68 2. . . .13 3. .95 4. . . .36 3. .04 1. .25 2. . . . . .02 4. . .44 2.14 20. . .58 6. .82 10. .33 24. . .99 6. . . . . .83 114. . . . . . . .17 5. . . . .22 0. . . . . . . . . . .06 113. .54 4. .64 3. . .30 97. . . . . . .45 3. disposition.23 3.51 2.

biomass. .59 9.37 21. Coal (dollars per million Btu) at the minemouth18 . .98 4. The total energy content of uranium is much larger. non-electric energy from wood. and coal-based synthetic liquids. 19 Prices weighted by consumption. DOE/EIA-0121(2010/4Q) (Washington. 2012 174 U. and renewable fuels such as ethanol. .00 4. . . . and net storage withdrawals. . . liquid hydrogen. . and unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year.76 2. Average electricity (cents per kilowatthour) . Natural gas (dollars per thousand cubic feet) at the wellhead17 . . . biogenic municipal waste. (quadrillion Total energy supply disposition summary (continued) Btu per year. October 2011). . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . . . is included. and net electricity imports. . ethers. . . 4 Includes grid-connected electricity from landfill gas. . but excludes the energy content of the liquid fuels. such as ethanol and biodiesel. and electricity (net).7 170. 12 Includes petroleum-derived fuels and non-petroleum derived fuels.73 10. methanol.06 4. .52 2.21 2. . . petroleum products. . . . DC.85 3. . gains. .24 2. 9 Includes crude oil. . . Annual Coal Report 2010. . 6 Includes imports of finished petroleum products. . .39 4. refiners.26 10. . weighted average excludes residential and commercial prices. .79 54. unless otherwise noted) 2010 2015 Projections 2025 2035 Supply. Excludes imports of fuel used in nuclear power plants. .51 80. .4 125. . alcohols. . such as corn.  Total energy supply.02 66.0 313. 2010 coal minemouth and delivered coal prices: EIA.92 10. . . . . .45 3. disposition. DOE/EIA-0584(2010) (Washington. . . 8 Includes coal. photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. . DC. Imported crude oil16 . November 2011). . .14 4.D020112C. 5 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. . . “Monthly Foreign Crude Oil Acquisition Report. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.79 10. 14 Includes grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste. Average end-use19 .34 2.86 7. . . coal coke (net). . . .55 210. .16 35. unfinished oils. 2010 petroleum supply values: EIA. 18 Includes reported prices for both open market and captive mines. . 13 Excludes coal converted to coal-based synthetic liquids and natural gas. .32 12. . . . Annual Energy Review 2010. . . .31 2.04 5. . . . . . Petroleum coke. Form EIA-856. . and biofuels heat and coproducts used in the production of liquid fuels. . . DC.61 1. .98 4. . . .50 6. . but alternative processes are required to take advantage of it.52 12. Btu = British thermal unit. Refer to Table A17 for details. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LM2012.76 14. . . . . . . 15 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. and HM2012. liquid hydrogen.9 125.00 3. Other 2010 values: EIA.S.23 6.86 3. . . See Table A17 for selected nonmarketed residential and commercial renewable energy data. used for liquid fuels production. .2 197.70 6. . . .05 14. and non-electric energy from renewable sources. 1 79. . such as active and passive solar systems.D022412A.62 4. Energy Information Administration (EIA). . wind.73 3. . at the wellhead17 .67 10. . .20 123.09 46.Economic growth case comparisons Table B1. and price summary (continued) Table B1. ethanol. . . . Sources: 2010 natural gas supply values and natural gas wellhead price: U. . Includes unaccounted for supply. . . and prices Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth Prices (nominal dollars per unit) Petroleum (dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light crude oil16 .74 4. . Also included are natural gas plant liquids and crude oil consumed as a fuel. . .51 11. DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington. . . 2 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . losses. and export free-alongside-ship (f.50 2. .) prices. . .38 9.D022412A.8 127. which is a solid. . 7 Includes imports of liquefied natural gas that is later re-exported. and biodiesel.97 122. 2010 low sulfur light crude oil price: EIA. . Excludes electricity imports using renewable sources and nonmarketed renewable energy.80 2.42 6. . . . . Natural Gas Monthly.39 75. . . DC. May 2011). .70 150. . and some domestic inputs to refineries.36 15. . . 16 Weighted average price delivered to U. Refer to Table A17 for detailed renewable liquid fuels consumption.52 7. 2 These values represent the energy obtained from uranium when it is used in light water reactors.57 56. DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington.1 Includes waste coal. .97 196. .39 4.58 286. . 10 Includes re-exported liquefied natural gas and natural gas used for liquefaction at export terminals.05 4.5 163. . . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.66 16. .99 4. Natural gas (dollars per million Btu) at Henry hub . REF2012.S.6 229. October-December 2010.S.82 13.64 6. . . .87 4. 17 Represents lower 48 onshore and offshore supplies.03 2.32 179. Projections: EIA. and non-electric energy demand from wood.13 112. 3 Includes grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste. .June 12.76 10. .0 212. . Coal (dollars per ton) at the minemouth18 .DRAFT . . . . . .63 6. . July 2011). .23 7. . . . blending components.10 121. .92 9. . . Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. .81 4. .63 4. .25 44.82 74. .24 45.79 7. .15 4.s. . Petroleum Supply Annual 2010.09 155.47 12. . 11 Balancing item. . . disposition.a. . DC. July 2011).” Other 2010 coal values: Quarterly Coal Report. .

.18 0. . .05 0.00 0.42 4.28 23.15 0. . . . .86 2. .01 1. . .01 0. .54 8.32 18.75 21.01 1.11 -0.00 1. . . . Metallurgical coal . .39 1. . . . . .60 -0. . .09 32. . . Total . . . .16 9. . Net coal coke imports .43 20. . .53 0. . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . . . .61 8. .09 1. . Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . .02 0.62 0. . . . . . .94 30. .09 1.11 5.06 0. . . . .53 7. .26 0. . . . .Economic growth case comparisons Table B2. .53 1. .72 25. . . .00 1. . .06 1.62 0. .15 31.35 23. .41 0. . .71 9. . . .32 0. . . . . .36 -0.14 0.05 0. . Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases .43 8.17 23. .08 0. . . . . . . . . . . .29 3. . .55 1. .76 0. . . . . .41 1. . . . . . .88 0. . .53 24. Residual fuel oil . . .57 1.06 0. Renewable energy1 . . . . .11 8.01 0.09 1.81 0. . . . . .03 2. . . .16 0.57 8. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal .53 10. .15 7. .11 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 0. . . . .01 0. .01 0. Coal subtotal . . .00 1. . . . .43 0. . .06 2. . . . . Lease and plant fuel6 . . .11 5.11 4.61 7.49 1. .50 0. .21 2. . . . .38 19.96 0.28 1. . . Total .52 18. .79 2. . . . .59 8. .14 0.DRAFT . . . . .01 0. . .60 8.43 0. . . .35 6. . . . . . . . . . .06 0. . . .57 13. . . .01 0. . . .08 0.35 0. . . . . .05 0. . .89 7. . . . . . . . . . .49 6.05 11. Distillate fuel oil .01 3.63 8.81 0. . Other petroleum5 . . .59 0.16 0. . .01 0. . . . Renewable energy7 . . . .11 5. . . .11 7.30 1.43 0. .82 1. . . 0.08 0. . .60 8. .33 0. . . .76 2.00 1. . . . . . Residual fuel oil .21 18.59 1. . . . . Natural gas subtotal . . .06 0. . . . . . .10 3. Electricity . . .06 0. .95 3. .80 7. . .34 23. Total . . . .  Energy consumption by sector and source Table B2.44 7. . . . . . . .11 9.62 3.05 0. .62 3. . . . . . .19 0.34 0. .75 26.43 0.28 0.54 1. . . . . Industrial4 Liquefied petroleum gases . .74 3. . .24 9. Natural gas . . . .89 7.10 36. .26 1. . . .45 5. . . .00 -0. . .56 0.06 2. .05 6. .83 7.80 10. . . . . . . . . .04 0. .81 9.63 1. . . . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . (quadrillion Energy consumption by sector and source Btu per year. . . .23 21.34 1. unless otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 (quadrillion Btu per year. . . . . .14 0. .00 -0. . . .76 0. . . . .03 21. .45 8. . .11 5. .33 1. .43 1. . . . .90 1. .15 21. . . . . . .94 4.06 0.55 1.02 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petrochemical feedstocks .54 0. . . . .08 1. . .06 0.28 11. .63 3.22 23. . . . . . .01 0. .00 0. . . . . .01 0. . .00 0. . . . . . . . . .19 8. . .12 10.00 0. . .59 0. . . .32 0.03 0. . .81 1. .17 5. . . Distillate fuel oil . .59 8. . . . . .67 29. . Kerosene . . . . . . . .09 1. .08 0.04 12. . .08 0.93 11. .60 2.27 18. . . . . Electricity related losses . . .00 3.51 0.46 0. .97 2. . .30 3. . 2012 3 U. . . . .51 0.06 0. . . . .86 11.52 1.73 30. . . . . .12 0. . .55 0.61 3. . . .37 6.50 3. .09 1. . . Delivered energy . .08 0.00 0. Natural gas .15 0. . . .87 4. .33 1.61 0.35 0.01 0. . . .46 33. . . . . . .18 0. . .15 9. .91 5. . . .22 0. Distillate fuel oil .08 0. .44 23. .84 1. . . . .00 -0.82 11. . . .02 0. . . . .35 0. . . . .63 3.61 -0. . .58 12. .95 11. Renewable energy3 . .02 0. .82 3.58 20. .06 0. .33 26. . . . Kerosene .33 0. .72 3. . . . .43 4. . . . . . .29 3. . . . .35 0. . . .42 4.00 1.08 0. . .89 30.49 0.51 0. . .11 4. . .75 11. .00 0. .48 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00 1. . . .08 4.35 0.62 3. . .59 3. . . . .85 4. .70 10.51 0. . . . . . .29 1. . . .55 1.15 0. .33 0. .03 0. . .03 1. . .49 0. . . . . . .16 0.01 0. . . . .22 9. . . . . unless otherwise noted) Projections 2025 2035 Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth Energy consumption Residential Liquefied petroleum gases . . . .70 0. .63 0.25 0. . . .11 4. . .91 3.62 3. .39 22. . . . .07 2.15 0. .04 0. .06 0. . . .77 0. . . . . . .57 8. .31 -0.54 8. Other industrial coal . . . .52 0. . .00 -0. . .62 3. .21 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .27 1. .30 19. .66 10. .11 4. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 175 . .25 1. .02 0.48 0. .06 0.80 9.56 0.00 1. .68 11.05 0.41 5. . Electricity related losses . .99 0.04 0. . .19 11.89 10. .67 3. . .21 7. . . . .60 9.01 0. . . Motor gasoline2 . . .80 1.22 2.06 0. . .14 0. . . .80 0.01 24. . .55 0. .03 1. .34 2. . . .97 11.39 0.00 1. .43 5. .05 0. .43 4. .76 0.12 0.06 0. . .09 0.94 3. .00 0. . .06 0. . . Electricity .55 1. . .52 22. . . . .02 0. .27 1. .33 3. . .46 10. . Motor gasoline2 . Natural gas .35 11. . .32 0.00 0. .06 0. . . . . .16 0. .13 0. . . . .62 3. .01 0. . .08 0. . . . . . . .33 0. .08 0. . . . . .02 0.32 0. .01 0. . . . . . .08 1.23 11.35 0. . .81 0.90 0.33 0.08 0.56 0. . . . .62 3. .01 0. Coal-to-liquids heat and power .47 21.08 5.00 0.21 2. .43 5.20 0. .34 9. . .00 1.29 7. .50 34.35 0. . Delivered energy . . .42 4. . .11 5.June 12.57 8. . . .02 0. . . .83 0. . . . .00 1. .01 0.97 0.55 1. . .19 0. .51 0.S.08 1. .01 0. . .06 0. . . . . .05 1. . . . . .22 2. .77 0.15 0. .08 0.08 0.39 11. . . Delivered energy . .68 0. . .02 0. .00 1. . .08 0.42 8.01 1. . .48 6. . . . . . .08 4. . .13 1.40 21.26 1. .52 25.43 8.53 7. .05 0. .69 2. .59 0. . . . . . .62 3.89 30.05 0. . Electricity related losses . .27 1. . . . . .57 1. . . . . . .30 1.37 -0.42 0.47 6. . . . . . . . . . .50 29. . . . . .79 9. . .02 0. .14 0. .83 0. .08 1.33 0. .84 0. Coal .17 0. . .94 6.43 0. .81 7. Biofuels heat and coproducts . .28 0. . . .02 0. . . .95 4.89 0. . .50 2.97 5.00 1.68 7. . . . . . .14 0. . . . . . .01 3. . Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . . . .51 10.13 7. .22 5. . . . . . .36 6. . . .01 0.22 0. . .96 6. . .18 0. . .70 9. .27 1.44 19.69 0. . .71 0. . . .11 10. . . . . .37 8. . .06 0. . . .05 0. .35 0. . . . . . . Coal .00 1.

. . .43 3. . . . . . Electricity related losses . .50 9. . . Pipeline natural gas . . . Kerosene . .68 17. . .75 0. . . .04 26.00 15. . E858 . .59 25. . . . .27 2.00 1.01 16. . . . .08 0.33 3. .07 0. .03 0. . . . . . .01 3.03 9.02 27. .31 8. . . .12 0. . . . . .16 0. . . . . . . . . . .63 3.12 0.00 1.09 0. . .Economic growth case comparisons Table B2.22 0. . . .15 16. . . . .00 -0. .03 8. . .40 0.76 36. . .08 0. . . . .04 6. . Electricity .29 3.68 0. . . . . .77 16. . . . . . . .00 0. . . .24 0.00 -0. Steam coal . . .03 9.04 41. .87 16. Total17 .69 0.88 3. . . . . . . .34 70. . .07 5. . . .71 0. .46 0. . . .38 7. . Delivered energy . . . Electricity . . . . . .04 0. . Total . . .85 0.17 26.58 20. .75 0. .01 16. .17 26. .96 0. 2012 176 U.08 0. Residual fuel oil . . . .(quadrillion Energy consumption by sector and source Btu per year. . .06 0.00 0.47 0. . . . .20 0.99 0. . . . . . . .25 0. .69 26.22 15. .21 0.94 0. . .24 0. . . . .10 39. Other petroleum12 . . . . . .00 16. .29 8.22 0. .68 0. .08 30. . . .61 36. . . . . . .62 0.27 2.66 0. . . . .43 1. .24 0.24 0.25 16. . . . .00 0. . . . .19 0. .38 0. Petrochemical feedstocks . . . .15 0. . . . . .91 97. .65 17. . . . . .37 114. .75 0.99 1. . Jet fuel9 .03 27.18 106.46 3. Nuclear / uranium15 . . . Biofuels heat and coproducts . . . .15 30. .15 0. . .75 0. . . . .69 2. . .39 2. . . . . . .07 101. . . .57 2.00 0. . .61 1. .95 0. . . . .65 0.43 0. . .17 25. . .42 0. . . . .49 0.42 8. . . .09 0.22 15.01 3.30 1. . . . . . Renewable energy13 .80 2.36 0.30 15. .04 0.09 0. . . . . . .98 72. .09 1. . . .97 34.97 34. . . .14 28.15 8. . .88 0.74 1. . . . .94 0.01 16. Distillate fuel oil10 .25 7. .16 0. .S. . . . . .13 3.20 83. . . . .76 37. .June 12. . .13 8.05 0. . .01 16. . . . .82 2.23 0. . .03 8.20 0. .10 38.64 0.30 14.44 0.91 0.04 0. . .12 2. . . .69 18. . .24 7. . . .32 26. . . .01 0. .47 0. .31 -0. . .00 12. . .43 0.54 19. .30 0. . . . . . . .07 15. .52 0. . .28 6. .05 27.03 28. . . . . . .06 77.57 4 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . .86 1. . . .58 0. . .01 16.35 0. . . . . .78 2. .00 0. . . . . .69 17. . . . .11 0. .21 3. Liquid hydrogen . . .65 0.06 9. .08 0. .85 0. . .69 1. . .04 27. . . . . . .49 1.05 27.06 1.22 14.65 0. . . .29 8. . . . Electric power14 Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . . .04 7.14 0. . . .04 28. . . .25 3. . .63 2.85 0. . . Compressed / liquefied natural gas . . . . . . . . . .25 2. . . .28 15. . . .03 1.40 14. . .69 1. .59 0. . . . . . .09 0.07 0.84 98.07 1.55 1.00 -0.22 0.38 15.41 1.31 8. . . . .67 0. . . . .69 18. Natural gas .60 5. . . . . . . . . .51 0. .77 39.04 0.09 39. .57 0.30 0. . . .09 28. . . . . . .86 29. . .22 14. .05 28. . .00 1. . . . . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . Other coal . . . . .05 1.16 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 15.10 38. .46 19.00 -0. . . . . . . . .80 2.32 0. . . .00 0.09 0. .00 3. . . .59 1. . .09 0. .15 10. . . . Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . .77 3. . Other petroleum11 .04 47. . .66 17.60 0.17 26. . .69 0. . Residual fuel oil . . .06 1.62 37. . . . . . . .77 0.70 0. . Motor gasoline2 .24 2.15 6. . . .38 3. .18 29. .28 2. .08 1. .29 1. Coal subtotal . .99 1. .00 0. . . . . . .32 9.92 0. . . . .05 0. .00 1.19 7. . . . . . . . . .25 0.69 0. . .89 0.06 0.80 0. .56 8. . . . Electricity related losses .96 1. . .50 0.08 42.03 0.44 3. . . . .67 8. .00 14.74 19. .37 0. . .48 15. . . .41 1.30 7.91 0. . . . . .60 0. Total .45 0. .00 14. .68 5. . .36 37. . . . .00 1.34 9. .81 71. . . . . . . . .03 0.54 0.00 0. . .04 0.84 97. . .65 0. Electricity imports .32 8.01 16. . . . . .00 17. Net coal coke imports .15 15. . . . .84 2.22 0. .93 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 5.05 27. .39 27. .00 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 0.03 2. . Delivered energy consumption for all sectors Liquefied petroleum gases . . Residual fuel oil .15 0. . . . . .54 1. . .27 98. .17 26. . .08 0. . . . . .08 1. . .00 0. . . . .DRAFT . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . . . . . . . .79 71. . . . .53 1. . .00 0. .77 0. Natural gas subtotal .25 0. .60 0. . . . .75 0.96 73. .03 2. .75 0. Motor gasoline2 . .00 0. . .61 -0. . .30 26.04 0. . . .54 0. . .06 0. .11 1. . .58 3. . .57 1.63 0. .03 6. . .11 0. .60 0. . . . . . . .26 0. . . . .27 36. .03 2. . .34 1. .22 2. .13 7. .50 0.94 3.74 0. .01 31. . .00 13.03 27. . . .00 12. . .43 0. .01 1. . . .03 1. Renewable energy16 . 0. . . .96 0. . .09 1. . . .04 0. . . . .81 2.91 0. .21 0. . unless otherwise noted) 2010 2015 Projections 2025 2035 Sector and source Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth 0.  Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) Table B2. . . .67 2. . .51 0. . .04 0. .64 2. .04 44. . . . . . .17 0. . . .93 0. .75 29. . . . . . . . .00 1. . . . . . . . .30 3.67 0. Coal-to-liquids heat and power . . . .10 1. . .23 0. . .37 -0. . .60 5. .17 27.21 0.86 14.60 76.17 27.40 14. . . .14 5. . . .01 6.83 0. . . . .00 13.00 1.00 3.21 0.15 0. . .05 0. . . . . Metallurgical coal . .13 27.33 7.07 28.07 26.49 3. . .15 0.65 9.05 0. . . . . . .54 25. . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal .03 8. . .06 0. .08 26. . .90 16. .04 18.53 3. .57 0. . . . . . . . . .29 0. . . .21 15. . . unless otherwise noted) (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year. .20 106. . .18 0. . . .00 1. .92 28. .14 13.79 0. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal .86 0.11 0. . .62 Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases . .05 1. . . . . .95 1.84 17.61 70.00 1.32 3. Delivered energy . .90 0. Liquid hydrogen .43 15. .08 43.12 1.80 15. .91 3.29 1. . .01 1. .60 5.17 27.17 0. .26 2. . .11 0. . . . . .87 15.33 0. . .68 4. Pipeline fuel natural gas .14 0. . . .06 2.90 3. . .36 -0.01 1. . .42 95. . .96 0.03 9. . . . . . . . .00 1. . . . . . . . .29 3.45 35. . . .03 9. .27 0.22 0. . . . . .63 2. . . . .17 26. .09 0. . .58 1. Natural gas . .11 -0.00 1. . . . . . . .30 8. . .57 0. . .00 12. .67 18. . .16 19. . . . . . . . .03 8. .44 0.08 0. .09 0. .04 1. .62 0. . . .93 0.60 -0.07 0. . . . . .65 100. . .04 0. . .26 3. . . Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . . . . .49 0. . . .00 16. . . .49 0. .55 1.29 3. . . . E858 .25 2. Lease and plant fuel6 .58 0. .43 0.14 13. .03 0. .21 2.68 0.00 1. . . . .03 8. . .91 0. . . . . . . . . . .48 0. . . . . . .66 0.08 27.65 17. . . .13 72. .09 0.93 0. . . . .92 0.87 3. .68 17.24 9.05 0. .07 2. . .11 0.83 0. . .03 10.08 1. . . . . .17 0.55 0. Jet fuel9 .75 3.08 40. .

. .76 37.6 1 Includes wood used for residential heating.01 3.30 1. .00 0.00 1.92 101. . . . . . . . . .00 0. other biomass.68 26. . . . . .36 37. . .93 2. .28 1.74 28. .02 9.23 14401 5298.97 0. . . .55 358. . .04 8. . . . . Metallurgical coal . . . . . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. .09 23. .61 -0. . . . . . . .33 1. . .65 24. 5 Includes petroleum coke.00 18. . road oil. .69 27. and HM2012. 9 Includes only kerosene type. .21 2. . . . . . .72 23.60 0. 11 Includes aviation gasoline and lubricants.34 18. .61 36. . . .00 -0. . . . .13 2.83 1. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. .23 9.03 21. Excludes ethanol blends (15 percent or less) in motor gasoline. . . . 2012 5 U. Btu = British thermal unit. .70 1.59 97.77 3. . . . .27 8. . or electricity and heat.43 20. .62 38. .42 0.70 24.00 0.74 27084 6117. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . Excludes ethanol. . .55 354. . . . . .38 0. . . and other biomass for combined heat and power. .9 2. . REF2012. .31 1.00 1.86 0.04 72. . .69 0. . . . .11 -0. . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 177 . . . . net electricity imports. . . photovoltaic.21 0. . . . . . . . . . .05 1. lubricants. . . . biogenic municipal waste. . and lease operations.48 20538 5823. . 3 Excludes ethanol.96 72.69 9. . . E858 . road oil. .03 9. . .69 98. . . . .84 5.14 2.97 35.28 2. . . . . wood and wood waste. . .00 1. . Total energy use . .04 106.75 3. . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . .08 1. Distillate fuel oil .24 0.7 2. Monthly Energy Review.29 1. .76 21630 5355.20 70. . Energy use and related statistics Delivered energy use . . . . . October 2011). To address cold starting issues. .03 20. . . . .64 0. . . .57 0.22 2. . .2 2.55 20. . .Economic growth case comparisons Table B2.00 1.9 2. .88 3.23 327. . . . . .99 382.04 1. .00 0. field.63 0.03 9. except those whose primary business is to sell electricity. Electricity imports .75 0. .30 9. Net coal coke imports . . municipal waste. . . . to the public. .94 0. . . . . . .58 23. .51 0. .40 14. . Liquid hydrogen .67 26. 14 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.15 9.89 0.39 8. .88 0.44 0. Petrochemical feedstocks . .07 22. .37 0. . . . . .22 15. . . . . . Excludes ethanol and nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps.03 8.33 3.32 98. .09 98.31 -0. . .01 3. .22 326. and other biomass sources.11 0. . . . Annual Energy Review 2010. . . . (quadrillion Energy consumption by sector and source Btu per year. .05 19.69 1. . .96 1.83 13088 5633.00 1. .00 3. . . October 2011 DOE/EIA-0035(2011/10) (Washington. . . . . . . and solar thermal water heaters. . 13 Includes electricity generated for sale to the grid and for own use from renewable sources. . . . Natural gas . . . . . 8 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). .26 7. . .02 0.07 1. . Biofuels heat and coproducts . and nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps. or electricity and heat. . landfill gas. .86 106. Lease and plant fuel6 . .01 17. . . . . . . . . .30 97. . petroleum coke.03 9.93 0. . . . 17 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste not included above. . . .80 7.38 1. . . . .08 97. . . Ethanol consumed in motor gasoline and E85 Population (millions) . .07 1. . buildings photovoltaic systems.16 71.43 0. .23 398.14 13. . .00 0. . . . .38 1. buildings photovoltaic systems.00 -0. . . . and miscellaneous petroleum products.00 0. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 15 These values represent the energy obtained from uranium when it is used in light water reactors. .43 0. . .87 3. Coal-to-liquids heat and power .66 25.2 2. . . . . . .54 362.81 7. . . . . . August 2011.94 3. Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . Sources: 2010 consumption based on: U.24 0. .42 0. . . . . . .74 0. and non-electric energy from renewable sources. . . .30 3. still gas. . .5 Total energy consumption Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . . .42 0. . . 4 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants.01 17. . . . . . .11 310.57 0. .97 34. unless otherwise noted) (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year.01 0. . aviation gasoline. wood and wood waste. . . . .86 1.08 106. . . 2 Includes ethanol (blends of 15 percent or less) and ethers blended into gasoline.57 17. other biomass. . . . .53 21. Residual fuel oil . unless otherwise noted) 2010 2015 Projections 2025 2035 Sector and source Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth 2.00 0. Includes commercial sector consumption of wood and wood waste.01 114. 10 Diesel fuel for on. . . See Table A4 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps.60 1. .00 1. Coal subtotal . . . 2010 carbon dioxide emissions: EIA. . to the public. . .36 -0. .00 0.00 17. .27 36. .11 0. . .D022412A. . . . .03 9. .01 16. . .78 0.19 15235 5503. municipal waste.49 0.36 0. .77 40.69 27. biogenic municipal waste. . . .26 0. 16 Includes conventional hydroelectric. . .road use.54 0. Excludes net electricity imports.45 36.00 1.17 23. . .29 3.43 1.33 0.41 0. . 12 Includes unfinished oils. Renewable energy18 . .43 71. . . .33 0. Nuclear / uranium15 . . . . . . .30 15.27 8.32 3.71 0. . . 18 Includes conventional hydroelectric.78 1.S. Other coal . and electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaic sources.17 8. . . and solar thermal sources.08 101. . . . . Motor gasoline2 .00 0. . .89 0. October 2011). . . . . . . and miscellaneous petroleum products.D020112C. .06 19185 5552. . .71 0.82 0. .36 1. . . .38 83.03 8.00 -0. . .60 1. . .04 114. . . . . .31 1. . .95 1. . .03 8. .and off. . .16 14803 5407. DC. . . . . . wind. . . . .04 0. . .14 0. . .76 8. . . . .03 8. . .19 0.01 16. Includes small power producers and exempt wholesale generators. .75 106. . . . 6 Represents natural gas used in well. .03 10. . .22 14. but alternative processes are required to take advantage of it. .38 0. .04 0. . .69 26. .68 0. lubricants. .5 2. .52 0. . . . still gas. Jet fuel9 .37 -0.8 2.50 1. . .07 0. and solar thermal sources. .June 12. . . . Other petroleum12 .73 0. .00 1. .59 17. and solar thermal water heaters.34 1.46 3.29 3.00 0.20 0.S.57 8.23 17676 5226. See Table A5 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for solar thermal water heating and electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaic sources. . . . wood and wood waste. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LM2012. .00 0.89 0.00 1.63 3. and in natural gas processing plant machinery. . . . . . . . . . . . .38 2. Gross domestic product (billion 2005 dollars) Carbon dioxide emissions (million metric tons) 2.83 0. . . . DC.09 0. .18 0. .  Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) Table B2. .99 73.68 0. .8 2.03 0. .18 0.10 95. . . Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . .20 1.DRAFT . . .93 77. Pipeline natural gas . . . . .41 17.80 8.96 70.60 1. . .54 95. .16 9.68 25. .39 1. The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. . . . . .68 0. . geothermal.82 7. .21 325. Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . natural gasoline. . . . .75 0.06 21.55 16.01 16. .43 10. . . . .21 0. .29 1. .54 20. .00 -0.49 19. .10 98. .25 22. geothermal. .05 76.01 20. .71 0. . . . . asphalt. .15 0. 7 Includes consumption of energy produced from hydroelectric.21 15. .19 24.25 0. . .58 3. .36 8. solar thermal water heating.60 -0.23 26. Projections: EIA. . The total energy content of uranium is much larger.00 0. . . .73 0. . . . . . . 2010 population and gross domestic product: IHS Global Insight Industry and Employment models. . . .76 37. . . . . .16 1. . . .00 1. the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. .85 0. .21 3. . .96 1.65 25.03 18.57 0. .25 3. Natural gas subtotal . . motor gasoline blending components. .10 97. . wind.15 390. . . . Kerosene . . . . .78 23. . . . . . .63 0. . . .09 24539 5757.99 1. .70 0. . photovoltaic.D022412A.39 100. . asphalt.04 100.38 23. .

. . . . . . . . .59 27. . . .52 7. .74 12.35 22. .04 34.21 23. . .36 2.79 232.14 20.41 31. . . .92 266. .45 4. . .22 21. .08 28. . . . .42 26. 27.74 6. .26 10.25 33. . . . . .59 27.23 16.42 13. .89 208. . .08 3. .81 32. Coal to liquids .65 27. .33 28.44 26. . 198.58 18. . . . . . . . . .45 29. . . . . . . . . . .46 7.17 11. .96 31. . .08 19. .14 19. .50 22. . . .62 28. .17 30. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .26 18. . . .65 10. . . .22 21. . . . . . Natural gas .11 2. . . . . . . . .02 8. . . . . . . .12 23. .40 5. . .(2010 Energy prices by sector source dollars per million Btu.53 9. . . . . .41 6. . . . . . .86 1430. Metallurgical coal . . .18 746.38 29. . .95 18.67 6.10 26. . . .52 848. .18 29. . . .54 1373. . . . . . . . .22 8.86 18.74 9. . . .38 2. . . . .19 28.81 21. .34 Industrial . .26 28.47 270. .54 24. . . . . . .24 2. .61 29.16 242. . .81 1634.24 3. . . Electricity .87 27. . . Electricity .60 1419. . . .62 10. . .49 24. . .94 7. . . . .32 12. .80 1510. . . . . .60 29. . .93 29. . . .88 25. . Residual fuel oil . . . . . .87 10. .85 20. . . . . . Residual fuel oil . .54 32.24 2. .36 1423. . .87 19. . . .10 35.51 5. .97 27. .12 6. . . . . . . .22 8. . . . . . .42 32. . . .08 1627. .27 1. . . . . .69 29. .42 20. . . . .92 30. . . . .11 3. .73 11. . . .66 1848. . .16 34. . . . . . . . . . .11 2. . .70 16. . .16 5. .51 28.04 31. .95 4. . . . . .99 14. . . .89 9. . . . .02 32. . . . . . . . . . . .69 23.37 24. .89 17.91 30.38 35.21 22. .27 19. . . . .33 28. . . . . . . . . . .38 20. .39 2.56 18.69 2. . .87 35. . . .27 6.80 21.40 20. . .98 214. . . . . .96 12. .24 1546. . . . .50 22. .08 179.82 13. .28 201.63 9. . .61 2. . . . . . . . . . .55 5. . Residual fuel oil .10 231. .61 2. .92 5. .08 33.89 30. .54 5.85 29.82 7.50 23.92 285.27 1. . .55 2. . . .48 32. . .30 9. .09 23.27 19. .99 30.84 2. .64 32. Motor gasoline5 . Electricity . .04 34. . .51 33. . . . . .43 Commercial .74 8. . Coal to liquids . . .02 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 30.07 298. .00 29. . .27 22. . . .67 28. .86 40.18 18. .80 25.22 3. .30 18. .20 32.32 10. . . . .91 25. .21 4. . . . . . . .12 27. . .66 24. . . . . .38 28. . . .24 27.02 32. .73 1534.91 21.57 24. . . . . .86 27. . .68 9.39 25.02 26.01 13. . .84 2.49 7.27 7. .58 8.30 2. . .21 220. .52 10.34 Total expenditures . . . . . . .22 2. .03 4. . . . . . . .28 17. . . . . .40 29. . . .49 24. . .02 1395. . . . .34 19. Distillate fuel oil . . .77 23. .37 33. . . . . .44 24. . .61 1423.40 2. .52 1888. . . . . .30 32.99 18. . . .85 2. .96 777. . .07 261. . . . .53 25. . . . . . . . . .71 28.98 244.03 29. . . . . . . . . .82 9.65 7.23 31. . .98 16. . . . . . . . . . . .59 6.62 2. .13 32. . .31 317. unless otherwise noted) Projections 2025 2035 Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth 30.64 12.04 8. .78 731.42 197. . . . . . . .09 21.56 35.27 30.28 25. . .74 31. . . . . . . .45 7.51 31. . . . . .52 20.61 18. .42 22. . . . .38 177. . . . . .27 31. . .63 35. . Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)7 . . . . . .92 28. . .37 23. .25 0.88 231. .20 2. . . 2012 178 U.30 32. . .18 8.42 23. .June 12. . . . .26 28. .20 3. . . . . . . . . .Economic growth case comparisons Table B3. .  Energy prices by sector and source Table B3. .65 20.18 19. . . .43 19. . . . .53 8. .02 27. .13 31. . . . . . . .26 18.61 28. . . .38 30.41 31. . . . . . . .95 14. . .61 29. . . . . .10 29. . . . . . . .83 18. . . .03 27.26 1395.70 27.68 Non-renewable energy expenditures by sector (billion 2010 dollars) Residential . Natural gas .78 35. .08 0. . .51 30.26 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electricity . . . .10 26. . .20 19. . Other coal . .74 27. .29 -28. E854 . . . . . . . .33 22.43 1. .26 29. . . . . . . . . .64 29.59 16. .98 34. . . . . .45 25. .41 1. . . . . . . . . .08 2. Jet fuel . .94 32. . .26 28. . .89 5. .72 282.02 29. .73 21. . . . . . . . . .34 28.00 4.51 Transportation renewable expenditures .30 28. .09 23.27 33.11 3.67 4.92 2.88 25. . . . . . .24 10. .31 34.83 223. . . .65 950. . .15 2.71 -19.23 21.92 25.79 32.55 2. . . .00 36. . .05 30. . . . . . . .60 2. .61 10. .68 7.02 31. . . .26 23.78 30. . . . . . .94 14. . Natural gas8 . .84 764. . .92 30. . . . . . .35 25. . .69 247. . .14 2. . . .39 34. . Natural gas2 . .33 38. . . . .80 27. .29 31. . . 0. . . .30 29. . .80 2. . Other industrial coal . . . . . . . . .64 2. . . . . . . .14 28. . . .96 33. .36 27. . . . Residual fuel oil . .38 2.59 2.02 27. . . .03 29. .61 12. .11 2. . .61 34. . . . . . .21 22.61 11. . and unless otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 (2010 dollars per million Btu. .27 1. . . . . .86 32. . .29 8. .61 29. . . . .18 29.60 33.40 1. .07 9. . . .67 22. . . .15 34. . . . .91 31. . . Distillate fuel oil . . . .45 30. . . . .03 34.31 7.74 26. . . .23 20. .59 27.81 28.78 30. .72 248. .72 16. .48 27. .73 13. . . .44 7. . . .17 25.15 12. . . . .31 33. .26 11. . .72 336. .04 23.91 31. .10 2. .61 21.54 9. . . .62 1373.92 178. . . Natural gas .88 7. . .81 32. Electric power9 Distillate fuel oil . . .42 31. . . .56 736. . . .85 29.79 22. . . .53 21.54 23. . . .26 29.05 1708. . . . .46 34. Jet fuel6 . . . . . Distillate fuel oil . . . .77 11.98 30. . .82 27. Electricity .27 28. .85 6 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .63 31. .31 27. .62 13.21 2. . . . .17 Total non-renewable expenditures . .94 32.51 30. . . . . .S.22 21. . . . E854 . . Motor gasoline5 . .50 13. .99 30. .64 Residential Liquefied petroleum gases .55 32.78 28. . . .53 20. . . . . . . . .63 246.90 33. . . . .27 29. .72 1669. . . . . . .20 29. . . . . . .80 26. . . . . . . 573. . . . . . .52 29. . . .14 30. . Distillate fuel oil . .99 29. . Metallurgical coal . . . . .48 26. . . .DRAFT . . . .35 8. Residual fuel oil . . . .30 3. . . . . Industrial1 Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . . . .64 9. . . . .43 24.83 253. . . . . . . . . . . .51 8. Natural gas . . .23 6. .26 23. . . . . . 179. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 27.80 21.21 32. . . . . . Steam coal . .40 30. .22 8. .56 2.21 11.75 25. . .75 285. . .72 7.96 33. Average price to all users10 Liquefied petroleum gases .93 21. . . . . .44 35. . . . . . 1203. . . . . .01 6.24 0.83 856. . . . .24 3.56 24. . . . 1203. . . . . . .58 Transportation . . . .25 33. . 251. . . .58 31.48 27. . .42 30. . . . . .95 1542. .90 11.25 6. . . Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases . . .09 29. . . . .73 34.11 29. .97 26. . . . . . .11 3. .00 10. Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases3 . . . .63 26. . .45 19. .08 28.42 26. .06 31. . . . .46 803. .

. . .01 29.43 29.13 5. .41 36. .  Energy prices by sector and source (continued) Table B3. . . . . .32 41.33 11.45 17. . .41 6. . . . . .53 32. . .22 46. . .78 37. .42 29. . . . . . . . . . . . Electricity . .74 29. . .86 37. .25 20. . . . . . . .19 59. .61 53.47 23. . . .96 20. .08 20. . .07 9. . . . . .20 77.03 26. . .86 51. . . . .03 62. . . .84 2.88 25. . . . .69 23. . . . .98 39. . .77 11. . Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases3 . . .93 37. .21 37. .31 51. . . .39 20. . . . .07 39.59 50.88 25. . . .41 31. . . Steam coal . . .27 29. . Motor gasoline5 .63 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . Distillate fuel oil .00 3. . . . . . . . . . .62 24.36 32. .81 48. . . . . .June 12. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 179 . Electricity . . .15 13.73 21. .15 43.80 21. . .58 29. . .88 40. . . . E854 .40 4.41 12.55 44.47 25.38 34. . . . .42 13. . . . . . . .21 22. . . . . . . . . . . .16 44.76 29.60 50.49 29. . .08 29. . .42 50.49 31. . . . . . .29 33.70 31. .84 42. . . . .93 14. Electricity .41 3.90 2. . .36 32. . . . .95 75.67 25.16 10. . .60 21. . . . . . .89 44. . . . .24 7. .60 24. . . . . . . . .38 32. . . . . . .41 31. .56 26. . . .25 7. . . . . . . . .21 30. .75 29. Distillate fuel oil . . . .43 12. . . .47 41. .51 5. . . . . .97 41. . .14 2. . .37 25.72 38.18 22. .02 39.Economic growth case comparisons Table B3.43 46. . .95 43.36 9. Residual fuel oil . . . . . . Natural gas . . .46 24.52 32.47 1.52 20. . . . .52 1. . . . . . . . . . . .53 24. .73 17. Natural gas2 .59 1. . . . .22 21. .62 31. . . .68 15.43 50. .32 3. . . . Natural gas . . . . . . .59 7. .86 24. .38 11. . .10 7. . . Electric power9 Distillate fuel oil . . .51 69. . . . . . . . . . . . .64 31. .03 49. .91 47. .10 29. .85 28. . . unless otherwise noted) Projections 2025 2035 Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth 33.22 15. . . .34 20. . Coal to liquids . . . .79 63.43 9.31 47. . . . .96 24. . . . . . .57 42. . . . . .11 37.13 26.26 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . .27 25.28 29. . .85 4. Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)7 .12 74.36 20. .93 18.70 44. . .72 50. . . .91 39. . . . 2012 7 U. . . . . .79 55.10 29.77 3. .42 28. . . . . . .S.02 21.19 46. . .73 11.81 45. .75 10. . .08 17. . .56 14. . . . . . . . .72 26. .80 38. . .56 33.69 19. . . .15 42.70 52.42 5.26 7. .93 14. . . . . . . . . .11 43. . . .83 36.61 12. Distillate fuel oil .76 34. . . . . . . .21 11.03 36. .95 46.76 49. .42 24. .19 3. . . . .67 50.93 27.21 32. . . .11 34. .08 33. . . . . . . . . . .20 29.19 33. .82 22. .45 5.82 26. .67 46.73 11. .64 5. .43 30.59 33.76 13.97 20.99 18. .12 2. . .83 18. .22 11. . . .89 34. . . . . . . .05 54. .55 19.32 10. . . . . . Other industrial coal . . . . . .89 5. .71 -19. . . . . . . .15 20. . . . Jet fuel6 .84 39. .28 31. . .51 47.78 3. . .94 39. . . . . . .06 31.56 46. . . . . Metallurgical coal . . . .60 11. . . . . .25 39. .22 7. . .66 24. .27 31. . .54 68. .53 35. .37 47. .94 33.90 19. . . . . . . .11 29.72 37. . . .50 29. . . . .70 16. .34 2. . . . . .03 8. .92 5. .02 40. . . . . . . Industrial1 Liquefied petroleum gases . .12 67. .12 51.78 35. . . . . . . . .00 17. . . .98 37. . . . . . 27.43 43. Electricity .77 5.DRAFT .87 10. . . .55 9. .37 43.78 32. . . . . . .54 25. .17 34. . . . .95 5. . . . Residual fuel oil . . . . . . .48 15. . . .26 71. .29 32. . . . . .91 9. . . . . . . .41 29.13 Residential Liquefied petroleum gases .83 17. . .76 31. . .74 13. . . . . . .15 22. .52 44. .05 40.07 31. . .53 25. . . .78 41. . . . . . . . .37 62.45 4. . . .34 7.14 62. .31 25. .81 4. . Natural gas8 . . . . . . .35 38. . . . . . . .42 4. . .14 54.25 17.97 53.11 3.90 56. . .54 26. . . . . . .69 13. . . . . Natural gas . .70 5.51 34. . . . . Residual fuel oil . .05 68. . . . .84 36.87 7. . . . .78 2. . andunless source (continued) dollars per million otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 (nominal dollars per million Btu. . .66 4. . . .41 38. . Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases .53 42. . . . . .46 32. (nominal Energy prices by sectorBtu. .78 3.37 45. .28 16.59 41. . . . .34 33.78 4.58 48. . . .54 71.28 11. . . .64 3.13 8. . Residual fuel oil . . .90 2. .69 70. . .20 32.

Natural Gas Monthly.58 47.64 2. State and local taxes. .93 10. . . . .60 35. . 2010 coal prices based on: EIA.68 Non-renewable energy expenditures by sector (billion nominal dollars) Residential . . To address cold starting issues. .54 Transportation . .72 1112.97 35. .19 46. to the public.53 25.72 2663. . .01 457. . . .51 3.71 342. . .42 298. . .61 31.June 12. .41 1368. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. .73 13. . .54 1504. . . . . . . . . . . .98 20. . . DC. . DC. DC. . 179. .98 1031.11 Total expenditures . .29 30.27 0.74 29.98 9. Motor gasoline5 . . 5 Sales weighted-average price for all grades. .  Energy prices by sector and source (continued) Table B3. DOE/EIA0130(2011/07) (Washington. . .69 271. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .62 31. . . . . .04 36. . .83 2705. . . . .D022412A. . . . . or electricity and heat. 4 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey and industrial and wellhead prices from the Natural Gas Annual 2009. DOE/EIA-0487(2009) (Washington. . .31 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. Residual fuel oil . distillate fuel oil.15 63. . DOE/EIA0130(2011/07) (Washington. . . .14 Average price to all users10 Liquefied petroleum gases . .93 32.69 18. Other coal .2. 573.S.58 28. . .73 14. (nominal Energy prices by sectorBtu. .73 61.78 31. . . . .75 811.44 47.78 36.17 50.13 4. . . .15 9. .46 6. DC. . . .21 22.70 43.78 801. . .49 1356. .42 43. . . 251. . . .11 259.14 31. . .18 383.74 594. . . . .94 38. . . .45 3. .53 58. .02 39.60 50. 10 Weighted averages of end-use fuel prices are derived from the prices shown in each sector and the corresponding sectoral consumption. .80 39.12 50. .69 336. .04 252.46 6. .89 484. . . . . .47 241. . to the public. .70 Commercial . . . .55 1511. . except those whose primary business is to sell electricity. 1203. . 2012 180 U. . April 2010 and April 2011.24 27. Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. . Excludes use for lease and plant fuel.69 2162.20 3. 1203. . . .11 43. . . June 2011). . Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LM2012. Includes Federal. . . . . October-December 2010.33 14. . .63 1. .67 36.= Not applicable. . . . . and HM2012.03 Industrial .99 484. . . .14 62.96 20. . . . . Btu = British thermal unit.17 5. . July 2011). . . . DC.06 346. . . .52 34. . . . . . . . .92 7. . the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. Projections: EIA. . . .97 41. . . andunless source (continued) dollars per million otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 (nominal dollars per million Btu. .58 1.15 1711.S. . .50 28. 2010 electric power sector distillate and residual fuel oil prices: EIA.82 77. . . .. 6 Kerosene-type jet fuel. Note: Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . .10 2643. DC. DOE/EIA-0214(2009) (Washington. . Annual Energy Review 2010. . . .69 42. . . . . . . .38 32.24 472. . . . 2 3 1 8 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . .26 346.87 3. .49 44.22 42. . .81 20. . . . .02 12. . .72 26. . The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. . .65 10.35 534. .27 0.D020112C.78 46.82 1511. . . . .61 13. . . Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. . . September 2010). . . .08 0.13 68.61 191. Includes estimated motor vehicle fuel taxes and estimated dispensing costs or charges. .90 1030. . . . .08 350.16 5. . .71 189. . . unless otherwise noted) Projections 2025 2035 Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth 24. . . . .87 8. . . Monthly Energy Review. .88 25. . . .85 264. . . . . . .D022412A. . . . . . .51 68. Coal to liquids .41 2145. .72 38. May 2011) and EIA. . . .29 -28. . . .95 7.95 3401. . . DOE/EIA-0035(2011/09) (Washington. . . . . . . .Economic growth case comparisons Table B3. . . .78 2. .62 30. . . .98 235.28 31. . . . .26 38. . . 8 Natural gas used as a vehicle fuel. . .93 Total non-renewable expenditures .21 7. DOE/EIA-0226. .82 7. . .11 57. . . .31 352. 2010 E85 prices derived from monthly prices in the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report. .34 29. . . . . . . Quarterly Coal Report. . . . . .27 16. .42 1968.13 3324.20 Transportation renewable expenditures . . .36 30. . . . . Metallurgical coal . . . 7 Diesel fuel for on-road use.28 25. . . . . . .81 3. .34 6.08 196. . .24 246. Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. .84 2. 198. . . Jet fuel . 2010 electric power sector natural gas prices: EIA.42 4. . .37 1979. . 2010 electricity prices: EIA. .D020112C. October 2011).DRAFT . . . . . . . . . . . State Energy Data Report 2009. 2010 industrial natural gas delivered prices are estimated based on: EIA.19 33. 17.59 16. . . .40 3. . .26 2721.26 71. . . DC. 0. . . . Energy Information Administration (EIA). . .56 1984. August 2010). . .00 2.22 46. and EIA.84 24.30 367.60 1. . . . Electric Power Monthly. . . . .39 31. . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington.06 31. . .08 447. . DC.62 1505. .22 21. . DOE/EIA-0121(2010/4Q) (Washington. . . . . . .31 25. July 2011). . . REF2012. . . December 2010) and the Natural Gas Monthly. . . 9 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . Electricity . . or electricity and heat.89 1503. . Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 9.42 46. . . .41 265.16 1503. .48 6. . Table 4.32 2. . . .92 11. . and jet fuel are based on prices in the U.58 24. . . . Sources: 2010 prices for motor gasoline. . . .61 53. . .95 11.97 31. Natural gas . . . . . .16 20. 2010 residential and commercial natural gas delivered prices: EIA.18 2. . 2010 transportation sector natural gas delivered prices are model results. E854 .35 1977. . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. .41 804.

. . . . . Industrial commodities excluding energy . . . . . . .62 2. .12 2. . .30 5. . .6 64. . . . . Commercial floorspace (billion square feet) .2 181. . Components of real gross domestic product Real consumption . . . Non-manufacturing . . . . . .75 5. .47 6.08 1. .29 2. . . .4 9. . . . . .7 316. . . .196 2. . Employment. .9 9. . .42 2.5 47. .55 4. .50 4. . . . . . . .04 13862 1.54 18217 1. . . . . . . . .74 5. Unit sales of light-duty vehicles (millions) . . .758 3.63 81. Housing starts (millions) . .2 256. . .84 6. . . . .37 2. . . . . . Real government spending .77 6. . .1 309. .69 3.98 5. . . . nonfarm . over age 65 . . .42 5. .8 64. . .4 150. Sources: 2010: IHS Global Insight. . . . . .31 22047 6407 1702 4705 1633 3072 28454 325.89 103.5 11. . .8 157. . . . . . . . Energy intensity (thousand Btu per 2005 dollar of GDP) Delivered energy .53 2. . . .18 7. . . .442 5. .17 3. . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LM2012. Real exports . .9 158. .67 6. . . .24 20602 5838 1578 4260 1595 2664 26440 310. .78 95.3 1. .40 92. . .7 166. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 170. . . Consumer price index (1982-4=1) All-urban . . . . .50 1. . .14 8. . . . . . . . . . . . .79 3.8 9. . .19 100. . Energy commodities and services . . .0 1. . . . Value of shipments (billion 2005 dollars) Service sectors . . . .9 1. . . . Total industrial .62 9.1 11. . .08 3. . .90 6.43 2.63 5. . .D020112C.82 2. .31 3. .2 18.18 7.96 93. .DRAFT . . . . . . .1 139. .31 6.6 77. .8 11. .5 15. nominal) Federal funds rate . . . . . . .27 2. .17 4. . .424 2. . . . 10-year treasury note .10 11224 2.0 1. .56 33430 8692 2407 6285 2034 4251 42122 390. . . .63 2.7 12.59 4. . .78 3. .47 7. . Population and employment (millions) Population with armed forces overseas .02 2. . .66 1. .75 84. .8 304. .12 3. . . . .02 2. . . . .81 4. Employment. .55 GDP = Gross domestic product. Total shipments .3 173. .03 11. .599 3. . . . . . . . . . . . aged 16 and over . .11 10890 1.4 12. . .4 11. . August 2011. . . . . . .06 7.85 5.45 2. Real investment . .16 4. . . . .63 10062 0. . Non-farm labor productivity (1992=1. .61 26671 7109 1885 5224 1781 3443 33780 354.12 35331 9954 2823 7131 2155 4976 45285 398.1 158. . .8 244. . .15 2. . . . .83 4. . . . . .39 3. . . . . . .17 28029 7973 2228 5745 1901 3844 36002 358.39 3. . . . . .677 3. .95 105. . 2012 9 U. . . . . . . .92 2. 13088 9221 1715 2557 1663 2085 5. . .348 2.10 9. . .20 2.58 1.1 178. . . Projections: U. Fuel and power . Btu = British thermal unit.55 6.36 4.3 11. . .9 63.18 2.178 2. . . . .3 40.7 16. . . . . . . . . Non-energy-intensive . . . . .74 22469 6730 1873 4857 1664 3194 29199 326.34 4. . . . . .06 4. . . .June 12. . . . . . . . . . .95 3. . . . . . . .2 257. .1 282.15 17350 1. . (billion Macroeconomic indicators 2005 chain-weighted dollars. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 181 . and HM2012.44 3. . . .86 2. . . . .85 3. .45 7. . . . . . . . . Metals and metal products . . . Price indices GDP chain-type price index (2005=1. . . . . . . . . . . Key indicators for energy demand Real disposable personal income . . . . Key labor indicators Labor force (millions) .50 1.217 2. .10 2.85 2.0 15. . .49 6.46 5. . . . .4 168. . . . . .2 256.3 16. .9 1. . . . . .75 8. . . . manufacturing . . . .36 1. . . . . . . . .20 3.50 1. .36 2. . . .24 3.73 22970 7072 2065 5008 1692 3316 30042 327.47 2.83 0. . Population.22 4. .01 2. . .  Macroeconomic indicators Table B4. .67 2.29 5. . . .22 1. . . .45 2.57 2. . . Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . .43 4. .1 1.54 14286 1.12 1.85 2.2 76.53 3.0 18. .4 160. . .09 5.Economic growth case comparisons Table B4.07 2.96 3.05 14978 2. . .110 2.56 8. .6 1.56 2.18 29342 8737 2554 6183 1971 4212 38079 362.2 11. . . .59 2. . .85 5. . .1 142.4 129. . . . . . .S. . .D022412A.21 5. . . . . . .16 1. .47 3.7 138. . . . Interest rates (percent. . . . unless otherwise noted) Indicators 2010 2015 (billion 2005 chain-weighted dollars.S. . .25 2. . . .35 4.9 186. . . . Real imports . . . . . . .2 154. . . .72 4.85 1. . . . .33 6. .41 2. AA utility bond rate . . . . . . . .36 2. . .22 84. . . . . . Energy-intensive . .31 2. . .04 3.40 84. . . .16 7. . . . . . . . . . . . .0 46. .D022412A. . . . .00) . . .000) . . .38 5. .5 153.47 5. . .6 1. .3 158. . .58 4. . .74 31392 7606 2024 5583 1854 3729 38998 382. . . Wholesale price index (1982=1. . . . .0 78.32 1. . . . Population. . . . Total energy . .7 1. .5 20. .1 16. . . .26 4. .9 17. . . . . . .00) All commodities . Manufacturing . .2 279. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 2. . . . . Unemployment rate (percent) .0 167. . . . Energy Information Administration.7 1. . . . .51 11035 1. .2 47. REF2012. . . Global Insight Industry and Employment models. . . . . .5 285. . . unless otherwise noted) Projections 2025 2035 Low High Low High Low High economic Reference economic economic Reference economic economic Reference economic growth growth growth growth growth growth 14401 10007 2234 2322 2243 2370 14803 10218 2457 2355 2289 2463 15235 10510 2675 2389 2322 2596 17676 11874 2956 2420 3828 3258 19185 12697 3472 2525 4235 3516 20538 13606 3982 2601 4558 3909 21630 14594 3929 2619 5846 5020 24539 16220 4836 2818 6953 5690 27084 17889 5651 2944 7979 6596 Real gross domestic product . . . . . . . .64 3. . . . .22 12.09 19407 2. . .

This page intentionally left blank .

. . .58 26. .05 4.30 8.18 17.95 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 75.22 20.16 0. . . . . . . . .13 2. . . .87 4.34 0. . .54 79. . . .51 2. . . . .22 0. . . . . . . .08 2. . . . . . . . Average end-use19 . . .90 4.81 9. .93 2. .50 20. . . . . . . .02 9. .97 5.29 3.23 37.91 22. . .73 9.48 2. . .17 9.26 3. . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 183 . .28 101.87 0. .76 17. .76 2. .68 89. . .99 6.21 5.2 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . . . .23 3. . Natural gas . and prices 2010 2015 Low oil price 12. .89 Reference High oil price 13. .56 121.10 7.15 9. . .9 62.41 48. .98 4. . unless otherwise noted) Supply.92 2.91 113. . . . . . . . . .31 6.08 2. .38 12. . .82 10. Natural gas7 . .87 39. . . .90 4. . . . . .42 4.52 2.28 3. .48 6. . . . . . . .67 10. . .68 2. .26 2. . .78 22. . .76 -0. . .79 -0. . .40 3.13 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 2.66 0. . . . . . .59 9.36 55.18 2. . . . . . . . . .01 27. . . .57 20. .80 8.69 4.05 2. .66 0.34 24. . .1 200. . Imports Crude oil .90 4. .94 28. . .51 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25 0. . . . . . . . . . .24 107. . . . . .23 41. . . .52 2. . . . . .05 1.44 27.09 45. .75 1. .60 79. . Other renewable energy4 . .21 3. .58 3. . . . . . Other renewable energy4 . . .50 2. .84 0. . . . . . .29 3. . . .14 4. . . . .98 132.63 5. . . . .73 9.0 144.81 1.88 4. . . .29 5. . . . . . .62 2. disposition.29 98. .56 9. . . .18 37. .26 2.89 4.72 26. . at the wellhead17 . . . .03 26. . .60 2. .16 4.87 0. . . .82 80. . . . . . . . . .82 5. .06 1. . . . . . . . .82 10. . . .98 4.06 4. . . .31 26.83 30. . . . . . . . . . . .25 9. . .84 0. . . .86 27. . . Nuclear / uranium2 .08 36. . . Biomass14 . . . .36 6. .90 102. .69 88.88 1. .64 18.71 20.99 4. . .70 9.17 6. . . . .04 6. . .14 2. .01 35.28 101. .7 193. . . . . .07 10.51 2.47 30. . .28 0. .18 3. . .13 12. .95 1. . . . .16 35.49 4. . . . .14 2. . .94 0. . .68 2. . . . .00 1. . .26 21. . . . .43 2.DRAFT . .10 8.68 2. .93 26. .39 4. . .37 6. . . . . . . .80 8. . . . . .81 0. . . . . .38 53.20 22. .81 0. .17 3. . .10 41. Natural gas10 . .68 9. Total .26 3. . . . . . .26 2. . . .04 38. .26 3.65 23. . . . . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum6 .81 3. . Imported crude oil16 . . Other15 . . .08 3. . . .33 0.15 24.57 0. .38 27. . .60 4. . .02 3.40 2. . . . . . . . . Coal13 .82 Low oil price 11.19 0. . . . . . .Appendix C Price case comparisons Table C1.19 0.67 2. . . . Other5 . . . Coal . . .70 25. . . .94 0.05 9. .12 44. . .04 1. . .14 20. .40 24. . . .02 0.52 29. .77 93. . . . . . .93 2. . . . . .18 21.45 2. . .81 0. . . . .68 2. .61 4. . . . . . Coal (dollars per million Btu) at the minemouth18 . . Average electricity (cents per kilowatthour) . . . . . .56 2. . . .98 2.97 3. . .03 36. . . . . .23 2. 2012 1 U. . .45 1. . . . . . . . .90 3. . . . . .81 24. . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . .69 0. . . .30 97. . . . .87 33.S.33 2.24 2.39 9. . . Discrepancy11 . . . . . disposition. . . . . .80 27. . . . . .30 99. . . . .63 47. .5 116. . . .22 3. .01 35. . Biomass3 .82 0. . . . .18 0. .  Total energy supply. . . .73 9. .14 9. . . . .42 9.60 2. . . . . . . .00 29.22 0. . .06 8. . . .98 2.60 2. . . . Total . .43 13. .90 4.42 3. . .62 0. . .28 3. . . . . . . . Natural gas plant liquids .86 21. . .67 16.08 3.68 2. .44 2. . . .69 9. . .18 0.99 4.30 95.99 0. .09 39. . . .66 3.46 3.66 -0.02 20. .23 4. . . .04 9.44 19. .79 3. Dry natural gas . . unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year.87 4. . . .10 179. . .98 7. .46 17. . .46 21. . . . . .93 79. .89 3. . . . . . . . . Total .44 2. .43 23. . . . . . . . .60 2.17 2. .36 187.90 Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 15. . . .87 0. . .52 Low oil price 10. . .89 3. .00 17. . . .25 24. .91 94.41 4. .15 2. . . .52 1.45 9. . . .81 18. Table C1. Hydropower .61 1. . and price summary Total energy supply. .07 24. .55 85.22 12. . .10 2.62 3. .37 5. . .60 2. . . .37 4. . .87 Production Crude oil and lease condensate . . .51 4. .00 5. Natural gas (dollars per thousand cubic feet) at the wellhead17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 9. . .28 0. .73 9. . .51 2. . . . . .73 10. .35 8.34 0. . . . Coal (dollars per ton) at the minemouth18 . .76 8. . Exports Liquid fuels and other petroleum9 . . . . . . . . Coal1 . . . .77 3. . . . .28 104. .99 6. Prices (2010 dollars per unit) Petroleum (dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light crude oil16 . . . . .90 3.8 58.67 22.02 4.93 1. .68 2. . . .60 2. . . . . .84 3. . . .04 11. .99 12.34 2035 Reference High oil price 14. .26 4. . . .16 1.47 6. .04 7. .10 22.94 42.14 5. . .04 5.32 3. . .97 4. . . . . and price summary (quadrillion Btu per year.76 8.12 2. . . .9 59. . . . .24 110. . .60 24. . . . . .93 18. .73 25.07 2. . . .99 0.48 180.93 2. . .5 132. . .73 0.60 4. . .44 2. . . .70 27. .06 -1.02 0. . . . . . . .57 3.01 3. . . . . . . Consumption Liquid fuels and other petroleum12 . . .64 75.24 8. . . Other imports8 .51 9. . . . . . . .65 11. . .42 3. .78 3. . disposition.19 2. .59 2.June 12. . .80 20.91 44. . . . . Nuclear / uranium2 . .61 16.17 3. . .86 26. . .7 182.05 7. .80 23.84 26.84 5. . .27 35. .55 0. . .98 5. .38 9.90 3. .95 4. .64 50. . . .58 5. . .37 4.16 13. .94 10. .88 5. . . .33 24. Hydropower .46 51.08 2.14 2. .24 106. . Natural gas (dollars per million Btu) at Henry hub . . . .30 5.

. 10 Includes re-exported liquefied natural gas and natural gas used for liquefaction at export terminals. and non-electric energy demand from wood. 2010 petroleum supply values: EIA.6 98. Coal (dollars per ton) at the minemouth18 .8 62. Excludes electricity imports using renewable sources and nonmarketed renewable energy. .87 4. . . .97 122.74 3. petroleum products. . . is included.24 45. Petroleum coke.2 125.DRAFT .61 10. . .91 10. . Average electricity (cents per kilowatthour) . 1 79. 2012 184 U. . . 7 Includes imports of liquefied natural gas that is later re-exported. DOE/EIA-0130(2011/07) (Washington. . and export free-alongside-ship (f.4 170.61 1. .93 294.64 4.23 6. Annual Energy Review 2010. Other 2010 values: EIA. . . Form EIA-856. . . . .15 80. 11 Balancing item. . and price summary (continued) Projections 2035 High oil price Low oil price Reference High oil price Prices (nominal dollars per unit) Petroleum (dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light crude oil165 . .81 4. such as corn.62 4.07 4.S.s. 8 Includes coal. . and prices 2010 2015 Low oil price Reference High oil price Low oil price 2025 Reference Table C1.  Total energy supply.14 4. . 19 Prices weighted by consumption. . . 13 Excludes coal converted to coal-based synthetic liquids and natural gas. . . . . DC. . 2 These values represent the energy obtained from uranium when it is used in light water reactors. Btu = British thermal unit. .30 6. . wind. DC.64 54. 12 Includes petroleum-derived fuels and non-petroleum derived fuels. . .a.10 6.48 6. Coal (dollars per million Btu) at the minemouth18 . . . biogenic municipal waste. . 15 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. . . Natural Gas Monthly. . . . . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.51 80. . and net storage withdrawals.56 7. Refer to Table A17 for details.52 7. . .38 9. July 2011).37 228. . . . but excludes the energy content of the liquid fuels. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 6 Includes imports of finished petroleum products. but alternative processes are required to take advantage of it.30 6. . . (quadrillion Total energy supply disposition summary (continued) Btu per year. . .56 2.12 4. 16 Weighted average price delivered to U.Price case comparisons Table C1. . gains. May 2011). Imported crude oil16 . .51 11. alcohols.47 12. . .83 16.0 314. Natural gas (dollars per thousand cubic feet) at the wellhead17 .67 192. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .24 2. at the wellhead17 . . and non-electric energy from renewable sources. Projections: EIA.86 3.13 2.4 195.and unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . .5 245. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. . Refer to Table A17 for detailed renewable liquid fuels consumption. .57 56. unless otherwise noted) Supply. . Sources: 2010 natural gas supply values and natural gas wellhead price: U. .35 4. . Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. . .09 155. . “Monthly Foreign Crude oil Acquisition Report.D022112A. .16 35.20 47.67 10.66 16. . The total energy content of uranium is much larger.16 42.91 3. .81 4. . ethers. . and electricity (net). . . . losses.05 4. . such as ethanol and biodiesel. . 2 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . 4 Includes grid-connected electricity from landfill gas. . methanol. DOE/EIA-0121(2010/4Q) (Washington. and biofuels heat and coproducts used in the production of liquid fuels. . . . DC. . . . . . . . REF2012. DC. Includes unaccounted for supply.D020112C. October 2011). July 2011). non-electric energy from wood. October 2011). See Table A17 for selected nonmarketed residential and commercial renewable energy data. DC.56 12. DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington. . 3 Includes grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste.19 11. . . . .00 11. . . disposition. which is a solid. . . . and net electricity imports. .10 4.” Other 2010 coal values: Quarterly Coal Report. biomass. blending components.39 4. photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. . used for liquid fuels production.33 15. . . . . and HP2012. 2010 low sulfur light crude oil price: EIA.26 10. and some domestic inputs to refineries.52 4. . . .39 75.34 2.67 10. .64 7. . coal coke (net).91 84.88 10.06 4.97 2. . Also included are natural gas plant liquids and crude oil consumed as a fuel.0 Includes waste coal. Average end-use19 . .76 2.57 4. . Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . and biodiesel.76 10. .54 4.01 2. .27 12. .D022112A. 17 Represents lower 48 onshore and offshore supplies. . . . refiners. disposition. 5 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste. . . liquid hydrogen. . .00 4.26 10.55 210. . . and renewable fuels such as ethanol. .51 74.46 57.34 2. .June 12. and coal-based synthetic liquids. .86 2. Annual Energy Review 2010. ethanol. . .42 6.) prices.32 63. . Natural gas (dollars per million Btu) at Henry hub .93 3. . . . .26 9. .S. . such as active and passive solar systems. . . . October-December 2010. . . unfinished oils. . .S. . 14 Includes grid-connected electricity from wood and wood waste. . . Excludes imports of fuel used in nuclear power plants. 18 Includes reported prices for both open market and captive mines. liquid hydrogen.81 59. . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LP2012. weighted average excludes residential and commercial prices. .6 77. 2010 coal minemouth and delivered coal prices: EIA. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.52 2. .9 229. . 9 Includes crude oil.

. .06 0. . . . . . .01 0. . . . . .01 0.43 1. . .50 2. . .73 1. . . . . . . .17 0. .14 0. . .07 0. . .  Energy consumption by sector and source Projections 2025 Reference High oil price Low oil price 2035 Reference High oil price Energy consumption Residential Liquefied petroleum gases .71 9.90 11. . . . . . . .53 8. Biofuels heat and coproducts . . Renewable energy3 .60 -0.06 0. .01 1. . Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power .63 9.07 1. . .16 9. . .00 1. . . . . . . .41 0. . .59 8. .06 2.02 0.63 8. . . . . . . . . .79 3. . .05 0.41 10.56 0.10 -0. .00 0. . . . .11 5. . . . . . .17 0.86 1.81 10. . . . . .28 1.54 8. . .13 7.55 3. unless otherwise noted) (quadrillion Btu per year. . . . .42 0. . . . . . .11 4. . . .06 1. . . . . . . Residual fuel oil . (quadrillion Energy consumption by sector and source Btu per year. . .44 7.81 3.58 23. .00 -0. . . .48 10. .62 3.32 0. .63 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .08 4. . .21 7.19 1. . .77 10. . . .82 9. . .48 0.16 0. . . . .94 6. . . .05 6. 0. . Other industrial coal .10 9. . . . .80 0.06 0.50 20. .04 0. . .19 0. Natural gas . . .51 0. . . .06 0. .63 1.48 0. Renewable energy7 . .65 0.84 30. . . . . .52 24.08 0. . . . . . . . . . .53 7. . Electricity . . .11 5. . . . . . .30 1.55 0. . . . . .01 3.01 0. . .01 3.86 11.90 4. . . .70 9.57 3. .08 1. .28 23. .35 23. . .07 4. .44 23.72 0. . . . . .19 0. .18 0. .06 0. .82 0. .23 0. . .32 29. . . . Residual fuel oil . . . . . . . .48 10. . . . Coal subtotal . . .27 11.23 7.53 0. . . . . .27 36. . . . . .28 1. . . .81 0. . . . . . . . . . .14 1.01 0. . Coal . . . . . . . .00 -0. .01 0.57 1. .28 0.03 1.06 2. .60 1. . .90 1.46 33.16 2.76 3. . . . .11 31.00 1. . . .06 0. . . .37 6. . Petrochemical feedstocks . .05 0. . . . . . . .27 18. . .57 26.55 0. . . .28 2. . .28 0. . .32 4. .18 17. . .54 1. .72 0. .19 9. .35 0.43 1. .74 0.42 0. . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . .09 0.00 1. Electricity . .33 0. .00 0.41 0.17 4. . .11 5. . .01 0. .23 10. .56 0. . . .13 0. . .03 0. . . . .30 1.14 0. . . . . .30 0.40 0. . . .12 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . .74 -0.25 0. Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . . .03 2. . .22 5.49 0. .54 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02 0. . Kerosene . . .58 10. .29 2. . . . .94 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 9. . . . . .29 0.01 0.06 1. .90 0. . . . . . . . Electricity related losses . . . .07 1.89 7. .19 0.13 2. Delivered energy . . . . . . .41 0.01 0.51 0. .61 1. . .01 0. .50 3. . .08 1. . . . . . .07 0.09 32. .43 8. . .02 0. . . . . .29 3. . . Total . . . . .03 7. . Motor gasoline2 . . .62 2.28 0. .55 1.61 0. . . .25 1. .66 10. .61 8. . . .48 5. .21 33. Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases . .13 0.89 7.11 4.48 1. . . . . .34 18.DRAFT . . . . .47 20. .99 4.01 0. . Delivered energy .00 1. . .89 30. .15 0.23 21. . .11 4.08 1.11 0. .76 7. . .01 3. . . .63 1. .38 0.81 1. Distillate fuel oil .59 8.19 9. . . . . . . . . . .05 0. .06 0. . . .93 11. . . . . . . .58 1. . .64 0.58 6.06 0.66 10. .14 0.11 5. .87 4. .71 0. .11 5.82 4.04 0.66 0. . Coal-to-liquids heat and power . .00 1. . .62 3. .52 25.26 0. .13 1.94 30. . .31 9. . . .76 0. . .S.24 0. . . . .07 0. . .00 0.58 0. . .56 1. . .01 0. . .15 0. .43 11.06 0. . . . .33 0. . . .18 0. .65 7.02 0. . . . . . .13 0.96 6.84 1. . . . . .30 1. . . . . . . . . . . .30 1.43 0.43 5. . . .57 7. . .62 0. .56 0.00 1. .47 5. . .69 0. .57 8. . . . . . . .29 1.07 1.30 3. . . . . .95 4. .09 1.32 0. . . . . .17 0. .61 3.12 0.36 5. . . Renewable energy1 . . .98 0.78 11.06 0.06 0. . .98 11. . . Total . .51 26. .20 11. . .49 1.06 0.50 0.49 1.27 1.98 0.22 0. . .91 11.88 0.02 4. .35 0.01 0.44 1. . . . . .84 2. .12 -0. . . .51 1.28 11. .25 0. . .85 6.29 0. . . .08 0. .56 3.19 0.21 19. . .24 9. . . .33 26.00 1. . .08 0.02 0.06 0.07 1. . .89 0. . .63 3. . . .01 1. . .28 1. . .00 0. .01 0. . .14 0.87 3.42 4. . . . . . . .67 1. . .55 1.71 11. . .24 0.83 0.82 8. Kerosene .57 8. .88 0. . . . .31 1.02 0. . Other petroleum5 . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 185 .08 0.49 1. .54 0.40 27. Coal .97 0. . . .60 0.11 5.55 0.03 1. . .83 11.00 1.75 3. .78 0. . . . . . . .41 21. . . . .95 3. . . .75 11.02 7.36 -0. . . . Lease and plant fuel6 . 2012 3 U.90 3. .06 0. .62 3.Price case comparisons Table C2.89 1. . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 Low oil price Reference High oil price Low oil price Table C2.39 22. .43 4. .57 1.43 5.81 0. . .39 0. .08 0. . . . . . . .93 0. . . . . .03 0. . . Electricity related losses . .01 1. .03 0. . .00 -0. .86 2. .51 0.80 10. .48 4. . . . . .86 0. . .59 0. .01 0.10 -0.76 6.38 19. . . . . .12 0. . . . . .85 1. . . .14 0.23 11.00 0. . . . .01 0. . Distillate fuel oil . . .24 0.09 1. .76 0. Net coal coke imports .72 3. .14 9.69 0.June 12. . . . . . . .00 0. Industrial4 Liquefied petroleum gases .68 33. . . .60 0.37 4. .96 9. . Delivered energy . . . . .95 11. . . . . . .51 10. . . . Electricity . . .40 23.35 5. . . .90 21. .06 0. .56 0.12 1. . . . .21 0. .22 2.09 2.03 0. .10 3.68 20. .05 0. . . . . . . .82 3. . . .00 1. .06 0. . . . Total . .42 8. . . . . . . . . . .34 21. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . .18 0. . . .90 0. .52 22. . .70 9.30 0.41 0. . . . . . Metallurgical coal . . . . . . . . .32 1. .18 0. .11 8.59 0.83 7. .01 0. . . . . .39 7. . . .19 8.40 7.99 0. .05 0.02 0. . . .66 22. . . .05 0.30 3. . .16 0.08 0. . Natural gas . . .14 6. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . .06 4. . . .16 0. . . . . . . . .11 4. . . . .58 20.02 22. . .21 3. . . .06 0. . . . .02 0.52 18.16 0. . .32 0. . . . .14 0. . Electricity related losses . Motor gasoline2 . . . .82 0. .99 2.37 8. Natural gas subtotal . . .41 0. Natural gas .98 33. . . . . .02 0. .03 0. .44 8. . . .43 0. . .00 -0. . .83 7. . . . . .

.15 0.01 3.04 0.56 3.82 3. . . . Electricity imports . Electricity . . . .88 0.08 0.49 1. . unless otherwise noted) (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year. .83 0.09 0. .69 0.09 0. . . . . .41 9.11 0. . . . . . . . Net coal coke imports . .16 1. .06 26. . .81 71. . .79 71.18 0. . . . .00 12. . .55 1. .11 1. .44 0.00 0.08 1. .98 0. .10 31. . .09 0. . .43 0. . . .00 0. . . . . .17 27.03 2. .05 27.00 0. . . . . . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . .28 6. . . . . .68 17. .27 41. . . Jet fuel9 . .68 17. .08 0. .39 35. Total .21 0. .07 1. . . . . . .56 1. . . . . .57 3.03 2. . .69 18.11 0.99 1. .36 7. . . .65 0.99 0. . . .25 3. . . . . . Natural gas subtotal .03 9.17 25.59 0. . . .04 27.56 0. . . .75 29. . . . . . . .17 28. . . . . . . .02 15.00 0. . . . . . . . .93 0.43 0.30 15.00 -0.27 2.69 18. Total17 . . .75 2.69 18. Pipeline fuel natural gas . . . .69 1. . . . . .57 0. . . .06 2.20 18. . . . . .03 8. . . . Biofuels heat and coproducts . . . . . . . . .17 0. .00 14.90 3. .Price case comparisons Table C2.  Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) Table C2. . . . .67 Low oil price 0. . . .96 0. . Nuclear / uranium15 .54 0. . . . . .09 0. . . . Jet fuel9 .00 0. .44 104.54 19. . .76 110. .69 Sector and source Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases . .02 3. .57 2. .44 1.16 2. . .91 0.71 0. . . .00 0.02 79. .03 1. . . .13 3. . .03 28. . . . .55 0. . . .07 29. .05 1. . . . . Natural gas .00 1. . . .36 37. .52 1. .27 0.31 8. .05 2. Metallurgical coal . . .67 18.11 0. .34 0.66 17. . . . . . .12 18. . .30 3.12 -0. . .00 13.00 0. Delivered energy .64 0.08 0. . . . . . . . . . Distillate fuel oil10 . .55 95. .32 7.67 0.00 12. .33 7. . .04 43.09 0. .47 28. .48 3. Residual fuel oil . . . . . . . .84 2. . .71 0.37 15. .04 7. . . . . . . .48 28.15 0. . . . . .12 26.63 0. . . . .01 16.00 17. .85 0. . .45 9.04 9. . .32 9.29 1. .26 2. Coal subtotal .43 15.26 6. . . . . . . . . .00 16.00 12.17 30. . .67 1. .03 0. . . .01 1. . . . .15 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .01 3. .33 0. . . . . . . Renewable energy13 . . . . . .61 0. .22 0.22 0. . . . . . .72 0. .04 0. . . . .21 0.55 16.21 3.90 0.04 0. .08 0.08 42.35 3.96 73. . . . . .05 28. .06 0. . . .03 29.68 0. . . . .62 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .79 2.48 1. . . . .00 -0. .74 -0. . . . .20 0. . . .92 28. . .19 0.37 14.16 19. .03 1. . .19 99.01 1. . . Compressed / liquefied natural gas .15 0. . . .61 36. .71 70. . .06 26. . . .49 12. .17 28.10 39.68 4.82 0. . .10 0.86 0. . . . .99 1.45 0. . .22 0.19 7. . .97 18. . . . . . . . . .43 1.09 0. .09 1. . . . . . . .07 101. . . . .32 0. .24 1. .08 41.S. . . .03 9.07 0.87 15. . .20 27. . .06 77. . . . . .09 0.00 1. .42 15. . . .22 0. . . .03 9. .14 0.23 0. . .32 4. . .17 26. . Residual fuel oil .65 17.93 0. . .17 26. . . E858 . 0. . . .67 17. Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . . . . . . . . . . . .07 28. . . . .09 39. . . . . . .04 6. Renewable energy16 .08 0. . . .00 13. . . . .69 17. . .60 5. . . . .67 0. . . . .11 27. . .03 0.60 5. . .21 0. . .59 25.33 0. .32 9. .96 1.03 9. .66 8.14 28. . . . .92 Reference High oil price 0.70 3.19 1. . . . . .94 0. .08 0. . . . . . . . .08 42. .00 0. . . .00 15. . . . . .94 0. . (quadrillion Energy consumption by sector and source Btu per year. .23 0.66 0. . .04 0. . . .57 0.24 2. .06 1. . . . . . . . .57 0. . . . . .25 16. .June 12. . . .04 0. . . .16 0. .98 39. .67 0.05 0. .38 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 2035 Reference High oil price 0.84 98. . .68 8. . . . .35 15.60 0.62 0. . .36 -0.26 25.63 0.00 0. . .01 17.65 9.69 0.42 0. . . . . . . . . .00 35. . . . .64 2.94 0. . . . . . .46 0. . . . . . . . .13 2. .16 0. .79 0. . . . . .20 17. .05 0.41 4 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . .81 2. . .22 14. . . . Delivered energy . . . . . . .17 26.08 1.84 97. .34 7. .58 1.60 0. . . .40 0. . .08 0. Motor gasoline2 . . .16 80. .27 Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 0. . . .81 0. . .39 3. Lease and plant fuel6 . . . .86 0. . . .63 2. .89 0. . . . Kerosene . . . .81 0.09 0. Pipeline natural gas . . .90 0. Petrochemical feedstocks .06 9.07 5. . . . . . . . .74 1. .09 0. .10 38.03 0.01 0.87 27. . .00 -0. .63 2. . . . . . . .99 2.02 27. . . . .00 1. .58 0. . . . .75 0. .65 101. .44 0. . . . .44 3. . .87 0. . . .63 12.22 16. . . .42 9. . . .52 Low oil price 0. . .05 3. . .07 0.04 0. .11 0. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal .13 8. . . . . . . . . .01 1. .45 0. . . .43 0. .03 26.91 0. . . .DRAFT .10 -0.11 0. . Liquid hydrogen .03 0. .68 0.03 8. .01 6. .03 27. . .50 9. . .05 0. .98 38. .28 3. .49 0. .34 0.07 76.21 1.86 2. . . . .53 3.71 26. .85 0.50 0.68 4. . . . .18 7. . . . . . .76 36. .03 19. . .79 1. . .01 16. . . .18 106. .05 31. .96 0. .42 6. .67 0.75 0.88 3.30 8. . Residual fuel oil . . .04 0.01 3.02 17. . . .51 0. . .43 1. . Motor gasoline2 . . .17 3.37 0. . . . .63 0. .59 0. . .05 1. . .03 8. .29 3.60 1. . . .17 25.60 -0. .46 3. . . . .04 44. Distillate fuel oil . . . .02 1. . . . Other coal . .02 17. . . .22 14. .49 1. . . .83 0. . .65 0.39 107. .40 0. . . . .85 2. . . .10 -0. . . . . .86 1. . . . . . . . . Other petroleum11 . .37 0.23 3. .34 0. . . . . .06 1. . .00 15. .02 0. .17 26.55 0.01 1. .75 0. . . . . .00 15. .20 0.64 0.65 0. Electricity related losses . . . . . . . Electricity related losses . . . .85 3.30 0. . . . .29 8. unless otherwise noted) 2010 2015 Low oil price 0. Liquid hydrogen .60 5. . . .69 0. .91 2. .00 1. . . . . .00 1. .12 2.30 0. . . .00 1. . . . . .63 11.49 0.94 0. . .94 3. . .91 0. . . . 2012 186 U.04 0. . . .57 1.36 0. . . . .68 0.36 1. . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . . . .60 0. . . .00 1.94 73. Delivered energy consumption for all sectors Liquefied petroleum gases .96 3. E858 .50 2. . . . . . . . Other petroleum12 .30 3. . . .32 26. . . . . . .19 2.93 0. . .92 0.00 1. .14 0. . .91 3. .09 0.08 27.44 15. .00 0. . . . . . . . .14 17. . . Steam coal . . .29 3. . . . .28 3. .80 0.82 0. . .34 0. .73 2. .58 29. .00 -0.08 0. . . . .91 73.10 38. .04 9.07 0. .07 1. . Total . . .06 4.38 7. . . .68 4. .62 0. Natural gas . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . .06 0. .37 15. .03 6. . . Electricity . Electric power14 Distillate fuel oil . .28 15.00 1.06 1. .05 27.20 7. . . .29 8. .24 0. .04 9. .49 12. . .30 14.31 8. .27 36.69 0. .44 0. . .45 0.15 8. . .05 34.04 18. .40 0. .01 17. .53 0. Coal-to-liquids heat and power .73 16.04 44.11 0. .22 0.77 0.52 0. . .63 0. . . . . . . . .00 12. .69 1. . . . . .

. . . . photovoltaic.05 3. . .08 101.38 1.00 0.11 0. .43 71. Biofuels heat and coproducts . . . .43 20.36 326. .04 110. . . .00 1. . . . .93 77. . The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. . .21 3. . . . .43 0. . .21 0. . . . .39 9.78 1. . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LP2012. Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . . .63 0.55 1.76 8. . .24 0. . . .30 326. .34 80. .04 0.D022112A.92 101.03 8. . . . and non-electric energy from renewable sources.30 8.22 326. . Coal subtotal . . . . . .00 0. . 8 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable).06 21.04 106. . .05 9.39 3.60 1.87 79.15 390.60 0. . . . . .89 0. . road oil. to the public.00 -0. asphalt. . .57 2. .15 9. . .42 1.60 1. . . . . .04 9.9 Table C2. Excludes ethanol blends (15 percent or less) in motor gasoline. . .D020112C. . . . .28 2. . . .37 0. .09 24703 5737. . . .10 99. .5 2. Nuclear / uranium15 .road use. petroleum coke.30 3. .33 0.9 1 Includes wood used for residential heating. still gas. . . .00 0.2 Low oil price 2. .44 0. .82 70.89 1. . .16 14990 5592.93 0. . .10 1. . .90 76. . DC. . .Price case comparisons Table C2. . . .86 24. Energy use and related statistics Delivered energy use .52 0.48 107. . . .and off. . . . Excludes ethanol.S. . Natural gas . . . . . . .29 3. . . The total energy content of uranium is much larger. . . . . .03 20. .18 0. 6 Represents natural gas used in well.16 71. 7 Includes consumption of energy produced from hydroelectric. .01 0. .26 95.D022112A. . . . . .01 3. . .99 73.05 0.69 9. . .17 3.02 17. Annual Energy Review 2010.87 2.52 2. other biomass. . . . . and nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps. .25 22.46 3. . . .31 24.63 8. . .49 12. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.  Energy consumption by sector and source (continued) Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 2.07 0. . . . wood and wood waste. . . .16 14666 5251.36 -0. . . . . . . .22 14.56 16.09 24596 6049. and in natural gas processing plant machinery.91 0. . .82 3. 12 Includes unfinished oils. . . Other petroleum12 . and other biomass sources. . buildings photovoltaic systems. .60 1.55 20.00 0.98 0. . .41 0. Metallurgical coal . . . . . . .38 1. . .03 20. Monthly Energy Review. .69 27. . .05 35. .33 1. the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. .65 0. . . . . . . . .63 12.78 1. . . . .17 0. . . lubricants. wind. .08 101.00 1. . .00 0. but alternative processes are required to take advantage of it. photovoltaic. .67 26.04 8. Excludes ethanol and nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps. .03 9. . . . .00 17. Includes commercial sector consumption of wood and wood waste. . . .31 1. .8 Low oil price 3.01 17. . . . . . . geothermal. . . .DRAFT . .02 0. . .29 1.03 9. . . .93 0.00 1. .47 104. E858 . . Petrochemical feedstocks . . . . (quadrillion Energy consumption by sector and source Btu per year. and solar thermal water heaters.06 19380 5450. except those whose primary business is to sell electricity.18 0. .16 0.20 0. . and solar thermal sources. . . . .89 73. . .88 3.06 21. . .01 17. . still gas. . .18 0.14 0. . municipal waste. . . . . .68 0.73 23. . . . See Table A4 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps. . . REF2012. .00 0.02 9. . . . . . 2010 population and gross domestic product: IHS Global Insight Industry and Employment models. . Natural-gas-to-liquids heat and power . 4 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. .30 3. . . .20 0. .07 1. .71 99. . . . 2012 5 U.05 0. motor gasoline blending components. . and solar thermal sources. . . . .34 0. . . and miscellaneous petroleum products.66 25. .30 15. . . . . . biogenic municipal waste. . . . Includes small power producers and exempt wholesale generators.69 0.00 0.34 1. 18 Includes conventional hydroelectric. . .84 5. . .77 0. . 13 Includes electricity generated for sale to the grid and for own use from renewable sources.74 -0.57 8. 2010 carbon dioxide emissions: EIA. .16 1.61 0. . .26 0.36 37.03 8.88 0. . . . .37 15. . . .01 20. municipal waste. Other coal . . .56 0. Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal . . . 15 These values represent the energy obtained from uranium when it is used in light water reactors. . . . . . . . .46 1. .71 0. other biomass.57 0.04 107. .01 16.35 8.11 0.07 1. .00 1. .10 97. . .45 1. . .82 1. . .75 106. . .85 7. . or electricity and heat.06 22. .65 24. . . . . . . Renewable energy18 .19 0.25 3.09 98. . . . . . . .00 18. 3 Excludes ethanol. wood and wood waste. . Jet fuel9 . To address cold starting issues.00 1.00 -0. .43 1. .1 Total energy consumption Liquefied petroleum gases . . .01 3.00 -0. .86 0.59 97. .60 0. . . .70 23. and miscellaneous petroleum products. . .57 0. .79 1.70 24. .72 23.68 0. Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .06 19185 5552. . .28 3. . . .S. . August 2011. .54 0.18 0. 10 Diesel fuel for on.44 0.83 13088 5633. road oil.80 390.86 0. .51 0.89 0. . .34 1. .01 17. . . .63 0. or electricity and heat. . . . . Net coal coke imports . . .76 37. October 2011). . .16 14803 5407.75 0.55 358. . .67 26. landfill gas.00 1. . . .69 26. . . .11 310. . .20 18. Excludes net electricity imports. . .94 3. DC.58 110. 14 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . .29 3.00 35. .98 38. biogenic municipal waste. . . Pipeline natural gas . . Natural gas subtotal . .48 19.00 1. .49 18. . .00 0. .00 0. . .00 0. .10 -0.98 39. .04 9.90 1. . aviation gasoline. . geothermal. wind.80 1.52 73. . . .46 0. . . . and HP2012. . . and solar thermal water heaters.27 36.84 0. . . . .27 41.00 0. . .73 7. .03 0. Sources: 2010 consumption based on: U.60 -0. . .8 Reference High oil price 2. . . . .10 95. and lease operations. .35 3. .19 8. 2 Includes ethanol (blends of 15 percent or less) and ethers blended into gasoline. . . . and electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaic sources. . . . . unless otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 Low oil price 2. .49 19.39 35. . . .31 1.10 -0. . . buildings photovoltaic systems. Coal-to-liquids heat and power . . . 17 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste not included above. . . . . October 2011).43 19.12 -0.1 2035 Reference High oil price 2.80 8. .68 26. . to the public. net electricity imports. . . . .99 1. 9 Includes only kerosene type. .32 0.60 1. . .28 1. . .44 20. unless otherwise noted) (continued) (quadrillion Btu per year. natural gasoline. . . . .53 0. . . .69 27. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 187 .27 8. .2 2. . . . .68 25. .03 20. .56 358.77 390. . . .20 0. .74 0. . . . .81 7. .86 1.57 17. .58 23. . . Energy Information Administration (EIA). Total energy use .00 -0. . . .87 101.00 1. .03 9. . lubricants.03 9. . Residual fuel oil .09 24539 5757. . .42 0. . .07 1. . . . . 11 Includes aviation gasoline and lubricants. . . . . . Gross domestic product (billion 2005 dollars) Carbon dioxide emissions (million metric tons) 2.07 1. . . .86 25. .99 8. . 5 Includes petroleum coke. .17 9. . . 16 Includes conventional hydroelectric.58 17.03 24. . .93 2. . .86 7. . . . .32 98. See Table A5 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for solar thermal water heating and electricity generation from wind and solar photovoltaic sources. field. .69 26. . . . . . Projections: EIA. . . . . . . .27 1. Electricity imports . Kerosene . Ethanol consumed in motor gasoline and E85 Population (millions) . . .61 36. Distillate fuel oil . asphalt.71 0. Lease and plant fuel6 .67 0. . .06 19146 5770. .26 3.71 0. .01 3. and other biomass for combined heat and power.14 358.08 104. Motor gasoline2 . . . . . . . . . . wood and wood waste.94 0.57 3.79 2. . . . . . . . . . . . Liquid hydrogen .80 0. .6 2. .June 12. solar thermal water heating. .10 1. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . Btu = British thermal unit. .32 4.04 9. . . Total . October 2011 DOE/EIA-0035(2011/10) (Washington. .68 0.

56 Non-renewable energy expenditures by sector (billion 2010 dollars) Residential .54 1073. 27. . . .01 42. .58 23. . . Natural gas .62 36. .28 16. Natural gas8 . . .21 22. . .02 1265.34 13. . . .01 6.39 8. .03 193. . . . . Natural gas . . .35 3. .20 7. . . . . . . .63 26.61 24. . . . . .03 29. .30 5. Natural gas .92 Residential Liquefied petroleum gases . .06 13. . . . .39 6. . .93 43. .09 36. . . . . .43 24. . . . .14 2. . . .80 8.72 256.55 10.00 34. .82 6. . .57 41.31 7. . . .22 21.95 14. . . . .73 2. . Electricity . . . .00 13.18 9. . .88 279.26 23. . 2012 188 U. .S. . . .95 16. . . . . . . . .95 9.90 11. Jet fuel6 . . . . . . .49 13. .16 7. .26 33.51 6. .87 Reference High oil price 39. . .04 30. .20 4. .60 29. .25 14. 179. . .99 7.40 246. . .47 32. Motor gasoline5 . . . . Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)7 . . . .45 9. . . . . . .27 1. .85 2.03 34. . . . . .82 27.02 19. .53 25. . . .59 18. . .63 9. . . . .40 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 22.88 Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 40.10 26.97 34. . .19 12.02 21. .74 4. . .53 12. . . . .90 282. . .82 7.17 6. . .80 17.38 29. .02 12. .22 803. . .21 4.48 32. . . . . . . .01 29.70 16. . . .26 29.86 18. Metallurgical coal . .71 1708.36 35. . . . . . . . . . . . .29 3. . . . . . . . .86 14. . .43 6. . . .59 16. Residual fuel oil .89 39. . . .35 2. . .02 27. . . . . . . . . .31 20. . .08 4. . . . . . . . . . . .52 8. . 0.94 (2010 dollars per million Btu. . . . . . .52 28. . . Distillate fuel oil . .54 9. .86 18. . . . . .14 Low oil price 23.03 27. . . . . . . .52 976.86 35.60 2. . .04 39.49 298.68 32. . . .69 Total expenditures .88 7. . . . . .90 11. . . .69 23. . . . .77 255.85 2. . .74 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 2.96 746. . . . . .38 1. 251.52 20.14 35.52 2.76 14. E854 . . . . .62 17. . . . . . . . . .10 26.50 22.04 2. . . . . . . . . . . .64 32.53 1. .22 29. . . .26 20. . .21 2. . . .38 20. .19 9. . . . .13 31. . . .02 29. . .68 27. .24 10. . . . . . .62 13. . .07 223. . .54 16. .18 8.42 13.40 30. Distillate fuel oil . . . . .31 1268.99 8. .29 31. .84 2. Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases3 .73 21. . . . . .51 33.30 9.78 35.15 1542.26 23.22 9. .26 40.89 39. .70 7. . . . .98 28.17 18. .92 313. . . .67 13. . . .56 29.74 26. .93 43. . .66 36. . .64 12. . . . . Electricity . . . .62 1073. .61 1732. .87 19. . . . . .56 15.11 41. .52 16. . . .69 236. . . . . . . .96 41. . . . . .24 27. . .63 177.89 208.18 17. . . . . .59 2. . . . .32 10. . . . . .60 30.23 537.36 28.15 8. . . . . .45 30. .80 26. . .72 7. .91 12. . .June 12. . . Coal to liquids . . . . .42 39. .62 17. . .89 39. . . . .22 34. . .23 3.31 323. . .38 225. . . .32 28.37 13. .31 34. . . .99 8. . .32 38.08 28.38 2. .00 29.84 41. . .38 289. . .93 29.01 0. . . . .64 29. .54 24. .16 18. .42 23. . . .14 8. . . . . . . .67 201. . . . . . . . . . . .59 2. .66 29.88 25. .28 30.60 36.06 19.46 13. . . . . . .31 266. .60 5. . .30 15.87 10. . .15 12. . .88 7.09 35.23 12.29 10. .43 41. .32 10. .97 26. . Residual fuel oil . . .21 11.73 37. . . . .61 29. .74 31. . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .81 32. . . . . . . . . Electricity .76 1534. .32 30. .09 194. .08 0. . . . .80 18. . . .78 7. . . .67 491.86 2.23 3. Jet fuel . . .61 2. . . . . . .20 19. .51 4. .11 3.96 18.77 23.31 2035 Reference High oil price 42. .08 19. . . . . . .98 235. . . .17 27. .63 31. . . . . . Distillate fuel oil .00 14.01 42.59 7. . .65 958. .90 Industrial .37 19. . .90 17. Motor gasoline5 . Average price to all users10 Liquefied petroleum gases .69 38. . . .47 17. . . . . . . 1203. .61 856.54 9. . . . .18 18. .32 16.85 3. .60 33.54 Transportation . . . .26 37. . .68 9. . . . .18 0. . .71 39. Other coal . . . . . .97 43.40 231. . .56 1134.26 29. . .77 16. . .00 4.86 3. .54 12. . . . . . . . . .91 21.96 33. . . . . .37 12. . . . .25 1395. .73 13. .16 18.89 28. . . . . . . . . .64 20.51 5. . Industrial1 Liquefied petroleum gases . . .58 31.28 1. unless otherwise noted) Low oil price 22. .06 2. . . . . .24 36. . .16 9. Coal to liquids . .24 Commercial .96 33.03 40. . . . . . .26 17. . .56 18. . .38 9. . . .23 38. . . . 198. . . . .11 3. . .11 41. .65 7. .29 -28. . .75 275. . . . 1203.39 2.63 29. . . .77 11. . . . . . .46 2.21 7. .91 31. .68 30. . . . . . . .78 489. . . . . .43 7. . . . . . . . . .81 21. . . . .05 34. . .08 33. .22 3.and unless otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 Low oil price 22. . . . .38 2. . .38 34.53 21. . . . .26 38. Electric power9 Distillate fuel oil . . . . . .98 175.24 2. .38 28.54 34. .26 10.55 261.03 29. . . . . (2010 Energy prices by sector source dollars per million Btu. .98 16.02 34. . . . . . . . .96 33. .25 9. . . .58 2. .06 1395.45 29. .41 33. .04 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 14.65 10. . . .89 5. . .Price case comparisons Table C3. . .45 7. . . . .49 18. . .14 35. . . .41 1. . . . . . . . . . . .64 2. . .35 25. .13 32. . . .30 29. . . . . .12 30.12 5. . . . Electricity . . .20 39. .45 30. . . . . . . . 573. Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases . .27 11. . . . .65 38. . . .32 19. . . . . . . . . . .40 20. . .36 7. . . . . . . . . Natural gas2 . .22 21. . . . Metallurgical coal . .92 184. . .18 18.71 38. Other industrial coal .97 7. .91 5. . . . . . .28 25.82 30. . . . . . .81 32. . .64 29. . . Distillate fuel oil .26 28.19 28. . .32 12. . . .86 2. . . .66 6 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . .24 33. .58 1135.53 12.22 14.18 18. . . E854 . . . . .22 21.80 21. Natural gas . . .56 33. .07 9. . . . .59 29. . . . . .59 27. . . . . . . .01 8. .64 18. .66 29. . . .DRAFT . . . . . . .26 13. . . .74 8.86 102. .08 28. . . . .  Energy prices by sector and source Table C3. .98 34.70 27.11 2. . . . .11 23. .99 29. . . . .35 22. . . . .89 39.97 Transportation renewable expenditures . .38 32.30 35. . . . . . .50 9. Residual fuel oil . . . . .16 5.11 11. . .26 18. . Residual fuel oil .26 19.99 18. .71 -19. . . .81 1835. .26 35. . . . . .74 27. .96 19. . . . . Residual fuel oil . . . . .42 20.22 2. . .18 29.87 34.84 998. . .24 3. .11 1.20 32. . .10 29. Electricity .92 5. . Steam coal . . . . .30 17. .56 11. . . .23 6. . . . . .00 38. . .03 212. .39 1669. .47 34. .18 2.49 29.20 12. .72 304. . . . . .61 7. .49 13. .66 1821.30 Total non-renewable expenditures . . .61 29. . .74 62.33 13. . . . . . .04 3. .80 25. . . . . . . . . .08 1773. .18 2. . . .59 18.98 14.09 36. . . .54 2.05 30. . .11 2.36 1718. . . . . .08 171. . .84 2.04 3. .73 11. . .04 34. .26 35. . . . . . . . . . . .26 8. . . . . .52 1924.16 34.27 30. . .

Natural gas .13 2.90 43.31 29.98 40.37 13. .04 5. . . .90 56. . Residual fuel oil . .06 4. .68 19.86 39. .21 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 23. Electricity . .49 7.04 Table C3. .18 18. . .22 21. .28 15. . . . .27 29. . . .14 54. .DRAFT . . .27 22.10 29. . .27 29. . . . . . Electricity .30 37. .21 37. .69 19. Residual fuel oil . .43 43. .40 32.80 10. . . . .97 41. . 2012 7 U.14 7. .26 19.99 25. . . .13 12. . .38 11. . . . . . . . .61 11. .99 62. .02 40. .86 24. . . .67 15. . . . .38 32. .22 16. .36 9. . . . Steam coal . . .61 10. unless otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 Low oil price 24. andunless source (continued) dollars per otherwise noted) (nominal dollars per million Btu. . . . Electricity . . .31 52. .00 36. . . . . .60 14. .43 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . .57 43. .86 25.43 9. . .03 26. .76 34. .94 18.02 21.87 22. . . . . . .09 37.54 53. . . .14 32. .38 34. .41 12.77 11.81 11. . . .65 41.53 48. .68 39. . . . . .78 3.48 15. . . . Electric power9 Distillate fuel oil . . . Metallurgical coal .34 2. . . . . . .52 20.80 11. . .66 20. .46 32.98 14. .69 37. . . . . . . . .73 21. .23 4.06 36. Jet fuel6 . . . . . . .02 60. . . 27.54 22. . .17 30. .28 29. . Coal to liquids . .88 2.77 57. .47 23. .56 46.05 40.26 7. . . . . Natural gas8 . . . . .21 37.24 7. . .41 38. .59 7. . . . .86 37. . .14 2. .83 17. . . . . .71 -19. .80 21. .93 22. .78 4.48 46.97 6. . . .92 14.57 3. . .68 15.17 54. . . . . .69 12. .06 46. Motor gasoline5 .23 31. . Other industrial coal . .  Energy prices by sector and source (continued) Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 51.93 27. . . . . . Electricity . .26 4. Residual fuel oil .59 50.10 54.88 25. . . . .30 13. . . . .54 25.12 51. . . . .77 3. . . .72 Residential Liquefied petroleum gases . . . .70 16. .39 57. .94 39. . . . . . .59 10. . . . . . . .73 11. . . .75 54.94 13. . . . . . . . .43 46. . . . .58 32. .15 42. . (nominal Energy prices bymillion sectorBtu.25 54. .73 8.42 20.80 14.15 44.07 62.25 19. . . . . . . . . E854 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 50.76 49.17 34. .19 3. . .63 1. . .51 5.68 16. . . .53 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Low oil price 37.45 17. . . .04 45. .77 11.51 35.25 29.86 21. .41 31. . . . . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 189 . . . .Price case comparisons Table C3. .18 13. . . . . . . . . Commercial Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . .58 29. . . . . . .89 22. . Industrial1 Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . .51 34.72 37.46 25. .70 18.46 12.46 28.June 12. . . .07 31. .38 4.61 53.06 2035 Reference High oil price 66. . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 3. . . .42 13.38 11. . . . .24 7.95 44.32 10. . . .29 46. . . .55 19. . .00 41. . . .26 17. . . .87 10. . . .28 11. . .36 32.97 53. . . . . .56 26. . . Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases3 .16 57. .67 50. .25 17. . . . . . . .77 37. . .90 3. . . . . .27 26.70 5. . . . . . . .11 37. . . . . .31 66.29 33. .73 11.13 30. .91 65.25 46. . . . . . . .75 15. . . . . . . . . . .95 46. .08 20. . . . . .73 18. . . .53 24. . . . .21 22. . . .20 29. . .20 32. . . . .93 18.74 13.67 25. . . . . . . . . . . . .07 4.90 2. . .99 36. .84 2.96 67. . .77 7.66 61. . . . . .32 15. . . . .69 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 33. .89 41. . . .39 Reference High oil price 42. . . .32 43. . . . . .86 51. .53 41. . . .27 31. . . . . .35 1. . . . . . . Natural gas . .28 16.11 11.01 55. . . . .87 30.06 37. .80 2.75 10. .78 32.61 52. . . . Distillate fuel oil . .32 22.14 11.40 4. . .92 5.08 33. . . . .93 14. . . . . . .87 9. . . . .52 32. . .69 23.50 17.89 5. . .59 7. . . . . .36 20. . . . . .27 3. .51 50.74 40. . . .41 32. . . . . . . .66 23. . . . . . . .43 24. . . . .74 21. . .44 9. . . Residual fuel oil . . . . . . Distillate fuel oil . .63 10. .18 24. .63 24.51 6. . .86 41.26 33. . . . . .15 54. . . . . . .06 38. .27 49.65 Low oil price 28. . . .05 47. . .55 44.28 31.78 55.25 44. . . . .06 4. .86 45.18 22. . . . .42 5. . Natural gas . . .23 5.S. . . .45 5. .83 36.87 21. Natural gas2 . . . .07 9.50 7. .46 2. . . .59 19. . .09 3. . .50 36. . . . .52 1.99 18.08 29.63 26.42 4.92 12. .22 46.22 32. . Distillate fuel oil . Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)7 . . . . . .82 22. . . . . . .45 4. . . . .

. . August 2010). DC.16 5.47 2.80 Non-renewable energy expenditures by sector (billion nominal dollars) Residential . . . . .31 66. Includes Federal.14 14. . . and EIA. . .71 11.40 3.10 Low oil price 18. . . . . .63 36. . . . . . . DC.50 48.99 478. . Jet fuel .28 25. . .12 50. . . . . DOE/EIA0130(2011/07) (Washington. . . . . . .23 26.16 1503. DC. . . .55 2011. .D022112A.97 41. Natural gas . . .S. .77 1477.36 30.08 184. . . .51 49.  Energy prices by sector and source (continued) Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 41. . . . . . . . . . .95 7. .62 1155. Table 4. . . . . . 573.51 4. . or electricity and heat. . . .58 28. .71 197.78 2.02 472. Excludes use for lease and plant fuel.22 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. . 10 Weighted averages of end-use fuel prices are derived from the prices shown in each sector and the corresponding sectoral consumption. . . .35 804. . . . 5 Sales weighted-average price for all grades. . . 1203.78 46.98 1238. Coal to liquids .51 38. . DC. . . .75 19. The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. . . .19 33. 6 Kerosene-type jet fuel. . . . DOE/EIA-0131(2009) (Washington. . 7 Diesel fuel for on-road use. . . . . . . . .52 34.87 6. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. .33 14.27 Total non-renewable expenditures . . . State Energy Data Report 2009.14 47. . . (nominal Energy prices bymillion sectorBtu. . .01 508. . . . .72 2863.82 10.DRAFT . . .86 45. . . . or electricity and heat. .24 299. . .23 3. .36 32. . . . . .04 264.06 396. To address cold starting issues.84 7.17 54. . .04 4. . . . . . . . .20 0. . 198. . .63 14. .26 349. .75 1073. . . . Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. . .57 2. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . .92 332.41 Total expenditures . . .69 2705. .27 357. . . . . .17 50.D022112A. .58 46.D020112C. . .04 259.99 5. .06 852. . 2010 E85 prices derived from monthly prices in the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report.78 31.84 2. 2 3 1 8 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . ..92 10. .June 12. Btu = British thermal unit. . Annual Energy Review 2010. . . . October 2011). . . .75 252. .03 Average price to all users10 Liquefied petroleum gases . 2010 electric power sector distillate and residual fuel oil prices: EIA. . . andunless source (continued) dollars per otherwise noted) (nominal dollars per million Btu. December 2010) and the Natural Gas Monthly.29 -28. October-December 2010. Note: Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . DC.91 7. July 2011). . .14 3.26 1979.22 46. . .61 53.00 Reference High oil price 34.2.53 161. . .90 253. . . . . REF2012. .31 29. . . . . E854 . . . . . DOE/EIA-0035(2011/09) (Washington. .60 1. . . . 2010 transportation sector natural gas delivered prices are model results. . .28 Table C3. the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally.32 9. Natural Gas Monthly.65 10. . State and local taxes.27 1030.85 275. Monthly Energy Review. . .26 61.04 6.59 18. . .99 337. .48 2035 Reference High oil price 53.22 21.59 16.93 10. . . Electric Power Monthly. .D020112C. .55 1846. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LP2012. .36 23. .69 14. .08 0. Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey and industrial and wellhead prices from the Natural Gas Annual 2009. . . . .11 2. .43 241. . DC. . .21 78.67 36. . . . .62 42. . .04 36.45 3. .42 14.42 31. to the public. Electricity . . . and jet fuel are based on prices in the U.32 2. . . . .53 25.S. DC. to the public. . .56 2006. . 179. . . . . . . . . .48 6.82 7. . . . . . . Includes estimated motor vehicle fuel taxes and estimated dispensing costs or charges. . . . . . . .27 15. . . . . . . July 2011). . . . . . . . . .21 22.95 44. .98 188.81 4. 2010 coal prices based on: EIA. . . . except those whose primary business is to sell electricity. . .58 31. . Residual fuel oil . and HP2012.21 37.66 22. . Motor gasoline5 . Distillate fuel oil . 1203.96 1503. . . .86 36. . 2012 190 U.40 367. . . . .24 27. 0.96 Low oil price 24. . . .55 19.19 336. . . 8 Natural gas used as a vehicle fuel. . .28 31. . . . DOE/EIA-0487(2009) (Washington. . .02 10. September 2010).94 13.73 191. .30 53.56 2327. . . . . Quarterly Coal Report. . Other coal .26 30.21 Commercial .26 342. . . . Projections: EIA. . 4 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). . .44 1356. Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. .06 0.54 1154.99 61. . 2010 electricity prices: EIA. . . .35 2248. .14 639. . . .31 22. . . . .58 447. . . . .42 4. . . . DOE/EIA-0214(2009) (Washington.13 29.71 1476. . . . . . 17. . DOE/EIA-0226. . .90 2. . . . . . . Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009.08 22. DOE/EIA0130(2011/07) (Washington. . .51 3. .68 16.26 3025. . Sources: 2010 prices for motor gasoline. .64 40. DC. . . . . April 2010 and April 2011. . .39 14. .45 1. .34 9.69 254. . .31 370. DOE/EIA-0121(2010/4Q) (Washington. . . .51 11. . . . . . .94 38. . . . .54 Transportation . . .72 1. . . Metallurgical coal . .68 24. . June 2011). . . . .96 20.Price case comparisons Table C3. . . . . . 251. . . unless otherwise noted) Sector and source 2010 2015 Low oil price 15.76 61.= Not applicable.75 1968. . May 2011) and EIA. distillate fuel oil.44 265. . . . .82 Transportation renewable expenditures .73 14. . .43 2643.16 57.24 459. . . 2010 electric power sector natural gas prices: EIA.47 9. . . .41 1506.78 527. . 9 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. .89 40. 2010 residential and commercial natural gas delivered prices: EIA. . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run REF2012. Energy Information Administration (EIA).82 1861.80 Industrial . . 2010 industrial natural gas delivered prices are estimated based on: EIA. . .

.99 1. . .54 4. .97 0. . .00 4.41 0. . . .03 0.90 0.86 1. .91 4. . . . .06 0.13 2. . . .49 Low oil price 5.99 2. . . . . .74 2. . . . .52 0. . . . Residual fuel oil .00 2. . . . . .00 2. . . . . . . . . . .24 7.17 19. . . . . . .22 1. . .37 1.26 0.80 3.42 1. .01 2.10 0. . .94 4. Refinery processing gain4 . . .69 Low oil price 4.14 0. . .77 0.13 0.02 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 3. .91 0.00 1.16 2.87 0. . . . . . . . . . . .94 0. .26 13.52 8. .95 0.65 1. . . .08 0. . .55 1. . . 5. . . .03 0. .00 1. Gross imports . . .32 4. . . . . .61 2. . .56 -0.55 0.13 0. Blending component imports .77 0. . .72 7. . . .14 18. Other non-petroleum supply .55 4.44 0. . .57 1.02 -0.00 12. . .63 9. . . .00 0. . .16 20.66 2. . Natural gas plant liquids . . . .50 0.23 0. . .47 0.01 0. . . Gross refined product imports3 . . . . .64 3. . .17 0.14 20.66 2.13 19. . . .06 0.24 18.32 5. Exports . . . . . . . .03 0. . . . . Diesel . .DRAFT .31 13. .82 0.32 0.05 13. . .91 0.12 0. .20 21. . . . .46 5.96 4. .96 2. . . .60 4. . .40 6.00 0. . . . . .90 0. . . .71 0. . .26 18. . . . .09 4. . . . . . . .09 1.34 5. . .05 0.91 0. . . . .30 0. . . .96 0. .00 0. . . . .85 0.09 Reference High oil price 6. . .74 0. . .18 0. . .27 0. . .13 0. . . .38 0. .80 6. . .03 0. . . . . .00 13. . .67 2. .21 8. . . . . .41 13. . .56 -0.25 2. . .22 6.27 5.97 1. .June 12. . .67 3. .54 4. .36 0. . .33 1. . . . . . .26 0. . . .27 0. . . .05 0.12 0. . . . .00 0.08 2. . .58 9.21 0.00 1. . . .02 6. (million Liquid fuels supply disposition barrels per day.59 0. .61 4.68 6. . . . . .64 0. .36 0. . .17 0.94 0. . . . . . . . . . . .06 1. . . . . . .94 0. .12 0. . .60 4. . . . . .15 1. .16 0. . . Unfinished oil imports .61 0.94 0. . .07 0. . . .56 1. . . . .12 4. . . . .32 0.12 0.00 1.62 0. . Net imports .35 0. . .51 0. . . . .20 0. .82 0. . . . .42 9.00 0. . .01 1. . . .67 0. .03 0.03 1.00 0. . . .00 0.15 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . .92 0.34 3. .51 0.41 0. Net imports .19 1. .94 0. . . .99 0.88 1. .15 1.82 0.63 2.95 7. . . . . . .17 0. . . . . . .00 1. . . .46 5. .  Liquid fuels supply and disposition Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 7. .23 1. . .00 0.02 0.47 0. . . . . .06 2.09 0. . . . .12 0. . . . Total primary supply7 . . .00 14.00 0.00 0. . .00 4.63 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . Jet fuel10 . .21 2.83 8.15 20.25 0. . .41 0. . .11 0. . . . . . . . . .15 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 4. . . . . .61 4. . . . . . . .05 0. . .01 0.51 3. . . . . . .12 0. . . .41 14.00 15.68 0. . Distillate fuel oil11 . . . . Liquids from coal . . .29 5. . . . .57 5. .00 0.27 Crude oil Domestic crude production1 . . . . . . .71 0.14 20. . . . . . . .47 0.79 0.41 0. . .13 0.95 0. . .71 2. .14 9.84 0.12 0. .00 0. . . . . .87 4.55 0. . . . . . . .38 1. .34 3. . . Exports . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 191 . .57 2. .21 19. . . .67 4. . . . . . . . . .46 1. . .92 0. . . .52 3. .00 0.80 3.13 19.19 1. . .73 2. . Net product imports .78 0.01 -0. . . .00 0. . .79 Table C4. . . . .04 0. Liquids from gas . .34 0. . . . . . .97 1.38 0.64 0. . .51 1. .00 0. .48 4. . . . . . . .56 3. .91 4. . . .Price case comparisons Table C4. . .00 0. . . . . . . . .84 2035 Reference High oil price 6. . . . .46 5. . . . . . .10 0. . . . . . . .14 -0. .48 1.04 0. . . . . .56 0. . . . . Other petroleum supply . . . . . . . .22 13. .13 0.07 -0.24 0.31 1. Liquid fuels consumption by fuel Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . . . .74 0. . . Total . .56 2. . .03 0.13 0.39 1. . .81 3. . . . . .00 14.06 0. . . . .64 7. . . .90 -0.20 1. . . . . . .31 19. . . . . .17 13.10 3. . .95 0. . . Domestic production .05 1. Discrepancy15 . . . . .92 1.61 0.29 1. .56 0. . .99 0. . . . .00 0. . . . . . . .69 2. . . . .36 6. Other12 . E858 . . .47 4. . . .88 0.02 9.74 10.14 19. . . . . . .61 0.66 0. . .32 0.33 3. . . . .30 0.01 0.80 0. . . . .12 4. .45 3. . . . .52 3. . . .14 -0.01 9. . . . by sector Residential and commercial . . . . .50 2. . .00 0. . and unless otherwise noted) (million barrels per day. . . . . . . . .05 1. .64 1. . Other crude supply2 . . . .11 0. . . . . . . .52 7. . . . . . .16 0. . . . .20 1.00 15. . . Product stock withdrawal . .14 19.00 0. .17 9. . . .00 8.99 0. .61 2. .25 8. .48 1.13 18. . . . . . .03 0.06 0.27 0. . . . . . . .00 0.00 11.84 4. .09 0. . . .96 0. .S. . .00 7. . . . 2012 9 U. .83 14.21 0.10 2. .84 2. . . Net imports . .10 0.00 0. .01 0. . . Ethanol . . . . . . unless otherwise noted) Supply and disposition 2010 2015 Low oil price 5. .85 0. .99 0. . .24 2.54 2. .87 9. . .13 -0. . .59 0.40 -0.05 2. . .14 0. . . .65 2.79 0. .50 0. .17 19.00 0. . . . .00 15.44 14. Total crude supply . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 0. . . . Domestic production . .11 1. . . Industrial13 .67 0. .45 1.61 1. .28 0.94 0.00 13. . .21 0.01 -0. .97 0. Motor gasoline9 . . .00 2.06 1. .24 0. . .66 0. . . .14 1.58 2. .31 0. Other biomass-derived liquids5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alaska . .95 0. .36 1. . .08 0.05 2. . . . . .00 0.55 1. . . .00 14.07 -0. . . . .12 0. . .08 14.72 3. . . . . . . .95 0.29 3. .04 9.33 2. Electric power14 . . . . Other6 . . . .19 0. .46 4.18 1. . . .69 0. . . .90 0. .06 0.07 0. . . . .43 3.07 5. . . .24 1. . . . Lower 48 states . . .87 3. .02 0. . . .15 1. . .31 0. . . .09 2. Supply from renewable sources . . .00 0. .03 0.94 0.02 0. .79 10.69 8.19 21.31 0. . .06 -0. . Transportation .00 0. .53 0. . . Biodiesel . . .40 0.14 19.14 6.60 2.59 2.30 19.03 0.01 0. .00 0. .92 4. . .51 4.00 4. .05 0. . . . . .88 -0. . .04 0.17 0. .01 8. . . . .45 4. .19 1.98 2.69 0. . . . .

. losses. .D020112C.97 Includes lease condensate. DC. and miscellaneous petroleum products. . biomass-derived Fischer-Tropsch liquids. Capacity utilization rate (percent)17 . 11 Includes distillate fuel oil and kerosene from petroleum and biomass feedstocks. October 2011).41 Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 14.15 Low oil price 16.9 43. 14 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.8 85. Includes small power producers and exempt wholesale generators. still gas.07 17. which produces electricity and other useful thermal energy. and renewable feedstocks used for the on-site production of diesel and gasoline. special naphthas. in total. . and gains.36 2035 Reference High oil price 13. 5 Includes pyrolysis oils. . to the public. Includes unaccounted for supply.  Liquid fuels supply and disposition (continued) Table C4. 16 End-of-year operable capacity. 192 10 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy . 2012 U.D022112A.8 189.1 93.0 26. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. lubricants. petrochemical feedstocks.81 Low oil price 17. . . or electricity and heat. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 8 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). Projections: EIA.0 344. 6 Includes domestic sources of other blending components.0 49.58 15.0 47. Includes other hydrocarbons and alcohols. 9 Includes ethanol and ethers blended into gasoline.2 90.0 384. Petroleum Supply Annual 2010. Net import share of product supplied (percent) Net expenditures for imported crude oil and petroleum products (billion 2010 dollars) .3 47. waxes. Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. 13 Includes consumption for combined heat and power.7 226.9 523. methanol. Liquid fuels supply and disposition (continued) (million barrels per day. road oil. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. . 17 Rate is calculated by dividing the gross annual input to atmospheric crude oil distillation units by their operable refining capacity in barrels per calendar day. .2 373.8 36. . DOE/EIA-0340(2010)/1 (Washington. petroleum coke. . . Annual Energy Review 2010.S.5 85. .6 86. crude oil product supplied.6 88. DC. . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LP2012. unless otherwise noted) (million barrels per day.0 38.6 243. Strategic petroleum reserve stock additions plus unaccounted for crude oil and crude stock withdrawals minus crude product supplied. .8 91.00 15. unless otherwise noted) Supply and disposition 2010 2015 Low oil price 17.June 12. and ethers. July 2011). other hydrocarbons. the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. 12 Includes aviation gasoline.5 90.1 84. Energy Information Administration | Outlook Annual2012 Energy Outlook 2012 .7 21. REF2012. and HP2012.1 37. asphalt.Price case comparisons Table C4. 10 Includes only kerosene type. .DRAFT . Sources: 2010 product supplied based on: U. 7 Total crude supply plus other petroleum supply plus other non-petroleum supply.6 363.S. 1 2 3 17.9 207. 15 Balancing item. have a lower specific gravity than the crude oil processed.D022112A. 4 The volumetric amount by which total output is greater than input due to the processing of crude oil into products which. . . To address cold starting issues. .6 90. The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast.99 Reference High oil price 17.2 389.0 50. Other 2010 data: EIA. .97 Domestic refinery distillation capacity16 .

. . .600 3. . . . . .624 1. unless otherwise noted) (2010 dollars per gallon. .430 4.717 2. . .729 4. . .33 1. . . .355 4. Ethanol (E85)3 . . .65 2. .65 2. . .746 2.49 2. .443 144.50 1.288 2. . .845 119. . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . .855 3. . . . .91 113.538 3. .45 3. Residual fuel oil . . Petroleum product prices (2010 dollars per gallon. unless otherwise noted) Sector and fuel 2010 2015 Low oil price 58.95 3. Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)6 . . .159 4. . Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . .743 2. . .421 101. . .469 187.554 191. . . . . . .70 2. . . .866 1.742 115. . . .917 0.246 136. . Ethanol wholesale price . . .189 133.026 3. .673 1. . .634 68. Distillate fuel oil .878 2.41 Reference High oil price 182. . .830 3. . . . . . . . . . .728 2. . .371 57. .538 3.598 1. . .465 1.975 1. . .366 4.947 3. . Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . . .941 2. .739 1. . . . . .101 2.32 3.16 Low oil price 59.845 5.240 178.37 1.560 2. . .70 4.44 1. . .219 1. .372 57. . . .571 5.205 3.48 180.571 4. .033 43.932 1. . . . . . . .998 1.560 65. .33 1. . . . . .855 3.982 0. Jet fuel5 .394 1. .298 54.781 3. . .934 4. .57 2.053 4. . . . . . . .655 5.737 3. .622 4.43 4. .712 2.985 2. . 2012 U. . . .523 5. .29 Low oil price 62.987 1. . . . . .311 55. .98 132. .87 116.356 2.021 1.986 4. .Price case comparisons Table C5. . .778 4. . . . .381 57. . Residual fuel oil .543 1. . . . . . . . .704 2. .827 2. . .884 2.295 1.699 2.205 3. .237 4.333 3.240 1. .619 68.06 1.48 4. . . . . . . Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . . .28 1. . . .989 2. . .177 2. . . . .515 3. .051 212.63 1.196 4. . .528 1. . Motor gasoline4 .034 3.316 3. .464 187. . . .814 76.47 2.376 3.539 4. . .85 2.780 74.053 1. . . .56 4. . . .136 131.383 2.731 114. . Electric power7 Distillate fuel oil .38 53. . .190 2. . . . . .60 1.241 136. . .687 2. . . . . . . .520 2.215 2. .95 2. . . .728 2. .638 2. . .97 132.310 4. . . . . .70 2. . .439 3. .136 1. . . . .178 133.255 4. . . .008 4. . . . . . Refined petroleum product prices8 Liquefied petroleum gases . . . Jet fuel5 . . . . . . . . .585 192. .677 70. .28 3. . . .323 3. . . .73 3. . .71 3.766 2.034 3. Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . . . . .758 5. . . .185 1.294 2.70 2. . . . . . . . . .974 4. . . . .435 4. . . . .402 1.054 3. . . . . .059 2. .935 39.168 3. .223 1.63 2. . .896 5. . . .089 3. Delivered sector product prices Residential Liquefied petroleum gases . .880 1. .423 59.741 5.04 Crude oil prices (2010 dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light .884 2. . .731 2. . .436 60. . .161 174. .S. . . . .322 2.135 215. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Industrial2 Liquefied petroleum gases .344 182. .086 129. . . . . . . 79. .981 5.896 37. . .571 4. Commercial Distillate fuel oil . . . . .10 2035 Reference High oil price 200. . .441 4. . .84 Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 193. .395 1. . . .486 1. . Residual fuel oil .292 4.June 12. . .50 3. . . .190 2. .41 48. . . . . . Distillate fuel oil .53 2. . .355 4. . Motor gasoline4 .974 4. Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . .776 2. .77 2.932 4. . . . Residual fuel oil .049 3.053 4.240 1. Residual fuel oil (2010 dollars per barrel) . .802 159. . .196 4. .219 1. .13 2. .957 82. . . .691 1.12 3. .582 192.21 1.185 1. . . . .19 1. . .733 4. . .631 2. . .476 3. .99 2. . . .58 1.785 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy| Outlook . .861 5. .77 1. .856 3. . Distillate fuel oil . . .876 120.00 2.830 118. .67 4. .492 62.097 1.780 4.581 1.508 3.07 3. .76 3. . .10 179.846 2.87 3. . .303 2.96 4.725 4. .239 2. .521 189. . .62 3.21 144.178 217.756 2. . .  Petroleum product prices Table C5. . . . .845 5. .157 3.932 4. . . .737 5. .704 2.547 5.276 2. .15 3.942 4.62 2.71 2.207 176.464 2. . .181 3.423 5. Imported crude oil1 . . . .560 5. . . .991 1.657 69. . . . . .39 75. .704 2.56 121.981 5. . . .228 3. . .361 5. .996 2. . . .36 187. . . .355 1.523 189.019 2. . . .645 3. .447 3. . .025 4. . .294 54.760 5. . . . .600 3. .909 2.046 2. Residual fuel oil .153 4. . . . . .808 1.438 1. .850 161.DRAFT . .80 2. . . .015 2. . . . . . . . .397 184. . . . . . . . . .36 55. . . . Energy Information Administration Annual2012 Energy Outlook 2012 11 193 .760 5. . . . . .

. .140 4.249 3.D020112C. .498 6. .801 4. . . .DRAFT . September 2011). .510 4. .427 2.637 2. . . .87 4. . .445 3.51 2. . .39 75. or electricity and heat. . . or electricity and heat. . . . Sources: 2010 low sulfur light crude oil price: U.981 2. .710 2.144 6. . .190 2.531 2. . . . . .812 3. .263 2. . .582 5.829 8. . .914 2. .268 5. . . . . .365 3. .388 6.402 1. . . . . . and HP2012.377 4. . . Residual fuel oil (nominal dollars per barrel) Average . . . . . .03 2. . . . . . .029 4. . . . industrial.519 2. . . .177 4. . unless otherwise noted) Sector and fuel 2010 2015 Low oil price 62. . .582 5.537 5.528 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . to the public.054 2.09 155. . . . . Delivered sector product prices Residential Liquefied petroleum gases . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . .288 2. Ethanol (E85)3 . . 2012 U. . . Includes Federal. .067 3. . . .668 5.818 5. . . .988 4.19 2035 Reference High oil price 314. . .576 6. Petroleum Marketing Annual 2009. .107 1.276 2. . .504 3. . .634 2. DC. . .115 5. . .812 3.188 6. .144 6. .June 12. . .982 2. . . .55 210.729 5. .535 7. .800 2. “Monthly Foreign Crude oil Acquisition Report. . . . . . .534 62. .645 7.93 294.519 2. . Motor gasoline4 . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. . . . . . . August 2010).52 Low oil price 77. . 8 Weighted averages of end-use fuel prices are derived from the prices in each sector and the corresponding sectoral consumption.077 3. . .552 7. . . . . .37 228. . .097 3. . Form EIA-856. . . . . . . . .341 6.988 4. Distillate fuel oil . . .419 5. . . . . . . . .548 2.161 2. . .” 2010 imported crude oil price: EIA.524 2. October 2011).843 2. . . . Projections: EIA.883 2. .627 3. .589 6. . . .537 7. Residual fuel oil . . . . Diesel fuel (distillate fuel oil)6 . .348 3. . . .719 7.801 2. . . Ethanol wholesale price .411 1.84 6. . . .345 5.099 2. .998 1.846 2. . . . .454 4. .537 201. Commercial Distillate fuel oil .834 2. .932 1. REF2012. .560 2. .613 5.930 215. . .S.863 2. . . 5 Includes only kerosene type.829 8. . 2010 residential.933 5.580 1. .780 1. . . .706 5. .756 2.97 122.345 5.392 1. .628 4.507 3. . .87 125.323 5. . .255 6.946 4. .902 2. Refined petroleum product prices8 Liquefied petroleum gases . .410 3. .689 2.326 2. . Residual fuel oil . .586 2. DC. . . .135 4. . . DOE/EIA-0487(2009) (Washington. . .56 Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 245. .S. . . . . . . 1 2 3 79. . . Residual fuel oil . . . .060 3. . . .64 Low oil price 98.954 3. . . To address cold starting issues. .00 2.994 4.235 1.64 Reference High oil price 195.S.32 63. . . .573 3. .117 2.512 3. . . . .659 2. . . E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. .595 8. . 2010 E85 prices derived from monthly prices in the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report. .93 2. . .598 1.77 3. .041 7.520 Weighted average price delivered to U. .115 74. . .361 1.246 171.025 7. .175 1.D022112A. .559 2. . . . .226 7.098 3. refiners.898 7. .S. 6 Diesel fuel for on-road use. . Includes small power producers and exempt wholesale generators.67 192.477 6. . . .641 8. . . Distillate fuel oil . .866 1. .008 6. . . . .535 2. .131 2.096 3. Distillate fuel oil .” 2010 electric power prices based on: Monthly Energy Review. . . State and local taxes.858 3. . .704 3.507 5. distillate fuel oil. .834 2. . .872 6.419 6.942 7.041 2. “Refiners’/Gas Plant Operators’ Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.776 4.365 4. . . . . Electric power7 Distillate fuel oil . .91 84. . .064 5.069 2. .52 229. DOE/EIA-0035(2011/09) (Washington. . . . . . . . .946 4.629 4.454 3. . . . .Price case comparisons Table C5. . .879 2. .  Petroleum product prices (continued) Table C5.532 2.589 6.449 5. 19412 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . .402 3.792 4. . . . . . . . . commercial. . unless (continued) otherwise noted) (nominal dollars per gallon. 4 Sales weighted-average price for all grades.331 4. . . . Annual Energy Review 2010.523 2.612 5. . and transportation sector petroleum product prices are derived from: EIA. . . .973 128. . . .620 4. . .063 0.580 3. 2010 wholesale ethanol prices derived from Bloomberg U. . .387 6. . . . . .81 59. . . . . .249 3. . . . . DC. . except those whose primary business is to sell electricity. . . . .387 1. . .202 5.464 2. . . . . . .052 3. . . 7 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . Jet fuel5 .002 5. . . . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LP2012.190 2. to the public. . .657 1.964 1. .67 7. .843 4. . . Jet fuel5 . .136 4.470 2. .217 1. . . Includes Federal and State taxes while excluding county and local taxes. . . . . .115 5. Imported crude oil1 . . . .653 1.795 4. .400 3. Note: Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports.D022112A. . .216 2. .132 4. . . .334 2. Residual fuel oil . .226 6.364 4.712 2. . .147 3. . .154 4. . . .95 3.966 6. . .074 3. . . . . . . . . .434 302. . . . . .503 3. .609 2.791 240. . . . average rack price. the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. .747 3.943 7. Motor gasoline4 . . .623 3.46 5. Industrial2 Liquefied petroleum gases .869 2.81 170.823 3. .032 91. .411 1.481 4. and jet fuel are based on: EIA.941 2. .00 Crude oil prices (nominal dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light . Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. Energy Information Administration (EIA). . . . .079 2.315 6. 2010 prices for motor gasoline. . .843 2. . . .671 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .975 68. . . . . Transportation Liquefied petroleum gases .960 4. .571 6. . .471 3.90 6. .901 6. .(nominal Petroleum prices dollars product per gallon. .893 5. . . . .743 2. Form EIA-782A. . . . .105 6.143 1.

68 4.64 2.22 9.78 0. . . . . . . . .56 121.13 0. .97 122. . .54 17. . . .36 55. .54 18. . .96 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 2. . . . .28 1.94 3. . . . . .30 0. .  International liquids supply and disposition summary Table C6.87 1. . . . . .57 2. . .43 2.29 245. . Other Europe and Eurasia5 .81 11. . . .62 3. . .36 2.97 1. . .42 4. . Other North America . 2012 U. Other Central and South America .53 0.65 35. Petroleum liquids production2 OPEC3 Middle East . .89 4.24 7. . . . . . . .70 3. . .32 0. . .61 0. . . . . . Imported crude oil1 .04 314. . . .62 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 1. . . . . . .29 8.14 2. . . . . .S.83 0. .63 34. . . Non-OECD Russia . . .40 3.66 5.98 3. .23 1. . .72 43.15 1. . .53 17. . . .24 0.45 4.47 2. . .03 0. . . .58 1. . . .53 17. .67 33. . . . .02 4. .55 3.35 31. . . . . . .77 3.53 5. North Africa . . .03 9. .40 89.41 62. .98 4. . . .53 1. . . Australia and New Zealand . . . .16 0. . . . . . .65 10. . . . .47 1. . .39 2.74 1.15 0. .96 3.41 5. . . . .29 30. . .28 5.38 2. Crude oil prices (nominal dollars per barrel)1 Low sulfur light .75 16. . . . . . . . . . .93 1. .40 2. .73 2. .36 0. .22 4.59 82. . .64 29.13 36. . .42 29. . . South America . . .95 229. . . . . .00 Crude oil prices (2010 dollars per barrel) Low sulfur light . . . .14 0.50 32. . . .98 132. . .06 4.80 10. . . .74 3. .42 10. .39 75. . . . .79 0. . . . . .16 195. . . .56 Projections 2025 Reference High oil price 193. . . .65 3. .58 3. . . .67 3.40 1. . . .72 1. .24 0. . Total production .99 0.81 1. . .63 46. . . .38 4. .90 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy| Outlook . . .66 2.52 144.22 0.67 2.Price case comparisons Table C6. . . . . . . . . . .86 2. .32 2.78 10. . . . . . .09 155. .63 0.91 84. . .26 3. . . .49 4. .38 53.52 16.27 0.22 101. . . . .09 2. . . . .01 0.53 0. . . . . .37 2. . . . Total non-OECD petroleum Total petroleum liquids production .64 Reference High oil price 182. . . . . .83 4.55 3. . .62 9. . .52 18. .18 8.15 0. Middle East . .43 2. . OECD Europe4 .36 25.83 95. . . . . . Canada .67 4. .97 2. .37 41. . .26 0.27 1. . . . .72 0.79 1.15 0. . . . . . .02 4. . . Africa . . .30 9. .24 10. . . . .00 0. . .36 31. . . . .92 40. . . .21 6. . .79 2.48 180. . .37 4. . . . . . .93 0. . . Total OPEC petroleum production . .70 96.09 0. . . . . . .37 5.79 3. . .15 0.97 125.75 1. . . . . . . .51 28. .11 2. . . .81 132.02 109. . .10 2.99 82. . . .05 8. . .94 39. . . . .13 0. .41 3. . .34 9. . .47 90.54 4. .01 29. . . .14 0.39 75. .85 1.92 2. .46 3. . . . .90 1. Other liquids production7 United States (50 states) .68 4. Middle East . .21 1. .14 0.81 59.07 0. . . . .15 0. .29 34. . . . .27 2. unless otherwise noted) (million barrels per day. . .05 33. .05 2. .38 6.15 0. . . . . .01 0.59 5. China . . . . . Total OECD petroleum production . . .36 187. . . . .06 45.01 5. . . . .04 3.40 2. .87 79. .68 2.28 0.02 92. . . Brazil . . . . . .15 0. . .19 2.June 12. .42 4.12 5. .77 1. . . . . . . . .96 3. . Non-OPEC OECD United States (50 states) . Imported crude oil1 . .78 11.18 91.46 10. .76 12. . .10 98. . . . .80 1.82 1. .66 1.51 1.04 1. .38 1.46 3. . . . . Africa. .52 15. . . . . . . Central and South America . . . . . . . .72 44. .87 116.88 9.91 2.55 18.37 0. .06 0.70 3.23 0. . . . . . Japan . . . . .63 85. . .36 1. . . .19 10. . .20 0. . OECD Europe3 .16 4.01 89. .97 2.98 1. .82 2.65 3. . . .26 1.45 2.22 0. .26 29.79 2. . .40 2.61 9.39 3. . . .84 77. . . . . . .22 1. . . . . . . . Energy Information Administration Annual2012 Energy Outlook 2012 13 195 . . . .52 3. .17 0. . . . . . . .61 87. .52 Low oil price 59.97 2. . .59 35.07 112. .86 89.05 29.62 18. .58 2.54 3. .50 3.79 1. . . . .21 170. .16 0.66 2.43 104. . .75 1. .80 92. . . . .47 33.10 179. . . . . .82 1. .27 5. .16 0. . .18 2. . . .09 4. .41 2. . . .21 3.41 48. West Africa . .15 1.55 0. . .22 0.68 3. .73 1. . . . .19 107. International liquids supply and disposition summary (million barrels per day. . . . . . . Other Asia6 . .40 1. . . .93 294.32 63.58 4. . .11 4. . . . . .73 4. .67 192. . .70 0. . .37 228. .14 3. . .15 12. . . . . .59 3.82 0. . .55 18. . . . .78 1. .32 3. . . . .15 96. . .13 33. . . .45 0.17 1. unless otherwise noted) Supply and disposition 2010 2015 Low oil price 58. . Other . .51 0. .41 2. . . .42 1. .28 0.55 210. . . . .97 0. . .75 0. . . . . .23 0.13 4. . .45 2.09 11. .48 4.16 6. . .12 2. .21 0.64 Low oil price 62.29 3.27 3. . . . . .69 17.91 113. . . Total other liquids production .30 30.14 12.44 0. Mexico .27 4. . . . . . . . .67 2.51 23.18 13. . 79. . .78 0. . . . . .76 23. .DRAFT . .87 2. . .47 2. . . .67 4. . . .79 3. . . . .27 2. . . .47 101.65 1. . . .72 2. . .19 2035 Reference High oil price 200.90 0. .43 3. .

80 9. .50 45.Price case comparisons Table C6. 9 Includes both petroleum and other liquids production. .14 0. . Tonga. . .56 8.41 0. . . . .07 44. . . North Korea. . Nigeria.13 4. . . . . . . . Iraq. Middle East . . Taiwan.54 41. .43 3.50 14. . .48 9.13 49.26 3. . . . . . Total non-OECD consumption . . .44 8. Generate World Oil Balance Model. . . . . bitumen (oil sands). . .53 0. . . Ecuador.45 2. Germany. . . Bangladesh. . . 6 Other Asia = Afghanistan. . . .74 4. Italy.58 4. . . . Total liquids consumption . and Uzbekistan.97 2. .S. . . . .21 5. .14 2. Bhutan.02 2. . 1 2 19. Other Europe and Eurasia5 . . . . . . .15 8. . . . 8 Includes both OPEC and non-OPEC consumers in the regional breakdown. .52 46.9 20. . . .34 2.93 1.38 2.35 15.64 7. . Azerbaijan. . . Canada .89 63. .65 87.18 6. Georgia. . .01 3.30 53.32 101.90 107. . . . .13 45.30 12. . . . Angola. . . . 5 Other Europe and Eurasia = Albania. . Brunei. .99 104.23 48. .65 4.91 59.45 16. . .89 15. and refinery gains. .76 37. . .49 53. . . Singapore.67 52. . . . .30 13. . .16 3. . . . Energy Information Administration (EIA).30 2.42 45. . .89 9.35 3. 3 OPEC = Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries . . . Belarus. coal. . . and Venezuela.D020112C. .69 4.44 3. New Caledonia. . . . .20 16. . .21 2. . .56 3.9 19. . .97 2. . Vanuatu. .30 54. . . . Australia and New Zealand . .93 8. . .57 3. United States territories . .54 10. . . . . . . . . Sources: 2010 low sulfur light crude oil price: U. .89 56. .72 3.14 2. . .67 34. .81 54. . . . Africa .9 Weighted average price delivered to U. . .03 3.05 34.35 4. Iran. .39 1.65 5. . .22 2.73 7. . . . . . . . . . . .79 10.09 44. .44 17. .00 45. Malaysia. . . . . Energy Information Administration | Outlook Annual 2012 Energy Outlook 2012 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy . . . .61 15. . .24 1. .78 15. . . Includes production of crude oil (including lease condensate and shale oil/tight oil). . and HP2012. Ireland. .1 19.12 2. . . Armenia. . Nauru. . .11 40. . .26 12. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. .S.8 19.0 21.10 39. Samoa. and kerogen (oil shale.92 2.21 67. Mongolia. . . .42 2. refiners.87 6. . . . . . Romania. Iceland. .27 2. . . . .00 3. . . . . . .57 3. .34 14. . . Malta. . . Net Eurasia exports . 196 14 U. Macedonia. .June 12. . . Niue. .” 2010 imported crude oil price: EIA. .35 2. . . .12 0. . . . . . . . Nepal. . . .60 13. . unless otherwise noted) Projections 2025 High oil price Low oil price Reference High oil price Low oil price Supply and disposition 2010 2015 Low oil price Reference 2035 Reference High oil price Liquids consumption8 OECD United States (50 states) .17 0. . . . Form EIA-856. .93 2. . . Maldives. . Hungary.62 2. Finland. . Myanmar (Burma). . .80 4.32 2. . Saudi Arabia.31 1. Czech Republic. . . . Turkey. . Spain. Ukraine.59 40. . . Bulgaria. .19 2.88 54. Serbia.D022112A. .39 1. OPEC production9 . Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . Kyrgyzstan.09 61. .7 20.82 56. .30 2.85 8. . Macau. .85 4. .19 7.20 0. Cambodia (Kampuchea). . .71 2.21 4.19 40. .16 48. .73 1. natural gas. . .32 2. the Netherlands.29 89. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.51 41. . . . . .01 67. Solomon Islands. .18 54.25 1. .68 14. . . Montenegro. . . . . .47 10.D022112A and EIA. . . Hong Kong.64 3. . . .28 7. . . . Guam. . . .7 18.49 45.93 2. . . .69 20. . Qatar. Estonia. . French Polynesia. .70 7. . . and Vietnam. Non-OPEC production9 . . . . . . . Libya. . . Brazil .51 2. . .63 18. . .37 12.32 13. . .(million International liquids supply and disposition summary (continued) barrels per day.86 4. .10 3. . .Algeria. 7 Includes liquids produced from energy crops. China . . Moldova. Pakistan. Mexico . . .S. .09 3.3 18. Non-OECD Russia . . . .31 2. unless otherwise noted) (million barrels per day. Luxembourg. . . .40 2. .28 2. . .40 8.DRAFT . . .49 4. . . . . . . . . . . .34 2. .  International liquids supply and disposition summary (continued) Table C6.15 3. . . . . . OECD Europe3 . France.08 9. . . . . . .64 43. .71 10. Thailand. . .90 45. Papua New Guinea. . . Lithuania.34 2. .31 2.43 3.9 19. .63 60. Poland.24 2. Denmark.96 2.81 38. .42 47. .35 3. .90 0. .95 3. Kazakhstan.90 3. . . . . . . .14 4. . . . . .75 40. . . . . . .35 2. .46 4. . India . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LP2012.42 57. . natural gas plant liquids. . . . . 2010 quantities and projections: EIA. . . . .00 112. .15 2. .58 52. . . . .22 3. . .18 1. Indonesia.80 2. .13 3.09 2.52 12.10 0.46 2.03 5. Philippines. .94 41. . .90 0.84 3. 2012 . . . . .50 14. Slovakia. Kuwait. Portugal. Tajikistan. . Switzerland. . . . Other Central and South America . .93 4. . Kiribati. Slovenia. . . Bosnia and Herzegovina.Austria.17 47. .88 2. . .23 2. . . Croatia.53 39. other hydrogen and hydrocarbons for refinery feedstocks.92 96. . . . .97 12. . . .91 2.22 8. .63 47. . . . . .19 3. .47 3. . . . Other Asia . . . 4 OECD Europe = Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development . . . extra-heavy oil.36 2. Annual Energy Review 2010. . .51 3. . . Laos. REF2012. . .46 11.78 3.42 2.78 10. not to be confused with shale oil/tight oil). October 2011). Sri Lanka. . Turkmenistan. Sweden.88 7. .11 45. .56 1. Total OECD consumption . . Norway.50 5. South Korea . .24 2.38 14. Latvia. Belgium. . . . . . .33 2. .14 2. . .10 4. . . . . .65 3.06 3. . . DC.36 42. . . OPEC market share (percent) . . . . . Includes both OPEC and non-OPEC producers in the regional breakdown.78 9. .13 46. .77 0. Greece. . . .82 91.26 109. .97 5. . and the United Kingdom.40 2. Fiji. Japan .78 3. . . . . . . . . .38 2. . . . .62 101.25 51. .43 13.18 10. the United Arab Emirates. . .46 1.32 16. . . “Monthly Foreign Crude oil Acquisition Report. .25 2.

This page intentionally left blank .

. . . . . .51 0. . . . 2 Includes ethanol (blends of 15 percent or less) and ethers blended into gasoline.06 0. .08 0. . .28 0. . . . . .04 900 1254 94 6.54 8. .63 1. .00 5. . . .10 0. Distillate fuel oil . . . . . . . . .11 4. . .10 0. . . . . .63 0. . . and BESTTECH. . . . .52 0.13 0. . . .54 1.71 10. . . Distillate fuel oil .14 0. . . . .75 11. . .57 9.51 10. . . . . . .  Key results for residential and commercial sector technology cases Table D1.01 0. . .8 0. . .05 0. .62 3.75 21. .52 0. . .0 0. .43 4.08 0. . . Source: U. . .D030812A. .38 19.36 8. Delivered energy intensity (thousand Btu per square foot) .53 70. .12 0. . . . . . . . . .10 79. . Nonmarketed renewables consumption (quadrillion Btu) .27 18.06 0. . . . . . Commercial sector generation Net summer generation capacity (megawatts) Natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable energy3 . . . . . . .17 1. .3 0.38 8. . .14 0.1 0.00 0.05 0.95 11. . . Residual fuel oil .58 20. .72 3.31 0. .Appendix D Results from side cases Table D1. .01 0.D032812A.1 0. . Coal . .14 0. .87 9. .2 0. Delivered energy intensity (million Btu per household) .88 17. . .05 0. . .5 711 1197 83 5. . . . .08 1 Includes wood used for residential heating. .16 94. . . .52 22.48 0. . . .04 1955 1578 132 14. . . .13 1.39 22. . .95 2. .S.39 9.02 0. . .00 0.87 0. . . . . .37 4. . .66 10. . . Wind . . . . . . . . . .08 0. . .26 8.81 94. . .05 1455 1490 106 10. . . 3 Includes commercial sector consumption of wood and wood waste. and solar photovoltaic electricity generation.05 4.02 0. . .7 0. .02 0. .85 9. .41 0. . .15 0. . .62 3. . . . . . . . .08 0.42 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .08 10. . . Energy Information Administration. .39 0. . .08 0.46 1.42 4.74 10. . . .10 9.50 0.07 91.53 0.07 3066 2235 225 22. . . . . .40 9.11 4.01 0. . . . . . .06 0.05 0.91 4. . . . .33 0. . . .05 0.61 3. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System.05 0. . .15 0. . .3 0. .06 0. .6 0. . . .83 11.60 8.70 9.22 2. . . . Delivered energy . .01 0. .35 0. . .11 4. .56 1. . Kerosene . .14 0. . .14 0. . .53 0. . Motor gasoline2 . . . .09 19.62 8.18 0. . . .32 0.64 8. . .6 0. .S.56 0.5 0. .95 91. Kerosene . . . . . . . .39 0.30 3. .08 0. .06 0. . . .64 1. .06 0.01 0. . .05 102. .15 0.00 0. .D032812A. .29 18. . and other biomass for combined heat and power. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .80 9. .14 0. . . . . Solar photovoltaic . . . .96 0. .22 5.48 10. . . . .12 0. . . . .88 4. . . 2012 1 . . Electricity related losses .62 3.88 0.85 9. . . .11 4. . . . . .4 0. . . Renewable energy1 . .41 0.07 4.41 0. . .00 0. . . . . .08 0. . .58 2. . . . .01 0. .01 0.01 0. . .30 16. .51 0.48 12. . . . Delivered energy .02 86. . .53 1. . . .02 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .16 9. . . . . .08 0.08 0. Key results for residential and commercial sector technology cases 2015 Energy consumption 2010 2025 Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Best Best 2011 High 2011 High Reference Available Reference Available Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Residential Energy consumption (quadrillion Btu) Liquefied petroleum gases .47 5. .43 4. . . .04 2605 1753 138 18.14 0. . .6 0. . .80 0.08 0.02 0.46 8.62 3. .24 105. .06 104.05 0.23 11. . . . .34 0.50 8. . .03 0. . .00 0. .50 103. . . . . . . municipal solid waste. . Coal . . . . .52 18.00 0. . . .02 0.01 0.05 0.22 107. . Wind .17 8. . . . . . . .95 4. . . . . . . .53 20. Electricity related losses . . . . . . .04 865 1253 91 6.0 0. . .11 5. . . . . . . . . . .11 0.90 87. 198 U. . . .06 0. .28 10. .32 0. . .59 8.35 0. . . . .98 23.19 0. .00 0. . .June 28. .00 0. Electricity . . . .35 0. .96 0. .48 0. . . .10 0.35 0. . . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal Natural gas . . .12 0. .11 4. . .86 101. .05 914 1262 106 6. 0. . . . . . .58 0. .51 0. . . Liquid fuels and other petroleum subtotal Natural gas . . . . . . .53 10. .94 100. . . . . .03 843 1251 90 6. . . .56 0. . . .6 0. .62 3. . . . . .29 1. . .48 16.15 96. . . .15 0. . .06 0. .41 4. .00 0.52 18. . .17 17. Electricity . .09 0. landfill gas.00 0. runs FROZTECH. . Total . .33 0. . . . .42 4. .4 0.54 1. . . . . . . . .97 0. . . . . . . . . . .83 0.97 0. . Nonmarketed renewables consumption (quadrillion Btu) . solar thermal hot water heating. .02 0. . . . . . .11 4. . . .61 3.50 0.62 3. . . . . . . .12 0. . See Table A4 and/or Table A17 for estimates of nonmarketed renewable energy consumption for geothermal heat pumps.D020112C. . .51 0. REF2012. . . . . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.24 9. . . . . .03 0. .08 4. . . . . . .11 5. Electricity generation (billion kilowatthours) Natural gas . . . . . .96 0.48 0. . . .08 0.42 8. Commercial Energy consumption (quadrillion Btu) Liquefied petroleum gases . HIGHTECH. .06 0.03 0. . .41 4. .10 5. . .43 0. . . . . . .48 102. . . . . .55 1. Solar photovoltaic .06 0. . . . .80 90. Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. .38 18. .79 20.4 0. . . . .43 5. . .43 0.11 4. .05 0. . . .08 0. . . Btu = British thermal unit. Total . . . . . . . .02 0. . . . . . . . .

8% -1.15 0.0% 0.5% -0.32 0.8% -1.7% 0.4% 0.08 0.38 0.0% 1.06 73.7% 6.2% -0.06 0.3% 4.06 0.3% -0.60 3.0% 7.7% -0.6% 0.7% -1.64 0.08 5.54 18.7 0.8% -0.6% -0.0% -0.0% -0.2% 9.08 0.74 0.2% 0.40 0.02 0.2% -0.11 4.38 0.3% 0.06 0.06 0.3% 0.84 8.Results from side cases 2035 Integrated 2011 Demand Technology Annual Growth 2010-2035 (percent) Integrated High Demand Technology Integrated Best Available Demand Technology Reference Integrated Integrated Integrated Best High 2011 Available Demand Demand Demand Technology Technology Technology Reference 0.30 0.7% -2.11 6.95 5.3% 0.61 3.7% -1.3% 0.16 0.01 0.28 9.7% -1.33 8.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 9.6% 0.3% 1.0% 4.86 11.3% 0.1% 2 Energy U.39 5.1% -2.02 0.4% -0.June 28.43 5.2% -1.65 17.06 0.41 17.1% -0.8% 0.8 0.7% -1.7% 0.00 0.1 0.7% -1.2% 1.75 10.7% -2.31 21.76 0.4% -1.2% -0.3% -1.2% -0.00 0.82 90.28 0.91 12.28 11.05 88.7% -0.9% 2514 1832 178 18.0% 0.01 0.0% -0.1% -1.29 0.88 3.7% 0.35 23.3% -1.7% -1.2% -1.1% 5.2% 1.5% 6.7% 9.82 4.6% 0.07 10.12 5.1% -0.06 0.7% 0.8 0.23 21.7% 3.8 0.25 85.5% -0.4 0.0% 0.08 0.01 0.0% -0.4% 0.1% -0.2% -1.0% 0.49 11.04 4795 2311 270 34.23 12.4% 0.62 3.0% 0.87 4.7% 4.88 0.11 5.32 0.2% -0.9% -0.0% -0.9 0.11 7235 5546 375 52.5% -0.4% -0.19 -0.06 0.45 9.50 6.63 9.9% -0.08 0.2% 0.14 25.4% 0.26 10. 20122012 EnergyAdministration Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 199 .01 0.7% 6.3% -0.67 0.5% -0.8% 9.0% 0.9% -0.6% 6.7% -0.05 6609 3177 269 48.16 0.02 0.1% 0.9% 6.2% 0.32 101.53 0.4% 0.7% 0.9% 2.1% 0.28 81. Information / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .S.02 0.8% 9.01 0.2% 0.6% -2.23 0.93 11.5% -0.9% 0.7% 3.3% 4.8% 5.5% 0.4% 0.30 0.87 9.5% -0.4% 0.35 0.51 0.34 4.29 2.47 0.16 0.89 63.11 0.4% -0.3% 6.82 22.50 99.2% -1.0% 1.80 10.24 0.9% 0.62 3.3% 4.78 3.7% 5.11 4.69 0.1% 0.8% 7.17 0.32 0.10 0.24 8.0% 0.74 0.9 0.48 0.4% 0.9% 2.53 0.02 0.06 0.4% -3.3% 0.4% -0.1% -0.8% -1.5% 1.01 0.14 0.8% -0.2% 5.3% 7.4% -0.63 0.

. .10 0.80 0. . Source: U. . . . . .70 23. . .94 28. GDP = Gross domestic product.60 8. . . . .80 9. Nuclear / uranium . Energy intensity (thousand Btu per 2005 dollar of GDP) . . .80 8. 4 Includes grid-connected electricity from conventional hydroelectric.44 6.51 9. . . . . . . .50 36.11 108. . . . . . . . landfill gas. . . and liquid hydrogen. . Energy Information Administration. .25 24. .72 26. wood and wood waste. . . or electricity and heat.96 27. .14 8.64 8. . . . . . . .13 17. . . . .25 5.68 28.87 9. . . .30 97. . . and wood.28 101. . .48 37. . .14 20.80 23. .09 11. . .93 10.33 27. . . . . . . . . . . .41 37. which is a solid.23 18.57 46. . . . . . . crude oil consumed as a fuel. .59 39. . . . .26 21.1 2275 1407 1974 12 5668 15. . . 6 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.30 98. . . . liquid hydrogen. . . . 5 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste.69 16.99 5.5 2201 1320 1700 12 5232 14. . . .61 39. . 2012 U. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and both the ethanol and gasoline components of E85. . .77 20. . .38 103. . . . . Other5 . Industrial1 .2 2300 1435 2012 12 5758 14. . .28 26. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LTRKITEN. .93 10. . . . . . . . . .63 98. . . . . . . wind. . Includes petroleum-derived fuels and non-petroleum derived fuels.28 11. . . Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.73 9. . .87 8. is included. . .70 25.46 96.43 6. Natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . .24 106. Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports.08 9. . .00 11.Results from side cases Table D2.02 9. .99 27. Energy consumption by fuel (quadrillion Btu) Liquid fuels and other petroleum3 . .69 27.48 25.64 40.80 39.26 108. . . . . to the public. . . to the public.D020112C. . . biogenic municipal solid waste. . . and coal-based synthetic liquids. Btu = British thermal unit. . .67 28.71 20. . . . . . . . . .6 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. . . Excludes electricity imports using renewable sources and nonmarketed renewable energy. . Carbon dioxide emissions by sector (million metric tons) Residential . .14 10. . Coal . . . Total . .02 18. .38 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . .S. or electricity and heat.17 353 229 909 1872 2271 5634 343 231 964 1865 2040 5443 338 231 963 1864 2011 5407 331 230 962 1856 1884 5263 341 237 993 1829 2268 5668 324 237 992 1820 2179 5552 302 233 983 1772 1942 5232 342 242 1015 1883 2446 5928 312 246 1011 1859 2330 5758 284 242 995 1787 1992 5300 2349 1283 1990 12 5634 18. other biomass.58 26.17 0.68 8. . . . .15 9. .8 2208 1327 1753 12 5300 13.16 7. .89 9. . .24 106.77 26. Commercial .03 27. 1 2 3 11. . . .30 96.D031312A.54 25.7 2329 1367 1699 12 5407 16. photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. . 200 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . .62 24. .08 98. . .93 4.85 23. . . . . . . Natural gas . . . . . . . . .36 36. .28 103. . . . . . .24 102. . . . . Other7 . . . .D032812A. . . . .43 5. . . Also included are natural gas plant liquids. . and net electricity imports. .29 98. fossil electricity. .16 11. and non-electric energy from renewable sources. . . .70 27. . . . Coal . .00 6. .60 44. . . . . . .52 25. . REF2012.27 98. . . . . . . . . .03 101. Total .02 12. . . . Transportation .84 25. Electric power6 . . . . . .53 27. . . . . . Petroleum coke. . .48 25. . . . .58 36. . Carbon dioxide emissions (tons per person) .09 4. .68 7. .1 2332 1368 1731 12 5443 16. . or electricity and heat. . . . . . . . .23 4.6 2327 1508 2081 12 5928 15. . . .49 36. . .99 10. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 3 .60 38. . . . . . . . . .43 10.23 37.00 17. . .62 36. .55 12. . .24 0. . . . . . . . . . . .60 9. Note: Includes end-use.45 43. except those whose primary business is to sell electricity. . . . . . . to the public. . . .68 8. . . . .38 0. . . . . . . and HTRKITEN. .8 2261 1374 1906 12 5552 15. .43 11.12 37. . . . . . .92 0.64 97. . . . . . .88 26. .09 98. . . . . .  Key results for integrated technology cases Table D2.39 8. . . .40 42. Total .64 21. .32 35. such as ethanol and biodiesel. . Key results for integrated technology cases 2015 2010 2025 2035 Consumption and emissions Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated Integrated 2011 Reference High 2011 Reference High 2011 Reference High Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Energy consumption by sector (quadrillion Btu) Residential . . . Renewable energy4 . . . such as active and passive solar systems. . . .24 27. . . . . . .29 0.34 9. . . . . . . .S. .90 10.June 28.45 9. . . . . Carbon dioxide emissions by fuel (million metric tons) Petroleum . . . . . Electric power2 . . . .39 36. . . .48 0. but not the ethanol component of blends less than 85 percent. .02 6. . .90 25. . . .60 9.76 8. . .72 0. Commercial . . . and renewable technology assumptions. . . .45 102.25 12. . .67 26. . Industrial1 . . . .6 2315 1350 1586 12 5263 16. . 7 Includes emissions from geothermal power and nonbiogenic emissions from municipal solid waste. . .66 8.37 27. . . . .24 8. . . . Transportation . . . . . . . .

25 0. . . . . . .02 27.91 3. . . . . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs REF2012. . . . .2 31. .08 27.10 26. . .22 0.78 0. . . .8 3. . . . .00 0.92 0. .26 5. Commercial light trucks1 .04 0. . .500 to 10. . . . . . by fuel Liquefied petroleum gases . . .58 0. Key results for transportation sector light-duty vehicle efficiency cases 2015 2025 2010 Reference CAFE Standards Reference CAFE Standards Reference 2035 CAFE Standards Consumption and indicators Level of travel (billion vehicle miles traveled) Light-duty vehicles less than 8. . (billion seat miles available) Air . .7 65. .40 0. . . . . . . . . .1 69. .7 14. . . .90 3. .51 0. . . (seat miles per gallon) Aircraft . . . . . . .road use. Bus transportation . . . . . freight . The annual average ethanol content of 74 percent is used for this forecast. . . .3 3. .04 1. . . . . .65 27. . . . . New car2 . .9 18. .55 0. . Freight trucks greater than 10.94 0. . . . . . . . .5 37.67 27.04 0. .91 0. . . . . . . . .61 0. Shipping. Commercial light trucks1 .and off. . . . .D020112C and CAFEY. . .23 0.81 3.93 0.89 0.11 0.17 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 14. . . . . . .51 0. Air . . . .13 0. Light-duty stock3 . . . . . . .44 0. .60 0.77 0. .15 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .5 23.D032112A. . . . . . . . . . . 7 Diesel fuel for on.65 0. . . . Source: U. . .18 26. . . . . . Stock commercial light truck1 .5 2. .60 0. .05 1. . 1 2 3 2662 64 234 999 1559 522 2710 70 273 1028 1503 549 2710 70 273 1028 1505 549 3111 83 317 1120 1782 604 3129 83 318 1120 1789 604 3583 92 345 1208 1871 627 3650 93 346 1208 1878 625 28. . .14 0.01 16.2 3. .07 5. . . . . . .27 2. . . .67 0. .33 7. . . . . . .8 62. . . .60 0. .59 0.19 7. .25 0.25 4. .68 0. . 5 Includes ethanol (blends of 15 percent or less) and ethers blended into gasoline. . . . . .55 0. . . . Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . . . .8 34. .3 24. . . .3 20. . .69 28. . . .71 0.0 25.7 15. .68 27.66 0. . . . . . international . . .00 0. . . . . .8 3. . .5 49.14 0. .14 0.26 2. . . . .59 0. . . . . . . . . .4 15. . . . . Distillate fuel oil7 . . . . . . . . . . . .60 0.60 0.23 0. .17 26. . . . . . . . . . .68 0. . . .74 0.58 0. .04 0. . .7 21. . . .67 0. . . . . . . . . . . . the percentage of ethanol varies seasonally. . . Rail.66 0. . .14 28. . . . .44 0. . . . . .S. . . . .06 0. . . . . . . . .84 0. . . . . 6 Includes only kerosene type. . . . . . . . . . . .53 0. . . . . . .06 0. . . . . . Combined car and light truck “on-the-road” estimate. . .06 0. . . . .19 7. .44 0. . . . . . . . . . . .13 0. . .5 16. .74 0.60 0. . . . . . .45 0. . . . . . .75 12. . .4 2.06 0.00 16. . .06 0. Btu = British thermal unit. . . .1 55. . . . . . . .29 5. .82 0. . . . . . . . . . 2012 U. . . . .2 3. . . . . . . Pipeline fuel . . .54 15.44 0. . .22 14. . . . . .37 11. . . .39 0.25 0. . . .31 5.17 26. . . . Liquid hydrogen . . .5 36. Domestic shipping . . . . .17 25.31 5. . . .01 16. 4 E85 refers to a blend of 85 percent ethanol (renewable) and 15 percent motor gasoline (nonrenewable). . . . . . (ton miles per thousand Btu) Rail . . . . . . . . .92 0. . . .17 27.79 0. .71 0. .05 0. .00 0. . . . . . .5 36.68 0. . . . . . .06 0. .58 0. . .26 5.90 0. .2 6.67 26. . Electricity related losses .87 0. . . . . . . . Energy use (quadrillion Btu) by mode Light-duty vehicles . .5 16. . . . . . . . . . . .03 6. . . .14 0. .03 27. . . . . . . . . .16 0. .51 0. . . . . .05 0. . . . . . . . . . . . Recreational boats . . . . . . . . . .5 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 13. .June 28. .52 0. . . . . . Total . . . Compressed/liquefied natural gas .7 65. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 62. . . . . . .43 0. Other petroleum8 . . .39 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .07 28. . .04 0. .66 0. . .000 pounds. . . . . . .29 2.93 0. . . .26 2. . . . . New commercial light truck1 . Residual fuel oil . To address cold starting issues. . . . .25 0. . . . . Freight truck . . . .06 0.00 0. . . .03 0. . . .0 8. . . . . .0 56. . .4 26. .05 27. . .66 0. .5 2. . . .33 7. . . . . . . . . . . .S. . .14 0. . . . . .3 3. .2 6. . . . . . Domestic shipping . . .40 0. . . .29 5. 8 Includes aviation gasoline and lubricants.55 0. .17 26. . . . . passenger . . . .13 3. Jet fuel6 . . . . .9 39. . . . . .4 31. .4 6. . . . .05 27. . . . . . . . . .5 2. .25 2. . .87 0. .5 2. . . . .4 31. . . . . . . .0 7. .67 0. . . . .05 26. . . .60 0. . . . . .  Key results for transportation sector light-duty vehicle efficiency cases Table D3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electricity . . .1 19.6 27. . . . . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . .87 0. . Military use . . . .3 22. . . . .5 28. . .00 0. . . .000 pounds . . . . . . . . . .83 0. . .53 0. . . . . .Results from side cases Table D3. . . . .55 0. . . .88 0. . Total . . Pipeline fuel natural gas . . . . . . . . . .99 0.65 14. . . . . . . . . . . . .5 19.0 7. .5 8. . . 4 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .94 0. .501 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2. . . . . . . . . . Environmental Protection Agency rated miles per gallon. . . . . . .79 0. . .7 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 48. . . . . . . . .04 0.68 27. . . . . . . . .13 3. . . . . . . . . . .3 33. . . . . .5 22. . .04 27. . .65 15. . . . . .09 25. .6 18. . .3 3. .55 0. . . . . . . . (billion ton miles traveled) Rail . .69 0. .84 0. .55 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 0. . . . . .02 0.4 36. . . . .49 13. .7 15. . . . . . . .00 0. . . . .03 6.67 0. . domestic . . . . . .88 0. . New light truck2 . . . . .4 26. . . . . .91 0. . . . .63 15. .04 0. . . . . .05 0. . . . Lubricants . .51 0. . . . . .1 69. CAFE = Corporate average fuel economy. . . . . . .29 2.9 42. .77 0.46 0. Rail.2 19. . .03 27. . . . . . . . . .8 41. . . .11 Commercial trucks 8. . Energy Information Administration. . . . .31 0.17 26. . . . E854 . .52 0.6 39. .83 0.73 0. . . . . .05 27.82 3. . .86 0.53 3. Liquid fuels and other petroleum . .5 16. .88 0.7 62. . . . Energy efficiency indicators (miles per gallon) Tested new light-duty vehicle2 .89 0. . Freight trucks . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 201 . . . . .27 2. . . . Motor gasoline5 . . . . . .68 25. . . Delivered energy . . .11 0. Shipping. . . .57 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00 0. . . . .8 31. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .06 0. . . Diesel . . . . .27 0. . . .11 15.39 11. . . .12 0. Motor gasoline . . .43 6. . . . . . .87 12.27 0. . .93 1. . . .17 5. . .00 0. . .23 0. .06 13.51 1. . . . .28 0.82 14.46 5. Liquefied petroleum gases . .80 6. . . . . . . . . .56 0. . . . .10 0.21 0. . .38 5.51 Includes lease condensate. . . . Motor gasoline . . . .09 0. . . . .35 12.82 0. .19 5. . .36 0. . . Annual Energy Review 2010. . .44 5.59 5. . . . Motor gasoline . . . . .63 5. .32 0. .07 0. . . . . .40 7.D050412A.40 0. . . .63 11. . Diesel .39 11. . . . . . . . . .08 5. . . . . . .18 5. . . . . .35 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . .01 0.02 0.23 12.87 0. . . . .48 13. . . .07 7. .00 5. .01 0. . .06 7. . . . . .66 7. .49 6. . . .00 0. . . .40 0. . . . . . . . . . December 2004).S.09 0. .00 0. . . . Motor gasoline . . .11 0. . .16 5. . . . . .32 16.56 9. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.56 9. . . .44 5. .82 12.05 8.06 Heavy Duty Vehicle Reference 0. .40 0. . .00 0.00 0. Liquefied petroleum gases . . . . . .01 5. derived from biomass. Stock fuel efficiency by size class (gasoline equivalent miles per gallon) . . . . . .62 6. and efficiency Truck sales by size class (millions) . . .95 9. . . . . . .85 7. . . . .82 11.75 6. .08 0. . . . . . . . .54 10.80 0. . .38 5. . . .28 4. . . . .01 0. Liquefied petroleum gases .29 7. .95 7. . .01 0. . .41 13. . .01 0. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 28 and Annual (Oak Ridge. . . . . .05 4. . .07 13. .48 4. . .05 7.08 0.50 10. .32 6. . . Department of Commerce.29 0. . . . “Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . Diesel .49 10.07 7. . .00 0. . . . . . . .59 9. . . .77 3. . . . .01 5. .01 0. . .79 0.62 6.58 6. . . . . . . . . . .01 4.30 0. .82 0. . . . . .01 0. . . .00 0. DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington. Sources: 2010 data based on: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.26 0. . .57 0. . Btu = British thermal unit.15 0. . . . Diesel . Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. .01 0. . .11 11.06 0. . . . .97 7.26 0. .07 7.99 6.00 0. . . . .87 7.29 0. . .75 6. . . .71 0.66 1. . . . . .07 5. . . . . . .90 15.85 5.22 0. . .50 1. . . .49 10. . . . . .” EC02TV (Washington. . . . . . . . . . .44 5. . Liquefied petroleum gases . .82 6. . .87 11. . . . . . . . .42 14. .07 7. . . . . . .28 0. . .12 0. . . . . . . .01 0.66 11. .34 5. . . . . . . .25 0. . .00 6. . .68 1. . . . . . . .27 0.60 15. . . . . .29 7. . . . . refinery processing gain. . .23 8. . . . . . . .35 6. Liquefied petroleum gases .55 4. . . . . . . .12 14. . . . . . Highway Statistics 2007 (Washington. .95 6. . . . . . . . such as ethanol and biodiesel. . . . .11 11.86 11.26 0.59 9. . Natural gas . . . . . . . . . .07 13. consumption. other crude oil supply. . . . . .S.69 6. Medium . . .41 Heavy Duty Natural Gas Vehicle Potential 0. .88 14.72 13.56 0. .01 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03 4. . . Natural gas . . . . .09 5. . . . . . . Liquefied petroleum gases . .75 6. . . .06 16. . . . . . . . . . TN. . .21 0. . . . . . . . .00 5. .99 16. . . . . . . Liquefied petroleum gases . .15 0. . .Results from side cases Table D4. . . .59 7.02 0. . . . Medium . . .30 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .05 13. . . .06 7. . . . Natural gas . . .75 6. . . . . . . . . .04 6. 2009). . . . .00 0. . . . .34 5. .56 6. . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 5 . DC. . . .43 5. Energy Information Administration (EIA). .47 4.83 0. . . . . . . Diesel . . . . .79 11. Heavy .32 0. . . .85 5. .01 0. . . . DC.87 12. . . .49 10. . . . . . . . . . .46 7. . . . . . Motor gasoline . . Federal Highway Administration.01 0. . . . . . . . . Key results for heavy duty vehicle natural gas potential case 2015 2025 2010 Heavy Duty Vehicle Reference 0.44 7. . . New truck fuel efficiency by size class (gasoline equivalent miles per gallon) . .49 10. . . . Motor gasoline . .08 0. .58 6. .65 0. . .67 8. . . . . . . natural gas. . . .92 13.37 13. . . .01 7. .89 9. . . Heavy . . . . Natural gas .29 11. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 0. .50 5. . . . and stock withdrawals. .04 5.03 0.16 6.07 0. . Natural gas . . . .00 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 6. . . .02 4. . . .S. . .50 5. . . .89 9.30 12. . Medium . Bureau of the Census. . . . . . . . . .99 6.31 Heavy Duty Natural Gas Vehicle Potential 0. . . . . . . . . . .81 0. .45 5. . . . . .12 4.D050412A. . . . .15 0. . .11 0. . . . . . . . . . .83 0.45 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .81 14. Heavy . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System run RFNGV12. Diesel . Natural gas . . . . . .35 5. .00 4. .49 5.01 0. .56 3. . . . . Includes natural gas plant liquids. . . . . .22 7. .83 12. . .08 0.01 0. . . .June 28. . . .33 0. . .79 5.50 5. Includes liquids. . . .40 0. . . .75 Heavy Duty Natural Gas Vehicle Potential 0.37 0. . . .36 0. . . . .46 5. . . . . . . .24 0. . . . . . . . .42 8. . . . . Projections: EIA. . . . . . .20 0. .36 5. . . . . .72 0. . . .11 0. . . . . . . . . . . . .27 12. .56 0. . . . . .87 9. . . Includes net imports of ethanol and biodiesel. . . . .00 0.72 0.20 0. . .65 0. . . . .01 0. . . 2012 U. Motor gasoline .13 0. October 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00 0. .15 5. . .04 16. . . . . .16 0. . . . .= Not applicable. .43 5.01 0.16 6. . . .29 11.03 0. . . . . . . . .12 16. . .01 1. . .85 1. .31 10.34 14.66 9. . . .49 10. . . . . . . .92 Sales. . . . . . . . .99 3. . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . . . Diesel .79 2035 Heavy Duty Vehicle Reference 0. U. . .32 0. . . . .08 0. .05 6. . .00 0.43 16. . . . DC.01 0. . . . . . . . . Medium . . . . . .02 0. . . . . . . Diesel .08 0. . .61 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 10. . . . .71 6. Heavy . Motor gasoline . . . .58 7. . . . . . . . . .20 0. . . U. .  Key results for HD NGV Potential case Table D4. .66 9. . . Consumption by size class (quadrillion Btu) . .02 0. .01 0. . Liquefied petroleum gases .33 0. . . . . .01 0. .00 0. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs RFNGV12. .30 0.01 3. .35 5.07 0. . . . .22 15.01 0. . .71 4. .38 13. . . . . . . .05 7. . . . .79 5. . 1 2 3 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D050412A and NOSUBNGV12. 202 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . .02 8. . . .00 0. . . . . . . . . . .21 0. Natural gas . and EIA. . . .13 9.44 0. . October 2008). . . . . and coal. . .

. . . . landfill gas. . . . .6 Includes energy for combined heat and power plants. . . .59 39. .58 26. . . . .30 97.05 0.79 23. or electricity and heat. . . . . . . . . . . .64 4. . . . other biomass.32 36. Electric power2 .16 7. . . Carbon dioxide emissions by fuel (million metric tons) Petroleum . . . . . . GDP = Gross domestic product. . . .0 2300 1435 2012 12 5758 14. . . .79 26.72 0. and coal-based synthetic liquids. .71 26. . . . . . . .84 8. . .6 2328 1367 1700 12 5407 16.5 2251 1363 1901 12 5526 15. . . . . . .63 98. .53 97. . . . . . . . . . Includes petroleum-derived fuels and non-petroleum derived fuels. . . . . . .00 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03 9. . .25 24. . 6 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . .31 26.66 0. .43 41. . .1 2329 1367 1699 12 5407 16. . . . . . .58 36.60 44.24 106.44 6. . . Note: Includes end-use. Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . . . . . . Energy consumption by fuel (quadrillion Btu) Liquid fuels and other petroleum3 . . . . Natural gas .60 9. . . .29 98. .58 36. . . . . .48 25. .29 0. . .June 28. . . . . to the public.41 40. . . . . . .72 25. . . . . . . . .45 0. . .27 99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 9. . wind. Total . . . . . . . NOSUNSET. . . . . . . . 4 Includes grid-connected electricity from conventional hydroelectric. . Carbon dioxide emissions (tons per person) . . . . . .53 27. . . . Coal .64 10. .8 2289 1387 1957 12 5645 14. . .36 37. . . . .20 25. . . . .73 27. Btu = British thermal unit.60 9. . .35 6. .52 19. . . . . . . . Total . . . .4 2180 1341 1835 12 5367 15. AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs REF2012. . . .96 27. .37 20.5 2061 1337 1885 12 5295 13.99 5. .43 11. . . . . . fossil electricity. . .30 35.15 9.79 0. . . . Electric power6 .68 7. .35 11. . . but not the ethanol component of blends less than 85 percent. . . . crude oil consumed as a fuel. . . . . . . .79 4.58 36. Total . and both the ethanol and gasoline components of E85. . . . .D050612B. . . . . . .11 353 229 909 1872 2271 5634 338 231 963 1864 2011 5407 337 231 962 1864 2015 5409 338 231 963 1863 2012 5407 324 237 992 1820 2179 5552 322 238 993 1813 2161 5526 319 232 983 1749 2084 5367 312 246 1011 1859 2330 5758 307 248 1016 1853 2221 5645 293 236 991 1642 2133 5295 2349 1283 1990 12 5634 18. Carbon dioxide emissions by sector (million metric tons) Residential . . .40 42. . .03 101. . . . . . . . . . . .30 97. . . .76 8. . . such as active and passive solar systems. . .16 11. .42 42. .78 11. . .  Energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions for extended policy cases Table D5. . . . Nuclear / uranium .11 11. . . . . . . . . and renewable technology assumptions.60 38. .24 106. . .80 23. . . . . Energy intensity (thousand Btu per 2005 dollar of GDP) . . . . . . . . . . wood and wood waste. . .60 25. . .96 9.92 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 23.94 28. .10 0.99 28. 1 2 3 11. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. .51 9. . which is a solid. . .S.30 97. . . is included. .38 0. . . Coal . . . . Industrial1 . . . . . . . . .98 17. . . . . . . . . . . .6 2329 1366 1702 12 5409 16.S. . . .00 17. . . . . . . . . . . .30 6. . .28 101. and non-electric energy from renewable sources. . Other7 . . . . .68 7.96 27. Transportation . . Transportation . . . . . .59 9.45 99. . . . .50 9.93 11. . . .27 101.Results from side cases Table D5.49 25. .70 27.D020112C. .6 2261 1374 1906 12 5552 15.42 19. Natural gas . and liquid hydrogen. Petroleum coke. .58 10. .43 6. . . .79 37. . .30 11. . .D032112A.80 8. .27 9. . . .28 26. . Renewable energy4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 9. photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. . . . . . . . . . . . .78 5.21 8. . .24 8. . . .82 0.68 7. . . . . . . .72 26. to the public.16 37.22 8. . . .93 10. . . . .71 20. .64 97.93 4. . . . . . . .95 106. . . .82 9. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 203 . Other5 . . Excludes electricity imports using renewable sources and nonmarketed renewable energy. such as ethanol and biodiesel. . .24 106. . . . 7 Includes emissions from geothermal power and nonbiogenic emissions from municipal solid waste. . .66 8. .02 9. . Energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions for extended policy cases 2015 2025 2035 2010 Extended Extended Extended Reference No Sunset Reference No Sunset Reference No Sunset Policies Policies Policies Consumption and emissions Energy consumption by sector (quadrillion Btu) Residential . .57 43. Commercial . . Also included are natural gas plant liquids. Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . . .26 21. .57 25. . . . . . . 2012 U. 6 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. . .16 12.62 26.14 20. .20 25.60 97. . . . .11 5.93 19. . .63 101.24 100. . . . . .95 27. . .82 8. Total . . Source: U. . . or electricity and heat. . .78 23. Industrial1 . biogenic municipal solid waste. . .59 38. . or electricity and heat. . . . . and wood. . . . Commercial .24 100. . . . Energy Information Administration. to the public. . .37 27.99 11. . . . . . . . . . 5 Includes non-biogenic municipal waste and net electricity imports. .05 12. .28 11. .42 26.35 34. . and EXTENDED.44 25. except those whose primary business is to sell electricity.50 36. . . . .59 38.

8 28.3 272. . . . . .7 0. . .1 224.0 998. . Average electricity price (cents per kilowatthour) . . . .6 90.0 30. . . . . Combined heat and power2 . . . .0 85. . .0 0. . . . . . . . . Conventional combustion turbine . . . . . . . . . .2 4152 3956 1562 26 1028 830 508 2 0 197 142 55 9. .0 1. . . .0 6.7 2. . .0 7. . . . . . . Distributed generation . . . .7 1020. . . .9 0. .6 8. . . .0 108.5 18.8 6. . . . .8 78. . .0 3. .7 65. .8 1091. . .6 14. . .7 26. .3 5. .2 24. Distributed generation . . . . Electricity generation and generating capacity in extended policy cases (gigawatts. or electricity and heat. . . . . . .9 25.6 Capacity .2 0. . . . . .9 1167. . .3 0. . . . . . . . . . . . 1036. . . . .0 17. .4 1. . . . . . . .1 22. . . . . .8 10. . . . .0 82. . .9 212. . . .6 257. . . . . . . . .8 213. . . . . . . .7 0. . . . .1 13.1 0. . . . Nuclear / uranium . . . . . . . .5 5.8 213.9 49.1 13. Renewable sources . Renewable fuels .6 1059. . .3 105. . . Electric power sector1 . . . .7 1088.4 135. . .7 10. . . .5 44. . . Pumped storage . . . .2 0. Electric power sector1 . .0 5. . Cumulative retirements . .0 22. . . . . . . . .5 0. . .0 0.2 1. . Coal gasification combined-cycle .0 4.3 157.0 8. . . . . . . Combined heat and power2 . . . . . .8 6.9 85. .0 114. .7 145.6 264. . . .4 126. .6 0. . . .0 133. .5 15. . . . . .9 8. . . . .8 3. . . .0 91. . .2 108.3 82.7 280.2 13.2 6. .7 0.7 11. . .3 22.3 94. . . .6 14. . . unless otherwise noted) Net summer capacity. . .7 6. . . . Advanced combustion turbine . .0 265.1 77. . . . .2 0.4 1. . . . .4 5. . .3 108. . .1 80. . .9 4556 4279 1741 27 1006 917 584 2 2 277 198 78 9.2 0.4 126. . .4 5.4 23. . .0 103. . . . . .0 65. . . .1 15. . .7 1. .7 1.2 4813 4310 1711 27 976 865 728 2 1 502 294 208 9. . . . . . .5 2. . . . . . . . .4 0. . . . . . .9 170. . .2 2. . . . .5 22.D020112C. . . . .1 43.7 0. . . . . .5 198. . . . . Combined heat and power2 .9 77. . . . .8 57. . . . .1 9. . . . . .0 41. Includes small on-site generating systems in the residential.6 77. . . . .7 1.5 1. . . . . . . . . .0 140. .5 105.9 185. . . . . .3 132. . . . .2 8. .9 39.8 53.0 4. . .0 187. . and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation. . . . . 2012 U. . . .8 1 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.7 17. . . . . . Petroleum . .6 1190. .2 136. Nuclear / uranium . Pulverized coal . . . .6 81. .8 25.4 22.0 103. .4 25. . . .8 10.5 1. . . . .0 4. . . . . . . . . . . .5 14. . . . . . . .0 110. .8 47. Advanced combustion turbine .0 0. . . . .0 0. . . . .8 71.0 103. . . Advanced natural gas combined-cycle . . . . .1 126. .1 4. . . . .6 85. . .0 114. . . .8 26. . . . . . .6 69. . . .4 4142 3944 1563 26 1030 830 493 2 0 198 144 55 9. .7 212.5 15. .6 203.0 137.8 35.0 22.5 8.8 10. .4 2. . . . .1 19.7 1. . . generation.9 87.8 0.5 273.4 15. . . . . . . .9 88. but which may also sell some power to the grid. .D050612B. 2 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in the commercial and industrial sectors. . Distributed generation .0 0. . Fuel cells .5 15. . . . .7 1. .2 0.0 0. . . 204 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . .4 5. .7 35. .  Electricity generation and generating capacity in extended policy cases Table D6. . Conventional natural gas combined-cycle . . . .7 98. . . . . .5 10. . . . .D032112A. . . . . . .3 23. . . . . . . . .8 4427 4106 1673 26 938 909 557 2 1 321 206 115 9. .5 4147 3950 1565 26 1030 830 498 2 0 197 142 55 9. . . . . .8 1. . . .2 141. . .2 143.8 256. . .3 5.3 5. . . .0 290. .2 0. .6 8. . . . . . Renewable sources . Renewable fuels . . . . . . .6 22. . .7 1. .5 21. Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 7 . . .7 48. . . .6 1032. . . .3 51.7 3.0 0.5 134. . . .5 1.4 151.0 109. . Fossil fuels / other . .7 218. NOSUNSET.6 1.2 43. . .4 130. . .3 271.8 78.0 0. .1 22. . . . .0 23.5 0. . . . .Results from side cases Table D6. . . . .7 1. .8 0. . .9 1. . . . .0 1. . Cumulative additions . . unless otherwise noted) (gigawatts.5 3. . .7 116. . Excludes off-grid photovoltaics and other generators not connected to the distribution or transmission systems. .9 212. . . .9 1098.0 1112.5 312. .S. . . .3 5004 4498 1781 28 1030 875 780 2 2 506 298 208 9. .4 4992 4586 1834 28 1196 887 634 2 4 406 281 125 10. .1 53.5 54. .6 0. Pulverized coal . . . . . . . . Pumped storage . . . .0 10. . . . .9 6. .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 0. . Source: U. Fossil fuels / other . . .7 17. Coal . . .1 47. . . . . .4 127. . . Conventional natural gas combined-cycle .0 124. .7 129.5 83. . . . . . . Electric power sector1 . . .6 0. . . . .7 1.0 4126 3971 1831 34 898 807 395 2 0 155 122 34 9. . .5 1004. . . .0 20. .3 967.8 52. . . .3 41. . . . commercial. . .8 31. . .3 133. . . . .1 1006. .7 89.0 11. .8 1. . .S.1 1033.8 56. . . .4 101. . .June 28. . . .7 65. .9 4559 4229 1736 27 971 917 574 2 1 330 206 124 9. . .7 20. . . . .7 0. Fossil fuels / other .2 13. . . . . . . .5 8.7 0.6 8.2 22. .4 976. . .6 235.0 0. to the public. Renewable sources .0 0.3 27. . .7 0.2 6. . . .7 40.5 129. . . Advanced natural gas combined-cycle . . . . . . . .2 0. . . .0 0.0 0. . . .2 0. .6 85. . . . . . . . . .7 977. . .3 4.0 113. . .6 14. . . . . . .9 8. . . . . .8 22. . . .0 101. . and emissions 2015 2025 2010 2035 Extended Extended Extended Reference No Sunset Reference No Sunset Reference No Sunset Policies Policies Policies 1042. . . . . .7 83. Coal gasification combined-cycle . . .0 0. .9 98.0 5. . . . . . . .0 29. . .9 0. . . . .8 0.0 0.4 1. .9 212.8 34. . .2 0. . . . . .0 0. . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.6 84. .2 0. . . . . Conventional combustion turbine . . .9 49.2 1. consumption. . . .0 0. .2 0. . . . . Energy Information Administration. .1 10. .2 0.5 47. . . . .6 152. . Natural gas .3 134. Renewable fuels . . . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs REF2012. .8 1011. . .3 240. . . . .1 14.1 43. . . . .7 5. . . .2 22. . . . . . . Includes small power producers and exempt wholesale generators.3 25. Generation by fuel (billion kilowatthours) . .2 8. . .7 215.1 17. .2 12. .3 53. . . . . and EXTENDED. . . . . .1 1232.0 24. .5 1. Oil and natural gas steam . .3 27. . . . . . .5 213. . . .8 265. . . . .6 22. .3 83. Nuclear / uranium .1 8.

.2 0. .0 0. . . . 2 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business to sell electricity. .2 0. . Natural gas . . . . . . .6 22.6 22. . . . . . . . .52 2. . .8 0. .2 0.3 91. . .0 0. . . . . . . . . Distributed generation . . . . .7 2.0 29. . . .0 167. . . . unless otherwise noted) (gigawatts. . . . . .80 26. . Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports.9 78. . . .4 0. . . . .54 25. .2 0. . . 2012 U. . . . .8 0. .7 88.D022312A. . .5 103. .2 212.38 5. .0 10.1 77. .3 0.0 25. . . . .8 28. . . 3 Includes emissions from geothermal power and nonbiogenic emissions from municipal solid waste. . . . .0 224. . .9 1822 28 1136 979 2 632 4 404 5006 313. . . .6 101. . . . . . . . . . .0 27. Combined heat and power1 .26 22. . Combustion turbine / diesel .9 257. . . . .0 0. . .1 22.5 0. . . . . . . . . . . . 2015 2010 Low Nuclear 280. . . .4 87. .2 0. . . .4 1570 26 1022 826 2 508 0 197 4151 Reference High Nuclear 281.S. . . . . . .2 0. .8 65. .9 272. . and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation. . . . .6 1853 28 1361 625 2 653 3 412 4936 2035 Reference High Nuclear 275. . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but which may also sell some power to the grid.8 57. .7 22. . . . . .0 26. . .32 5.9 1741 27 1006 917 2 584 2 277 4556 275. . .8 0.0 0. .2 0. . . Renewable sources . . . . .0 153. . . . . . . . . .70 2. . . . Other3 .1 0. . Oil and natural gas steam . .7 57. . . Cumulative retirements . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 0. . . . . . .7 49. . . Combined heat and power1 . . . . . . . . . . Nuclear / uranium . . . . . . . to the public. . . . . . .1 150.Results from side cases Table D7.2 0. . . . . Combustion turbine / diesel . . .9 235. and HINUC12. . . .0 1. . Distributed generation (natural gas) . .8 58. . .2 87.4 121. . . .3 1727 27 972 970 2 585 2 278 4562 Low Nuclear 276.6 141. . . . . . . . . . . Fuel cells . . .3 28. .5 8. . . . . . Nuclear / uranium . . . .4 219. . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs LOWNUC12. . . . . . . . . . .1 44. . . . . . . .7 213. . .9 22. . . . . .7 8.0 0. .0 151. . .0 19. . . . . Energy Information Administration. . .5 114.1 0. . .0 41. . . . Nuclear / uranium .4 1033. .0 1760 27 1029 866 2 585 2 277 4547 2025 Reference High Nuclear 275. . . . . .1 0.5 46. . . . . . . . Source: U. . . . .7 10. . . . . .6 223. . .35 25. . . .1 198. . .5 0. . . . . .0 88. . . . .1 28. . . . .0 145. .7 6.0 145.0 9. . . . . . .S. .60 2. . . . . . . . . .0 126. . . . . . . Renewable sources .6 122. . . .8 110. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . . . . Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 205 . . . .78 1 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in commercial and industrial sectors. . . . and fuel prices Capacity Coal steam .4 108. . Includes small on-site generating systems in the residential.2 13.2 0. . . . . . . .0 0. .8 0. .7 28. . . . .0 0. . . Natural gas . .0 50. . .4 2. . . . .2 125. . . . . . . .2 0. . . Distributed generation . .1 77. . . . . . . . . . . .3 0. or electricity and heat. . Combined cycle . . . . . .5 85. . .0 19. .2 0. .7 89. . . . . . . .38 5. . . .2 43. . . .9 0. . . . .1 10. .7 222. .7 78. . . commercial. . . . . . . . .0 213. . . . .6 1164. . Excludes off-grid photovoltaics and other generators not connected to the distribution or transmission systems. REF2012.1 77. . . . .2 0.2 84.0 15. . . . .03 2.6 1036. Prices to the electric power sector2 (2010 dollars per million Btu) Petroleum . . . . Cumulative additions Coal steam . . . . . Fuel cells .2 2. .4 0. . . . . .4 127. . .0 137. .8 1091. . .7 78. . .4 81. .0 26.31 7. . . . . . . . . . . .8 168. . . . . Renewable sources . . . . .7 0.4 25.7 69. .8 155. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . .0 0. . . .0 0.3 1042. . . . . . Coal . . . .0 0. . . . .0 26. . . .3 172. . . . Oil and natural gas steam . . . . . . . . . .1 0.2 1. . . . . .0 247. . Combined cycle . .94 4.1 47.6 1. .2 1. . . . Combined heat and power1 . . . . . .1 103. . . . .3 1041. . . . . . . . . .4 1565 26 1026 830 2 507 0 197 4152 Low Nuclear 273. . . . Carbon dioxide emissions by the electric power sector (million metric tons)2 Petroleum . . . .0 13. . . . .2 13. .2 171. .54 2. . . . . . . . .0 145.0 19. .0 10. . . . . . . . . . .2 6.0 1093.9 10. . . . . .3 89. . .0 0. Generation by fuel (billion kilowatthours) Coal . . . . .4 22. . .8 28. . . Btu = British thermal unit. . . . . .2 126. . . . .0 175. . . . . . . . . .6 46.0 14. . . . .June 28. . emissions.0 0. .14 2. . .35 22.D020112C.0 0. . . . .0 0.0 74. . .0 0.13 7. . .3 0. Pumped storage . . . . . .7 0.2 22.38 5. . .2 70. . . . . . . . . .0 0.0 0. . .7 1. . . . .93 4. . .1 0.0 170. . . .0 14. . . . . . .4 86. .6 9. . . . . . . . . .1 47.2 22. generation. . . . .7 69.93 4. .0 1831 34 898 807 2 395 0 155 4124 281.9 22.5 1190. . . .55 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 0.8 1077. . Total . . Key results for advanced nuclear plant life cases (gigawatts. . . . .0 0. . .4 1183. .8 141.0 0.2 1562 26 1028 830 2 508 0 197 4152 274. Petroleum . Total . .5 119. . . . .8 13. . .3 0. . . . . .3 0. . . .36 22.3 103. . . . . . .D022312A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Key results for advanced nuclear plant life cases Table D7. .53 26.6 90. . .0 44. . .2 43. .5 279. . . . . . . 8 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .8 108. .2 0. . . . . Pumped storage .1 13. .8 9. . . . . .9 10. . . . . . . . .5 0. . . . .4 1834 28 1196 887 2 634 4 406 4992 33 399 1828 12 2271 23 436 1547 12 2017 23 438 1539 12 2011 23 437 1543 12 2014 24 435 1737 12 2207 24 427 1717 12 2179 24 415 1703 12 2154 24 545 1823 12 2404 25 485 1809 12 2330 25 467 1798 12 2301 13. .21 2. . .1 0.7 22. Coal .81 26. . . . . .6 0. . . . .0 0.46 2. .2 0. . . Natural gas . . Pumped storage .0 59. . . .4 0. . . . . . .7 6. . . .4 10. . . . . . unless otherwise noted) Net summer capacity. . .0 21. . .0 15.8 67. . . . . . .0 155. . . .5 2. . . .6 138. . .54 25. . . . .4 0. . . . . . . . . . .0 82.1 43. . . . . . . . . .7 65. . . . . . .53 8.0 152. . . . . . . . . .00 2. . .

D041312A. . . . . . . . . . . . .56 125. Source: U. . . . .96 0. . . .89 14. .35 4. .86 11. . . Conventional hydropower . . . . . . .30 262 1. . .22 3. All municipal waste is included. . . . . . . . . . .13 11. End-use sector5 Total fossil .13 55. . . . . .36 2. . . . . . . . . .91 188. . . .82 106 1. . . . . .34 4. Other 9 . . . . .46 37.97 507. . . . . .89 1. .67 634. . . . . . . .58 11. . . . .43 1831 34 898 2764 255. . . . . Wood and other biomass .33 0.02 54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . . . . . . . . .06 29. . Wood and other biomass4 . . . .20 260 1. .  Key results for Low Renewable Technology Cost case Table D8. . . . . . . .74 30. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 1. . . . . .33 2. . . . . . . . .27 105. . .82 1. . . . . . . . . Wood and other biomass . Municipal waste7 . . . . Conventional hydropower8 . . . . .68 174. . . .25 6. . . . . . . . . . .49 394. . Generation (billion kilowatthours) Electric power sector1 Coal . .36 8.81 13. .17 1780 28 1037 2846 321. .00 2.47 0. .56 2. . . .00 2. . . . . . . . .76 2. . . . .31 1. 2012 U. . .67 68. . . . . . . . . . . .20 3. . .36 2.36 2. . .36 34. . . . All municipal waste is included. .29 4.36 2.67 63.53 14.86 3. . .00 0.51 10. .12 65. .00 2.00 31. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.37 161. . . . .10 12. . . . . Solar photovoltaic . and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation.34 0.67 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 94.Results from side cases Table D8.78 166. . . .92 1741 27 1006 2774 305. .36 5. . . landfill gas. . .41 5. . . .66 24.73 8. Total . . Incremental growth is assumed to be for landfill gas facilities.00 0.60 2.75 0.75 0. . . . . . . . . . .79 34. .30 3. . . Geothermal . Wind . . . . . . Incremental growth is assumed to be for landfill gas facilities. . . . . . and emissions Net summer capacity (gigawatts) Electric power sector1 Conventional hydropower .81 180 1. and small on-site generating systems in the residential. . Natural gas .55 863. . . . . .76 0. commercial. . . . . .25 0. .35 13. . . . . . . .67 49. . . . . .36 7. . . . . 4 Includes projections for energy crops after 2010.35 8. . . or electricity and heat. . Solar photovoltaic . . and municipal sewage sludge.05 126. . Solar photovoltaic .00 0. although a portion of the municipal waste stream contains petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. . .89 9. . . . . . Solar thermal .38 39. . . . . . . . . .36 4. . 9 Includes emissions from geothermal power and nonbiogenic emissions from municipal solid waste. .29 5.30 57. .32 15.66 21. . although a portion of the municipal waste stream contains petroleum-derived plastics and other non-renewable sources. and LORENCST12. 8 Represents own-use industrial hydroelectric power.28 10. . .54 14. . . . . . . . Includes all municipal waste. . .01 22.00 2. . . . .21 23. . . .36 78.46 627. . . . .52 2. . .June 28. . . 6 Includes municipal waste. Energy Information Administration. .86 20. Carbon dioxide emissions by the electric power sector (million metric tons)1 Coal . . . . .64 78. . 1 2 3 78. . Includes hydrothermal resources only (hot water and steam). . . . . . . . .09 99. . . . . . . . . .84 56. . .10 0. . . . . .89 12. . . . . . . . . .15 2. .72 1. . . .35 5. .08 46. . . . 7 Includes biogenic municipal waste. . . . .35 17.06 0. . . .55 81. . . . .06 6.26 46.95 80.55 2.30 13. Petroleum . . . .00 0. . .52 14.94 177 1. Solar thermal .92 2.19 0. .10 3. . . . . .33 0.45 0. Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. .30 2. . . . .49 532. . . . . . . . . Cofiring . .00 2. . . . .19 190. . . . . . . . . . . . . Total renewable . . .75 0.30 50.75 0. .49 583. .33 0. . . . . . .34 18.36 2.25 17. . . . . . . Municipal waste6 .28 10. . .86 84. . to the public.75 0. . . .33 0.91 3. . . . . . End-use sector5 Conventional hydropower . . . .45 1731 27 974 2732 310.78 50. . . . .41 23.91 14.21 0. Dedicated plants . . . . . . . . .85 170. . . . . Petroleum . . .79 52.92 56.00 0. . . . . Geothermal . generation. . Wind . . . . . . .56 1562 26 1028 2616 295. . . . . .82 1828 33 399 12 2271 1539 23 438 12 2011 1525 23 434 12 1993 1717 24 427 12 2179 1706 24 416 12 2157 1809 25 485 12 2330 1754 25 435 12 2225 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity.27 14.18 66. .36 2. . . . . Key results for renewable technology case 2015 2010 Reference Low Renewable Technology Cost Reference 2025 Low Renewable Technology Cost Reference 2035 Low Renewable Technology Cost Capacity.33 0.90 13. . . . .33 0. . . . Wind .68 14. . . . . .03 2. . . . . . . .37 38. . . . . . .37 3. . . . . . . . .65 78. .35 5.36 6.82 3. .D020112C.44 11. . . .S. .35 0. . but which may also sell some power to the grid. .46 145. . Total . . . . . . . . . .45 3. . . . . . . . . . .75 0.05 0. . . . . Wood and other biomass4 . . . . . . . . .35 10. . . . . .18 18. . .36 2. .79 118. . . . . and municipal sewage sludge. . . . . .98 2. . . Total . . . .72 1. . . landfill gas. . Total renewable . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 11.28 2.02 26. 206 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . .05 2. . . . .59 163.36 0. 5 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in the commercial and industrial sectors.58 3. . . . . . . . . . .05 1834 28 1196 3058 310. . Geothermal2 . . .57 84. . . . . .47 33. . .17 20. Solar photovoltaic . . . . . . .72 1. .87 240. .79 33. . .86 3. . . .82 0.38 123 1. . . . . .67 78. Municipal waste3 . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs REF2012. . . . . Municipal waste6 . . . . . .41 152. .00 2. . . . .49 123 1. . . . . . . .86 4. . . . . . . . . . . . and municipal sewage sludge. . .77 152. Excludes off-grid photovoltaics and other generators not connected to the distribution or transmission systems. . . . . . . .43 18. . . . .S.37 3.04 310.61 150. . . . .36 2. . . . . . Geothermal .00 2. . . .88 54. . . . Total fossil .05 61. . . . .60 23. .59 1547 26 1018 2591 296. . . . . .17 16. . . . . .69 2. . .19 3.00 0. . Wind . .00 0. . . . . . . .79 96. . . . .41 81. . . . . . landfill gas. . . . . . .14 4. . . . . . . .86 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 14. . . . . .79 67. .24 30. . . . .88 2. . . . . . . . . . . .33 0.

.2 2. . . .0 0. .3 5. .2 1177. . . . . . .5 44.5 2. . .2 75. . .14 2. REF12_R05. . Pumped storage . . . . . . . Excludes off-grid photovoltaics and other generators not connected to the distribution or transmission systems. . .26 7.4 52. . . . . . . . EUR = Estimated ultimate recovery. . . . . . .3 38. . Combined heat and power1 . .0 10.1 0. .2 80. . . . . . . . . . .54 1. . . . . . . Source: U.0 6. . . .10 0. .21 2. . . . . . . . .D031312A.80 7. .3 1186. . . . .6 0.2 2. . .67 0. . . . .8 254.9 272. .57 1. . Mercury (short tons) .1 181.6 90. . . but which may also sell some power to the grid. .8 110. Total .71 5.5 276. . .2 87. . . . . . . . . . .57 7. .9 225. . .1 6. . . . . . . . .8 1187.97 19. .5 22.0 376. . . . .6 102 21 1306 1782 2 876 0 545 4634 555 0. . . .0 0.4 346. .0 0. . . . .3 96. . . .D020112C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key results for environmental cases 2010 Reference Reference 05 High EUR Net summer capacity. .1 22. . . . . . . . .16 13.0 48. . and fuel prices Capacity (gigawatts) Coal steam . .00 0. . Selective catalytic reduction post-combustion . . . . . .14 2. . . . . .3 81. . . Data for 2010 are model results and may differ slightly from official EIA data reports. . . . .2 1748 29 1347 875 2 601 16 426 5044 2310 1. . . . . . . . . . .7 285. . . . . .0 22. . .Results from side cases Table D9. . .77 6. . . .3 88. Includes small on-site generating systems in the residential. . . . . . . .00 0.0 29. . . . . .S. .00 275. .2 165. . . .70 0.07 2. . . or electricity and heat. . . . . . . . .3 312. . . . . . . . Nitrogen oxides (million short tons) . .2 173. . . . .0 10. .5 109.38 5. . . . .9 0. Distributed generation . . .93 7. . . . . . . .38 7. . . . . Generation by fuel (billion kilowatthours) Coal . . . . . . . . . . Natural gas . Pumped storage .1 198. .6 1036. . . . . .4 43. . . . . . . . . .9 33. . . . .06 34. . . . . Renewable sources . . .0 0. . . . . . .2 257. . .71 268. . . . . .9 58. . emissions. . . . . . .86 47.2 51. . .96 7. . . . . .97 4. . . . . .3 10. . . Nuclear / uranium . . . . .7 122. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 126.40 30. . . . .0 154. . . .6 86. . .D030712A. . . . . . . . .2 75. . . . .3 1752 27 1253 889 2 642 4 410 4979 2263 1.2 90. . .9 298. . . . . .  Key results for environmental cases Table D9. . . .6 51. . . . .93 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1190. .73 6. . . . . . . . . . . .1 101. . .1 47.61 0. . . . . . . .9 0.6 178. . .2 174. . . .7 240.5 10. . . . . . . HEUR12_R05. . . .0 137. Nuclear / uranium . .9 235. . . . . . .08 10.15 0. . . . . . . Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . Combined heat and power1 . . . .11 2. . Petroleum . .3 115. . . . . .2 171. . . Combustion turbine / diesel . . . generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 111. . .2 105.4 109. . CO2FEE15.50 313. . Combined cycle . . HEUR12. .7 131. . . . . . .9 39. . . . . . . . . . .71 1. . .2 234.2 170. . . Nuclear / uranium . . . .64 11. . . . . . . . 2012 U. . . . . . Sulfur dioxide (million short tons) . . . .91 6. . . .7 5. . .8 10.45 1 Includes combined heat and power plants and electricity-only plants in commercial and industrial sectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 0.6 480. . . Emissions by the electric power sector 2 Carbon dioxide (million metric tons) . . . . to the public.35 2.3 22. . . . . .15 18. . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable sources . . . . .9 74.0 0. . . . . . .70 Greenhouse Gas $25 39. . . . . . .0 78. Energy Information Administration | Annual Energy Outlook 2012 207 . . . . .91 2. . Cumulative retirements (gigawatts) . . . .D022212A. . . .4 1834 28 1196 887 2 634 4 406 4992 2330 1. . and CO2FEE25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 81. . . . . .44 0. . . . . . . .93 7. . . . . . .3 22. Cumulative additions (gigawatts) Coal steam .D022312A. .9 22. . Renewable sources . . . . . . . . AEO2012 National Energy Modeling System runs REF2012. . . Energy Information Administration.7 1166. .D031312A. . . . .17 0. . .00 0. .1 273. . . Distributed generation (natural gas) . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .29 0. . .6 0.51 6. . . . . . . 10 Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Outlook 2012 . . . .2 227. . . . . . .71 261. .0 24. . . . . . . . Retrofits (gigawatts) Scrubber . . .2 22. . .8 98.6 250.0 11. . . . . Coal . . . .2 1192. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 48. . .1 72. . . .0 0. . . . . . . .0 88. .2 101. 2035 Low Gas Price 05 254. . . . . .4 8. . Combined heat and power1 . . Combustion turbine / diesel . . . Btu = British thermal unit.3 67. . . . . . . .4 5. . .1 78. .68 1.49 52. . . . . . . . . .0 0. . . .1 699 24 1351 1268 2 888 0 512 4743 1228 0. . . . .69 2. . . . . . . .91 25. . . . . . . .57 19. . .6 5. . .31 1. .7 142.S.42 0. . . . . . .2 100. .85 3. . .1 1664 28 1404 875 2 618 16 428 5034 2238 1. 2 Includes electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business to sell electricity. . . . . . . . . . Distributed generation . . . . . . . commercial.03 2. . . . Selective non-catalytic reduction post-combustion Prices to the electric power sector2 (2010 dollars per million Btu) Natural gas . . and industrial sectors used primarily for own-use generation. . . . .7 160. . . . . .70 9. .5 2. . . . . .6 87. . . Nitrogen oxide controls Combustion . . . Combined cycle .June 28. . . .7 48. . . . . . . . .6 101. .4 108. . .0 1831 34 898 807 5 395 0 155 4126 2271 5. . . . .5 8. . . .1 77. . . . . Total .2 159. . . . . . . . .37 6. .10 9. .71 Greenhouse Gas $15 124. . . . . .0 0. . . Oil and natural gas steam . .

. . .71 1. .04 0.10 2.21 0.06 0.05 2. .99 1.22 4.98 1. .66 29.62 6.54 24. 6 Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity. 2010 Low EUR Reference High EUR High TRR Low EUR Reference High EUR High TRR Low EUR 2035 Reference High EUR High TRR 4. Pipeline4 .D022212A.20 10.66 25.12 0. .06 -1.39 0. .58 18.22 -0. .40 8.85 28. .40 17.74 1.29 0. .78 0.74 6. . . except those whose primary business is to sell electricity.15 6. July 2011). Annual Energy Review 2010.67 1.00 5. . Associated-dissolved .30 4. REF2012. . EUR = Estimated ultimate recovery. Net imports . DOE/EIA-0384(2010) (Washington.06 -1.10 4. air injected for Btu stabilization. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. . .44 1. . .85 0. .47 19. . . .11 21.06 -1.71 1. . . .94 3. .24 347.79 283. . Shale gas .25 21. . . Natural Gas Monthly. .99 0. .29 0.29 30. .73 2.66 28.35 24.69 3.76 3. . 2010 values include net storage injections. . . .05 3. TRR = Technically recoverable resources. . . . .79 -0. . Total supply .59 3. and HTRR12.17 6.32 6. and pipeline fuel consumption.06 -1.69 1. . .88 0. Projections: EIA.85 274. . coke oven gas.70 22. .55 4. .18 0. . biomass gas.03 2. .42 1.88 1.27 0. . or electricity and heat. . . . Liquefied natural gas . . .00 5. Tight gas .72 0.73 -1.65 21. DC.93 16. . .47 7. . 7 Natural gas used as a vehicle fuel.01 8.82 1. unless otherwise noted) (trillion cubic feet per year. .66 25. . .06 1.69 3.56 0. . .88 298.43 2. to the public.66 1.54 0. . . .13 7.69 1. . .58 4.55 1.06 0.70 28. .85 7.24 10. .58 2. .38 0. .73 1.08 0.25 0. .91 31.84 3.84 3. propane air. . .29 0. .99 4.58 20.52 19.05 3.77 1. . .17 0. Octob