DOE/EIA-0516(85)

Energy Information Administration

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey:

Changes in Energy 

Efficiency 1980-1985
JTOJ birpuTJd Ansnuer 'LI 066T 

uoijEiaossv

OlOHd 1IQ3HO 

:o}ond v seues jo jonpcud aBBJOjs s>|iie} 

(202) sese-esz 

'uoi6umsBM OQ 

'H 'S IU8LUUI8AOO 

luepueiuuadng jo sjueiunooa 

:sjnoH g 'B 'iu - g 'd ''UJ 'j-^ UJ91SB3 

(202) 181.1-989 

SUOjlBO!UnUJUJ<X>8|81 33IA8Q * J0 941 JB9Q :A|UQ 

(202) 0088-989 

00 98902 

'Sujpnng LUOOU I 8tO-d 

ABJ8U3 UOUBLUJOJUI UO|JBJtS!U|LUpV 

|BUOIiBN A6J8U3 UOjlBUUJOJUl 'J8iU80 £2-13 I. 

'(QQl) 'sssssjppv suoijdsiaj 'sjsqtunu pus sjnog JBeddB :MO|8q 

AB SOJISJIBIS pinoijs sq pspsjjp 01 9MI Q|3N Aq 'HBIU 8uoqda|8i 'JO suo!JBO!uniuuuoo8|8i sojASp JQJ 

ABUI sq peujBiqo LUOJ* eMi OdO eguo s,vi3 IBUOJIBN ABjsug UOUBIUJO^UI JQ1U8Q '(OI3N) suoussno uo 

'(Od£>) UOJIBLUJOJUI jnoqB SujSBgojnd SJLJI JQ ien\o ABjsug UOIJBUJJOJUI uoiiBJismjiupv (vi3) suojiBonqnd 

uouBonqnd si tuoj^8|qB||BAB &H\ luepusiuuadns ^o 'siueiunooQ 'S'0 1U80IUJ8AOO Bufjuud aojwo 
Contents

Page

Executive Summary ............................................................... vii

Introduction .................................................................... 1

Surveying the Manufacturing Sector ................................................... 3

Manufacturing Sector Consists of Business Establishments that Produce Goods .................. 3

MECS Samples Establishments in All the Major Industry Groups ............................ 3

Energy Efficiency in the Manufacturing Sector ............................................ 5

Energy Efficiency Is an Input-Output Measure ......................................... 5

Offsite-Produced Energy Is the Consumption Measure for Computing Efficiency ................. 5

Manufacturing Output Is Measured by Value of Shipments ................................ 6

Measuring Energy-Efficiency Changes from 1980 to 1985 .................................. 7

Other Measures of Energy Efficiency ................................................ 7

Energy Efficiency In the Manufacturing Industry Groups, 1980 - 1985 ........................... 9

Food and Kindred Products ...................................................... 11

Textile Mill Products ........................................................... 12

Furniture and Fixtures .......................................................... 13

Paper and Allied Products ....................................................... 14

Printing and Publishing ......................................................... 15

Chemicals and Allied Products .................................................... 16

Petroleum and Coal Products ..................................................... 17

Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products ........................................... 18

Stone, Clay and Glass Products .................................................... 19

Primary Metals ............................................................... 20

Fabricated Metal Products ....................................................... 21

Machinery, Except Electrical ...................................................... 22

Electrical and Electronic Equipment ................................................ 23

Transportation Equipment ....................................................... 24

Instruments and Related Products .................................................. 25

Miscellaneous Manufacturing ..................................................... 26

Appendices

A Survey Design, Implementation, and Estimates ....................................... 29

Introduction .............................................................. 29

Description of the Manufacturing Sector .......................................... 29

The Sampling Frame and Its Relationship to the Manufacturing Sector ..................... 30

Sample Design ............................................................ 30

Fieldwork, Editing, and Quality Control ........................................... 31

The Estimation Process ...................................................... 31

The Concept of Energy Efficiency ............................................... 32

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 iii
B. Quality of the Data ........

Introduction ............

Sampling Error ...........

Nonsampling Errors and Bias

D. Descriptions of Industry Groups ............

E. Related EIA Publications on Energy Consumption 

Glossary ...................................

Tables

Bl. Relative Standard Errors for Estimates of Energy Efficiency Change, 1980 - 1985 

Cl. Estimates of Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Sector, 1985 ........

C. Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Program .................................... 4'

History of the Program ...................................................... 47

Reporting Requirements ....................................................... 4i;

Differences Between the Efficiency Program and the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey . . . '£

Illustrations

1. Samples Sizes for Surveys of the Manufacturing Sector .................................. '

2. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 20, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 1

3. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 20, 1980 to 1985 .............................. 11

4. Energy Consumption, SIC 20, 1985 .............................................. 11

5. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 22, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 12

6. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 22, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 12

1. Energy Consumption, SIC 22, 1985 .............................................. 12

8. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 25, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 13

9. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 25, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 13

10. Energy Consumption, SIC 25, 1985 ............................................... 13

11. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 26, 1974 to 1985 ........................... 14

12. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 26, 1980 to 1985 .............................. M

13. Energy Consumption, SIC 26, 1985 .............................................. 14

14. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 27, 1974 to 1985 ........................... 15

15. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 27, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 15

16. Energy Consumption, SIC 27, 1985 .............................................. 15

17. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 28, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 15

18. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 28, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 1 <>

19. Energy Consumption, SIC 28, 1985 .............................................. 1 r:i

20. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 29, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 17

21. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 29, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 17

22. Energy Consumption, SIC 29, 1985 .............................................. 17

23. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 30, 1974 to 1985 ........................... IS

24. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 30, 1980 to 1985 .............................. ].;;

IV Energy Information Atfministration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
25. Energy Consumption, SIC 30, 1985 .............................................. 18

26. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 32, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 19

27. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 32, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 19

28. Energy Consumption, SIC 32, 1985 .............................................. 19

29. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 33, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 20

30. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 33, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 20

31. Energy Consumption, SIC 33, 1985 .............................................. 20

32. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 34, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 21

33. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 34, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 21

34. Energy Consumption, SIC 34, 1985 .............................................. 21

35. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 35, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 22

36. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 35, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 22

37. Energy Consumption, SIC 35, 1985 .............................................. 22

38. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 36, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 23

39. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 36, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 23

40. Energy Consumption, SIC 36, 1985 .............................................. 23

41. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 37, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 24

42. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 37, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 24

43. Energy Consumption, SIC 37, 1985 .............................................. 24

44. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 38, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 25

45. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 38, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 25

46. Energy Consumption, SIC 38, 1985 .............................................. 25

47. Output and Energy Consumption Indices, SIC 39, 1974 to 1985 .......................... 26

48. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, SIC 39, 1980 to 1985 ............................. 26

49. Energy Consumption, SIC 39, 1985 .............................................. 26

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes In Energy Efficiency, t980 - 1985
In recent years, the consumption of energy by the 

manufacturing sector in the United States has been 

declining while production has been increasing. These 

increases in production and corresponding decreases 

in energy consumption can result from manufacturers 

consuming energy in a more efficient manner to 

produce a given level of output. The less energy 

consumed to produce a constant level of output, the 

more the process is energy efficient.

The ratio of offsite-produced energy consumption to 

constant dollar value of shipments is a measure of 

energy efficiency for any given year. The percent

change in these ratios from one year to another 

produces a measure of the change in energy efficiency. 

A decrease in the ratio from one year to another in 

dicates an increase in energy efficiency. The 1985 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS), 

conducted by the Energy Information Administration 

(EIA), and the 1980 Annual Survey of Manufactures 

(ASM), conducted by the Bureau of the Census, pro 

vide the basis for estimating changes in energy effi 

ciency for the manufacturing sector between 1980 to 

1985. Table ESI summarizes the changes in energy 

efficiency between 1980 and 1985 for the industry 

groups within the manufacturing sector.

^^S^^^'^^^Si^^^^^^S^i^^^K^K^Mi^^U^^^^S^^a^^^VA'^^i^^^&t^S^^^^^Kiiii^'Xi

Enerov Information Admlnistration/MECS: Chanaes in Enerav Efficiency. 1980 - 1985 vn
The 1985 MECS is the first of a triennial series of 

national surveys of energy use by manufacturing 

establishments in the United States. The MECS 

sample includes establishments from all major 

manufacturing industry groups in the manufacturing

sector. This report is the fourth of a series of repor :s 

based on data from the 1985 MECS. Other reports 

in the series cover energy consumption, fuel-switching 

capabilities, and the survey methodology. 1

Table ES1. Energy Efficiency Changes in Manufacturing Industry Groups, 1980 - 1985

SIC Code3 Industry Group

20 Food and Kindred Products . . ,

21 Tobacco Manufactures .......

22 Textile Mill Products ........

23 Apparel and Other Textile

Products ................

24 Lumber and Wood Products . .. 25 Furniture and Fixtures ......

26 Paper and Allied Products , . . .

27 Printing and Publishing ......

28 Chemicals and Allied Products ,

29 Petroleum and Coal Products .

30 Rubber and Misc. Plastics

Products ...............

31 Leather and Leather Products .

32 Stone, Clay and Glass Products

33 Primary Metal Industries

34 Fabricated Metal Products

35 Machinery, Except Electrical . .

36 Electrical and Electronic

Equipment .............

37 Transportation Equipment

38 Instruments and Related

Products ...............

39 Misc. Manufacturing Industries

All Manufacturing .........

Energy Efficiency Ratios6

1980

3.5 

Q

5.7

NA 

Q

1.9 

16.0

1.1 

15.1

5.4

4.3 

Q

21.6

16.4

2.8

1.7

1.7 

1.5

1.7

1.8

5.8

1985

2.7

Q

4.8

NA 

Q

1.6

13.9

0.9

12.4

4.4

3.1 

Q

16.6 

14.6

2.3 

0.9

1.2

1.1

1.2

Energy Efficiency 

Change^ 

(percent)

22.9

Q

16.3

NA 

Q

17.4 

13.0 

15.2 

17.6 

19.8

27.8 

Q

23.0 

11.0 

16.4 

43.6

26.4

25.0

29.3

23.9

25.1

aSee Appendix A for a description of the Standard Industrial Classification Codes.

bThousand British thermal units per constant (1980) dollar of value of shipments.

CA decrease in the energy efficiency ratios from 1980 to 1985 indicates an improvement in energy efficiency, and, thus, a positive value for 

"energy efficiency change."

dThe estimates of energy efficiency change arc calculated from unrounded energy efficiency ratios, and may differ from changes calculated 

from the rounded ratios in columns 1 and 2.

Q=Withheld because relative standard error is greater than or equal to 50 percent.

NA=Not available.

Sources: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: 

Consumption of Energy, 1985, DOE/EIA-0512(85) (Washington, DC, 1988), and unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Industry Division, from the Annual Survey of Manufactures.

'Published reports are available from the National Energy Information Center (NEIC) or the U.S. Government Printing Office (GP(V 

Addresses and telephone numbers are provided on the inside front cover of this report.

vni Energy Information Adimlnistratlon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Introduction

Joint industry-government efforts to stimulate energy 

conservation began immediately following the 1973 oil 

embargo. Early programs concentrated primarily on 

awareness programs and establishing conservation

goals.

In 1975, the enactment of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) required the establishment 

of an Industrial Energy Conservation Program 

(Efficiency Program) including mandatory reporting. 

The Efficiency Program was administered by the 

Office of Industrial Programs (OIP) of the U.S. 

Department of Energy.2

The OIP, in cooperation with representatives of the 

manufacturing sector, developed voluntary energy 

efficiency improvement targets for the 10 most energyintensive manufacturing industry groups and 

established a tracking program to monitor progress 

toward these targets. The tracking program was 

eventually expanded to cover all 20 of the industry 

groups in the manufacturing sector, although 

indicators were actually developed for only 16 of those 

groups. The remaining four industry groups did not 

qualify under the minimum size criterion developed 

for the program.

The tracking program consisted of developing 

indicators of energy efficiency change for industry 

groups from data supplied by the largest energyconsuming corporations. For the Efficiency Program, 

energy efficiency was defined as energy consumption 

per unit of physical production. The changes in 

energy efficiency were calculated by comparing the 

energy efficiency ratios in the current year with the 

efficiency ratios that existed in an earlier base year 

(1972 or 1978). The changes were calculated by 

determining the percent difference between actual 

current energy consumption and the amount of energy 

that would have been required to produce current year 

output at base year efficiency levels. Thus, a decrease

in the energy efficiency ratios between the base year 

and the current year indicated improved energy 

efficiency.

The U.S. Congress eliminated the Efficiency Program 

with the passage of the Omnibus Budget Recon 

ciliation Act of 1986, Public Law 99-509, as amended.

Section 310(a) of the 1986 Reconciliation Act also 

mandated the Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey (MEGS). The MECS was first conducted in 

1986 to collect 1985 data. This first survey was 

conducted prior to the passage of Public Law 99-509, 

and was, therefore, conducted under the authority of 

the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Public 

Law 93-275, as amended. Future surveys will be 

conducted every three years under the authority of 

Section 310(a) of Public Law 99-509. The MECS is 

designed and published by the Energy Information 

Administration. The data are collected and compiled 

by the Industry Division of the U.S. Bureau of the 

Census (Census Bureau). All MECS responses 

submitted to the Census Bureau are confidential 

under the provisions of Section 9, Title 13 of the U.S. 

Code.

The primary purposes of the MECS are to provide 

estimates of energy consumption and fuel-switching 

capability for the manufacturing sector. However, by 

supplementing the MECS data with data collected by 

the Bureau of the Census in the 1980 and 1985 

Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), it is also 

possible to develop estimates of changes in energy 

efficiency from 1980 to 1985.

The purpose of this report is to present the 

MECS/ASM estimates of the changes in energy 

efficiency by manufacturing industry groups between 

1980 and 1985, and to compare those estimates with 

those of the Efficiency Program. These comparisons 

are necessary because the two programs are

2See Appendix C for a more complete description of the Energy Efficiency Improvement Program.

Energy Information Adrninistratlon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
incompatible in a number of respects: base years, 

survey coverage, definitions of energy consumption, 

and measures of output. The MECS/ASIvI estimates, 

for example, define energy efficiency as the ratio of 

offsite-produced energy consumption to a measure of 

output defined as the constant dollar value of 

shipments. The Efficiency Program, on the other 

hand, based its efficiency ratios on a measure of total 

energy consumption (including the consumption of 

onsite-produced byproduct fuels) to physical output.

This report is the fourth of a series based on the 

results of the 1985 MECS. The data in this report 

are published to provide objective, accurate energy 

information for a wide audience including Congress, 

Federal and State agencies, industry, and the public. 

The MECS is the first survey conducted by the EIA 

to collect detailed data on energy use by the manu 

facturing sector. The MECS does not include energy 

data for mining, agriculture, construction, fishing, 

forestry activities, or electric utilities. Other 

publications in the MECS series include reports on

energy consumption and fuel-switching capability, anc. 

a methodological report.3

The MECS data are included in the Longitudinal 

Manufacturing Energy Data System (LMEDS ^ 

maintained by the Bureau of the Census. The 

LMEDS file includes yearly data from 1972 to 1986 

for individual establishments that responded to the 

1985 MECS. The file of approximately 10,<(»0 

establishments contains information collected in two 

Bureau of the Census surveys, the Census of Manu 

factures and the Annual Survey of Manufactures, as. 

well as the 1985 MECS. The Bureau of the Census. 

surveys provide data, on over 70 variables including 

employment, payroll, value of shipments, capita: 

expenditures, assets, and supplemental labor costs. 

The file also contains annual data on the consumption 

of specific types of fuel for 1974 through 1981.4

The EIA gratefully acknowledges the cooperation o: 

respondents in supplying information for the 1985 

MECS.

3See Appendix E, Related EIA Publications on Energy Consumption.

4A researcher interested in using LMEDS should send a research proposal to the EIA for consideration. The EIA, in consultation with tho 

Bureau of the Census, will examine the proposal and review with the researcher how the use of the file may benefit the proposed research. If 

the use of the LMEDS is deemed appropriate, the Bureau of the Census will perform the work on a cost-reimbursable basis.

Energy Information Aclrn nislrallon/MECS: Changes In Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Surveying the Manufacturing Sector

Manufacturing Sector Consists of 

Business Establishments that Produce 

Goods

The manufacturing sector consists of establishments 

that use mechanical or chemical processes to 

transform materials or substances into new products. 

These products may be final products that consumers 

will purchase, such as an automobile or a chair. 

Manufacturers also produce goods for use by other 

manufacturers such as parts for automobile engines or 

rolls of upholstery fabric.

An establishment is usually at a single physical 

location and is often called a plant, factory, or mill. 

It ordinarily uses power-driven machines and equip 

ment for handling materials. A manufacturing estab 

lishment may also assemble parts or perform blending 

operations.

The Office of Management and Budget developed 

procedures for classifying manufacturing and nonmanufacturing establishments into industry classes. 

Those procedures are known as the Standard Indus 

trial Classification (SIC) system.5 Each industry class 

consists of establishments that produce similar types 

of goods or services.

The SIC system divides the manufacturing sector into 

20 broad groups, and assigns a numerical code to each 

of those groups. For the manufacturing sector, the 

codes range from 20 through 39. For example, SIC 

26 consists of establishments that manufacture paper 

and allied products. The SIC system subdivides each 

of the broad industry groups into several specific 

industries and assigns each a four-digit code. For 

example, the paper and allied products industry group 

(SIC 26) contains 17 specific industries. SIC 2621 

includes establishments classified as paper mills, and 

SIC 2631 includes paperboard mills.

If an establishment produces more than one good or 

service, it is classified into a four-digit industry based 

upon its primary production (see Glossary). For 

example, an establishment that primarily engages in 

manufacturing paper from wood pulp, and also 

manufactures some paperboard, is classified in the 

paper mill industry (SIC 2621). It is not classified in 

the paperboard mill industry (SIC 2631).

MECS Samples Establishments in All 

the Major Industry Groups

The estimates of energy efficiency change presented in 

this report are based on 1985 data collected by the 

MECS, and on 1980 and 1985 data collected by the 

ASM. The EIA included several important consid 

erations in the criteria for the design of the MECS 

sample. Specifically, the sampling procedures assure 

that the MECS sample is representative of the popu 

lation of establishments from which it was drawn. 

Also, the size of the sample in each industry class was 

controlled so error levels of the survey estimates 

would be similar for each class.

The MECS sample is a subset of the mail sample 

used by the Census Bureau to collect data for the 

ASM. The ASM sample includes 56,000 manufac 

turing establishments. The ASM sample is, in turn, a 

subset of the mail file of 225,000 manufacturing estab 

lishments used by the Census Bureau to conduct the 

Census of Manufactures. The Census of Manufactures 

is conducted every five years, while the ASM is 

conducted annually. The Census Bureau selected 

about 12,000 manufacturing establishments from the 

ASM sample to serve as the MECS sample. The 

approximate relationships among these various 

samples are shown in Figure 1. See Appendix A for 

a comprehensive discussion of the sampling and 

estimation procedures for the MECS.

5Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 (Washington, DC, 1982).

Energy Information Administratfon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
The MECS sample was stratified to provide controlled 

representation from each of the 20 major manu 

facturing indsustry groups (two-digit SIC codes) that 

make up the manufacturing sector, In addition, repre 

sentation was controlled in the 10 specific industries 

(four-digit SIC codes) that historically have consumed

the most energy. Thus, the MECS sample not only 

represented all major manufacturing industry group;:, 

it also had a high probability of including the major 

energy-consuming establishments in the universe, cf 

manufacturing establishments. (See Appendix D for 

descriptions of the 20 major industry groups.)

Figure 1. Sample Sizes for Surveys of the Manufacturing Sector

Census of 

Manufactures

Mai I F ; le 

C225 Thousand}

AnnuaI Survey of 

Manufactures 

C56 Thousand}

'0,000 Establishments

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: Methodological 

Report 1985, DOE/EIA-0514(85) (Washington, DC 1988), p. 7.

Energy Information Adrninislration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Energy in the

Energy Efficiency Is an 

Measure

"Efficiency" is typically defined as the ratio of useful 

output to the total input in any system. Fuel effi 

ciency in automobiles, for example, is measured as 

the ratio of miles (output) per gallon of gasoline 

(input). Such output-input measures are, basically, 

measures of productivity-thai is, they measure the 

consumption of a fixed amount of input to produce a 

variable amount of output. The basic concept of fuelefficiency is to produce as many miles as possible with 

a given amount of input.

The concept of energy efficiency, however, is to 

consume the minimum amount of energy while 

producing a fixed amount of output. In other words, 

the demand for the output is to be fulfilled as 

efficiently as possible with respect to energy 

consumption. Therefore, in this report, energy 

efficiency is defined as the ratio of energy 

consumption (input) to production (output). More 

specifically, energy consumption is defined as the 

energy that was consumed onsite and produced offsite. 

Output is defined as the value of shipments expressed 

in constant dollars. This report presents changes in 

these energy-efficiency ratios from 1980 to 1985. A 

decrease in the energy efficiency ratios between these 

two years indicates an increase in energy efficiency, 

and visa versa.

There are several alternative measures of energy 

consumption and output that could have been used to 

measure energy efficiency. The following sections 

describe some of these alternatives and present the 

reasons for selecting offsite-produced energy and 

constant dollar value of shipments as the components 

of the energy-efficiency ratios.

Is the 

for Computing

Efficiency

The primary reason for selecting offsite-produced 

energy as the measure of energy consumption is that 

it is the only measure for which comparable estimates 

are available for both 1980 and 1985. The 1985 

estimates of offsite-produced energy consumption by 

manufactures come directly from the MECS.6 

Comparable consumption estimates for the base year 

of 1980 were taken from the 1980 ASM.7

 Offsite-produced energy consumption is the total 

amount of energy purchased or transferred from 

offsite sources that is consumed onsite to produce 

heat and power and to generate electricity.

The use of energy by establishments in the manu 

facturing sector, however, is much more complex than 

simply purchasing or transferring energy from offsite 

sources and consuming it to produce heat and power 

and to generate electricity. Some manufacturers 

transform energy into other products (including other 

fuels), and some produce useful energy as a byproduct 

of their manufacturing process. The MECS deals with 

this complexity by using two additional methods for 

measuring energy consumption.8

• Primary energy consumption consists of the total 

energy requirements (including raw material inputs 

of energy) of manufacturing industries to produce 

goods.

m Total inputs of energy represents the total amount 

of energy used to produce heat and power and to 

generate electricity. Total, inputs of energy differs 

from primary consumption in that total inputs does

^Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption of 

Energy 1985, DOE/EIA-0512(85) (Washington, DC, 1988), Table 7.

7U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Annual Survey of Manufactures, "Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed," 

M80(AS)-4.1 (Washington, DC, August 1982).

8Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption of 

Energy 1985, Tables 1 and 3.

Energy Information Admlnistration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1S80 - 1985
does not include energy consumed as raw material 

(feedstock) inputs. Total inputs of energy differs 

from offsite-produced energy consumption in that 

it includes fuels that are byproducts of the 

manufacturing process. Byproduce fuels are 

excluded from offsite-produced energy 

consumption. Electricity is measured on a net 

basis. That is, it is obtained by summing 

purchases, transfers in, and generation from 

noncombustible renewable resources minus 

quantities sold and transferred out.

Using offsite-produced energy in the calculation of 

energy efficieny ratios does have its limitations 

because the resulting ratios do not include the effect 

of switching from offsite-produced energy to byproduct 

and other energy produced onsite. Such switches are 

energy-efficient in their own right and should be 

reflected in the energy efficiency ratios.

The 1985 MECS is the first energy consumption 

survey to provide these three distinct measures of 

energy consumption, and future MECS will collect the 

same three measures. This will allow future reports 

to present estimates of energy-efficiency change using 

all three of these measures of energy consumption. 

The differences among the three measures of energy 

consumption are discussed in detail in Appendix A.

Manufacturing Output Is Measured by 

Value of Shipments

The estimates of changes in energy efficiency 

presented in this report are based on energy-efficiency 

ratios calculated from constant dollar value of 

shipments as the measure of output. The value of 

shipments is collected as a part of the ASM. The 

Census Bureau defines the value of shipments 

including the receipts for products manufactured, 

services rendered, and resales of products bought and 

resold without further manufacture. 9 Changes in the 

output of an establishment result in corresponding 

changes in its value of shipments and receipts. 

Physical output and the value of shipments are, 

therefore, correlated.

A change in the; value of shipments from one period 

to another reflects more than just changes in output, 

however. A change may also reflect an increase (cr 

decrease) in price resulting from inflation (or 

deflation). Such price changes do not represent a 

change in output. Therefore, before using estimate:; 

of the value of shipments as an output measure, tie; 

should be adjusted for the effect of changes in price,

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publisher. 

many "price indices," Government agencies and the 

private sector use these indices to adjust for inflation 

and deflation. The best known of these indices is the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI). The BLS describes the 

CPI as "... a measure of the average change in price:; 

paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket of 

goods and sen/ices." 10 The CPI is commonly used to 

convert average net family income to purchasing 

power.

The BLS also publishes a series known as the 

"industry price index." This index, as described by the 

BLS, is a price series that follows "... the general 

economic pattern of a particular industry." 11 The 

industry price index can be used to convert the value 

of shipments and receipts to a constant dollar measure; 

which excludes the effect of price changes. Change;-; 

in the adjusted value of shipments from one period to 

another closely correspond to changes in physical 

output.

An alternative measure of output for the manu 

facturing sector is the physical quantity of the good 

produced. For example, the output of a broadwover. 

cotton fabric mill (SIC 2211) might be measured ir. 

linear yards of fabric. A major difficulty with that 

approach, however,, is that physical quantities arc 

product-specific. Few establishments and no 4-digit 

industry produce a single product line. A broadwoven 

fabric mill may produce woven fabrics measured in 

linear yards and sheets and pillow cases measured in 

dozens. Because they have no common basis, physical 

quantity measures are inappropriate for measuring the 

total output of a multiproduct establishment.

'U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1985 Annual Survey of Manufactures, "Staiistics for Industry Groups and Industries," 

M85(AS)1 (Washington, DC, January 1987), p. A-2.

10U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Handbook of Methods, Volume II, Bulletin 2134-2 (Washington, DC, April l<)84i, 

p. 3.

"U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Handbook of Methods, Volume I, Bulletin 2134-1 (Washington, DC, Decernb« r 

1983), p. 49.

Energy Information Adrninistration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Using product-specific physical quantities for the 

development of energy-efficiency ratios would not be 

a serious problem if energy consumption estimates 

also were available for each product line. However, 

manufacturing establishments usually monitor total 

energy consumption only. When necessary, they esti 

mate energy consumption for each product line. In 

the interest of reducing respondent burden, the MECS 

did not try to collect energy consumption for specific 

products.

Value added by manufacture, published by the Census 

Bureau, was considered as the measure of output for 

developing the estimates of energy-efficiency change 

that appear in this report. It was rejected in favor of 

the value of shipments and receipts. A complete dis 

cussion of the reasons for selecting the value of ship 

ments over value added appears in Appendix A of 

this report.

Measuring Energy-Efficiency Changes 

from 1980 to 1985

The purpose of this report is to present the percent 

changes in energy-efficiency ratios from 1980 to 1985 

for the two-digit industry groups of the manufacturing 

sector. The first step in determining these ratios con 

sisted of deriving constant dollar value of shipments 

for use as an output measure. The Census Bureau 

provided estimates of the 1980 and 1985 value of 

shipments and receipts for each of the 20 manu 

facturing industry groups. The BLS provided industry 

price indices for the same years and industry groups. 

The EIA expressed the 1985 value of shipments in 

constant 1980 dollars to remove the effect of price 

changes between 1980 and 1985. Energy consumption 

estimates (offsite-produced energy) for 1985 were 

available for each of the 20 manufacturing industry 

groups from the MECS. Comparable energy con 

sumption estimates for 1980 were available from the 

ASM.

Energy-efficiency ratios (offsite-produced energy 

consumption per constant dollar of value of ship 

ments) were prepared for each two-digit manu 

facturing industry group for 1980 and 1985. That 

calculation consisted of dividing the energy con 

sumption for each two-digit SIC industry group by its 

corresponding constant dollar value of shipments 

(output).

Measures of the change in energy efficiency were 

developed for each of the 20 manufacturing industry 

groups by calculating the percent change from the 

1980 ratio to the 1985 ratio. The results for 16 of the 

20 manufacturing industry groups are published in this 

report. The results for four industry groups were 

withheld because either their relative standard errors 

(RSE) exceeded 50 percent, or the estimates of energy 

consumption for 1980 and 1985 were not comparable. 

(A complete discussion of RSE's appears in Appendix 

B of this report.)

Other Measures of Energy Efficiency

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, 

Public Law 94-163, mandated the creation of the 

Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Program 

(Efficiency Program) at the Department of Energy 

(DOE). A major responsibility of that program was 

to monitor the progress of industry toward meeting 

voluntary energy efficiency improvement targets. 

Beginning in 1976, DOE monitored this progress by 

requiring selected manufacturing corporations to 

submit annual reports of "energy efficiency im 

provement."

Estimates of energy efficiency improvement were 

calculated using physical output measures and 

estimated energy consumption for individual product 

lines. These measures were then compared with com 

parable data for a "base year:" 1972 for most 

respondents, and 1978 for the others. An "im 

provement index" was calculated for each year through 

1985 for most of the major manufacturing industry 

groups (two-digit SIC). The U.S. Congress eliminated 

the Efficiency Program with the passage of the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.

The indices resulting from the Efficiency Program are 

reproduced in this report (rebased to cover the period 

from 1980 to 1985) as a basis for comparison with the 

efficiency changes based on the MECS and ASM. 

There are several differences between the two pro 

grams, however, which can cause them to produce 

different estimates of energy efficiency change for the 

same industry. These differences and some of the 

possible effects are summarized in the box on page 10. 

See Appendix C for a more complete discussion of 

the Efficiency Program and the differences between 

that program and the MECS.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
MECS and Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Program 

Differ In Definitions and Coverage

There are five basic differences between the MECS and the Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (EfficiencyProgram). These differences can result in substantial discrepancies between the measures of changes in energy 

efficiency from the two data sets,

 Differences in the base years--The MEGS/ASM measures of energy efficiency change presented in 

this report use 1980 as a base year. The Efficiency Program used 1972 or 1978 as a base year, 

depending on the desires of the respondent. To make the two series more comparable, the EIA 

rebased the Efficiency Program indices to 1980, so that both series reflect changes in'energy 

efficiency for the same period--1980 to 1985.

 Differences in survey coverage-The samples for the MECS and the ASM include establishments 

that represent the entire manufacturing sector. The sample for the Efficiency Program, however, 

was not designed to represent the entire manufacturing sector. Rather, it was designed to monitor 

the progress of energy conservation activities in those U.S. corporations that consumed at least one 

trillion Btu per year in any two-digit SIC industry group. 'Thus, the sample selection procedures 

for the Efficiency Program tended to exclude smaller energy-consuming establishments. The effect; 

of these differences in coverage varies among industries. Some industries contain mostly larger 

plants (petroleum and coal products, for example), and were well-represented in the Efficiency 

: Program. The MECS/ASM and the Efficiency Program estimates of changes in energy efficiency 

for these industry groups should not differ appreciably because of sample coverage. Other industries 

include a large number of smaller plants (food and kindred products, for example). The sample 

for the Efficiency Program was not representative for these industries. Differences in the estimates 

of changes in energy efficiency due to sample coverage can be expected in these industries.

» Differences in measures of output The efficiency measures from the MECS/ASM use constant 

dollar value of shipments as a measure of output. The Efficiency Program used physical output. 

In most cases, the effect of this difference is expected to be small because changes in physical output 

are accompanied by corresponding changes in constant dollar value of shipments. However, energyefficiency changes based on constant dollar value of shipments do not reflect changes in product 

mix during the period. The Efficiency Program was designed to reflect changes in product mix, 

When product mix effects energy consumption, differences between the MECS/ASM and the 

Efficiency Program estimates are likely.

m Differences in the definitions of energy consumption-The energy consumption measure used in the 

calculation of the MECS/ASM efficiency measures is offsite-produced energy consumption. For all 

manufacturing industry groups except paper and allied products, the Efficiency Program used an

: energy consumption measure which included byproduct fuels with purchased fuels, and is similar 

to the MECS estimate of total inputs of energy. The increased use of byproduct fuels as an energy 

conservation measure tends to result in decreased use of of (site-produced energy. Shifts from 

offsite-produced energy to byproduct fuels would be reflected as efficiency gains by the MECS/ASM 

estimates, but not by the Efficiency Program estimates. For paper and allied products, the 

: Efficiency Program used an energy consumption measure thai: included offsite-produced energy 

sources only.

 Differences in the measurement of the heat content of electricity-The Efficiency Program used a 

conversion factor of 3,412 British thermal unit (Btu) per kilowatthour of electricity for all industry 

; ' groups except chemicals and allied products (SIC 28) and petroleum and coal products (SIC 29) 

: The conversion factor for those two industry groups was 10,000 Btu per kilowatthour. The 

conversion factor used in the MECS was 3,412 for all industry groups. This discrepancy could 

result in minor differences in the estimates of change in energy efficiency for these two industry 

groups.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, "1980 - 1985
Efficiency 

In the Industry 1980 - 1985

The remainder of this report presents estimates of 

changes in energy efficiency from 1980 to 1985 for 16 

of the 20 major manufacturing industry groups (2- 

digit SIC). Four manufacturing industry groups are 

excluded. These groups are tobacco manufacturers 

(SIC 21), apparel and other textile products (SIC 23), 

lumber and wood products (SIC 24), and leather and 

leather products (SIC 31). The results for SIC's 21, 

24, and 31 are not included because the estimates had 

relative standard errors (RSE) which exceeded 50 

percent. (RSE's for the estimates of change in energy 

efficiency are included in Appendix B.) The results 

for SIC 23 are not published because the apparel 

industry consists of many jobbers, contractors, and 

manufacturers, making it difficult to produce com 

parable estimates of energy consumption from one 

year to another. Such year-to-year fluctuations would 

distort the measures of energy efficiency included in 

this report.

Each of the 16 presentations of changes in energy 

efficiency includes three graphs and a brief discussion. 

The first graph presents a historical overview of the 

relationship of energy consumption and output from 

1974 through 1985. It provides indices of energy 

consumption and output. Both indices have a base 

year of 1974 (that is, 1974 = 100). The output 

indices were calculated using estimates of the value of 

shipments as published by the ASM. Those estimates 

were converted to constant (1980) dollars using the 

industry price indices provided by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). The energy consumption 

indices were calculated from estimates of purchased 

fuels and electricity from the ASM for 1974 through 

1981. The MECS estimate of offsite-produced energy 

consumption was used for 1985. Estimates of energy 

consumption for 1982 through 1984 are not available.

The second graph presents estimates of the percent 

change in energy efficiency using data from the MECS 

and the ASM and, where available, the Efficiency

Program. The estimates are the percent change in 

energy consumption per unit of output from 1980 to 

1985. To improve comparability between the two 

series, the Efficiency Program estimates of energy 

efficiency change were rebased to 1980.

Note that the first graph uses ASM-weighted value of 

shipments for the calculation of the historic measures 

of output. (See Appendix A for an explanation of 

sampling weights.) However, the MECS/ASM 

estimates of the percent change in energy efficiency 

presented in the second graph use specially-prepared 

estimates of the value of shipments using the MECS 

weights. (It. was necessary to use the MECS-weighted 

estimates of value of shipments so that the resulting 

values would be fully comparable to the MECS 

estimates of offsite-produced energy consumption.) 

The difference between the estimates of value of 

shipments is small for most industry groups. There 

are a few industry groups, however, for which the 

MECS-weighted and ASM-weighted estimates differ 

substantially. As a result, the reported percent change 

in energy efficiency may differ substantially from what 

might be expected by examining the historical trends 

in the first graph.

The third graph presents three measures of 1985 

energy consumption: total inputs of energy and total 

offsite-produced energy consumption from the MECS, 

and energy consumption from the Efficiency Program. 

The difference between the two MECS estimates of 

energy consumption is approximately equal to 

byproduct fuel consumption. This difference is useful 

in determining whether the use of byproduct fuels 

could explain a difference between the MECS/ASM 

and Efficiency Program estimates of changes in energy 

efficiency. The difference between the MECS estimate 

of total inputs of energy and the energy consumption 

estimate from the Efficiency Program is useful in 

determining whether the coverage of the two samples 

is similar. (See box on page 8 for details.)

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Food Products Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 2. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 20S to 1985

140

74. 75 76 77 78 79 80 SI 82 S3 8 + 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 3. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency,

SIC 20, 1980 to 1985

60.Or

Efficiency 

Program 

Estimate 

i'S.'S

0.0

All 

Manufacturers

Food 

Manufacturers

Food 

Manufacturers

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 4. Energy Consumption, S!C 20, 1985

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the food and kindred products 

industry group (SIC 20) increased by approximately 22 

percent (Figure 2). Output decreased slightly in 1975, 

1979, and 1983, Otherwise, the increases were fairly 

consistent from year to year. During the same period, 

the consumption of offsite-produced energy decreased 

by 8 percent. The largest single-year decreases 

occurred from 1974 to 1975, and from 1978 to 1979. 

From 1975 through 1978, energy consumption and 

output moved in the same direction. As output 

increased, so did energy consumption. Beginning in 

1979, however, output continued to increase while 

energy consumption decreased.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

According to the MECS estimates, food manufacturers 

improved their energy efficiency by 23 percent 

between 1980 and 1985 (Figure 3). For the same 

period, the estimate from the Efficiency Program was 

16 percent. The difference between the two estimates 

of efficiency change was within the bounds of 

sampling error.

While food processing plants use some byproduct fuels 

(particularly biomass and waste materials), most 

energy consumption in 1985 was of offsite-produced 

energy (Figure 4). Therefore, there would be no 

expected difference between the MECS/ASM and 

Efficiency Program estimates of energy efficiency 

change as a result of shifts from offsite-produced to 

byproduct fuel use.

The MECS reported that food manufacturers con 

sumed 946 trillion Btu of energy for total fuel 

consumption in 1985. The Efficiency Program 

estimate for the same year was 494 trillion Btu 

(Figure 4). The Efficiency Program collected data 

primarily from the largest establishments. The MECS 

collected data representing the entire industry group. 

Therefore, the two estimates of energy efficiency 

change do not cover the same populations. The 

difference in coverage, however, caused no statistically 

discernable effect on the change in energy efficiency 

as measured by the two systems.

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Energy Information Administratiori/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 11
Textile Mill Products Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 5. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 22, 1974 to 1985

140

a 

"I

60

(1974 = 100)

onstant Dollar 

Value of S

Energy Dcita Not

Avai'able For 

1982 Through 1984

40

20

0

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 63 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 6. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 22, 1980 to 1985

60.0

50.0

40.0 

§> 

j5 30.0

o

<5

Q_

20.0

10.0

0.0

MECS Estimates

25.1

Efficiency

- Program 

Estimate

TO'

13.3

All Manufacturers Textile Mills Textile Mills

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 7. Energy Consumption, SIC 22, 1985

I

c 

o

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

MECS Estimates 

247 248

Efficiency 

Program

Estimate ......................,.32..............

Offsite 

Produced

Total 

Input Energy

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the textile mill industry group 

(SIC 22) increased approximately 12 percent (Figure: 

5). Major increases in output occurred in 1976, 1911. 

and 1983. Large decreases occurred in 1980 through 

1982, and 1985. The consumption of offsite-produceci 

energy during the period from 1974 to 1985 decreased 

approximately 23 percent. The only year in which 

energy consumption increased was 1977. After that. 

consumption declined steadily. Until 1981, energ/ 

consumption generally paralleled the output trend, 

However, by 1985, consumption showed a continued 

decline while outptit had increased.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

Manufacturers of textile mill products improved 

energy efficiency by 16 percent between 1980 and 

1985, according to MECS/ASM estimates (Figure 6), 

For the same period, the estimate from the Efficient 

Program was 13 percent. The small difference: 

between the two surveys' efficiency estimates wai. 

within the bounds of sampling error.

Most of the energy used in this industry group was 

produced offsite (Figure 7). Thus, there would be no 

expected difference between the MECS and the 

Efficiency Program estimates of energy efficient 

change as a result of shifts from offsite-produceci to 

byproduct fuel use.

The MECS reported that the manufacturers of textile 

mill products consumed 248 trillion Btu in 1985 

(Figure 7). During the same year, the Efficiency 

Program estimate was 132 trillion Btu. The Efficient/ 

Program collected data primarily from the largei 

establishments which explains why its estimate. fo:r 

consumption is 47 percent less than the MECS 

estimate. Because of this, the two estimates of energy 

efficiency change do not cover the same populations 

This difference in coverage, however, caused no 

statistically discernable effect on the change in ener;;y 

efficiency as measured by the two systems.

12 Energy Information Admlnlstration/MECS: Changes In Energy Efficiency, 1980 -1985
Furniture Fixtures Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 8. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, S!C 25, 1974 to 1985

140

120

o

2 

a

8

TJ

c

100'

60

40

20

Energy Consumption

Energy Data Not

Available For 

1982 Through 1984

_J_____!_____L_

74 75 76 77 78 79 SO 81 82 83 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 9. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 25, 1980 to 1985

60.0

No Efficiency 

j..^........................Program.........

Estimate

All 

Manufacturers

Furniture & 

Fixtures

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 10, Energy Consumption, SIC 25, 1985

70

60

50

| 40 

o

=£ 30 h20

10

MECS Estimates

..48...

Program

Offsite 

Produced

Total 

input Energy

Total 

Fuel

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the furniture and fixtures 

industry group (SIC 25) increased by approximately 28 

percent (Figure 8). Output decreased in 1975 and 

again in 1982. Major increases occurred between the 

years 1975 and 1978 and in 1983 and 1984. During 

the same period the consumption of offsite-produced 

energy decreased by 27 percent. Through 1978, energy 

consumption paralleled output, dropping initially in 

1975 then rising steadily. However, in 1979 

consumption started a steady decline while output 

remained constant and then increased in 1983 and 

1984.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

Manufacturers of furniture and fixtures improved their 

energy efficiency 17 percent, according to the 

MECS/ASM (Figure 9). The Efficiency Program did 

not collect data from establishments classified in this 

industry group because too few corporations were 

identified as consuming as much as one trillion Btu of 

energy, the minimum energy consumption criterion for 

eligibility.

Approximately 85 percent of the total fuel 

consumption was produced offsite (Figure 10). The 

major onsite-produced sources of fuel were woodchips, woodwaste, and other waste materials.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes In Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 13
Paper and Allied Products Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 11. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 26, 1974 to 1985

74. 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 S3 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 12. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 26, 1980 to 1985

10.0 -

0.0

All 

Manufacturers

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 13. Energy Consumption, SIC 26, 1985

3000

Offsite 

Produced

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value cf 

shipments (output) of the paper and allied product 

industry group (SIC 26) increased 16 percent (Figun; 

11). After an initial decrease in 1975 of approxi 

mately 12 percent, output showed a generally 

increasing trend, but with small decreases in 1980, 

1982 and 1985. During the same period, consumption 

of offsite-produced energy increased approximately I 

percent. Consumption was relatively constarl 

throughout the period except for a sharp decrease i.vt 

1975, followed by nearly full recovery in 1976.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

Between 1980 and 1985, establishments in the paper 

and allied products industry group improved thc:r 

energy efficiency 13 percent, according to MECS/ASM 

estimates (Figure 12). For the same period, the 

Efficiency Program estimated efficiency improvement 

to be approximately 32 percent, a significantly larger 

value.

According to MECS estimates, approximately 61 

percent of the total fuel consumption was produced 

offsite (Figure 13). The remaining fuel consumption 

was from onsite-produced sources such as pulping 

liquor, woodchips, bark, and other woodwasio. 

However, these onsite-produced substances were not 

counted in the Efficiency Program estimate since th;;l 

program considered these as fuels produced from 

waste products. Therefore, for this industry group, 

the consumption estimate from the Efficiency Program 

is closely comparable to the MECS estimate for 

offsite-produced consumption.

A possible reason for the difference in efficiency 

change estimates is the difference in coverage between 

the two surveys. The MECS estimate for offsitoproduced consumption was 1,340 trillion Btu while the 

consumption estimate from the Efficiency Program 

was 1,016 trillion Btu. The Efficiency Program 

collected data primarily from the largest estab 

lishments. The data from the MECS, on the other 

hand, represented the entire industry groin, 

Therefore, the two estimates of efficiency change cc 

not cover the same populations.

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

14 Energy Information Adininislration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Printing and Publishing Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 14. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 27, 1974 to 1985

160

140

120

0 100

"5

> 80

8

~° 60

40

20

Constant Dollar 

Value of Shipments

'(1974 = TOO)'

^

Energy Consumption

Energy Data Not

....... A/flj)9bJs.£er........

1982 Through 1984

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 15. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 27, 1980 to 1985

60.0

50.0

ra 40.0

a

.c

 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

MECS Estimates

Efficiency..

Program

Estimate

25.1

22.6

15.2

All 

Manufacturers

Printing 

Publishing

Printing 

Publishing

Sources: EIA, 198S Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 16. Energy Consumption, SIC 27, 1985

100

I 

.1 ..................Efficiency..........

Program 

Estimate

Total 

Input Energy

Total 

Fuel

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the output of the printing, 

publishing, and allied products industry group (SIC 

27) increased approximately 42 percent (Figure 14). 

After an initial decrease in 1975, output rose steadily 

to its 1985 level. During the same period, the 

consumption of offsite-produced energy decreased 16 

percent. Energy consumption remained essentially at 

the same level through 1981. The consumption in 

1985 indicates that a sharp decrease occurred between 

1981 and 1985 but no energy data were collected in 

the intervening years to show when this decrease took 

place.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

According to the MECS/ASM estimates, printers and 

publishers improved their energy efficiency by 15 

percent between 1980 and 1985 (Figure 15). For the 

same period, the estimate from the Efficiency Program 

was 23 percent. The difference between the two 

surveys' efficiency estimates, while seemingly large, was 

within the bounds of sampling error.

Almost the entire amount of fuel used in this industry 

group was from offsite-produced sources (Figure 16). 

Therefore, there was no difference in coverage of the 

types of fuels between the MECS and the Efficiency 

Program.

The MECS estimate for fuel consumption was 76 

trillion Btu while the Efficiency Program estimate was 

10 trillion Btu (Figure 16). The Efficiency Program 

collected data primarily from a relatively few 

establishments in larger companies. The MECS data, 

on the other hand, represented the entire industry 

group. Therefore, the two surveys covered very 

different populations. This difference in coverage, 

however, caused no statistically discernable effect on 

the change in energy efficiency as measured by the 

two systems.

Energy Information Adminlstratfon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 15
Chemicals and Allied Products Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 17. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 28, 1974 to T9S5

Constant Dollar 

Value of Sh'p-ien

O l

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84- 85 

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 18. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 28, 1980 to 1985

60.0

0.0

All Manufacturers Chemicals

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 19. Energy Consumption, SIC 28, 1985

3500

3000

D

& 2000

c

= 1500 c

1COO

500

0

MECS Estimates 

2170

Total 

Input Energy

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the chemicals and allied 

products industry group (SIC 28) increased by 

approximately 14 percent (Figure 17). Output con 

sistently increased from 1975 through 1979, declined 

from 1980 to 1982, then, increased again from 1983 to 

1985. Consumption of offsite-produced energy 

between 1974 and 1975 decreased approximately 2,9 

percent. From 1977 to 1985, consumption decreased 

steadily.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

Chemical manufacturers improved their energy ef 

ficiency by approximately 18 percent between 1980 and 

1985, according to MECS/ASM estimates (Figure 17). 

For the same period, the estimate from the Efficiency 

Program was approximately 16 percent. The small 

difference in the efficiency estimates of the two 

surveys was within the bounds of sampling error.

In 1985, according to MECS estimates, chemical 

manufacturers consumed 2,407 trillion Btu of energy 

which made them the second largest manufacturing 

industry group in fuel consumption (Figure 19). The 

industry group was the leading consumer within 

manufacturing of offsite-produced fuel energy. 

Approximately 89 percent of the industry group's total 

fuel consumptioa came from offsite. Some of the 

fuels produced ensile that were consumed by this 

industry group were hydrogen, alcohol, waste gas, and 

waste oils and tars. There is no evidence to suggest 

that the improvement in efficiency was due to a shift 

from offsite-produced fuels to byproduct energy.

The fuel estimate for 1985 from the Efficiency 

Program was 2,386 trillion Btu. As stated above, the 

MECS estimate for total fuel consumption in 198.5 

was 2,407 trillion Btu (Figure 19). The difference in 

total fuel estimates between the two surveys was 

within the bounds of MECS sampling error. This 

difference suggests that the Efficiency Program 

covered virtually all of SIC 28, so the efficiency 

change estimates for the two systems would not be 

expected to differ because of coverage.

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

16 Energy Information Adrninistraiion/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Petroleum and Coal Products Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 20. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 29, 1974 to 1985

140

40 

20 

0

Energy Data Not 

---------Available'-For-.-.. -- 

1982 Through 1984

74 75 76 77 78 79 SO 81 82 83 84. 85 

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 21. Percent Change in Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 29, 1980 to 1985

60.0

All 

Manufacturers

Petroleum 

Products

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 22. Energy Consumption, SIC 29, 1985

4000,——————————————————————————————————————i

3000

I 

O 2000

1000

MECS Estimates

2631

Efficiency 

Program 

 Estimate--- 

2478

Offsite 

Produced

Totol 

Fuel

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, 

and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the output of the petroleum 

refining and related industries group (SIC 29) in 

creased 14 percent (Figure 20). Output increased 

steadily through 1979, decreased in 1980 and 1981, 

and then maintained that the 1981 level through 1985. 

During that same period, consumption of offsiteproduced energy decreased by approximately 42 

percent.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

According to MECS/ASM, the petroleum manu 

facturers and related industries group improved their 

efficiency 20 percent between 1980 and 1985 (Figure 

21). For the same period, the estimate from the 

Efficiency Program was 11 percent. The large 

difference between the MECS/ASM estimate and the 

Efficiency Program estimate cannot be explained by 

sampling error.

The difference between the MECS and the Efficiency 

Program estimates does not appear to be attributable 

to differences in coverage between the two surveys. 

The MECS estimate for total fuel used was 2,631 

trillion Btu. The fuel estimate for 1985 from the 

Efficiency Program (after recalculating to account for 

the two surveys employing different electricity-to-Btu 

conversion factors) was 2,478 trillion Btu (Figure 22). 

The Efficiency Program collects data primarily from 

the largest establishments, while the MECS data 

represents the entire population. However, in this 

industry group, most of the establishments are large 

and energy-intensive so the practical effects of the 

difference in coverage was minimal.

More likely, the difference is due to the extensive use 

of byproduct energy sources by petroleum refineries to 

meet their fuel requirements. Approximately 65 per 

cent of the fuel used in this industry group is from 

byproducts such as still gas and petroleum coke 

(Figure 22). The MECS efficiency change estimates 

used offsite-produced fuel as the consumption measure 

while the Efficiency Program used total fuel. As the 

MECS showed a greater efficiency change than the 

Efficiency Program, it is likely that the industry group 

experienced a decrease in the relative share of offsiteproduced fuels between 1980 and 1985 that was made 

up by using more byproduct fuels.

Energy Information Adrninistration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 17
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 23. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 30, 1974 to 1985

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 24. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 30, 1980 to 1985

All 

Manufacturers

Rubber & 

Plastics

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 25. Energy Consumption, SIC 30, 1985

c 

o

Offsite 

Produced

Total 

Input Energy

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the rubber and plastics products 

industry group (SIC 30) increased approximately 37 

percent (Figure 23). Other than the decreases in 

output that occurred in 1975, 1979, and 1980, output 

generally increased. During that same period, con 

sumption of offsite-p reduced energy decreased by 

approximately 16 percent. Energy consumption 

generally paralleled the pattern of changes in output 

until 1981. After that, output markedly increased, 

while consumption decreased slightly. (The exact 

pattern is unknown as there was no available energy 

data for the years 1982 through 1984.)

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

The rubber and plastics products industry improved its 

energy efficiency by 28 percent between 1980 arul 

1985, according to the MECS/ASM estimates (Figure

24). For the same period, the Efficiency Program 

produced an estimate of 17 percent, a significantly 

lower value.

The difference between the MECS and the Efficiency 

Program estimates of changes in energy efficiency does 

not appear to be due to an increased reliance on 

onsite-produced fuel. Most of the fuel consumed in 

this industry group was received from offsite (Figure

25), so there would be no difference between the two 

surveys in the types of fuels covered.

The most likely reaso a for the difference between the 

efficiency change estimates is the difference in 

coverage of the two surveys. The MECS reported 

that total fuel consumption in 1985 was 212 trillion 

Btu while the Efficiency Program estimate for the 

same year was 101 trillion Btu (Figure 25). The 

Efficiency Program collected data primarily from, the 

largest establishments. The data from the MECS, or, 

the other hand, represented the entire industry group, 

Therefore, the two estimates of efficiency change do 

not cover the same populations.

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

18 Energy Information Administratlon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Stone, Clay and Glass Products Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 26. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 32, 1974 to 1985

120

100-

80

> 60

I

£ 40

20

(1974 = 100) Constant Dollar 

Voiue of Shipments

Energy Consumption

Energy Data Not

Available For 

-""""f982"ThToUglrT98'4-

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 27. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 32, 1980 to 1985

60.0

50.0

g> *0 - 

c ta

O 30.0

o

a.

20.0

10.0 

o.o

MEGS Estimates

25.1 23.0

Efficiency 

Estimate

14.5

All 

Manufacturers

Stone, 

Clay, & Gloss

Stone, 

Clay, & Glass

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 28. Energy Consumption, SIC 32, 1985

1200

3

m

c 

o

1000

800

600

400

200

0

MECS Estimates 

878 896

Efficiency

""Program"'

Estimate

Offsite 

Produced

Total 

Input Energy

Total 

Fuel

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the stone, clay, glass, and 

concrete products industry group (SIC 32) decreased 

by approximately 6 percent (Figure 26). Within this 

period, output peaked in 1978 to an increase of 

approximately 7 percent above its 1974 level. It fell 

to its lowest level in 1982, approximately 17 percent 

below its 1974 level. After that, output steadily rose 

to its 1985 level. During the same period, con 

sumption of offsite-produced energy decreased by 

approximately 34 percent. The energy consumption 

trend generally followed the increases and decreases of 

output. However, the 1985 value for consumption 

indicates that consumption must have decreased, while 

output increased after 1981.

Energy Efficiency,, 1980 » 1985

According to MECS/ASM estimates, stone, clay, and 

glass manufacturers improved their energy efficiency 

23 percent between 1980 and 1985 (Figure 27). For 

the same period, the estimate from the Efficiency 

Program was 14 percent. The difference between the 

two surveys' efficiency estimates was within the bounds 

of sampling error.

The MECS estimate for total fuel consumption was 

896 trillion Btu. Approximately 98 percent of that 

consumption was offsite-produced (Figure 28). The 

MECS efficiency change estimate used offsiteproduced energy for its energy consumption measure 

while the Efficiency Program used total fuel. Because 

so much of the fuel used was offsite-produced, there 

is little difference between the two surveys in the 

types of fuels covered.

There was possibly a difference between the two 

surveys in the establishments covered by each. The 

MECS estimate for total fuel was 896 trillion Btu. 

The Efficiency Program estimate was 721 trillion Btu, 

approximately 80 percent of the MECS total (Figure 

28). The Efficiency Program collected data primarily 

from the largest establishments. The MECS data, on 

the other hand, represented the entire industry. This 

difference in coverage, however, caused no statistically 

discernable effect on the change in energy efficiency 

as measured by the two systems.

Energy Information Admlnistralion/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 19
Primary Metals Industry Group, 11980 1985

Figure 29. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 33, 1974 to 1985

120

80

60

- 40-

20

(1974 = 100)

Constont Dollar 

Value of Shipments

Energy Data Not 

-" "- AvailaBlsrFsr"--- 

1982 Through 1984

74 75 76 77 78 79 SO 81 82 83 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 30. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 33, 1980 to 1985

60.0

0.0

All 

Manufacturers

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 31. Energy Consumption, SIC 33, 1985

c 

o

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

MECS Estimates 

..............................................2331......

Offsite 

Produced

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between the years 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar 

value of shipments (output) of the primary metals 

industry group (SIC 33) decreased by approximately 38 

percent (Figure 29). The 1974 level of output was the 

industry group's highest during that period. Major 

decreases in output occurred in 1975, 1980, and 19S2. 

Later increases did not fully compensate for the 

decreases. During that same period, consumption of 

offsite-produced energy decreased by approximately 43 

percent.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

The primary metals industry group, according lo 

MECS/ASM estimates, improved their energy effi 

ciency by 11 percent between 1980 and 1985 (Figure 

30). For the same period, the estimate from the 

Efficiency Program was 16 percent, a significant]} 

higher value than the MECS/ASM estimate.

The difference in efficiency estimates between the iwc 

surveys cannot be attributed to a difference ir 

coverage. The MECS estimate for total fuel con 

sumption in 1985 was 2,391 trillion Btu, and the 

Efficiency Program estimate for the same year was; 

2,371 trillion Btu (Figure 31). The EfficiencyProgram primarily surveyed the larger establishment 

while the MECS data represent the entire industry. 

However, the primary metals industry group 5;; 

comprised mainly of large, energy-intensive 

establishments so the actual difference in coverage was 

minimal.

A possible reason for the difference is the amount of 

byproduct and other onsite-produced fuels used by the 

industry group. Some of these onsite-produced fuel-, 

are coal coke, blast furnace gas, coke oven gas. ;n<' 

waste oils and tars. According to MECS estimates, 

the industry group consumed 1,537 trillion Btu of 

offsite-produced fuels, approximately 64 percent of 

total fuel consumption. The MECS efficiency change 

estimate included only offsite-produced fuels while the 

Efficiency Program measured the change in total fueI 

use. It is possible that this industry group I as 

increased the consumption of offsite-produced. energy 

relative to the consumption of byproduct fuels due to 

decreases in production and/or the emergence of steel 

"mini-mills" using electric arc furnaces to provide high 

quality steel from recycled scrap.

20 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
- 1985

Figure 32. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 34, 1974 to 1985

60

40

20

Energy Data Not

Available For 

1982 Through 1984

74 75 76 77 78 79 SO 81 82 S3 84 65

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 33. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 34, 198010 1985

60.0

50.0 

o

c? 40.0 <d

6

 g 30.0

§ 

,1 20.0

10.0 

0.0

MECS Estimates

25.1

tfficiency

--P^Ggra^Fv--

Estimate

"T5V4-

9.9

All 

Manufacturers

Fabricated 

Metals

Fabricated 

Metals

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 34. Energy Consumption, SIC 34, 1985

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

MECS Estimates 

297 29S

Program 

...................E.g. tVrtV(5|1:g.........

OffsHe

Produced

Total 

input Energy

Total 

Fuel

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the fabricated metal products 

industry group (SIC 34) increased by approximately 6 

percent (Figure 32). Output decreased in 1975 and 

1980 through 1982. Otherwise, the trend was 

generally small annual increases with a peak output in 

1979. During the same period, the consumption of 

offsite-produced energy decreased by approximately 27 

percent. Consumption decreased in 1975 and then 

increased annually until almost reaching the 1974 level 

in 1978. From 1979 to 1985, consumption decreased 

steadily.

1980 - 1985

According to MECS/ASM estimates, fabricated metal 

products manufacturers increased their energy effi 

ciency by 16 percent (Figure 33). For the same 

period, the estimate from the Efficiency Program was 

10 percent.

The difference between the MECS and Efficiency 

Program estimates cannot be attributed to the 

increased use of byproduct fuels. According to MECS 

estimates, almost the entire amount of fuel used came 

from offsite (Figure 34). Therefore, there would be 

no real difference in the type of fuels covered by the 

two surveys.

A possible reason for this difference is the 

establishment coverage of the two surveys. The 

MECS reported that total fuel consumption was 298 

trillion Btu in 1985. For the same year, the Efficiency 

Program estimated fuel consumption at 37 trillion Btu 

(Figure 34). The Efficiency Program collected data 

primarily from the largest establishments, while the 

MECS data represented the entire industry group. 

Therefore, the two estimates of energy efficiency 

change do not cover the same populations.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes In Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 21
Machinery, Except Electrical Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 35. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 35, 1974 to 1985

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

Value of

.".*. P !!9r

(1974 = 100)

^

Energy Consumption

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 S3 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 36. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 35, 1980 to 1985

O)

c

O

"c

0> 

O

O

o_

60.0

All 

Manufacturers

Industrial 

Machinery

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficient/ Program.

Figure 37. Energy Consumption, SIC 35, 1985

Offslte 

Produced

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Cor sumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value o.f 

shipments (output) of the nonelectrical machinery 

industry group (SIC 35) increased by approximately 47 

percent (Figure 35), Decreases in output occurred in 

1975, 1980, and 1982. Otherwise, output had steady 

annual increases, with very sharp rises in 1984 and 

1985. During the same period, the consumption of 

offsite-produced fuels arid electric energy decreased by 

approximately 33 percent. Consumption remained 

generally at a constant level until 1980, when <; 

started to decrease steadily.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

The manufacturers of nonelectrical equipment im 

proved their energy efficiency, according to 

MECS/ASM estimates, by 44 percent (Figure 36). For 

the same period, th2 estimate from the Efficiency 

Program was a decrease of 2 percent.

The difference between the MECS and Efficiency 

Program estimates does not appear to be due to an 

increase in the use of byproduct fuels by the 

manufacturing group. Virtually the entire amount of 

fuel used was produced offsite (Figure 37). Due to 

the electricity and steam sales included in the MECS 

total fuel estimate, the offsite-produced energy 

estimate is slightly greater than the total fuel estimate.

A possible reason for the difference in efficiency 

estimates is the coverage of the two surveys. The 

MECS reported ihat "uel consumption of this industrygroup in 1985 was 239 trillion Btu (Figure 37). The 

Efficiency Program estimate for the same year was 89 

trillion Btu. The Efficiency Program collected daia 

primarily from the larger, energy-intensive, 

establishments. The MECS collected data that 

represents the entire industry group. Between 1980 

and 1985, ASM output data reveals that computer 

manufacturing significantly increased its share of 

output relative to the rest of the industry group., 

Moreover, this type of manufacturing was more energy 

efficient than the rest of the industry group, according 

to 1980 and 1981 ASM data. If these establishments 

were excluded from the Efficiency Program due 1.0 

their size, it is reasonable that the two surveys could 

yield different efficiency change estimates.

22 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy tfficiency, 1980 - 1985
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 38. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 36, 1974 to 1985

Energy Dota Not 

 ---- -Available"For'"""

1982 Through 1984

74 75 76 77 78 79 SO 81 82 83 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 39. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 36, 1980 to 1985

o 

en

c

«5

6

t: 

o 

o

o

Q.

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Efficiency 

Program

MECS Estimates

Estimate 

31.3

All Electrical 

Manufaciurers Equipment

Electrical 

Equipment

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 40. Energy Consumption, SIC 36, 1985

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

MECS Estimates 

209 209

Efficiency 

Program 

Estimate

..89-.

Offsite 

Produced

Total 

Input Energy

Total 

Fuel

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) increased in the electrical 

equipment industry group (SIC 36) by approximately 

67 percent (Figure 38). The only decrease occurred 

in 1975. After that year, output increased steadily. 

Particularly rapid growth occurred in the years 1976 

through 1979 and in 1984. During the same period, 

the consumption of offsite-produced energy decreased 

approximately 16 percent. The largest single-year 

decline in consumption occurred in 1975 and was 

entirely compensated for by increases in 1976 and 

1977. After 1978, energy consumption decreased 

steadily.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

According to MECS/ASM estimates, electronic equip 

ment manufacturers improved their energy efficiency 

by 26 percent (Figure 39). For the same period, the 

estimate from the Efficiency Program was 31 percent. 

The difference between the two surveys' efficiency 

estimates was within the bounds of sampling error.

Virtually the entire amount of fuel used was produced 

offsite (Figure 40). Therefore, the fuels included in 

the efficiency change estimates of both the MECS and 

the Efficiency Program should be the same.

There was a substantial difference, in the estab 

lishment coverage of the two surveys, however. The 

MECS estimate for fuel consumed by this industry 

group in 1985 was 209 trillion Btu. The fuel estimate 

from the Efficiency Program for the same year was 89 

trillion Btu (Figure 40). The Efficiency Program col 

lected data primarily from the largest establishments. 

The MECS data represented the entire industry group. 

Because of this, the two estimates do not cover the 

same populations. This difference in coverage, 

however, caused no statistically discernable effect on 

the changes in energy efficiency as measured by the 

two systems.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 23
Transportation Equipment industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 41. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 37, 1974 to 1985

140

13

c

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Si 32 83 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 42. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 37, 1980 to 1985

60.0

50.0

en 40.0 

a

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

MECS Estimates 

25.1 25.0

All Manufacturers Trans. Equip. Trcns. Equip.

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 43. Energy Consumption, SIC 37, 1985

Offsile 

Produced

Total 

'nput Energy

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the transportation equipment 

industry group (SIC 37) increased by approximately 31 

percent (Figure 41). Decreases in output occurred in 

1975, and 1979 "hrough 1982. Increases occurred in 

all other years during this period. Consumption of 

offsite-produced energy decreased approximately Idpercent between 1974 and 1985. Consumption in 

creased in the years 1.976 through 1978 and decreased 

in all other years. During this period, consumption 

and output changed in the same direction, until 

consumption data collection in the ASM was 

discontinued after 1981. By 1985, output had risen 

substantially while consumption had decreased slightly.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

According to MECS/ASM estimates, transportation 

equipment manufacturers improved their energy 

efficiency by 2.5 percent (Figure 42). For the same 

period, the estimate from the Efficiency Program was 

12 percent.

Virtually the entire amount of fuel used by this 

industry group was produced offsite (Figure 43). (The 

higher value for offsite-produced fuel compared ic 

total fuel is due to electricity and steam that left :lie 

establishment in the form of sales or transfers 

quantities removed from total input energy, but not 

from offsite-produced energy.) Therefore, there was. 

no difference in coverage of the types of fuels between 

the MECS and Efficiency Program.

The difference between the Efficiency Program anc 

the MECS estimate? for efficiency change cannot be 

explained by differences in coverage. The Efficiency 

Program covers primarily the largest establishments, 

The MECS data, on the other hand, represent the 

entire industry group. Yet, the MECS estimate fee 

total input energy in 1985 was 317 trillion Btu while 

the Efficiency Program's estimate for the same yea:: 

was 378 trillion Btu. Under normal circumstances, 

the MECS estimate for total input energy should be 

at least as large; as the estimate from the Efficiency 

Program. Since the MECS estimate is significantly 

smaller than the Efficiency Program estimate, it i;; 

probable that one of the estimates is in error.

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

24 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Instruments and Related Products Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 44. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 38, 1974 to 1985

Constant Dollar 

Value of Shipments

25

Energy Data Not 

"""Avallable'Tor"'""" 

1382 Through 1984

74 75 7S 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 S4 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Figure 45. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 38, 1980 to 1985

60.0

50.0

g, 40-0

c

O 30.0

ti 

O

I 20.0 

Q_

10.0 

0.0

MECS Estimates

29.3

25.1

Efficiency 

Program 

Estimate

All Manufacturers Instruments Instruments

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 46. Energy Consumption, SIC 38, 1985

100

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the measuring instruments and 

related products industry group (SIC 38) increased 

approximately 68 percent (Figure 44). After a small 

decrease in 1975, output increased steadily every year. 

During that same period, consumption of offsiteproduced fuels and electric energy increased 5 percent. 

The largest increase in consumption occurred in 1976. 

After that, consumption slowly rose to a peak in 1979, 

then started to decrease annually. None of the annual 

increases or decreases were sizable.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

According to MECS/ASM estimates, manufacturers of 

measuring instruments and related products improved 

their energy efficiency by 29 percent (Figure 45). For 

the same period, the estimate from the Efficiency 

Program was 10 percent. The difference between the 

two surveys' efficiency estimates, while seemingly large, 

was within the bounds of sampling error.

Virtually the entire amount of fuel used by the 

industry group was produced offsite (Figure 46). 

Therefore, there would have been no difference in the 

coverage of fuels between the two surveys.

There was a major difference in the coverage of the 

establishments of the two surveys. The MECS esti 

mate for total fuel consumption was 73 trillion Btu. 

The Efficiency Program estimate for the same year 

was 29 trillion Btu. The Efficiency Program collected 

data primarily from the largest establishments. The 

MECS data represented the entire industry. Because 

of this, the two estimates do not cover the same 

populations. This difference in coverage, however, 

caused no statistically discernable effect on the 

changes in energy efficiency as measured by the two 

systems.

Energy Information Adminislration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 25
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industry Group, 1980 - 1985

Figure 47. Output and Energy Consumption 

Indices, SIC 39, 1974 to 1985

140

120 

100'

80

60 -

40 -

20

(1974 = 100) Constorr: Dollar 

 Va|ijg"6TSh;prrW!t5'"

Energy Consumption

Energy Data Not

Available For 

1982 Through 1984

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption

Survey, and Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey oit Manufactures.

Figure 48. Percent Change In Energy Efficiency, 

SIC 39, 1980 to 1985

60.0

a

50.0 - 

40.0 - 

30.0 -

c

ffl

o

a 20.0 

MECS Estimates

25.1 23.9

No Efficiency 

Program 

Estimate

All 

Manufacturers

Miscellaneous 

Mfg.

Miscellaneous 

Mfg.

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Figure 49. Energy Consumption, SIC 39, 1985

10 -

Sources: EIA, 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, and DOE, 1985 Industrial Energy Efficiency Program.

Historical Trends

Between 1974 and 1985, the constant dollar value of 

shipments (output) of the miscellaneous manu 

facturing industries group (SIC 39) decreased by 

approximately 2 percent (Figure 47). After declining 

in 1975, output grew to a peak in 1977, then fell tc 

its 1974 level by 1930. After that time, there have 

been minor fluctuations with no discernable trend ir. 

output. During that same period, consumption of 

offsite-produced energy decreased by 40 percent 

Consumption increased in 1976 and 1977 and did not 

change in 1978. In all other years it decreased with 

the major decreases occurring sometime during the. 

period 1982 to 1985.

Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985

Between 1980 and 1985, the miscellaneous manu 

facturing industries group improved their energ;y 

efficiency 24 percent, according to MECS/ASM esti 

mates (Figure 48). The Efficiency Program did not 

survey this industry group because no corporation; 

were identified that consumed as much as one trillion 

Btu of energy, the minimum criterion for eligibility.

The MECS estimate for total fuel consumption ir 

1985 was 31 trillion Btu. Virtually the entire amount 

was produced offsite (Figure 49).

26 Energy Information Aclrninfstration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Appendix A

Survey Design, 

Implementation, 

and Estimates
Appendix A

Survey Design, Implementation,

introduction

The 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) has been designed by the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) to provide information related to energy consumption in the manufacturing sector. The MECS 

data collection consisted of two parts. Part I collected data on energy consumption and related matters. Part II 

collected information on the capability of manufacturers to substitute alternate fuels for those actually consumed in 

1985. The energy consumption and fuel-switching capability estimates were published separately by the EIA. 12 The 

results of Part I of the survey (the 1985 consumption data), along with data provided by the Census Bureau from 

the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), were used to prepare the estimates in this report on energy efficiency 

in the manufacturing sector.

The basic unit of data collection for the 1985 MECS was the manufacturing establishment. A nationally repre 

sentative sample of these establishments supplied the information through mailed questionnaires. The questionnaires 

for Part I of the survey were mailed on July 14, 1986; those for Part II were mailed on November 26, 1986. The 

Industry Division of the Census Bureau selected the MECS sample according to EIA's design specifications; 

conducted the fieldwork; and handled data processing, again with EIA input.

This appendix presents a summary of the design and implementation procedures for Part I of the survey, and 

describes the energy efficiency estimates included in this report. Complete details on the survey are available in a 

methodological report on the MECS published by EIA13

Description of the Manufacturing

The manufacturing sector consists of all manufacturing establishments in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

The working definition of a manufacturing establishment is the definition stated in the Office of Management and 

Budget's Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. 14 A manufacturing establishment is an economic unit"... 

at a single physical location that is engaged in the mechanical or chemical transformation of materials or substances 

into new products. These establishments are usually described as plants, factories, or mills and typically use 

power-driven machines and materials-handling equipment. Establishments engaged in assembling component parts 

of manufactured products are also considered manufacturing if the new product is neither a structure nor other fixed 

improvement. Also included is the blending of materials such as lubricating oil, plastics, resins, or liquors."

The SIC Manual contains a hierarchial classification system that groups establishments according to their primary 

economic activities. This system divides the manufacturing sector into 20 major industrial groups that are relatively 

homogeneous with respect to primary output. Each of these major industrial groups is assigned a two-digit code. 

The two-digit codes for the manufacturing division range from SIC 20. Food and Kindred Products, through SIC 39, 

Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries. Each major group is subdivided into three-digit groups which are further

12See Appendix E for related EIA publications on energy consumption.

13Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: Methodological 

Report, 1985, DOE/EIA-0514(85) (Washington, DC, November 1988).

"Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972 (Washington, DC. 1972), p. 57.

Energy information Administraiion/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1380 - 1985 29
divided into four-digit industries. For example, SIC 20 includes SIC 201, Meat Products, which, in turn, is subdivided 

into SIC 2011, Meat Packing Plants; SIC 2012, Sausages and Other Prepared Meat Products; SIC 2016, Poultry 

Dressing Plants; and SIC 2017, Poultry and Egg Processing.

The SIC category is the single most important classification variable in the MECS data system, both for selecting 

the MECS sample and analyzing the MECS data. The categories of primary interest for the MECS are the 20 major 

industrial groups (SIC 20 through 39) and the 10 four-digit industries within these industry groups that consume the 

largest quantities of energy. A description of these 20 major industrial groups and 10 industries appears in Appendix 

D.

The Sampling Frame and Its Relationship to the Manufacturing Sector

As mentioned in the Introduction to this appendix, the Census Bureau serves as the collecting and compiling agent 

for the MECS. A major benefit of selecting the Census Bureau to provide this service was that the ELA was able 

to have access to an intact list of manufacturing establishments to serve as the frame for the MECS sample, 

Therefore, before discussing the MECS sample, the frame from which it was selected will be described in some detail,

A major responsibility of the Industry Division of the Census Bureau is to conduct the Census of Manufactures (CM) 

and the ASM. The CM is conducted in those years ending in "2" or "7" (for example, 1982), and provides economic 

data for the complete universe of approximately 350,000 manufacturing establishments in the United States. For 

the purposes of data collection, the CM universe is divided into two major subsets as follows.

1. Small Single-Establishment Companies Not Sent a Report Form: These companies are excused from filing a CM 

report. Generally, those with less than 5 employees are excused while all with more than 20 are mailed report forms. 

Those with 5 through 20 employees are excused or sent a report form based on the magnitude of their annual payroll 

and shipments data. Approximately 125,000 establishments are excused due to this criterion.

2. Establishments Sent a Report Form: The remaining manufacturing establishments in the universe are sent a 

report form.

The ASM is conducted during non-CM years to provide estimates of economic characteristics for the universe of 

manufacturing establishments. The ASM contains two components. The mail portion is a probability sample of 

manufacturing establishments selected from the list of establishments that are sent the CM report form (see above). 

Those establishments are weighted so they represent the mail portion of the CM universe. There are approximately 

56,000 manufacturing establishments in the ASM mail sample. Before mailing the ASM materials, the sample is 

updated by adding new manufacturing establishments and removing those that went out of business or out of scope.

The second component of the ASM is the nonmail portion of the CM. These small establishments are not sent an 

ASM questionnaire, but their contribution is estimated based on selected information obtained annually from other 

Federal agencies.

The mail portion of the 1985 ASM, in turn, serves as the frame for the MECS sample. Thus, the universe covered 

by the MECS is the same universe covered by the ASM mail sample (that is, active CM establishments that are sent 

a report form, plus establishments that began operations since the last CM).

Sample Design

The overall size of the MECS sample was set at approximately 12,000 establishments based upon available resources 

and preliminary estimates of sampling error. The desired sample was allocated among 30 industry-based strata 

consisting of the 10 most energy-consumptive four-digit SIC industries and the remaining portions of the 20 two-digit 

SIC industry groups. Because of random variability in the sample selection process, the actual sample contained

30 Energy Information Administratlon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
12,065 establishments. For the 10 most energy-intensive industries, all 1,907 establishments in the 1984 ASM sample 

were included in the 1985 MECS sample with certainty. The remaining 10,158 establishments were sampled from 

the 20 two-digit groups in a pattern designed to keep sampling errors within pre-established bounds for estimates 

of total consumption and consumption of four types of energy: electricity, natural gas, residual oil, and coal.

The procedure for subselecting ASM sample establishments into the MECS sample was such that their overall 

probabilities of selection for the MECS were proportional to an estimated energy measure of size. The overall 

probabilities for selection of the MECS sample establishments ranged from 0.002 to 1.000.

The selection of the MECS sample is, therefore, a two-stage selection process. The first stage is the selection of 

the ASM mail sample, and the second, the subselection of the MECS sample from the ASM sample. Thus, a MECS 

sample establishment is selected conditional upon it having been selected into the ASM mail sample. The probability 

of selection of a MECS sample establishment from the ASM sample is a conditional probability so that the overall 

probability of selection into the MECS sample is represented by the product of this conditional probability and its 

ASM selection probability.

Of the initial sample of 12,065 establishments, 381 were determined to be out of business or out of scope based on 

updating procedures used by the Census Bureau. Thus, a final sample of 11,684 establishments were mailed the 

consumption portion of the MECS. Usable responses were received from 10,499, or 90 percent, of those 

establishments. However, those respondents represented 97 percent of the total unweighted value of shipments and 

receipts of the final sample.

Fieldwork, Editing, and Quality Control

Questionnaires were mailed to the in-scope MECS sample establishments on July 14,1986. Returned questionnaires 

were subjected to initial screening procedures for completeness, and incomplete forms or responses with obvious 

inconsistencies were set aside for review by industry specialists. Valid returned questionnaires were forwarded directly 

to check-in and then to data entry.

All forms that were incomplete or failed the initial screening procedures were carefully reviewed by industry 

specialists. The specialists retrieved missing data and verified questionable items by telephone contact with the 

individual who completed the questionnaire. Once forms were completed and verified, they were forwarded to checkin and data entry.

The resulting MECS data file was then subjected to a series of computer edits. These edits included consistency 

checks against data items from other parts of the MECS and the 1985 ASM as well. The edits also included checks 

for outliers in the distribution of individual variables. Records with failed edits were reviewed and followed up by 

industry specialists.

The Estimation Process

The 1985 consumption estimates, developed from the MECS, represent the entire population of manufacturers in 

the CM universe that were covered in the 1985 ASM mailing. Full representation is accomplished by weighting the 

data received from the establishments. Weighting is the process of multiplying the reported values by a casespecific constant designed to inflate the data from each sample case to that portion of the population which it 

represents. The first, basic factor in the MECS weights was the sampling weight, which accounted for the MECS 

sampling process. The sampling weight for a MECS sample case was the reciprocal of its overall probability of 

selection; that is, its probability of selection into the ASM and subsequent selection for the MECS.

Before producing the estimates, the MECS sampling weights were adjusted to account for nonresponse and 

noncoverage. Noncoverage resulted from the exclusion of two groups of establishments from the frame. One group 

was those establishments that began operations in 1984 and continued through 1985. The other group was those 

establishments that ceased operations during 1985, but should have reported for the time that they were still in 

business.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes !n Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 31
Adjustment factors to account for nonresponse and noncoverage were calculated using the estimated 1984 

consumption of purchased fuels and electricity. The 1984 estimates were prepared by the Census Bureau using 

historical Census data. Basically, those factors are ratios of the estimated energy consumption of the population 

covered by the original MECS sample plus exclusions to the estimated energy consumption of the population covered 

by MECS respondents.

Because the nonresponding establishments and exclusions were not evenly distributed by SIC or by size of 

establishment (with respect to fuel consumption), a separate adjustment factor was calculated for large, medium, and 

small establishments within each of the 30 sampling strata. Within each of the 90 adjustment cells, the appropriate 

adjustment factor was then multiplied by the sampling weight for all responding MECS establishments. The product 

of the sampling weight and the adjustment factor is the final adjusted MECS weight, which is used to produce all 

MECS population estimates in this report. The adjustment factors, in effect, ratio adjust the weighted data from 

the MECS respondents to estimated totals for the universe that was initially targeted by the MECS frame and sample 

design, that is, manufacturers represented by the 1985 ASM mail sample.

The Concept of Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency is one specialized concept that can be measured using the MECS data base and estimation processEnergy efficiency is the ratio of energy consumption to output for any given year. In this report, energy consumption 

is defined as the consumption of offsite-produced energy, and output is defined as the value of shipments and 

receipts expressed in constant (1980) dollars. Thus, the energy-efficiency ratio for any given industry group is 

expressed as:

Ei m

*> =

where, R denotes the energy-efficiency ratio indexed to year ;' (/' = 1980, 1985), E is offsite-produced energy 

consumption, and S is the constant dollar value of shipments and receipts.

The 1985 estimates of offsite-produced energy consumption were provided by the MECS. The 1980 estimates of 

offsite-produced energy consumption and the 1980 and 1985 estimates of value of shipments and receipts were 

provided by the Census Bureau. All four of these estimates represent the same population of manufacturing 

establishments that are represented by the MECS sample.

The average price of manufactured goods Increased by 11 percent between 1980 and 1985. To remove the effect of 

these price changes, the 1985 value of shipments were converted to constant 1980 dollars using the industry price 

indices provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 15 That adjustment results in a more realistic measure of output 

than would have been obtained using the unadjusted value of shipments.

Changes in energy efficiency for a given industry group are the percent changes in the efficiency ratios from one 

period to another. In this report, the changes in energy efficiency reflect the change from the base year of 1980 to 

the MECS survey year of 1985. The energy efficiency changes are simply,

15An explanation of the industry price indices appears in U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Handbook of Methods. 

Volume I, Bulletin 2134-1 (Washington, DC, December 1983), p. 49.

32 Energy Information Adminlstration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
(2)

(3)

where C^ is the percent change16 in energy efficiency from 1980 to 1985.

There are alternative measures of energy consumption and output which could be used in place of constant dollar 

value of shipments and the consumption of offsite-produced energy. The reasons for selecting value of shipments 

and receipts and offsite-produced energy are presented in the two following sections.

Measures of

The MEGS was conducted for the first time in 1986 to collect 1985 data. Before the MECS, the Census Bureau 

collected energy consumption data for 1974 through 1981 as a part of the Annual Survey or Census of 

Manufacturers. The 1985 MECS produced three separate estimates of energy consumption. These are the 

consumption of offsite-produced energy, total inputs of energy, and primary energy consumption. 17

Offsite-produced energy consumption is defined as the total amount of energy purchased or transferred from offsite 

sources that is consumed onsite to produce heat and power and to generate electricity. The definition of energy used 

in the Census Bureau's survey is compatible with the definition of the consumption of offsite-produced energy used 

in the MECS.

The estimates of offsite-produced energy consumption were used to develop the energy-efficiency ratios because two 

years' of data are required to examine changes in energy efficiency. The estimate of offsite-produced energy 

consumption is the only one of the three energy consumption measures resulting from the MECS for which 

definitionally comparable estimates are available for earlier years. The 1980 Census estimates of energy consumption 

were used for the base year in constructing the estimates of energy efficiency change. The 1985 estimates of offsiteproduced energy were taken from the MECS.

The second MECS energy consumption measure, total energy inputs, represents estimates of total input energy for 

the production of heat, power, and the generation of electricity, regardless of where the input energy originated. 

The MECS estimates of total energy inputs include the following components:

 Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and produced offsite (offsite-produced energy)

 Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and produced onsite from nonenergy inputs

 Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and produced onsite from energy products.

The basic difference between the estimate of the consumption of offsite-produced energy and total energy inputs is 

that the latter includes the consumption of byproduct fuels in addition to the consumption of offsite-produced energy.

16 It should be noted that the numerator In Equation (2) is reversed from what would be normally expected in calculatinmg a percent change. 

This reversal is to account for the fact that a derease in the energy efficiency ratios from 1980 to 1985 results in an increase in energy efficiency, 

while an increase in the ratios results in a decrease in efficiency.

17Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption of 

Energy, 1985, DOE/EIA-0512(85) (Washington, DC, 1988). Tables 1, 3 and 7 present estimates of primary energy consumption, total energy inputs, 

and the consumption of offsite-produced energy, respectively.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1S80 - 1985 33
Replacing the consumption of offsite-produced energy with onsite-produced byproduct and other energy is an 

efficient use of energy, and such shifts should be reflected in measures of energy efficiency change. The estimates 

of energy efficiency change presented in this report reflect such shifts, because they have been calculated using only 

the consumption of offsite-produced energy. Thus, it would be expected that a shift away from offsite-produced 

energy to byproduct energy with no compensating decrease in output would be reflected as an increase in the energy 

efficiency ratio. However, an increase in energy efficiency could be due to other factors as well. Therefore, in 

assessing the impact of a shift from offsite-produced energy to byproduct energy, it would be useful to have available 

estimates of efficiency change based upon total input energy. If there was a shift from purchased to byproduct 

energy, then the two measures of energy efficiency change would be approximately equal. If, on the other hand, 

there had been a tendency to replace offsite-produced with byproduct energy, then it would be expected that a 

measure of efficiency change using total input energy would be smaller than a measure based on offsite-produced 

energy.

Future reports in the MECS series on energy efficiency will provide measures of efficiency change based on offsiteproduced energy consumption and total input energy. The estimates will use the 1985 and the 1988 MECS energy 

consumption estimates to calculate changes in energy efficiency for 1985 to 1988.

To provide a basis for examining shifts from offsite-produced to byproduct fuels, this report includes the 1985 "energy 

efficiency indices" produced as a part of the Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Program (Efficiency Program). 

The Efficiency Program was conducted by the Department of Energy for 1976 through 1985. The program used a 

measure of energy consumption that is approximately equivalent to total energy inputs in the MECS. The efficiency 

indices from the Efficiency Program can be compared to the measures of changes in energy efficiency using offsiteproduced energy to approximate the impact of a switch from offsite-produced to byproduct energy consumption. 

However, there are several other differences between the MECS and the Efficiency Program which could account 

for differences in the measures of efficiency. A brief description of the Efficiency Program and its differences from 

the MECS are presented in Appendix C of this report.

The 1985 MECS also provided estimates of primary energy consumption by industry groups in the manufacturing 

sector. The estimates of primary energy consumption consist of four components:

1. Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and produced offsite (offsite-produced energy)

2. Energy consumed onsite for nonfuel purposes and produced offsite

3. Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and produced onsite from nonenergy inputs

4. Energy consumed onsite for nonfuel purposes and produced onsite from nonenergy inputs.

Primary consumption excludes the quantities of energy that were produced onsite from other energy sources and, 

therefore, avoids double-counting. It represents the quantities of energy that are "used up" for the production of 

heat, power, and the generation of electricity, and consumed as raw material inputs to the manufacturing process.

The major differences between primary consumption and the consumption of offsite-produced energy are that primary 

consumption includes (1) the energy consumed as a feedstock or raw material input to the manufacturing process, 

and (2) the byproduct fuels that were consumed onsite and produced from nonenergy inputs. Primary consumption 

excludes those byproduct energy sources that were produced from other energy inputs. Therefore, primary 

consumption excludes, for example, coke oven gas (produced as a byproduct of the destructive distillation of coal to 

produce coke), petroleum coke (produced in refineries as a result of high temperature treatment of petroleum 

fractions), and still gas (produced in refineries as a result of distillation cracking, reforming and other processes).

34 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
However, primary consumption includes such byproduct energy sources as woodchips and woodwaste, pulping liquor, 

and other waste. These energy sources resulted from materials that were not originally purchased as an energy source. 18 

Efficiency changes using energy efficiency ratios based upon primary consumption are more difficult to interpret than 

those based on offsite-produced energy consumption or total energy inputs. An increase in primary consumptionbased ratios could reflect a shift from offsite-produced energy consumption to byproduct energy sources resulting 

from nonenergy source inputs (but not byproduct energy sources resulting from energy source inputs). However, 

such an increase in efficiency could also reflect increased efficiencies in the consumption of energy sources as a 

feedstock or raw material input. For completeness, however, future energy efficiency reports will include estimates 

of energy efficiency change based upon efficiency ratios using primary energy consumption.

Measures of Output

Ideally, the output measure used to calculate the change in energy efficiency would be a measure of physical output. 

Physical output measures were not collected by the MECS, however, and it was necessary to use a surrogate measure 

of output. Two economic measures of manufacturing activity were considered for this purpose: value of shipments 

and value added by manufacture. Both of these economic measures were available from the Bureau of the Census 

for the establishments in the MECS sample.

Value of shipments consists of the total receipts for products manufactured, services rendered, and the resales of 

products bought and sold without further manufacture. Value added, on the other hand, represents the unique 

contribution of a manufacturer to the production of finished goods. It is derived by subtracting the cost of all 

materials from the value of shipments and adding the net change in finished goods and work in progress inventory. 

Basically, value added consists of wages and employee supplements, net interest, indirect business taxes and 

adjustments, and income or corporate profits.15

The value of shipments for any given industry group contains a large amount of duplication because the product 

outputs of some industries are used as raw material inputs by others. For example, a manufacturer of copper wire 

may sell wire to another manufacturer that builds electric motors. The electric motor manufacturer may, in turn, 

sell electric motors to a manufacturer that assembles refrigerators. Thus, the cost of the copper wire, which 

originated with the first manufacturer, appears in the value of shipments for all three manufacturers. If the values 

of shipments are summed for these three manufacturers, the result will contain duplication of the cost of the copper 

wire. Because of this duplication, the value of shipments of the individual industry groups should never be summed 

to calculate the total output of the manufacturing sector. Enormous duplication would result. Value added by 

manufacture is the output measure appropriate for that purpose because it includes only the unique contribution 

of each industry group toward the production of final products.

The duplication inherent in the value of shipments is not an important consideration in the estimation of energy 

efficiency changes, because the purpose is not to compare the efficiency ratios between industries. Rather, the 

purpose is to compare energy consumption per unit of output at two different points in time within an industry 

group. In most cases, whatever duplication existed in the base year will also be present in the comparison year (that 

is, value added as a percent of the value of shipments is approximately equal for the base and comparison years). 

Accordingly, for industry groups with perfectly stable proportions of value added to value of shipments, the same 

estimate of energy efficiency change will result regardless of whether the base is the value of shipments or value 

added.

For a few industry groups, however, value added as a percent of the value of shipments is not stable from year to 

year. This was especially true in SIC 29, petroleum and coal products between 1980 and 1985. During this period, 

constant dollar value added as a percent of constant dollar value of shipments declined from 12.5 to 4.3 percent.

18The phrase "not originally purchased as an energy source," is a critical distinction in the definition of byproduct energy used in the MECS. 

For example, the wood purchased for use in manufacturing wood pulp for use in making paper was not purchased as an energy source, but as 

a nonenergy source raw material input. Accordingly, wood for pulping would not have been reported as an energy source by a MECS respondent. 

However, the pulping liquor (that is, the spent liquor removed from the digesters) is used as an energy source and originated as a byproduct of 

the wood for pulping.

19For more details on the value of shipments and value added, see U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1985 Annual survey 

of manufactures, "Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries," M8S(AS)1 (Washington, DC, January 1987), Appendix A.

Energy Information Administratton/MECS: in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 35
The energy efficiency change calculated using the value of shipments as a base was 19.8 percent. Energy efficiency 

change calculated using value added as a base was -131.9 percent. The basic question is, then, which economic 

measure, value added or value of shipments, best mirrors physical output when value added is variable relative to 

the value of shipments?

The petroleum and coal products industry group is the one group for which some physical output measures are 

available. In 1980 and 1985, petroleum refineries supplied 6,225.4 and 5,740.0 million barrels respectively of refined 

petroleum products.20 (Note that these values represent the output of the petroleum refineries only, and not the 

entire industry group. Since petroleum refineries account for most of the output of the entire sector, however, the 

values are a reasonable proxy.) The estimated consumption of offsite-produced energy for these two years was 

1,180.5 and 917.0 trillion Btu. Using physical output as the base yields an estimated energy efficiency change of 15.7 

percent.

Clearly, for the petroleum and coal products industry group, an estimate of energy efficiency change between 1980 

and 1985 based on the value of shipments more closely corresponds to the estimate based on physical products than 

does the estimate based on value added. Thus, when value added as a proportion of value of shipments differs 

between the base and comparison years, it would appear that constant dollar value of shipments more closely 

approximates physical production than does constant dollar value added. Therefore, constant dollar value of 

shipments were used as the surrogate measure of output for calculating the energy efficiency ratios used in this 

report.

Finally, it should be noted that using constant dollar value of shipments as a surrogate for physical output is fully 

consistent with the procedures adopted by other Federal agencies for estimating output. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS), for example, publishes a productivity measure known as "output per employee hour." Basically, this 

index is produced by dividing an output index by an index of aggregate employee hours for a given industry, 

According to the BLS,

... industry output indexes are based on quantifiable units of products or services of the industry .... 

Whenever possible, physical quantities an; used as the unit of measurement. For those industries lacking 

quantity data, constant-dollar value of shipments, sales, or revenue data are used to develop the output 

series.21

20Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, November 1988 (February 1989), Table 3.1a. Published values converted to 

annual production.

21U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS Handbook of Methods, Volume I, Bulletin 2134-1 (Washington DC, Decenber 

1983), p. 103.

36 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes In Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Appendix B 

Quality of the Data
Appendix B

Quality of the Data

Introduction

All data collection activities and the estimates produced from them are subject to a variety of errors. These errors 

may be broadly classified under two general types, sampling error and nonsampling error.

Sampling error is defined as the variability in a survey estimator that arises because data are collected from a sample 

of units rather than the entire population. Each possible sample produces different estimates of population 

parameters, depending on the set of respondents that are selected. Nonsampling errors, on the other hand, occur 

in any data collection activity, whether a sample survey or a complete census. Nonsampling errors arc attributable 

to all aspects of the total survey design other than the sampling process, and can include both random and systematic 

(biasing) errors. Commonly recognized sources of nonsampling error include undercoverage, random and systematic 

response errors, nonresponse, data processing errors, and tabulation errors. This appendix describes the effect of 

both sampling and nonsampling errors on estimates of energy efficiency change using data from the MECS and the 

ASM.

Sampling Error

The estimates of energy efficiency change appearing in this report were developed from one of a very large number 

of samples of manufacturing establishments that could have been selected under the same sampling specifications. 

As a result, survey estimates differ from true population values that would be obtained from a complete enumeration 

of all manufacturing establishments. Each possible sample yields its own estimates of the true population values, 

with the differences attributable to the particular set of establishments selected into each sample.

One measure of variability due to sampling is the average squared differences between the estimates that would be 

produced by all possible samples and the mean value of these estimates. This type of measure is commonly known 

as sampling error. Estimates of the magnitude of these sampling errors based on data from a single sample are 

provided by a statistic known as the standard error of an estimate.

Estimates of standard errors have been computed for the estimated energy efficiency changes appearing in this report. 

They are presented in the form of relative standard errors (RSE), that is, 100 times the standard error divided by 

the estimated value to which it refers. The RSE's are given in Table Bl of this appendix.

Computation of Relative Standard Errors

The RSE's for the estimates of efficiency change were computed using a specially-derived formula that yields an 

approximate RSE. The primary inputs for the computation are the relative variances and covariances of energy 

consumption, the constant dollar value of shipments, and the estimated change in energy efficiency. The following 

paragraphs describe the derivation of the formula.

Energy Information Adminislration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 39
In equation (3) of Appendix A, the change in energy efficiency for a particular industry group is given as:

jf «.,.

/ R*

CC -II 80,85 - I 1 - R

V 80 /

where R& = £& / S^, and .Rgo - Em I Sm , and the multiplier of 100 in equation (.'>) is ignored.

The object is to derive an approximate RSE for the change in energy efficiency. The derivation proceeds as follows:

= /W2 

where RSE2 is the relative variance, or rel-variance. By definition of the rel-variance,

= ^ VAR(\ - R, 

equation (7) can be restated as:

100

VAR(\)+ VARRK/RW- 2coyi,RK /RiQ -;- q0>85 . 100 .

(3)

Since the variance of a constant and the covariance of a constant and a variable are equal to zero, equation (8) 

reduces to:

 r2 

~ 80,85 *

Expressing equation (9) in terms of the rel-variance,

V . 100

By Hansen, Hurwitz, and Madow,22 the rel-variance of a ratio can be approximated using the rel-variances and tlie 

rel-covariance of the components. Applying the approximation of Hansen el: al, equation (10) becomes:

RSE(C80iS5) =

(II)

/{ 100

22M. Hansen, W. Hurwitz, and W. Madow, Sample and Survey Methods and Theory, Volume [ (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. l (j"53 % 

p. 166.

40 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
The relative covariance between the two ratios can be assumed to be zero because sample selection for the 1985 

MECS (which provided the values for R^) is independent of sample selection for the 1980 ASM (which provided 

the values for R^). Thus, equation (11) reduces to:

- C820>85 . 100 . (12)

Since the two rel-variances in equation (12) are the rel-variances of the energy efficiency ratios for the industry group 

in 1980 and 1985, the approximation of Hansen et al. may be used again. Thus, the rel-variances in equation (12) 

may be approximated as:

RSE2 (R&5 ) = RSE2 (£85 ) + RSE2 (S85 ) - 2 RELCOV(ES5 , S85 ) , (13) 

and,

RSE2 (Rm ) = RSE2 (Em ) + RSE2 (sm ) - 2 RELCOV(Em, S80 ) . (14)

The components of these rel-variances were available from the MECS and the ASM, and in information provided 

by the Census Bureau. The rel-variances of the energy efficiency ratios were estimated and substituted into equation 

(12) to derive the RSE's of estimated changes in energy efficiency.

Energy Information Administratlon/MECS; Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 41
Table B1. Relative Standard Errors and Confidence Intervals for Estimates of Energy Efficiency Change, 

1980 - 1985

SIC Code3 Industry Group

Energy Efficiency

Change

(percent)

Relative Standard

Error 

(percent)

95 Percent

Confidence

Interval'

20 Food and Kindred Products . . ,

21 Tobacco Manufactures ......

22 Textile Mill Products .......

23 Apparel and Other Textile

Products ...............

24 Lumber and Wood Products . ,

25 Furniture and Fixtures ......

26 Paper and Allied Products ....

27 Printing and Publishing ......

28 Chemicals and Allied Products .

29 Petroleum and Coal Products .

30 Rubber and Misc. Plastics

Products ...............

31 Leather and Leather Products .

32 Stone, Clay and Glass Products

33 Primary Metal Industries .....

34 Fabricated Metal Products ....

35 Machinery, Except Electrical . .

36 Electrical and Electronic

Equipment .............

37 Transportation Equipment ....

38 Instruments and Related

Products ...............

39 Misc. Manufacturing Industries

All Manufacturing .........

22.9

Q

16.3

NA 

Q

17.4 

13.0 

15.2 

17.6 

19.8

27.8 

Q

23.0 

11.0 

16.4 

43.6

26.4

25.0

29.3

23.9

25.1

23.2

Q

14.1

NA 

Q

26.1 

28.5 

46.0 

21.3 

10.4

9.8 

Q1

19.8

17.6

19.6

6.2

10.6 

7.8

36.4

26.7

7.1

12.3 - 33.5

Q 

11.7 - 21.0

NA 

Q

8.3 - 26.5

5.6 - 20.4

1.2 - 29.2

10.1 - 25.1

15.7 - 23.8

22.8 - 32.8

Q

13.9 - 32.1

7.2 - 14.9

10.0 - 22.8

38.2 - 49.0

20.8 - 31.9 

21.1 - 29.0

8.0 - 50.6 

11.1 - 36.6

21.5 - 28.7

aSee Appendix A for a description of the Standard Industrial Classification Codes.

bThese confidence intervals include a range of values which has an approximate 95-percent probability of containing the true, but unknown 

population parameter with repeated sampling.

Q=Withheld because relative standard error is greater than or equal to 50 percent. Data are included in higher-level totals.

NA=Not available. Data are included in higher-level totals.

Sources: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: 

Consumption of Energf, 1985, DOE/EIA-0512(85) (Washington, DC, 1988), and unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Industry Division, from the Annual Survey of Manufactures.

Nonsampling Errors and Bias

Nonsampling errors that affect estimates of energy efficiency change can be divided into three major categories:

1. Operational errors, including editing, coding, and tabulation errors

2. Errors of measurement, including a lack of precision by the respondent, failure of the respondent to 

understand instructions, etc.

3. Errors of nonobservation, including nonresponse and noncoverage.

42 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
These errors are collectively referred to as nonsamplirtg errors because they are not related to the sampling process, 

and, thus, would be equally likely to occur in a complete census or a sample survey.

It is felt that operational errors are not a major concern for the estimates included in this report. The quality 

control procedures that were employed for check-in, editing, coding and keying the returned MECS questionnaires 

(see Appendix A) are standard procedures that are in place at the Census Bureau and have withstood the test of 

time. Data tabulations were verified by comparing marginal totals in tables generated from files supplied to EIA 

with corresponding totals generated directly from microdata files held at the Census Bureau.

Errors of measurement are a concern in any data collection activity. The survey results for the MECS were subjected 

to extensive editing procedures which were specifically designed to detect errors of measurement. Responses that 

failed these tests for reasonableness and consistency were recalled by analysts familiar with manufacturing processes 

and energy use. Major errors, including omissions and misreporling by orders of magnitude, were corrected. No 

editing procedure is capable of identifying all measurement errors, however, and some small errors will remain. To 

the extent that these errors are due to random, rather than systematic misjudgments, they are compensating in the 

aggregate totals presented in this report, and it is believed that there are few large systematic biases that result from 

them.

Finally, several potential sources of nonsampling error and bias result from errors of nonobservation. One source 

of noncoverage error results from the MECS target universe not being identical to the total manufacturing universe. 

As previously described, the population of interest for the MECS is the same universe covered by the ASM mail 

sample (Appendix A). That target universe excludes very small establishments, and thus, noncoverage represents 

a source of bias with respect to estimated energy consumption by the universe of manufacturing establishments. The 

effect of this noncoverage is generally not large (estimated only to be a few percent for most industry groups) 

because energy consumption is highly concentrated among the larger manufacturing establishments, and the MECS 

sample was specifically designed to capture those establishments with substantial energy consumption. Nevertheless, 

users should be aware of this noncoverage bias when attempting to relate the MECS estimates to the universe of 

all manufacturing establishments.

In addition, Appendix A describes the adjustments that were made to the MECS sampling weights to account for 

nonresponse and noncoverage of specific portions of the MECS target universe. Basically, the procedure was to ratio 

adjust the weighted data from the MECS respondents to the estimated totals for the universe that was initially 

targeted by the MECS frame and sample design. Clearly, had these adjustments not been performed, the estimates 

produced from only the responding establishments would not have been representative of the target universe for the 

MECS. Such estimates would potentially have been biased. Adjusting the sampling weights to reflect the target 

universe is an attempt to mitigate the potential effects of such a bias.

As described in Appendix A, separate adjustment factors were developed by size of establishment within sampling 

strata, resulting in 90 separate adjustment factors. Adjustment factors were calculated for each of the 90 cells using 

estimated 1984 fuel consumption for heat and power. Each cell represents a relatively homogeneous subgrouping 

of establishments with respect to primary output and level of fuel consumption. Implicit in that procedure is the 

assumption that primary output and level of fuel consumption are highly correlated with energy consumption 

patterns, so the establishments within a cell would also be homogeneous with respect to the quantities, types, and 

shares of energy consumed as fuels and for nonfuel purposes.

To the extent that the nonresponding establishments within the adjustment cells share the energy consumption 

patterns of the responding establishments within those cells, the resulting adjustments to the MECS estimates will 

tend to be minimally biased. If, on the other hand, the energy consumption patterns of the responding and 

nonresponding establishments differ substantially, the resulting adjustments are potentially biased, and may not 

represent the originally targeted MECS universe.

More detailed information on sources of nonsampling error in the MECS can be found in the methodological 

report.23

^Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: Methodological 

Report, 1985, DOE/EIA-0514(85) (Washington, DC, November 1988), pp. 7 - 11.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 43
Appendix C

Energy Efficiency

Improvement

Program
Appendix C

Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Program

History of the Program

The Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Program (Efficiency Program) began as a joint industry-government 

effort to stimulate energy conservation immediately following the 1973 oil embargo.2'1 In 1974, the Department of 

Commerce developed a four-point program aimed at voluntary adoption by the manufacturing sector. Under that 

program manufacturers were encouraged to:

B obtain the commitment of top management to energy conservation

 undertake a thorough company energy audit

a develop voluntary conservation goals and programs designed to meet them, and

 conduct energy awareness campaigns aimed at employees, suppliers, customers, and the community at large.

The voluntary reporting program was designed to measure progress towards achieving these goals. Trade associations 

played a major role in communicating the program objectives to their members. The number of voluntary 

participants grew significantly, with the trade associations assisting by compiling energy improvement data and 

establishing technology development and transfer programs.

In 1975, the enactment of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) required the establishment of an 

Industrial Energy Conservation Program including mandatory reporting. This program developed energy efficiency 

improvement targets for the 10 most energy-intensive manufacturing industry groups and identified the 50 most 

energy-consumptive corporations among those consuming at least one trillion British thermal units (Btu) of energy 

within those 10 industry groups.

The program was extensively altered as a result of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) 

amendments to EPCA The 1979 calendar year was the first reporting period for which NECPA-mandated changes 

to the reporting program were implemented.

The legislative changes increased the reporting population to include all corporations consuming more than one 

trillion Btu per year in any one of the 20 manufacturing industry groups. NECPA also required that each reporting 

corporation base its report on plant data; and required the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish voluntary 1987 

targets on the collection of information regarding the increased utilization of recovered materials from corporations 

in several industry groups.

In 1979, DOE identified over 1,000 corporations that consumed more that one trillion Btu of energy in 

manufacturing operations within any 2-digit manufacturing industry group. These corporations were the basis of 

energy efficiency improvement data collection for the calendar year 1979. In later years, through 1985, the list of 

eligible corporations was updated based upon the minimum threshold criterion of the consumption of one trillion 

Btu of energy in any one of the 20 manufacturing industry groups.

24Information on program history was extracted from Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Resources, 

Office of Industrial Programs, Annual Report to Congress and the President on the Industrial Emrgy Efficiency Improvement Program, DOE/CE0015 and DOE/CE-0015,3 (Washington, DC, December 1980 and no date).

Energy Information Administratlon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 47
Reporting Requirements

All manufacturing corporations identified as eligible under the minimum threshold criterion of one trillion Blu 

consumption of energy in any one of ifie 20 manufacturing industry groups were required to collect energv 

consumption and efficiency data from the plants owned by that corporation which contributed to that eligibility. 7- 

The individual plant reports were submitted to the corporate headquarters and aggregated to the corporate level. 

Corporations were permitted to submit the corporate-level reports directly to the DOE Office of Industrial Programs 

(OIP) or to submit the report through a sponsor, usually a trade association. Sponsors, in turn, aggregated the. 

corporate reports by industry group and submitted the aggregated values to OIP.

Each eligible plant was required to submit energy consumption data for the reference year and the current reporting 

year. The reference year was either 1972 or 1978, and the choice was left to the eligible corporation. In reporting 

energy consumption, the eligible plants were required to report all energy used or included in:

IE direct manufacturing activities

IB thermal self-generation of electricity

m heating, ventilating and air conditioning of manufacturing buildings and plant offices as well as manufacturing 

services such as shop, cafeteria, other plant personnel services, and plant chemical and analytical laboratories

B in-plant transportation and. transportation on a manufacturer's property between mining operations and 

manufacturing facilities

a raw material storage

a services for finished product warehouses within a plant fence if directly related to manufacturing activities;.

The respondents were directed to exclude, among others, all uses of electricity self-generated by thermal means;; 

byproduct fuels sold and shipped or stored for sale; waste used as fuel; and feedstocks. Energy consumption was 

reported in physical units and Btu. Btu conversion factors were provided by the OIP. For electricity, the Btu 

conversion factor for the chemicals and allied products and petroleum and coal products industry groups (SIC:; 28 

and 29, respectively), was 10,000 Btu per kilowatthour. For all other industry groups, the conversion factor was 3,412 

Btu per kilowatthour.

Energy efficiency data were provided on a product-specific basis by the eligible plants. For each product, individual 

plants were required to report the production measure (physical output measure), ihe reference year energy efficiency 

measure (consumption per unit of physical output), the current reporting year production (in physical units)., tlie 

calculated energy consumption (reference year efficiencies multiplied by reporting year physical units), and the actual 

current consumption. The two items, calculated consumption and actual current consumption, are the basis of 

calculating energy efficiency change. Calculated consumption represents the quantity of energy in reference year 

efficiencies that would have been required to produce the output of the current reporting year.

The corporation was required to report aggregate energy consumption by energy source, total calculated consumption, 

and total current consumption covering all eligible plants. These data were submitted directly to the OIP by a few 

corporations, but most submitted them to a sponsor where the corporate data were further aggregated and Lher 

submitted to OIP.

^Information on reporting requirements was extracted from the reporting forms of the Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Program: 

the plant reporting form (CE-189-P), tlie corporate reporting form (CE-189-C), and the sponsor reporting form (CE-189-S).

48 Energy Information Administralion/MECS: Changes (n Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Upon receipt of these data, OIP aggregated all corporate and sponsor reports by industry group and calculated 

"energy efficiency improvement" for each group as follows:

r,c

c > = loot -!———!- I , (15)

where C" is the change in energy efficiency from the reference year (r) to the reporting year (c), E* is the aggregate 

calculated current energy consumption using reference year efficiencies, and £c is actual energy consumption for the 

current year.

Differences Between the Efficiency Program and the 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey

There are numerous definitional and procedural differences between the MECS and the Efficiency Program. These 

differences may result in large discrepancies between the estimates of energy consumption and energy efficiency 

change resulting from the two programs.

Measures of Output

The MECS/ASM estimates of energy efficiency change are based on efficiency ratios of energy consumption per 

constant dollar of the value of shipments and receipts for a given industry group. The Efficiency Program estimates, 

on the other hand, are based on energy efficiency ratios of energy consumption per physical unit of output.

For the Efficiency Program, the estimates of change in energy efficiency in equation (15) for any given industry group 

can be expressed as:

where C" is the change in energy efficiency from the reference year (r) to the reporting year (c), R' is the energy 

efficiency ratio for product j, Wj is a product-specific weight representing the relative contribution of product j to 

the efficiency change for all products within a given industry group, and n is the number of products.

For the MECS/ASM estimates, it was shown in equation (3) of Appendix A that, for any given industry group,

(

\ 

1 " "R^l ' ( 17> 

"80 /

where R is the energy efficiency ratio using constant dollar value of shipments as the measure of output.

It is clear from a comparison of equations (16) and (17) that the estimates of efficiency from the Efficiency Program 

reflect the changes in the product mix within an industry group, and that such changes are not reflected in the 

MECS/ASM estimates of efficiency change. When product mix effects energy consumption, differences between the 

MECS/ASM and Efficiency Program estimates are likely.

Survey Coverage

The MECS was specifically designed to represent the energy consumption and related data of the population of 

manufacturers with five or more employees. (See Appendix A for more details on the representativeness of the

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 49
MECS sample.) The Efficiency Program, however, was not designed to produce reliable estimates of energy 

consumption for the entire manufacturing sector. Rather, its intent was to track energy efficiency change for tine 

largest energy-consuming corporations in the U.S. For those industry groups that are dominated by large energyconsuming corporations (petroleum and coal products, for example), it would be expected that the MECS and 

Efficiency Program estimates of energy consumption would be reasonably close. For other sectors which ate 

dominated by a large number of fairly small companies (printing and publishing, for example), it would be expected 

that the MECS estimates of energy consumption would be substantially larger than the estimate resulting from the 

Efficiency Program. Table Cl presents the estimates of energy consumption for 1985 from the MECS and the 

Efficiency Program, the total number of establishments, and the difference between the estimates.

Table C1: Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Sector, 1985

(Estimates in Trillions of Btu)

SIC Code3 Industry Group

Manufacturing 

Energy Consumption

Surveyb

Energy Efficiency

Improvement

Program

Difference 

(Col. 1 - Col. 1)

20 Food and Kindred Product;; , , ,

21 Tobacco Manufactures ......

22 Textile Mill Products .......

23 Apparel and Other Textile

Products ...............

24 Lumber and Wood Products . .

25 Furniture and Fixtures ......

26 Paper and Allied Products ....

27 Printing and Publishing ......

28 Chemicals and Allied Products .

29 Petroleum and Coal Products .

30 Rubber and Misc. Plastics

Products ...............

31 Leather and Leather Products .

32 Stone, Clay and Glass Products

33 Primary Metal Industries .....

34 Fabricated Metal Products ....

35 Machinery, Except Electrical . .

36 Electrical and Electronic

Equipment .............

37 Transportation Equipment ....

38 Instruments and Related

Products ...............

39 Misc. Manufacturing Industries

All Manufacturing .........

946

19

248

30

333

48

2,198

76

2,407

2,631

212

13

896

2,391

298

239

209

317

73

31

13,615

494

17

132

NA

41

MA

1,016

10

'2,386 

=2,478

101

NA

721

2,371

37

89

89

378

29

NA

NA

d452

C 2

d l!6

NA

d 292

NA

fl,182

"66

e21

NA 

d !75

e20 

"261 

d !50

d !20 

s-61

d44

NA

NA

aSee Appendix A for a description of the Standard Industrial Classification Codes.

bTotal input energy - see Appendix A, "Measures of Energy Consumption."

'Estimate adjusted to reflect a conversion factor of 3,412 Btu per kilowatthour rather than 10,000 as used in the Efficiency Program.

^Difference attributable to population differences between the MECS and the Efficiency Program.

'Difference not significant at p less than 0.05.

'Difference attributable to different definitions of energy consumption between the MECS and the Efficiency Program.

SReason(s) for difference unknown.

NA=Not available.

Sources: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

of Energy, 1985, DOE/EIA-0512(85) (Washington, DC, 1988), and Department of Energy, Assistant .Secretary for Conservation and Renewable 

Resources, Office of Industrial Programs, Annual Report to Congress and the President on the Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Proa'cn . 

DOE/CE-0184 (Washington, DC, May 1987).

50 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Of the 20 industry groups, three were excluded entirely from the Efficiency Program because no corporations could 

be identified that consumed one-trillion Btu of energy in a single two-digit industry group, the minimum energy 

consumption criterion for inclusion in the program. Ten industry groups had different estimates due to differences 

in the populations covered by the two programs. Only four industry groups (SIC 21, 28, 29, and 33) had estimates 

that were not significantly different between the two programs.

Energy Consumption

The energy consumption measure used by the Efficiency Program for the calculation of energy efficiency ratios was 

described under the section titled "Reporting Requirements" in this appendix. For all industry groups except paper 

and allied products (SIC 26), this measure of consumption is similar to the MECS measure known as total inputs 

of energy. For the paper and allied products industry group the measure of energy consumption used in the 

Efficiency Program was similar to the MECS measure known as offsite-produced energy.

As was described in Appendix A, it was necessary to calculate the MECS/ASM measures of energy efficiency change 

using the estimates of offsite-produced energy because this was the only measure for which comparable historical 

data were available. As a result, the estimates of energy efficiency change resulting from the two programs differ 

with respect to the definitions of energy consumption.

These different definitions, however, provide the basis for determining the extent to which shifting from offsiteproduced energy sources to byproduct energy sources affected energy efficiency. The basic difference between the 

two definitions of energy consumption is that the MECS estimate of offsite-produced energy excludes byproduct 

fuels, while the Efficiency Program estimate includes byproduct fuels. Thus, all other things being equal, an 

increased use of byproduct fuels and a decreased use of offsite-produced fuels would be reflected as increased energy 

efficiency by the MECS/ASM, but not by the Efficiency Program.

Reference Year

The MECS/ASM estimates of energy efficiency change use 1980 as the reference year. The Efficiency Program used 

1972 or 1978 as the reference year, and the choice between those two years was made by the respondent. The 

Efficiency Program reported changes in energy efficiency separately for those respondents choosing 1972 and 1978. 

However, nearly 95 percent of the 1985 energy consumption reported by the Efficiency Program was accounted for 

by respondents using 1972 as a reference year.

The Efficiency Program estimates of energy efficiency change presented in this report represent a weighted average 

of the 1972- and 1978-based estimates. The weighted averages were rebased to 1980 so they would be consistent with 

the MECS/ASM estimates. The weights for combining the 1972- and 1978-based estimates are the proportions of 

total energy consumption accounted for by each of the two groups.

Rebasing these weighted average energy efficiency change estimates to 1980 was accomplished by using only the 

average efficiency change ratios for any given industry group. The rebased estimate of energy efficiency change using 

1980 as a reference year can be expressed as:

- 80,85 

where the subscript "&" indicates the weighted average of the 1972- and 1978-based estimates of change.

Energy Information Adminisiraiion/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 51
Equation (18) can be expressed in terms of the energy efficiency ratios, even though the numerical values of these 

ratios are not available for the Efficiency Program:

80,85

 ^ 80 R 85

-K_8(

which reduces to:

R',, R'b 

b - , (20)

Con a^ =

^80

which is identical in form to the MECS/ASM approach (see equation (17) in this appendix) for estimating energy 

efficiency change.

Conversion Factors for Electricity

Two factors are commonly used to convert kilowatthours of electricity to British thermal units. These are 3,412 

Btu per kWh and 10,000 Btu per kWh, The lower conversion factor is typically used to determine the "usable 

work" which can be obtained from electricity. The higher conversion factor, on the other hand, is used to determine 

the total energy consumed to produce a kilowatthour of electricity, and is typically used in conjunction with utilities 

The Efficiency Program used the conversion factor of 3,412 Btu per kWh to convert electricity consumption in al 

industries except chemicals and allied products (SIC 28), and petroleum and coal products (SIC 29). In those two 

industry groups, the Efficiency Program used a conversion factor of 10,000 Btu per kWh. The basis for this decisior. 

was that these two industry groups are heavy generators of electricity and a switchover from purchased to ons;"tegenerated electricity would show up as decreased efficiency unless the offsite electricity use was accounted for by 

including the input energy used to generate it. The MECS, on the other hand, is an end use survey, and.. 

accordingly, the most appropriate conversion factor for electricity is 3,412 Btu per kWh. This factor was used for 

the electricity consumption estimates in all industry groups.

52 Energy Information Administratlon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Appendix D

Descriptions of 

Industry Groups
Appendix D

of Industry Groups

This appendix contains descriptions of the 20 industry groups taken from the 1972 SIC Manual.26 The manufacturing 

establishment and the SIC system were generally described in Appendix A.

SIC 20--Food and Kindred Products

This major group includes establishments 

manufacturing or processing foods and beverages for 

human consumption, and certain related products, 

such as manufactured ice, chewing gum, vegetable and 

animal fats and oils, and prepared feeds for animals 

and fowls.

SIC 21--Tobacco Manufactures

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

manufacturing cigarettes, cigars, smoking and chewing 

tobacco, and snuff, and in stemming and redrying 

tobacco.

SIC 22--Textile Mill Products

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

performing any of the following operations: (1) 

preparation of fiber and subsequent manufacturing of 

yarn, thread, braids, twine, and cordage; (2) 

manufacturing broad woven fabric, narrow woven 

fabric, knit fabric, and carpets and rugs from yarn; (3) 

dyeing and finishing fiber, yarn, fabric, and knit 

apparel; (4) coating, waterproofing, or otherwise 

treating fabric; (5) the integrated manufacture of knit 

apparel and other finished articles from yarn; and (6) 

the manufacture of felt goods, lace goods, nonwoven 

fabrics, and miscellaneous textiles.

woven or knit textile fabrics and related materials such 

as leather, rubberized fabrics, plastics, and furs.

SIC 24--Lumber and Wood Products, Except 

Furniture

This major group includes logging camps engaged in 

cutting timber and pulpwood; merchant sawmills, lath 

mills, shingle mills, cooperage stock mills, planing 

mills, and plywood mills and veneer mills engaged in 

producing lumber and wood basic materials; and 

establishments engaged in manufacturing finished 

articles made entirely or mainly of wood or wood 

substitutes.

SIC 2S--Furniture and Fixtures

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

manufacturing household, office, public building, and 

restaurant furniture; and office and store fixtures.

SIC 26-Paper and Allied Products

This major group includes the manufacture of pulps 

from wood and other cellulose fibers, and from rags; 

the manufacture of paper and paperboard; and the 

manufacture of paper and paperboard into converted 

products such as paper coated off the paper machine, 

paper bags, paper boxes and envelopes.

SIC 23--Apparei and Other Textile Products

The major group, known as the cutting-up and needle 

trades, includes establishments producing clothing and 

fabricating products by cutting and sewing purchased

SIC 27--Printing and Publishing, and Allied Industries

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

printing by one or more of the common processes, 

such as letterpress, lithography, gravure, or screen; and 

those establishments which perform services for the

^Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual, pp. 59 - 211.

Energy Information Adminlstration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 55
printing trade, such as bookbinding, typesetting, 

engraving, photoengraving, and electrotyping. This 

major group also includes establishments engaged in 

publishing newspapers, books, and periodicals, 

regardless of whether or not they do their own 

printing.

SIC 28--ChemicaIs and Allied Products

This major group includes establishments producing 

basic chemicals, and establishments manufacturing 

products by predominantly chemical processes. 

Establishments classified in this major group 

manufacture three general classes of products: (1) 

basic chemicals such as acids, alkalies, salts, and 

organic chemicals; (2) chemical products to be used in 

further manufacture such as synthetic fibers, plastics 

materials, dry colors, and pigments; (3) finished 

chemical products to be used for ultimate 

consumption such as drugs, cosmetics, and soaps; or 

to be used as materials or supplies in other industries 

such as paints, fertilizers, and explosives.

SIC 29-Petroleum Refining and Related Industries

This major group includes establishments primarily 

engaged in petroleum refining, manufacturing paving 

and roofing materials, and compounding lubricating 

oils and greases from purchased materials.

SIC 30--Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products

This major group includes establishments 

manufacturing rubber products such as tires, rubber 

footwear, mechanical rubber goods, heels and soles, 

flooring, and rubber sundries.

SIC 31«Leather and Leather Products

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

tanning, currying, and finishing hides and skins, and 

establishments manufacturing finished leather and 

artificial leather products and some similar products 

made of other materials. Leather converters are also 

included.

products, etc., from materials taken principally from 

the earth in the form of stone, clay, and sand.

SIC 33--Primary Metal Industries

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

the smelting and refining of ferrous and nonferrous 

metals from ore, pig, or scrap; in the rolling, drawing, 

and alloying of ferrous and nonferrous metals; in the 

manufacture of castings and other basic products of 

ferrous and nonferrous metals; and in the manufacture 

of nails, spikes, and insulated wire and cable. This 

major group also includes the production of coke.

SIC 34-Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery 

and Transportation Equipment

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

fabricating ferrous and nonferrous metal products such 

as metal cans, tinware, hand tools, cutlery, general 

hardware, nonelectric heating apparatus, fabricated 

structural metal products, metal forgings, metal 

stampings, ordnance (except vehicles and guided 

missiles), and a variety of metal and wire products not 

elsewhere classified.

SIC 35~Machinery, Except Electrical

This major group includes establishments 

manufacturing machinery and equipment, other than 

electrical equipment and transportation equipment.

SIC 36--Electrical and Electronic Machinery, 

Equipment, and Supplies

This major group includes establishments 

manufacturing machinery, apparatus, and supplies for 

the generation, storage, transmission, transformation, 

and utilization of electrical energy. The manufacture 

of household appliances is included in this group, but 

industrial machinery and equipment powered by 

built-in or detachable electric motors are classified in 

Major Group 35.

SIC 32-Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

manufacturing flat glass and other glass products, 

cement, structural clay products, pottery, concrete and 

gypsum products, cut stone, abrasive and asbestos

SIC 37--Transporta(km Equipment

This major group includes establishments engaged ir. 

manufacturing equipment for transportation of 

passengers and cargo by land, air, and water. 

Important products produced by establishments 

classified in this major group include motor vehicles.

56 Energy Information Adiministralion/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
aircraft, guided missiles and space vehicles, ships, 

boats, railroad equipment, and miscellaneous 

transportation equipment such as motorcycles, 

bicycles, and snowmobiles.

SIC 38--Instruments and Related Products

This major group includes establishments engaged in 

manufacturing instruments (including professional and 

scientific) for measuring, testing, analyzing, and 

controlling, and their associated sensors and 

accessories; optical instruments and lenses; surveying 

and drafting instruments; surgical, medical, and dental 

instruments, equipment, and supplies; ophthalmic

goods; photographic equipment and supplies; and 

watches and clocks.

SIC 39--Misce!Ianeous Manufacturing Industries

This major group includes establishments primarily 

engaged in manufacturing products not classified in 

any other manufacturing major group. Industries in 

this group fall into the following categories: jewelry, 

silverware and plated ware; musical instruments; toys, 

sporting and athletic goods; pens, pencils, and other 

office and artists' materials; buttons, costume 

novelties, miscellaneous notions; brooms and brushes; 

caskets; and other miscellaneous goods.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 57
Appendix E

ReSated EIA 

Publications 

on Energy

Consumption
Appendix E

Related EIA Publications on Energy Consumption

These publications are available from the National 

Energy Information Center or the Superintendent of 

Documents. See the inside cover of this report on 

how to obtain copies of these publications.

In addition to the reports listed below, public use data 

tapes for the residential, residential transportation and 

commercial sectors are available from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS). To obtain 

information on how to order tapes, you may call NTIS 

at 703/487-4807.

Please note that the prices quoted are subject to 

change.

Industrial Sector

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: Fuel 

Switching Capability, 1985; December 1988, 

DOE/EIA-0515(85), GPO Stock No. 061-003-00601-9, 

S3.50.

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: 

Methodological Report, 1985; November 1988, 

DOE/EIA-0514(85), GPO Stock No. 061-003-00595- 

1, $6.00.

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey: 

Consumption of Energy, 1985; November 1988, 

DOE/EIA-0512(85), GPO Stock No. 061-003-00594-2, 

$6.00.

"Manufacturing Sector Energy Consumption, 1985 

Provisional Estimates,1' Monthly Energy Review, January 

1987, DOE/EIA-0035(87/01), pp. vii-x.

Report on the 1980 Manufacturing Industries' Energy 

Consumption Study and Survey of Large Combustors; 

February 1983, DOE/EIA-0358, GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00293-5, $5.00.

Industrial Energy Consumption, "Survey of Large 

Combustors: Report on Alternate Fuel-Burning 

Capabilities of Large Boilers in 1979"; February 1982,

DOE/EIA-0304, GPO Stock No. 061-003-0233-1, 

$2.50.

Methodological Report of the 1980 Manufacturing 

Industries Survey of Large Combustors (EM-463); 

March 1982, DOE/EIA-0306 (no GPO Stock No.).

Residential Sector 

Housing Characteristics

Housing Characteristics 1987; May 1989, 

DOE/EIA-0314(87), GPO Stock No. 061-003-00619-1, 

$13.00.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Housing 

Characteristics 1984; October 1986, 

DOE/EIA-0314(84), GPO Stock No. 061-003-00499-7, 

$12.00.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Housing 

Characteristics, 1982; August 1984, DOE/EIA-0314(82), 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00393-1, $7.00.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey Housing 

Characteristics, 1981; August 1983, DOE/EIA-0314(81), 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00330-3, $6,50.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Housing 

Characteristics, 1980; June 1982, DOE/EIA-0314, GPO 

Stock No. 061-003-00256-1, $11.00.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Characteristics 

of the Housing Stock and Households, 1978; February 

1980, DOE/EIA-0207/2, GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00093-2, $4.25.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Conservation; 

February 1980, DOE/EIA-0207/3, GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00087-8, $6.00.

Preliminary Conservation Tables from the National 

Interim Energy Consumption Survey; August 1979, 

DOE/EIA-0193/P (no GPO Stock No.).

Energy Information Admlnistratlon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 61
Characteristics of the Housing Stock and Households: 

Preliminary Findings from the National Interim Energy 

Consumption Survey; October 1979, DOE/EIA-0199/P 

(no GPO Stock No.).

Consumption and Expenditures

Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1987, 

Part 1: National Data; October 1939, DOE/EIA0321/1(87).

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1984 Through March 1985, Part 

1: National Data; March 1987, DOE/EIA-0321/1(84).

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1984 Through March 1985, Part 

2: Regional Data; May 1987, DOE/EIA-0321/2(84).

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1982 Through March 1983, Part 

1: National Data; November 1984, DOE/EJA-0321/ 

1(82), GPO Stock No. 061-003-00411-3, $7.00.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1982 Through March 1983, Part 

2: Regional Data; Dec. 1984, DOE/EIA-0321/2(82), 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00414-8, $9.50.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1981 Through March 1982, Part 

1: National Data; Sept. 1983, DOE/EIA-0321/1(81), 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00340-1, S6.00.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1981 Through March 1982, Part 

2: Regional Data; October 1983, DOE/EIA-0321/2(81), 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00357-5, $8.00.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1980 Through March 1981, Part 

1: National Data; Sept. 1982, DOE/EIA-0321/1(80), 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00278-1, $7.50.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1980 Through March 1981, Part 

2: Regional Data; June 1983, DOE/EIA-0321/2(80), 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00319-2, S7.00.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 1979-1980 

Consumption and Expenditures, Pan 1: National Data 

(Including Conservation); April 1981, DOE/EIA-0262/1, 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00191-2, S6.50.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 1979-1980 

Consumption and Expenditures, Part II: Regional Data;

May 1981, DOE/EIA-0262/2, GPO Stock No. 061-003- 

00189-1, $8.50.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, April 1978 Through March 1979; Jul> 

1980, DOE/EIA-0207/5, GPO Stock No. 061-003- 

00131-9, S7.50.

Single-Family Households: Fuel Oil Inventories am 

Expenditures: National Interim Energy Consumption 

Survey; December 1979, DOE/EIA-0207/1, GPO Stock 

No. 061-003-00075-4, $3.50.

Other Publications on the Residential 

Sector

End-Use Consumption of Residential Energy (Article) 

pp. vii-xiv, Monthly Energy Review, July 1987, 

DOE/EIA-0035(87/Q7).

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Trends in 

Consumption and Expenditures 1978-1984 June 1987, 

DOE/EIA-0482, GPO Stock No. 061-003-00535-7. 

S 12.00.

Residential Conservation Measures; July 1986, 

SR/EEUD/86AH (nc GPO Stock No.).

An Economic Evaluation of Energy Conservation and 

Renewable Energy Tax Credits; October 1985, Service 

Report (no GPO Stock No.).

Residential Energy Consumption and Expenditures by 

End Use for 1978, 1980, and 1981; December 1984, 

DOE/EIA-0458, GPO Stock No. 061-003-00415-6, 

$4.50.

Weatherization Program Evaluation, SR-EEUD-84-1; 

August 1984 (available from the Office of th;i 

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable 

Energy, Department of Energy).

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Regression 

Analysis of Energy Consumption by End Use; October 

1983, DOE/EIA-0431, GPO Stock No, 

061-003-00347-8, $5.00.

National Interim Energy Consumption Survey: Exploring 

the Variability In Energy Consumption; July 1981, 

DOE/EIA-0272, G O Stock No. 061-003-00205-6, 

S5.00.

National Interim Energy Consumption Survey: Exploring 

the Variability in Energy Consumption-A Supplement;

62 Energy Information Aclmirilstraflon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
October 1981, DOE/EIA-0272/S, GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00217-0, $4.50.

Energy Use by U.S. Households; November 1980, 

DOE/EIA-0248 (brochure, no GPO Stock No.).

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

1979 Consumption and Expenditures, Pan 2: Steam, 

Coal,. Fuel Oil, LPG, and Total Fuels; December 1983, 

DOE/EIA-0318(79)/2, GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00366-4, $6.00.

Commercial Sector

Characteristics of Buildings

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

Characteristics of Commercial Buildings, 1986; 

September 1988, DOE/EIA-0246(86), GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00580-2, $16.00.

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

Characteristics of Commercial Buildings, 1983; July 

1985, DOE/EIA-0246(83), GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00439-3, $7.50.

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

Characteristics of Commercial Buildings, 1983; A 

Supplemental Reference, DOE/EIA-M008, $22.95. 

Available from the National Technical Information 

Service (NTIS), Order No. DE-85015581.

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

Fuel Characteristics and Conservation Practices; June 

1981, DOE/EIA-0278, GPO Stock No. 061-003- 

00200-5, $9.00.

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

Building Characteristics; March 1981, DOE/EIA-0246, 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00171-8, $6.50.

Consumption and Expenditures

Residential Transportation

Sector

Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey: 

Consumption Patterns of Household Vehicles 1985; 

April 1987, DOE/EIA-0464(85), GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00521-7, $8.50.

Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey: 

Consumption Patterns of Household Vehicles, 1983; 

January 1985, DOE/EIA-0464(83), GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00420-2, $4.50.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

Patterns of Household Vehicles, Supplement: January 

1981 to September 1981; February 1983, 

DOE/EIA-0328, GPO Stock No. 061-003-00297-8, 

$4.75.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

Patterns of Household Vehicles, June 1979 to December 

1980; April 1982, DOE/EIA-0319 (no GPO Stock 

No.).

Cross-Sector

Natural Gas: Use and Expenditures; April 1983, 

DOE/EIA-0382, GPO Stock No. 061-003-00307-9, 

$5.50.

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

Commercial Buildings Consumption and Expenditures 

1986; May 1989, DOE/EIA-0318(86), GPO Stock No. 

061-003-00613-2, $19.00.

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

Commercial Buildings, Consumption and Expenditures 

1983; September 1986, DOE/EIA-0318(83), GPO 

Stock No. 061-003-00496-2, $13.00.

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

1979 Consumption and Expenditures, Part l:Natural 

Gas and Electricity; March 1983, DOE/EIA-0318/1, 

GPO Stock No. 061-003-00298-6, $9.50.

Planned Publications

Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1987, 

Part 2: Regional Data; planned for Nov. 1989.

Household Vehicles Energy Consumption 1988; planned 

for Dec. 1989.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 63
Public Use Tapes

Residential and Residential 

Transportation Sectors

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 1987 and 

Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey: 

1988; planned for February 1990.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 1984 and 

Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey, 

1985; Order No. PB87-186540/HAA.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 1982 and 

Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey, 

1983; Order No. PB85-221760/HAA.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Housing 

Characteristics, 1981; Consumption and Expenditures, 

1981-1982; Monthly Billing Data: Order No. 

PB84-120476/HAA

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption 

and Expenditures, 1980-1981; Monthly Billing Data; 

Order No. PBS4-166230/HAA.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Housing 

Characteristics, Annualized Consumption and 

Expenditures, 1980-1981; Order No. PB83- 

199554/HAA

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 

HouseholdTransportation Panel Monthly Gas Purchases 

and Vehicle and Household Characteristics, 6179-9181 • 

Order No. PB84-1624S2/HAA.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Household 

Screener Survey, 1979-1980; Order No 

PB82-114877/HAA.

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Household 

Monthly Energy Consumption and Expenditure?,, 

1978-1979; Order No. PB82-114901/HAA.

National Interim Energy Consumption Survey 

(Residential), 1978; Order No. PB81-108714/HAA.

Commercial Sector

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: 

1986 Data; Order No. PB90-500034.

Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Stove; : 

1979 and 1983 Data; Order No. PB88-245162.

64 Energy Information Administralion/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
Glossary
Glossary

Anthracite: A hard, black, lustrous coal containing a 

high percentage of fixed carbon and a low percentage 

of volatile matter. It is often referred to as hard coal. 

For the purposes of the Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey (MECS), anthracite contains 

approximately 23.031 million Btu per short ton.

Bituminous Coal: A soft coal (the most common 

solid fossil fuel) that is high in carbonaceous matter, 

with a volatility greater than anthracite and a calorific 

value greater than lignite. For the purposes of the 

MECS, bituminous coal used as a fuel contains 

approximately 22.012 million Btu per short ton. 

Bituminous coal used for coking contains 

approximately 26,8 million Btu per short ton.

Biomass: Organic (animal waste), nonfossil plant 

material constituting an exploitable energy source.

Blast Furnace Gas: Waste combustible gas generated 

in a blast furnace when iron ore is being reduced with 

coke to metallic iron. It is commonly used as a fuel 

within the steel works.

Breeze: The residue from the fine screenings of 

crushed coke.

British Thermal Unit (Btu): The amount of energy 

required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 

1 degree Fahrenheit at or near 39.2 degrees 

Fahrenheit.

Butane (C4H10): A normally gaseous, paraffinic 

hydrocarbon extracted from natural gas or refinery gas 

streams. It includes isobutane (a branch-chain 

configuration) and normal butane (a straight-chain 

configuration). It is used primarily for blending into 

high-octane gasoline, for residential and commercial 

heating, and for industrial uses, especially the 

manufacture of chemicals and synthetic rubber.

Byproduct: A secondary or additional product 

resulting from the feedstock use of energy or 

processing of nonenergy materials. For example, the 

more common byproducts of coke ovens are coal gas,

tar, and a mixture of benzene, toluene, and xylene

(BTX).

Coal Coke: The strong, porous residue, consisting of

carbon and mineral ash, that is formed when the

volatile constituents of bituminous coal are driven off

by heat in the absence of or with a limited supply of

air. Coal coke is used primarily in blast furnaces.

Cogeneration: The production of electrical energy 

and another form of useful energy (such as heat or 

steam) through the sequential use of energy.

Coke Oven Gas; The mixture of permanent gases 

produced by the carbonization of coal in a coke oven 

at temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Celsius.

Company (Firm): As used in the MECS, a company 

is an economic entity consisting of one or more 

physical locations, at least one of which is involved in 

manufacturing. If the company consists of a single 

physical location, the term is synonymous with 

manufacturing establishments.

Constant Dollar Output: As used in the MECS, the 

real or deflated value of shipments and receipts which 

excludes the effect of price changes.

Consumption: The use of energy as a source of heat 

or power, or as an input in the manufacturing process.

Conversion Factor: A number which translates units 

of one system into corresponding values of another 

system. Conversion factors are used to translate 

physical units of measure for various fuels into Btu 

equivalents.

Distillate Fuel Oil: A general classification for light 

fuel oils distilled during the refining process. Includes 

products known as Nos. 1,2, and 4 fuels oils; and Nos. 

1,2, and 4 diesel fuels. It is used primarily for space 

heating, on-and-off-highway engine fuel, and electric 

power generation.

Energy Efficiency: As used in the MECS, the ratio 

of energy consumption to output measured in constant 

dollar value of shipments.

Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 67
Establishment: As defined by the 1972 Standard 

Industrial Classification Manual, "...an economic unit, 

generally at a single physical location where business 

is conducted or where services or industrial operations 

are performed."

Ethane (C2H6): Ethane is used primarily as 

petrochemical feedstock for production of chemicals 

and plastic materials.

Ethylene (C2H4): Ethylene is used primarily as a 

petrochemical feedstock for numerous chemical 

applications and the production of consumed goods.

Expenditures: Funds spent for energy purchased and 

paid for, or delivered to a manufacturer during the 

365-day period of calendar year 1985. For purposes 

of the MECS, the expenditure dollar amount includes 

State and local taxes and delivery charges.

Fossil Fuel: Any naturally occurring organic fuel, 

such as coal and natural gas.

Fuel: Any substance that can be burned to produce 

heat.

Fuel Use (of Energy): Use of energy in the 

production of heat, steam, power, or the generation 

of electricity.

Generation: The process of producing steam or 

electrical energy by transforming other forms of 

energy.

Geothermal Energy: How water or steam, extracted 

from reservoirs in the Earth's crust, which is generally 

supplied to steam turbines that drive generators to 

produce electricity.

Hydroelectric Power: Electricity generated by a 

turbine driven by falling water.

Hydrogen: A colorless, odorless, highly flammable, 

gaseous element; the lightest of all gases and the most 

abundant element in the universe,

Inputs of Energy: As used in the MECS, inputs of 

energy is the total amount of energy used to produce 

heat and power and to generate electricity. It consists 

of:

 Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and jproduced 

offsite

 Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and produced 

onsite from nonenergy inputs

 Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and produced 

onsite from energy products.

Kilowatthour (kWh): A unit of work or energy. 

measured as 1,000 watts (1 kilowatt) of power 

expended for 1 hour. Once generated, 1 kWh Is 

equivalent to 3,412 Btu.

Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG): Gas fuel in liquid. 

form supplied as an energy source. The fuel is usually 

delivered by tank trucks and stored in a tank or 

cylinder until used. LPG includes ethane, ethylene, 

propane, propylene, normal butane, butylene, ethanepropane mixtures, propane-butane mixtures, ano 

isobutane produced at refineries or natural gas; 

processing plants, including plants that fractionate rav 

natural gas plant liquids.

Lignite: A brownish-black coal of low rank with a 

high percentage of inherent moisture and volatile. 

matter content. It is also referred to as brown coal, 

For the purposes of the MECS, lignite contain;; 

approximately 22.012 million Btu per short ton,

Manufacturing Establishment: An economic unit at 

a single physical location where the mechanical or 

chemical transformation of materials or substances 

into new products is performed. These operations 

are generally conducted in facilities described as 

plants, factories, or mills and characteristically use 

power-driven machines and material-handling 

equipment. In addition, the assembly of components 

of manufactured products is considered manufacturing, 

as is the blending of materials such a lubricating oil, 

plastics, resins, or liquors. Manufacturing 

establishments are covered by SIC codes 20 through 

39.

Manufacturing Sector: The universe of manufacturing 

establishments within the 50 States and the District of 

Columbia.

Megawatthours (mWh): A unit of work of energy, 

measured as 1 million watts (1 megawatt) of power 

expended for 1 hour.

Motor Gasoline: A complex mixture of relatively 

volatile hydrocarbons, with or without small quantities 

of additives, obtained by blending appropriate refinery 

streams to form a fuel suitable for use in sparkignition engines. Motor gasoline includes both leaded 

and unleaded grades of finished motor gasoline, 

blending components, and gasohol.

Natural Gas: A mixture of hydrocarbon compounds 

and small quantities of various nonhydrocarbon.s,

68 Energy Information Adniinislration/MECS: Changes In Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
existing in the gaseous phase or in solution with oil 

in natural underground reservoirs at reservoir 

conditions. Natural gas may be subclassified as:

 Associated gas: Free natural gas, commonly 

known as gas-cap gas, which overlies and is in 

contact with crude oil in the reservoir.

B Dissolved gas: Natural gas which is in solution 

with crude oil in the reservoir at reservoir 

conditions.

 Nonassociated gas: Free natural gas not in 

contact with crude oil in the reservoir.

All natural gas volumes are reported in cubic feet at 

a pressure base of 14.73 psia, at 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit. For the purposes of the MECS, natural 

gas contains 1,032 Btu per cubic foot.

Nonfuel Use (of Energy): Use of energy as feedstock 

(for example, coal used to produce coke, crude oil 

used to produce petroleum products), raw materials, 

additives, or ingredients for products manufactures, or 

for any other purpose besides fuel use.

Offsite-Produced Energy: As used in the MECS, any 

energy source that was purchased or transferred from 

outside of the defined boundaries of the establishment 

in which it was consumed for the production of heat 

and power, and the generation of electricity. (See 

Purchased Fuels and Electricity.)

Petroleum Coke: A solid residue, high in carbon 

content and low in hydrogen, which is the final 

product of thermal decomposition in the condensation 

process of cracking crude oil. Petroleum coke can 

yield almost pure carbon or artificial graphite suitable 

for production of carbon or graphite electrodes, 

structural graphite, motor brushes, dry cells, and 

similar products.

Petrochemical Feedstock: Chemical feedstocks derived 

from petroleum and used principally for the 

manufacture of chemicals, synthetic runner, and a 

variety of plastics.

Plant: Commonly used as synonym for establishment. 

However, the term can also be used to refer to a 

particular process within an establishment.

Primary Energy Consumption: As used in the MECS, 

primary energy consumption is the total energy 

requirements (including raw material inputs and 

petrochemical feedstocks) of manufactures necessary

to produce nonenergy goods. Primary energy 

consumption consists of:

B Energy consumed onsite as a fuel and produced 

offsite

n Energy consumed onsite for nonfuel purposes and 

produced offsite

 Energy «>nsumed onsite as a fuel and produced 

onsite from nonenergy inputs

 Energy consumed onsite for nonfuel purposes and 

produced offsite from nonenergy inputs.

Primary Production: The principal product or group 

of products produced by a manufacturing 

establishment as determined by the relative shares of 

value added.

Propane (CjUg): It is used primarily for residential 

and commercial heating and cooling, and also as a 

fuel for transportation. Industrial applications include 

use as a petrochemical feedstock.

Propylene (CjH6): Propylene is used primarily as a 

petrochemical feedstock,

Pulping Liquor (Black Liquor): The alkaline spent 

liquor removed from the digesters in the process of 

chemically pulping wood. After evaporation, the 

liquor is burned as fuel in a furnace that permits the 

recovery of certain reusable chemicals.

Purchased Fuels and Electricity: As used in the 

Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Manufactures, any 

energy source that was purchased or transferred from 

outside of the defined boundaries of the establishment 

in which it was consumed for the production of heat 

and power, and the generation of electricity. (See 

Offsite-Produced Energy.)

Refinery: A plant, device, or process which heats 

crude oil so it separates into chemical components, 

which are then distilled off as more usable substances. 

Simple structure components vaporize first. Typical 

crude fractions are unstabilized gas, naphtha, kerosene 

and diesel range middle distillates, atmospheric gas 

oil, and atmospheric residual.

Relative Standard Error (RSE): A measure of the 

reliability or precision of a survey statistic. Relative 

Standard Error, or RSE, is expressed as a percent. 

It is derived as the standard error of a survey 

estimate, divided by the survey estimate, and 

multiplied by 100.

Energy Information Adminislraiion/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985 69
Roundwood: Wood cut specifically for use as a fuel.

Solar Energy: The radiant energy of the sun, which 

can be converted into other forms of energy, such as 

heat or electricity.

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC): A set of 

codes developed by the Office of Management and 

Budget that categorize businesses into groups with 

similar economic activities.

Still Gas (Refinery Gas): Any form or mixture of gas 

produced in refineries by distillation, cracking, 

reforming, and other processes, the principal 

constituents of which are methane, hydrogen, ethane, 

ethylene, propane, propylene, butanes, butylene, etc. 

Still gas is used as a petrochemical feedstock and 

refinery fuel use.

Value Added: An unduplicated measure of output 

that includes wages and supplements, net 

interest,indirect business taxes, and corporate profits 

or income of unincorporated enterprises.

Value of Shipments: The net selling values received 

or receivable, f.o.b. plant, after discounts and 

allowances, and excluding freight charges and excise 

taxes.

Waste Materials: Otherwise discarded combust ibb 

materials which, when burned, produce energy for 

such purposes as space heating and electric power 

generation. The size of the waste may be reduced byshredders, grinders, or hammermills. Noncombustiblc 

materials, if any, may be removed. The waste may b;; 

dried and then burned, either alone or in combinatio:t 

with fossil fuels,

Waste Oils and Tar: Petroleum-based materials that 

are worthless for any purpose other than fuel use; for 

example, residual byproducts of chemical processes;,, 

residue from refining processes, or unsalable refinery 

byproducts.

Wood Waste: Wood byproducts used as a fuel. 

Included are limb wood, wood chips, bark, sawdiis:, 

forest residues, charcoal, and pulp waste.

70 Energy Information Administration/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
DOE/EIA-0516(85)

Distribution Category UC-98

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey:

Changes in Energy Efficiency 

1980 -

Energy Information Administration

Office of Energy Markets and End Use

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical 

and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein 

should not be construed as advocating or necessarily reflecting any policy position of the 

Department of Energy or of any other organization.
Contacts

General information about Energy Information Administration data on energy consumption, energy efficiency, or 

fuel-switching capabilities of the manufacturing sector can be obtained from Lynda T. Carlson, Director of the Energy 

End Use Division (202/586-1112).

Specific information regarding the contents or preparation of this publication and other publications In tlx 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey series can be obtained from Dwight K. French, Chief of th; 

Transportation and Industrial Branch (202/586-1126), or John L. Preston, Team Leader for the Manufacturing En erg;, 

Consumption Survey (202/586-1128). Robert K. Adler (202/586-1134) prepared the estimates of energy efficient;, 

change. Jean Paananen (202/586-1800) is the contact on questionnaire content for the Manufacturing Ener?, 

Consumption Survey.

Energy Information Adminlstratlon/MECS: Changes in Energy Efficiency, 1980 - 1985
AFTER THE

DECLARATION OF

INDEPENDENCE

OUR FOUNDING

FATHERS WROTE

SOM HING EVEN

MOR

LT

 IMPORTANT.

Ten years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence 

our founding fathers created what historians have called the 

greatest single document struck off by the hand and mind of man.

Our founding fathers created the Constitution of the United 

States.

For the first time in history, power was granted by the people 

to the government, and not by the government to the people.

The freedom unleashed by the Constitution allowed 

Americans to develop their talents and abilities to the fullest. And 

attain what is now known the world over as the American Dream.

As we commemorate the Bicentennial of the Constitution, 

there is no better way for you as an American to reaffirm the 

principles for which our country stands than to learn more about 

the Constitution.

The words we live by.

THE CONSTITUTION

The words we live by

To learn more about the Constitution write: Constitution, Washington, tiff 

D.C. 20599. The Commission on the Bicentennial of The U.S. Constitution. *
Energy information Administration

OT

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

Return Postage Guaranteed

LASS IVIAIL i