[epistasis]

The article linked to an Economist article on British Columbia's $30/ton carbon tax, where it seemed to have a much more significant effect:

>BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-...

I'm not sure I trust future projections much from the EIA; they are extremely conservative in terms of being unable to imagine non-fossil fuel energy. They've been consistently wrong on renewable technology as well:

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/us-eia-responds-cleantec...

I don't mean to diminish the excellent work they do. But for projections like this they must necessarily embody lots of opinion, and there's a good chance that their opinions embody the slow-change mindset of the energy industry.