Summary of Advice to the
Energy Information Administration
from the
American Statistical Association Committee on Energy
Statistics
at the Spring Meeting
March 21-22, 2002
1. Weekly Natural Gas Storage Survey
(Priority 1)
Presenter:
Elizabeth Campbell
The Energy Information
Administration (EIA) began its first collection of weekly natural gas data in
May 2002 with implementation of the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Survey. EIA was directed to begin the new survey
after the American Gas Association (AGA) announced its intent to stop operation
of its voluntary weekly gas storage survey. The AGA survey has provided the only
weekly volumetric data about the U.S. natural gas industry. EIA designed its survey to continue the
basic data series which AGA has produced since the end of 1993 but will be
making some changes to the survey design and release product. The presentation described EIA’s plans for implementation of the new
survey, issues raised during the public comment period, and some of the changes
which EIA is considering for the future.
Summary of the Committee’s
Advice and EIA’s Intended Responses in six areas:
A. Types of
edits:
(1) No
recommendations. Discussed ratio edits as useful but subject to
size masking effect where small companies are going to show more
variability.
(2) No response
required. EIA will be using a
variety of edits.
B. Approach to
nonresponse:
(1) No
recommendations. Discussed the
alternatives of adjusting the ratio weights versus using imputation when the
data necessary for imputation are available. Also a caution about using exponential
smoothing as imputation technique because it assumes a local linear
trend.
(2) No response
required.
C. Revision policy:
(1) No
recommendation as there is no clear statistical rule. Agreed it made sense to continue the AGA
precedent.
(2) No response
required.
D. Sampling approach:
(1)
Recommendation from one committee member to use exponential weights in
the estimation methodology because of belief this was an unequal probability
sample. Another committee member
cautioned EIA that if EIA chose that approach, it was important to use the
correct weights.
(2) EIA
will examine alternatives to its present sampling and estimation procedure
before it selects its next sample (which is scheduled to occur in December
2002). This will also coincide with
approximately 8 months of weekly survey data.
E. Design of form and
instructions:
(1)
Recommendation that we review the form and instructions to see what
important information we could include on the form itself, using the remaining
blank space on the form. Was also
suggested that we enlarge the line space for reporting.
(2) EIA
will review the form before sending the form to OMB this fall for clearance with
these recommendations in mind.
F. Estimation
methodology
(1)
Recommendation that EIA review adjusting the ratio based on recent
seasonal trend data through a regression-based approach.
(2) EIA
will review a number of alternatives for the ratios including a single fixed
ratio for the year, the current approach of using the most recent monthly census
for a ratio, and the proposed approach which was to estimate a concurrent ratio
based on past sample/frame relationships and seasonal
trends.
2. Human Capital Management (Priority 8)
Presenter: Steve
Durbin
This session focused on
development, implementation, and maintenance of work force, succession and
training programs to support a turnover of approximately 40 percent of the EIA
staff over the next four years.
Special attention was given to increasing the diversity of the staff and
preparing staff for leadership positions in all key functional areas. The following areas, also addressed by
the EIA Quality Council, were covered:
•
Knowledge Management
•
Recruitment and Retention/Management - Employee
Relations
•
Human Capital/Managers-Employee Development
Also covered were the
methodology for tracking progress through the Department’s CHRIS and DOEINFO
information systems with quarterly analysis and reports prepared by EIA’s Office
of Resource Management and distributed to the EIA Senior
Staff.
Summary of the Committee’s
Advice:
The ASA discussant, Dr. William Moss, suggested that EIA
appears to be addressing short-term problems, up to 2005, but needs to focus on
longer term problems also and in dealing with people within the
organization. EIA's success in
recruiting, and at what rate EIA is loosing people who are not retiring were two
unclear areas. Recruiting
suggestions include going out to campuses and campus placement centers, and
target recruiting by areas of needed expertise. Suggested advertising in ASA and other
needed discipline journals. By the
time retirees are leaving it may be too late to rely on EIA's legacy approach
(memoranda and CD's). Suggest skill
redundancy. Although there will be
cost implications, it is the best way to "pass the torch." Also suggested summer interns. For the longer term, suggested models
and planning devices to reduce staffing bulges, and swells in skill and training
needs.
Other Committee members made suggestions too. Dr. Sitter suggested "Co-Op" student
recruiting (not necessarily in the summer), emphasize "interesting" intern
programs, find out where students go in their job searches, and agreed that
redundancy in job experience is best way to transfer knowledge. Dr. Crawford emphasized making jobs
interesting because Federal Service salaries are not as competitive with
industry. Dr. Khanna encouraged EIA
to pay attention to Hispanic institutions, Dr. Edmonds pointed toward the
importance of self development so EIA fills upper level jobs with lower level
(developed) staff, suggested that EIA's demographic problem is broader that EIA,
redundancy may be accomplished without more people by having two people able to
do the same job, and finally, ask other agencies what they are doing. Dr. Hengartner offered that there are
transfer of knowledge experts, and Johnny Blair suggested that jobs may be too
narrowly defined if we are having this problem.
EIA’s Intended Responses
The Committee made many good suggestions, and EIA will
endeavor to explore these options.
In particular and within available resources, EIA will expand its intern
program and recruitment advertising.
More targeted recruiting from college campuses, especially minority
institutions, will be conducted in line with the recommendations of the
Committee. Finally, EIA will
continue to look at its position descriptions to ensure they are not defined too
narrowly and will expand the use of inter-disciplinary positions where
appropriate.
3.
Information Quality Guidelines (Priority 10)
Presenters: Nancy J. Kirkendall and Jay
Casselberry
On January 3, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) issued their government-wide guidelines that "provide policy and
procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical
information) disseminated by Federal agencies." OMB’s guidelines require that by October
1, 2002, each Federal agency must issue its own implementing guidelines that
include "administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain
correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency" that does
not comply with the OMB’s or the agency’s quality
guidelines.
As discussed in the Fall 2002 meeting of the ASA
Committee on Energy Statistics, EIA established the Committee on Information
Quality Guidelines and that Committee has undertaken a project to develop EIA’s
quality guidelines. As part of this
project, the Committee is revising EIA’s statistical standards. To date, 13 standards covering
interagency requirements, systems, and information collection and processing
have been drafted.
In addition, EIA is leading an interagency team of
statistical agencies to address common concerns for the quality guidelines. The statistical agencies have cooperated
in developing a joint Federal Register notice to explain quality issues related
to statistical agencies, to refer the public to the individual agencies’ web
sites for more information on their specific quality guidelines, and to solicit
public comments on the guidelines.
The Federal Register notice and the agencies draft proposals on quality
guidelines must be available no later than April 1, 2002.
Summary of ASA Committee’s
Advice
There appeared to be general agreement among the
Committee members that EIA provides good documentation so that users may
understand the data, the methods used, and any limitations of the data. With respect to secondary data (in
particular international data from less developed countries), there often is
increased uncertainty regarding the data accuracy and EIA must ensure that data
users have sufficient information to help in making judgments about the
usability of the data for different purposes.
With respect to standards, there seemed to be general
agreement that standards are an important tool to help ensure information
quality, but the agency needs a program to ensure compliance. The success of compliance activities
(e.g., ensuring adequate system and model documentation) is dependent on EIA
Administrator support.
Summary of EIA’s Intended
Response
EIA is continuing to develop its Information Quality
Guidelines and updating its standards as one part of this process. The standards for information
dissemination will include requirements for informing users of limitations so
the users may assess the suitability for their needs.
The Guidelines and revised standards will be completed
by October 1, 2002. EIA is developing a program to monitor
compliance with standards. The
Director of the Statistics and Methods Group is working with the Acting EIA
Administrator on the compliance strategy to help ensure support as the
compliance mechanisms are implemented.
Initial thoughts are that the program will include usability testing for
EIA systems focused on the documentation.
There are also plans to train EIA staff on the updated standards and
their effects on EIA.
4. Managing
Risk in Energy Markets: The Derivatives Report (requested by the DOE
Secretary)
Presenter: Douglas R. Hale
Abstract: The Secretary of Energy has directed EIA to write a report on managing risk
in energy markets. The report will be a primer on the uses of futures markets, derivatives, insurance
and other tools to mitigate the financial impacts of energy price volatility.
Petroleum and natural gas industries will be case studies of markets that are
established and seem to work well. In addition the report will examine the
prospects for the evolution of risk management in the electricity industry.“ The
purpose of this presentation is to describe our just completed first draft,
share our preliminary findings, and talk about options for the rest of the
project.
A.
Dr. Khanna: One expositional device is to introduce an example that
illustrates the problem and work out how derivatives solve
it.
Response: Great idea, we are going to expand our
original example of the economics of a combined cycle natural gas generator to
show how derivatives would have worked out in stabilizing cash flow has they
been used.
B. Dr. Moss:
Need to directly relate derivative use to the nature of the particular energy
markets and to the specific risk market participants are
facing.
Response: We have done that. The Oil &Gas and
Electricity chapters both have sections describing the industry and the specific
risk market participants face.
C. Dr. Kent:
You absolutely have to have a top accountant review the “Accounting for
Derivatives” Chapter 7.
Response: We are now seeking subject matter advice from
Dr. Bala Dharan, an accounting expert in the Jesse H. Jones School of Management
at Rice University through the
Independent Expert Review Program at EIA.
His review is primarily on Chapter 7, the accounting chapter, but will
subsequently be expanded to Chapter 4 (Derivatives in Oil & Gas), Chapter 5
(Derivatives in Electricity) and one section on financial failure in Chapter
6.
5. Energy
Situation Analysis Report (ESAR)
(Priority 2)
Presenter:
Lowell Feld
This report is published twice a week and covers the
current situation in world oil markets, plus U.S. oil, natural gas, electricity
and coal markets. It contains
information on energy prices, supply, demand and inventories. The report is an internet-only product
that EIA began producing just after the start of the U.S. military campaign in
Afghanistan, given concerns over possible energy market implications of the
ongoing "war on terrorism," as well as the potential for possible broadening of
instability to significant Middle Eastern oil producers. Given the uncertain nature of this
situation, the Energy Situation Analysis Report can be expanded to more than its
current twice-per-week frequency as events (i.e., any expansion of the conflict)
warrant.
If the conflict expands to involve major oil producing
countries, we would propose beginning wider-scale distribution of this report,
including notification via email lists, fax, hard copy, etc., to top government
officials and other policymakers, the private sector, and the general
public.
Summary of the Committee’s Advice
Dr. Kent, the discusssant, recommended that EIA become
"intentional" about the ESAR, and have a "clear policy" about doing an ESAR and
what it aims to accomplish. Right
now the purposes and the constituency are not clear. Also, ESAR does not appear to be a
"contingency" product anymore.
Summary of EIA’s Intended
Response:
Since the Spring meeting, the Secretary of Energy has
directed that EIA produce and circulate the ESAR 5 times a week. EIA will not take action on the ASA
advice at this time.
6. Natural
Gas Annual Data Quality (Priority 4)
Presenter:
Elizabeth Campbell
The Natural Gas Annual (NGA) is EIA’s most comprehensive data product
describing natural gas supply and disposition in the 50 United States. The NGA is prepared each year from a
combination of annual surveys operated by the Natural Gas Division and other
source information and attempts to account for all supply and disposition of
natural gas in the U.S. and 50 States.
The NGA labels the difference between measured supply and disposition
statistics as “the balancing item.”
In 1999 and 2000, the U.S.
balancing items were 4.1 and 3.7
percent of U.S. consumption, respectively.
In those years, the NGA was completed in September and November. To improve data quality and report
timeliness, EIA will seek to achieve in the 2001 (next) NGA a balancing item
equal to or less than 2.5 percent of 2001 total gas consumption as part of a product released in October 2002. EIA must continue to use the data
sources, survey forms, and processing system used in prior years and has
consequently developed a program relying on frames maintenance work,
nonrespondent and data quality follow-up, and critical issue teams to address
the problem. The presentation will
describe EIA’s efforts for this priority and request suggestions for other
approaches.
Summary of the Committee’s Advice and EIA’s Intended
Responses:
A. Issue of
nonresponse and late response:
(1)
Following a discussion of possible causes for nonresponse and late
response, the Committee proposed that EIA develop information about nonresponse
patterns, perhaps through a survey of late responders and nonresponders. One committee member recommended caution
in the use of e-mails as a way to contact respondents as this mode is easier for
them to never see or forget in the midst of other e-mails.
(2) EIA
will develop records about the characteristics of late responders and
nonresponders which include information about the size and type of company, the
quality of any late response, and
the method by which they were contacted and responded.
B. What is
an acceptable level of error for annual multi-source products like
this?
(1) This
question could really only be addressed with respect to a random source of
error. The consistent negative
value of the Natural Gas Annual balancing item suggests that there is a
systematic error which needs to be addressed. The Committee suggested that EIA use new
or additional sources to locate the source of the problem.
(2) EIA
will use a variety of secondary sources about States and companies to try to
locate reporting errors or missing reporters for 2001.
C. Data
quality for respondents.
(1) A
committee member suggested that respondents would be better able to report
correctly on a simpler, less burdensome form.
(2) EIA
will be adopting a simpler form for calendar year 2002 if the proposed annual
form is approved by the Office of Management and Budget this
Fall.
7.
Description of a Natural Gas Production Estimation
Procedure
Presenter:
John Vetter, Ph.D.
In the previous (Fall 2001) EIA meeting with the ASA
Committee on Energy Statistics, a new method of estimating natural gas
production to provide earlier and more accurate information was presented to the
Committee. In the Fall 2001 paper,
several questions were posed to the
Committee, including:
A.
Should EIA publish its
best estimate as “final values” instead of the values reported by the
State.
B.
If EIA can make estimates 90 days after the close of a production month
within 1% error 90% of the time, should EIA publish an earlier estimate which
may be within 2% error?
C. What are the
pros and cons for publishing a five year monthly natural gas series on the EIA
Web.
D. What
final production value should be estimated or calibrated to 1year, 2 years, 5
years, etc., and
E.
Are there other Committee comments, questions, suggestions or
recommendations on the
methodology.
The complexity in
presenting the methodology precluded the committee from making any
significant comments and recommendations on the methodology and from being able
to answer the questions posed to the committee.
The presentation at the Spring 2002 meeting was to
describe the new methodology clearly and simply, and aid the Committee in making
constructive comments and
recommendations, and provide some motivation for using specific model
parameters.
Summary of the Committee’s Advice
The committee said that the Dallas model was doing many
of the right things. It did feel
that a more flexible approach using a statistical model, in which parameters can
be estimated from the data, should be explored. Dr. Randy Sitter suggested that the data
was similar to HIV data in the collection and analysis. He also mentioned
warranty data had similar characteristics.
He has suggested a possible approach using a family of exponential
distribution, which could be transformed into linear models for analysis. He
suggested that a graduate student of his would be able to explore this
approach. The committee agreed that
using a model such as this would provide more flexibility. The committee did,
however, encourage continued investigation and refinement of the current
deterministic approach developed by the Dallas Field
Office.
Summary of EIA’s Intended
Response
EIA’s Statistics and Methods Group will continue to
support the Dallas Field Office, with statistical support and advice. It has also provided a Fellowship to a
Simon Fraser University graduate student, who, under the direction of Dr.
Sitter, ASA Committee member, will explore various statistical approaches. The results will be compared to the
results achieved by the Dallas model.
A presentation of these results will be made at the Fall 2002 ASA
Committee on Energy Statistics meeting.
8. Current
Status and Issues Related to the Development of the System for the Analysis of
Global Energy markets (SAGE)
(Priority 7)
Presenters:
Pia Hartman and Andy S. Kydes
This ASA break-out session was to provide a brief
summary of the SAGE model development –
where the model development is, what is currently being done to improve
its simulation capabilities, what needs to get done by August 2002, and what
major issues remain to be addressed. The focus of the break-out session will be
technical in that we will identify and solicit ideas and/or recommendation on
how to overcome technical issues we now face.
The international team has recently completed the proof
of concept phase for the SAGE model.
Working prototypes for each of the 15 regions of the world energy model
have been developed with reasonable placeholder data and common naming
conventions. In addition, a friendly user interface for inputting
the region-specific data and scenario drivers that ultimately define regional
energy demand and consumer choices has been developed and is being refined with
increased use. A user friendly
report writer has also been developed and is being refined. The goal of these interfaces is to
minimize the need for computer expertise so that the regional energy market
analyst can focus on analysis and interpretation of model results rather than on
technical features of the software or run-submission
system.
Data quality remains an open issue as it does with any
model of national or international energy markets because the data is always far
less than perfect. However, we begin with best available data; our model
structure is sufficiently flexible to allow more aggregate information and
analyst judgment to be used initially and to be replaced later by improved data
when it becomes available.
The main technical issues for the remainder of the SAGE
development in fiscal 2002 relate to augmenting many of the relational equations
on fuel flows by relational equations on technology adoption and
penetration. There are two forms of
the SAGE model. The first is a
dynamic linear programming formulation that will be capable of addressing
questions of “What’s best?”. The
second approach which we expect will receive much more frequent use in EIA is
the Time-stepped SAGE approach. The
main technical issues relate to the Time-stepped SAGE approach where we attempt
to approximate market simulation through the addition of price and demand
expectations (imperfect foresight), an inter-period market diffusion and
adjustment algorithm, and technology learning. The version of SAGE that will be
available at the end of fiscal 2002 will not have a macro-economic feedback
capability but will rely on an elasticity representation for final energy
service demand to capture first order price response of demand. The issue for this formulation is how to
develop reasonable estimates for the price
elasticities.
Summary of the Committee’s
Advice
The ASA committee members felt that the three important
features of EIA’s new international model, SAGE, should be 1) to provide forecasts of energy use and
associated environment byproducts, 2) to provide insight on the costs of various
energy-related policies to the U.S. and other policy participant, and 3) to be
consistent with EIA’s other models, NEMS in particular. In light of these three features, the
committee recommended that EIA:
A. Consider
incorporating a probabilistic approach, such as a logic structure, into SAGE in
order to avoid the knife-edge decision making problem that is inherent in linear
programming models
B. Base the
energy service demand price elasticities on direct estimation, where possible,
and employ cross-country comparisons for SAGE regions where there is poor data
quality and/or lack of data
C.
Incorporate non-CO2 emissions from energy and non-energy
sectors into SAGE.
Summary of EIA’s Intended
Response:
EIA plans to investigate a logic structure for its
market-sharing algorithm. Price
elasticities for energy service demands for the U.S., drawn from NEMS, will also
serve as a reference/guide for elasticities in other regions, with adjustment
being made according to economic and demographic trends, for example. As EIA continues to develop SAGE,
non-CO2 emissions (particularly, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
methane) will be also be incorporated into the model.
9. Redesign
of the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) (Priority 6)
Presenter: Dwight French
The Energy Consumption Division is working with Westat,
Inc. to develop a comprehensive redesign of the Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS). The resulting frame will be the basic sampling
vehicle for the next several CBECS, beginning with the 2003 survey. Three new methodologies are currently
being considered for use in the new frame.
We welcome Committee input on their advantages and drawbacks, and
whether, on balance, they would benefit the redesign:
A. Westat
proposes to use a commercial energy measure of size (MOS) for selecting even
Primary Sampling Units (PSU's), rather than population or housing unit totals
that are commonly used for PSU selection.
The MOS would be based on county employment data by type of activity and
estimates of energy use per employee from previous CBECS, for broad activity
classes. These MOS would have
greater potential variability than population measures, but they are likely to
be better correlated with our most important commercial energy
measures.
B. We are
considering a hybrid approach to data collection units. Facilities rather than buildings would
be the collection unit for several types of multi-building establishments -
schools, hospitals, hotel/resort complexes; prisons; and perhaps a couple of
others, while tenants would be the collection unit for strip shopping
centers. Otherwise, buildings will
continue to be the unit of data collection. This approach will present both sampling
and analysis problems.
C. We are
considering using a Fire Insurance listing of approximately 2 million buildings
nationwide to increase the list portion of the frame, in order to reduce area
sample design (mostly area listing) costs, and perhaps reduce the costs of
developing local area large/special buildings lists as well. However, the Fire Insurance listing is
relatively expensive and has a lot of false positives because demolished
buildings are not removed from the file, which will increase fieldwork costs if
the list is used.
Summary of the Committee’s Advice and EIA’s intended
reactions
The ASA Committee considered three separate issues
regarding the redesign of the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS) for 2003. Following are
their major comments and EIA's responses:
Issue 1: Using a derived measure of commercial
energy use rather than population as a first stage measure of size (MOS) for
sampling.
Committee Comments:
(A) Look at
which MOS is best correlated with actual measured energy
use.
(B) It is
OK to split up Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's) in creating first-stage
areas for sampling.
(C) Compute
the variation of the MOS used and potentially use it for estimation rather than
just for sample selection.
EIA Responses:
(A) EIA
will see if Westat can do this (we can't because we don't have PSU identifiers
on our files). One problem with
such an assessment is that we have to do it using historical data, and of
course, measures of size created from historical energy ratios should look
better than an independent population measure when compared on the basis of the
same historical data from which the defining ratios were created. The question is whether the historical
ratios will produce measures of size that are more correlated for the
future.
(B) EIA and
Westat are planning to split up MSA's, especially large, diverse ones, in
forming PSU's for first stage sampling.
(C) EIA is
not clear about this suggestion.
The MOS will be reflected in estimation in that it will be used to weight
sample observations from the PSU level to the national level. Ordinarily, size measures used for
estimation adjustment (such as poststratification) use information about numbers
of sampling units in a population, rather than the size of a PSU relative to the
population.
Issue 2: Using a hybrid approach to units of data
collection and analysis (building/facility/tenant) rather than a single type of
unit.
Committee Comments:
A(1) EIA needs to identify a common,
lowest-level unit as the unit of data collection/analysis, rather than having
different types of units, or else analysis will be hopelessly
complicated.
(B) Perhaps
the meter could serve as the common unit?
EIA Responses:
(A) EIA
sees problems with the hybrid approach also, and as a result of our research, it
appears that we will not be using a straight facility approach to deal with
college/university campuses. For
strip shopping centers, tenants are a lower-level unit than buildings, but they
can be weighted up to the building level.
Also, because the same information can theoretically be collected for a
tenant as for a building, the data records will be easier to aggregate and put
on a consistent basis with individual building records. Making consistent data records was going
to be a big problem with facility-level reporting.
(B) The meter is not likely to be a useful unit. Meters sometimes are equivalent to a
facility, building, or tenant. Some
units will have 100 electric meters but one gas meter - what is the unit level
in that case? Also, it is
impossible to attach physical characteristics (floor space, age, hours of
operation, age of heating equipment, etc.) to a meter
record.
Issue 3: Use of a national building list for Fire
Insurance companies as a list sampling frame.
Committee Comments:
(A) There
might be a problem with out-of-date contact information on the list, if the file
is not kept up to date.
(B) There
might be a problem keeping the list up to date for later cycles of
CBECS.
(C) Use
tabulations of total floor space from the files in particular areas as an
estimation tool.
EIA Responses:
(A) The comment is valid. There will be both a name and telephone
number on the contact records; the odds that one or the other of these two
fields remains valid is greater than either of them alone remaining valid. EIA thinks that the organization
providing the list would have a reason for keeping its contact information up to
date (after all, they are selling the records for $40+ apiece to insurance
companies, who might not be pleased to pay that much money for out-of-date
information), but if it is not, EIA will have to start from scratch in
approaching these buildings, just as we do with buildings from the area
sample.
(B) EIA hopes that there is potential to use
new entries to the list as a means of updating for new construction in later
cycles, and will certainly try to use that as an updating approach. If we can't use the insurance list for
later cycle updates (because the data aren't up to date, the dates of opening
aren't precise enough to determine what buildings opened in the time interval
between surveys, or for some other reason), we will have to resort to the area
and list updating approaches we have been using for the past 20
years.
(C) This is
an interesting idea, and EIA will check out the possibility of using summary
tabulations. However, our
experience with the company providing the list is that they are prepared to
provide records or sets of records, but not statistical summaries of aggregates
for a set of records.
10.
Extension of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to 2025 (Priority
9)
Presenters: Daniel Skelly and Scott
Sitzer
EIA is in the process of extending the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS)forecast horizon from 2020 to 2025. Forecasts with the extended horizon are
planned for the Annual Energy Outlook 2003, scheduled for release in December
2002. The 24-year projection span
will match EIA’s longest previous forecast of AEO98, when NEMS was first
extended to 2020. By comparison,
EIA’s midterm forecasts through most of the 1980s were between 11 and 15
years.
The planned extension has been motivated by customer
requests for longer-term analysis and a general interest in how new technology
adoption and resource availability may affect future energy markets. The extension requires a reassessment of
assumptions about new technology availability and their characteristics, fossil
energy resources, and energy transportation infrastructure. EIA will present a status report on the
project and examples of technology assumptions under review in the demand,
supply, and conversion areas.
EIA would like to get comments on forecasting and
technology assessment issues related to the planned extension, including
comments on specific modeling assumptions or approaches. Additional comments of a more general
nature are solicited on, for example,
A. Whether
EIA modeling approaches are adequate for capturing new technology developments
over the time span considered,
B. How the
forecast uncertainty might vary with time and the implications of that
uncertainty range on how the forecasts are presented,
C. How to
construct alternate scenarios that span a reasonable range of future technology
possibilities, and
D. The
extent to which autonomous energy efficiency improvement or unspecified
“breakthrough” technologies should be incorporated into the
modeling.
Summary of the Committee’s
Advice:
The ASA Committee suggested that we review our
technology forecasts over the past 10 or more years, that we "backcast" the
results from our model given all of the inputs that actually occurred, and that
we think about what questions are likely to be asked of us as we determine what
new technologies should be assessed post-2020.
Summary of EIA’s Intended
Responses:
We will definitely look at the first item, and prepare a
short paper showing what kinds of technologies we predicted in the last several
AEOs, compared to what actually penetrated the market over the last few
years. "Backcasting" the model is a
difficult exercise; we will consider it, but the resources may be too high for
us to execute it. Finally, thinking
about the technologies that may penetrate 2020 is an integral part of the
extension exercise, and we will be doing that over the next several months in
preparation for the AEO2003.
11. Improve
the Quality of the Annual Nonutility Data: Implement New Electric Power Data
Forms, Processing Systems and Information Products (Priority 3)
Presenter:
Robert Schnapp
The U.S. electric power industry has been restructuring
since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opened the electricity
transmission system to all power producers, and many States have opened their
retail sales to competition. To
accommodate these and other dynamic changes in the industry, EIA is redesigning
its electric power information collection systems consisting of 8 distinct
forms.
To assist the providers of the information, EIA is
making an electronic reporting option available to the respondents. This effort will be in full compliance
with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act.
EIA is also redesigning the computer processing systems
to produce the forms, mail them out, process them, provide performance
statistics, and produce aggregate electric industry statistics. The final data will be made available in
newly designed information dissemination products (both hard copy (monthly and
annual) and on the Internet) and make the information available in a timely
manner in a wider variety of formats than previously
available.
Summary of the Committee’s Advice:
The ASA Committee commented on their concern about IT
security of submitting the data collection forms over the Internet. They also raised the concern that
keeping the latitude and longitude of the electric power plants confidential, is
not consistent with reality, as they can be obtained through a variety of
Internet sources.
Summary of EIA’s Intended
Response:
EIA does not plan to make any immediate changes to its
work as a result of these comments.
It was pointed out that CNEAF has worked extensively with both EIA and
DOE IT groups to make the site as safe as possible. EIA also acknowledged that while the
latitude and longitude information can be obtained from the Internet in other
more indirect routes. However, EIA
wanted to make sure that we do not make it any easier to obtain this information
for national security reasons.
12. Improve
the Quality of the Annual Nonutility Data (Form EIA-860B) and Implement
Consistent Use of These Data Throughout EIA (Priority 5)
Presenter:
Robert Schnapp
This project is designed to improve the accuracy of the
data on electricity generation, fuel consumption and useful thermal output of
the 1989-2000 annual nonutility data and display these data in all EIA products
in a consistent manner. Outlier
data from the Form EIA-860B “Annual Electric Generator Report - Nonutility” is
being analyzed and corrected. A
methodology was developed to apportion the total fuel consumption between
electricity generation and useful thermal output. EIA Program Offices will test the
revised data to ensure that it is consistent with the natural gas, petroleum,
coal and renewable data. This
includes comparing the data to the EIA-176, “Annual Report of Natural and
Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition” and EIA-3, “Quarterly Coal Consumption
Report--Manufacturing Plants” form data.
All EIA Program Offices will then modify their systems, publications,
models and forecasts to use the same data and definitions.
Summary of the Committee’s Advice:
On the Nonutility data, the ASA Committee suggested that
EIA make a concerted effort to alert its users to what has changed in the data
and publications, and why and how we made those changes.
Summary of EIA’s Intended
Response:
In response to this comment, EIA is currently putting
together a technical document to explain what, how and why changes were made to
EIA data. We will also document how
this has impacted our publications.
We will make available on the various Internet sites a button that will
lead the user to this documentation.