State Energy Data Needs Assessment
January 1, 2009
Executive Summary
Section 805(d) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Public Law 110‐140, requires the Energy Information Administration to assess State‐level energy data needs and submit to Congress a plan to address those needs (see Appendix A). In response, this report identifies gaps in EIA’s current State‐level energy data programs based on stakeholder outreach and internal deliberation, and outlines 34 possible initiatives to close those gaps.
To help users understand in ballpark terms what various enhancements to State‐level data might cost, the report provides some information on the potential costs of the possible initiatives. It is not, however, intended as a budget document. In particular, it does not address the prioritization among the different possible initiatives, or their priority relative to improvements in EIA’s national or regional data and analysis programs. Moreover, in many cases, the initiatives discussed in this report, such as expanding the sample size for the end‐use energy consumption surveys, could be implemented on varying scales and with possible opportunities for cost‐sharing, both of which could significantly impact actual implementation costs.
EIA Background. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), created by the Congress in 1977, is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. EIA conducts a comprehensive data collection program that covers the full spectrum of energy sources and energy flows, generates short‐ and long‐term domestic and international energy forecasts, and performs analyses on a wide range of energy topics. EIA’s policy‐neutral energy data and information are designed to meet the needs of Government, industry, and the public for the purpose of promoting sound policy decision‐making, efficient markets, and public understanding. EIA disseminates its data products, analyses, reports, and services primarily through its Web site and telephone contact center. Major users of EIA’s work products include the Congress, Federal and State government, industry, academia, financial institutions, news media and the public. By law, EIA’s products are prepared independently of Administration policy considerations.
Report Organization. The report is organized as follows. Chapter 1 reviews the process EIA undertook to gather information from stakeholders and customers, consistent with the strong emphasis on consultation in EISA Section 805, and from EIA staff and managers. The process was informed by the direction in EISA Section 805(c) to ensure “the quality, comparability, and scope of State energy data, including data on energy production and consumption by product and sector and renewable and alternative sources, required to provide a comprehensive, accurate energy profile at the State level. . . .” Chapters 2 through 4 cover three major categories of gaps: the future of EIA’s integrated State energy data programs, the quality and scope of EIA’s end‐use consumption data, and the quality and scope of data obtained from EIA’s surveys of energy suppliers and markets. Each chapter describes user needs and develops initiatives to address the identified data gaps. Chapter 5 describes EIA’s current efforts and proposed plans regarding communication, collaboration, and outreach to State energy data users and discusses opportunities and constraints related to the sharing of company‐level energy data.
Integrated State Energy Programs. EIA currently collects and publishes data at different geographic levels depending on the type of fuel or energy source (e.g. petroleum, natural gas, coal, uranium, renewables, and electricity) and the type of data being reported, such as prices, reserves, supply, distribution, trade and marketing, consumption, sales, and end use. Only data relevant to a given State are collected and reported for that State because not all States have production plants, refineries, storage facilities, pipelines, ports, etc. Additionally, insufficient sample sizes can prohibit State‐level aggregations, and some data are more easily interpreted if they are reported by regions or districts that are associated with established production, marketing, or transmission boundaries. While EIA posts State‐level data throughout its Web site, EIA has two State energy data compilation programs to assist data users. The State Energy Profiles (SEPs) is a data portal to all of EIA’s State‐level data and fuel‐specific State energy profiles, essentially a one‐stop shop for users interested in a specific State’s energy picture. The State Energy Data System (SEDS) fulfills an additional need by providing annual estimates of State‐level consumption, prices, and expenditures for those seeking time‐series data on key energy variables. Both SEPs and SEDS (which rely essentially on EIA data) would benefit from improvements to EIA’s State‐level data collection programs but would also benefit from investments aimed specifically at improving the quality of SEDS estimates and reducing the time lag between estimation and release. SEPs investments could streamline data integration, add on mapping features, and improve timeliness of release.
End‐Use Consumption Surveys. A wide range of stakeholders consulted prior to the writing of this report expressed strong interest in a variety of enhancements to EIA’s surveys of energy consumption in end‐use sectors, including larger sample sizes to increase the availability of State‐level data, more frequent end‐use surveys, faster processing and issuance of end‐use survey data, and expansion of the end‐use survey program to additional sectors, such as agriculture and household transportation energy. Options for improving the consumption survey data programs include expanding the current survey designs to cover up to all 50 States. An increase sample size and/or the addition of even a limited number of States would be a vast improvement over current programs because it would permit more complex analysis of key indicators of energy use, publication of more building types, and more accuracy for secondary uses of the data by other Federal agencies. Additional options aimed at improving end‐use data and estimates focus on restoring and adding new end–use surveys, conducting feasibility studies to explore alternative methods to update end‐use estimates, and decreasing the time between when data are collected and released.
Supplier Surveys: Data Quality and Scope. In addition to data gaps associated with end‐use data, stakeholders identified needs associated with EIA’s supplier surveys. EIA’s supplier surveys cover all aspects of the energy supply picture (petroleum, natural gas, coal, renewables and electric power) and are published at national, regional, and State levels, depending on the survey, the sample, and confidentiality requirements. Stakeholders and customers indicated that EIA supplier data are important for State‐level policymaking as well as for responding to emergencies and understanding markets within and affecting their States, and they emphasized the importance of maintaining quality in EIA data. Taking the feedback we received from stakeholders over the years, as well as from workshop participants and others during our 2008 outreach efforts, EIA developed several data quality options aimed at reducing statistical error in EIA surveys. The options include increasing sample sizes to provide better statistics, improving survey coverage by updating frames (the list of survey respondents), and adding new surveys to obtain data not currently collected. Current statistical data edits, nonresponse follow‐up methods, and other internal EIA quality checks are covered by strict adherence to EIA statistical standards and controls.
Communication, Collaboration, and Outreach. One of the requirements of Section 805, as noted previously, is “to ensure the quality, comparability, and scope of State energy data, including data on energy production and consumption by product and sector and renewable and alternative sources, required to provide a comprehensive, accurate energy profile at the State level. . . .” EIA’s stakeholders and customers note that it takes Federal initiatives to provide data that are comparable across States. Consequently, several options discussed in the report are aimed at expanding EIA’s interaction with the States, as well as the U.S. territories, and include hosting conferences and workshops to assess data needs, and options aimed at using collaborative, Web‐based tools to share information.
Resource Considerations. EIA’s 2009 budget request of $110,595,000 supports primary data collection, data processing and dissemination, short‐ and medium‐term forecasting and economic and industry analysis. Costs (both start‐up and ongoing) associated with each of the 34 possible initiatives to address State data gaps are preliminary estimates and are presented in variety of ways depending on the proposal (all costs include Federal staff and contractor support). For example, some costs are reported as increments to annual costs as presented in EIA’s 2009 budget request. This is the case for initiatives that address weekly, monthly, or annual surveys and/or initiatives that are improvements to data quality. For improvements to the end‐use (consumption) surveys, which are conducted every 4 years, EIA presents preliminary cost estimates in terms of increments to the projected budget for the next upcoming consumption survey cycle. EIA’s end‐use consumption survey program is currently funded on a levelized basis over the 4‐year cycle required to complete the current set of 3 surveys; annual incremental resource requirements after an initial transition period can be estimated as the cycle cost divided by the cycle length. For initiatives aimed at increasing the frequency of the consumption surveys (to every 2 or 3 years), the costs are per‐cycle costs, noting that this also translates into larger annual budgets to fund shorter cycles on a levelized basis. In addition, some proposals identify needs that require coordination and resource commitments among statistical agencies. Consequently, the costs of the proposals in this report cannot easily be added together for a grand total. More accurate budget numbers, both start‐up costs and per‐survey cycle costs, would require more detailed assessments. Furthermore, EIA’s budget is part of the broader Federal budget, and EIA’s funding must be weighed against other Federal priorities.
In some cases, improvements to EIA’s State energy data can be undertaken for a relatively small cost, particularly improvements associated with supplier survey data quality, State data integration programs, and outreach. Expanding the consumption survey programs to include more or all States would be much more costly. For example, EIA currently projects that the 2009 RECS, the 2010 MECS, and 2011 CBECS will cost roughly $28,000,000 to complete (or about $7,000,000 on an annual basis). Simply expanding the RECS by 50 percent more sample units would cost about $3,000,000 more per 4‐year RECS cycle. Similarly, increasing the sample size for the quadrennial CBECS by 50 percent would cost about $7,000,000 more than what EIA currently projects for the 2011 CBECS.
Compiling this report has helped EIA look carefully at gaps in its State‐level data collection efforts and develop options to address them. As it is unlikely that EIA would receive the budget to support all the initiatives in this report, it is important for EIA, along with its stakeholders, to consider State energy data gaps within the context of gaps in EIA’s other data and analysis programs to be sure funds are directed at the most critical needs. It is equally important to seriously consider options to the expansion or improvement of existing State energy programs. The inclusion of several feasibility studies in this report recognizes the value of fleshing out some of these options.
An old management adage that still holds true today in a variety of energy and other contexts states that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. Given the current interest in energy and energy efficiency issues at the State level, as well as at the Federal level, it is not surprising that there is considerable interest in more, and more timely, State‐level energy data. EIA can respond to this interest in several ways. First, EIA can continue to seek to operate as efficiently as possible to allow the use of a portion of our existing resources to address new priorities, including State‐level data. Second, EIA can propose reallocating resources away from existing EIA activities towards work that is judged to have a higher priority. EIA has done this on several occasions over the past 5 years, and in many cases has met strong resistance by users (and/or their representatives) of the existing data proposed for elimination. A third option would be to seek additional resources through the budget process. Decision makers in the Administration and the Congress could then consider our request within the context of two overarching questions. First, what overall level of resources should be devoted to the energy mission of the Department of Energy, including, but not limited to EIA? Second, what portion of overall energy mission resources should be devoted to energy data programs at EIA?