Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />presented in the preceding sections of this report. The alternative high <br />band energy prices are shown in Table 6-4. The three states that choose <br />to perform the LP model sensitivity analysis used the price projections in <br />Table 6-4 as guidelines and did not necessarily employ the absolute values. <br /> <br />TABLE 6-4. ALTERNATIVE HIGH BAND ENERGY PRICE PROJECTIONS <br />FOR LP MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (1977 Dollars) <br /> <br />Commodity 1985 1990 2000 2020 <br />Diesel--At Pump ($/gal)* 1 .10 1.20 1.50 2.50 <br />Gasoline--At Pump ($/gal)* 1.05 1.15 1.40 2.25 <br />Natural Gas--Commercial <br />Class ($/mcf) 4.05 6.35 8.60 15.95 <br />Electricity--Small Commercial <br />Class (mills/kWh) 47.45 55.30 70.80 79.50 <br />*Values include state and Federal excise taxes. <br /> <br /> <br />The results of the Kansas, Nebraska, and New Mexico LP models <br />when run with higher energy prices are shown in Table 6-5. Table 6-6 <br />summarizes the models' response to higher energy prices. The figures in <br />Table 6-6 represent the percentage difference in the LP model results <br />under the high energy prices and the Baseiine projections shown in <br />Table 6-1. <br />All three states' LP models forecast the same overall trends under <br />higher energy prices as under the Baseline assumptions. That is, when <br />the LP model shows a factor increasing over time in the Baseline case, <br />the factor increases over the study period in the high energy price case. <br />The results of the sensitivity analysis show, as expected, restrained use <br />of energy. and, consequently, water for irrigation under higher prices <br />regardless of whether the state projected increasing or decreasing energy <br />and water use over the study period. <br /> <br />6-8 <br />