The Natural Gas Gamble

The document details the methodology for 'The Natural Gas Gamble' report, utilizing a modified National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to compare three primary policy scenarios: Business as Usual, a Carbon Standard, and a Carbon Standard combined with renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. It outlines specific adjustments made to U.S. Department of Energy assumptions regarding capital costs and capacity factors for various energy technologies, including wind, solar, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage. Additionally, it describes sensitivity analyses based on high and low natural gas price projections and explains the calculations used to determine the social costs of carbon and the health benefits of reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

• The analysis utilizes three primary policy scenarios for the U.S. electricity sector: a 'Business as Usual' baseline based on 2012 policies, a 'Carbon Standard' scenario targeting specific emissions reductions from 2005 levels (35% by 2025, 45% by 2030, and 65% by 2040), and a 'Carbon Standard plus Renewables and Efficiency' scenario.
• The 'Carbon Standard plus Renewables and Efficiency' scenario incorporates specific federal targets, including a renewable electricity standard (RES) of 25% and an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) of 15%, both by 2025.
• Sensitivity analyses on natural gas prices show that a 'Low Natural Gas Prices' scenario (based on 100% higher recovery rates) results in prices averaging 29% lower between 2020 and 2040, while a 'High Natural Gas Prices' scenario (based on 50% lower recovery rates) results in prices averaging 23% higher for the same period.
• The Union of Concerned Scientists modified the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to assume higher initial capital costs for nuclear power and plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) compared to U.S. Department of Energy projections, citing recent project cost increases.
• For onshore wind, the analysis assumes lower initial capital costs than the EIA but higher fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, while projecting that capacity factors will increase over time to reduce the overall cost of electricity.
• The 'Carbon Standard plus Renewables and Efficiency' scenario reduces the variability of total system costs compared to the 'Business as Usual' scenario, making the energy portfolio 14% less sensitive to long-term fossil fuel price fluctuations.

APA

Union of Concerned Scientists (2015). The Natural Gas Gamble. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/natural-gas-gamble-technical-appendix.pdf

Chicago

Union of Concerned Scientists. The Natural Gas Gamble. 2015. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/natural-gas-gamble-technical-appendix.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=The Natural Gas Gamble |date=March 2015 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/natural-gas-gamble-technical-appendix.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{unionofconcernedscientists2015natural, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{The Natural Gas Gamble}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2015}, month = mar, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/natural-gas-gamble-technical-appendix.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }