1998 MECS User Needs
Summary of Face-to-Face Meetings
| July 23, 1998 | July 28, 1998 |
|---|---|
| National Energy Information Center (NEIC): | International Energy Statistics (IES) Team: |
| Paula Altman | Louis DeMouy |
| Jonathan Cogan | Vicky McLaine |
| Karen Freedman | |
| Bob Gruver | |
| William Jeffers | |
| Mary Jones | |
| Marion King | |
| July 29, 1998 | August 5, 1998 |
| Office of Integrated Analysis & Forecasting (OIAF): | Domestic Energy Statistics (DES) Team: |
| Crawford Honeycutt | Charles Allen |
Purpose
The Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) Team (Nancy Leach, Bob Adler, Stephanie Battles, Christy Hall, Mike Margreta) met on the dates indicated with the above-mentioned internal groups. The purpose of these meetings was to learn of their reactions to the following proposals for the data collection of the 1998 MECS. These proposals are the results of budget reductions to the survey itself and the realities of the marketplace, with restructuring of the network for the production, distribution, and transmission of natural gas and electricity.
Eliminating the Collection of Data on Manufacturers' Fuel-Switching Capabilities
Although NEIC expressed surprise that the fuel-switching collection would be eliminated, its staff realized that there had not been any recent international development to provoke fuel switching, and the data would quickly become outdated if any significant, dynamic change did occur. There is no alternative planned on the MECS form for the deleted fuel-switching questions, and there are no plans to update the existing 1994 data.
IES had no concerns because fuel-switching data are not used by the team.
OIAF believed the amount of fuel-switching information could be greatly reduced, particularly by removing all petroleum switching, but natural gas to coal switching (both ways) would be of interest.
DES had no concerns.
Eliminating the Collection of Data on Manufacturers' Electric Motor Systems
NEIC had no concerns.
IES had no comment.
OIAF saw no point in repeating those same questions in the next MECS.
DES had no concerns.
Reducing the Amount of Collected Data at the Subnational Level, in Particular Eliminating U.S. Census Division Data
NEIC had no concerns, but wondered if MECS sampling will be adjusted to provide coverage by NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes. As for current plans, the 1998 data will be displayed in the customary format by SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) codes, but a crosswalk will be developed to retabulate the data by NAICS. In addition, the MECS sample size will be reduced to about 17,000 establishments, thereby making the collection of division-level data unfeasible. Region-level data will still be available.
IES had no comment.
OIAF had no objection to dropping division-level data because regional data are used in its models, not division data.
DES understood the constraints of data collection and had no objection.
Expanding the Collection of Data about Manufacturers' Quantity and Cost of Purchased Electricity from Both Utility and Nonutility Sources
NEIC's only concern was that respondents' estimates would be reliable.
IES had no comment.
OIAF had no specific comment.
DES realized the need for nonutility data in a deregulated environment.
Revising the Entire Section for the Collection of Natural Gas to More Clearly Underscore the Restructuring of its Production, Distribution, and Transmission
NEIC understood the necessity for updated classifications of gas data.
IES had no comment.
OIAF had no specific comment.
DES realized the need for nonutility data in a deregulated environment.
Deciding if Data such as Establishment Counts and Floor-Space Square Footage Are Still Worthwhile
NEIC would prefer not to eliminate establishment counts. Rather, the retention of counts should be based upon the survey response rate. However, floor-space data are not as important to NEIC.
IES had no comment.
OIAF did not use establishment counts nor floor-space footage from the 1994 MECS, but floor space could be useful in the future.
DES has received customer calls requesting floor-space data as an indicator of capacity size, so DES would favor retaining these data. However, DES has had no experiences with customers concerning establishment counts.
Revising the Entire Appearance of the MECS Form, from the Boxy Matrix Style of 8.5" x 14" Sheets for 1994, to a Stapled Pack of 8.5" x 11" Sheets for 1998
No comments.
Discussing Any Other Issues of Concern
NEIC enjoyed the appearance of the front end of the 1994 MECS publication. It provided a good, compact summary that could easily be transported for distribution at industry conferences. One suggestion was to put the 1998 MECS form on the Internet so that customers could download it for viewing.
NEIC expressed the concern that website customers were not easily finding a particular data table or subject-matter category. Some customers expressed frustration at being required to wade through the up-front narrative before getting right to the data tables. As such, the consumption page was not especially helpful to them. NEIC would like to suggest a way to get directly to the data tables on the Internet, via one mouse click if possible. Also, there is not a one-to-one match between the numbering schemes of the published (WordPerfect) and electronic (Lotus spreadsheet) tables, thereby causing some confusion.
As a partner in assisting customers with their questions and data needs, NEIC would like additional visibility, both on the MECS website (say, by adding a website link to a description of its staff and services) and in the MECS publication (perhaps by including its phone number on the 'Contacts' page of the pub).
IES received assurance that the MECS will continue to collect consumption in terms of physical units for the major energy sources of electricity, natural gas, coal, fuel oils, and renewables (solar power, wind power, hydropower, and geothermal power). Since use of renewables is not yet extensive, the only estimates that can be provided are by 2-digit SIC codes at the national and regional level.
IES wondered how the MECS treats nonrefinery petrochemical companies that are closely affiliated with petroleum refineries. The treatment is consistent with the way the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Manufactures distinguishes between separate establishments. In addition, the MECS uses the Monthly Refinery Report Form 810 to estimate energy-product shipments (such as coal coke) to another establishment resulting from the nonfuel use of other energy sources (such as processing coal to make coke for later use) at the first establishment.
OIAF also mentioned that additional information on steam boilers (number, size, age, fuel type, and efficiency) would be useful in developing future cogeneration projections, possible energy-conservation initiatives, and evaluations of departmental programs. At this time, such a MECS collection is considered too burdensome to industry.
Furthermore, the same kind of information (number, size, age, type, and efficiency) on motor systems would be useful to OIAF for similar reasons. However, such a MECS collection is considered burdensome.
In the past, DES has found the MECS operating ratios (consumption measured per units of employee headcount, dollar value added, or dollar value of shipments) to be most helpful to customers, and hence, would urge the retention of those data.
In addition, both DES and IES noted that the international community studies the transformation sector, which deals with the conversion of the energy supply into other energy products. As such, the energy used for cogeneration is further subclassified, which the MECS has no plans to imitate.
Return to Manufacturing Home Page
URL: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs98/userneeds/usrmtg98.html
File Last Modified: 4/1/99