DOE/EIA-0514(85)

Energy Information Administration

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey:

Methodological Report 

1985
This publication is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). Ordering infor 

mation and purchase of this and other Energy Information Administration (EIA) publications may be obtained from the GPO 

or the EIA's National Energy Information Center (NEIC). Questions on energy statistics should be directed to the NEIC. 

Addresses and telephone numbers appear below.

National Energy Information Center, El-231 

Energy Information Administration

Forrestal Building 

Room 1F-048 

Washington, DC 20585 

(202) 586-8800

Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, DC 20402 

(202) 783-3238

Released for Printing November 28, 1988
DOE/EIA-0514(85) 

Distribution Category UC-98

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey:

Methodological Report 

1985

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 any other organization.
Contacts

General information about Energy Information Administration data on energy consumption may be obtained from 

Lynda T. Carlson, Director of the Energy End Use Division in the Office of Energy Markets and End Use 

(202-586-1112).

Specific information regarding the contents or preparation of this publication may be obtained from Dwight K. French, 

Chief of Transportation and Industrial Branch (202-586-1126). The principal author of this report is David R. 

Strehlow, formerly a statistician in the Energy End Use Division.

MEGS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Admlnstration
Contents

 Page 

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

Purpose of the Survey................................................................................................................................ 3

Types of Data to be Collected by the MECS .............................................................................................. 5

The Manufacturing Sector and Its Relationship to the Population Surveyed by the 1985 MECS .............. 7

Creating Measures of Size For Establishments In the MECS Frame......................................................... 13

MECS Sample Design................................................................................................................................ 15

The Sampling Method................................................................................................................................. 19

Design of the EIA-846(F) and EIA-846(S) Forms....................................................................................... 23

Survey Administration and Quality Control................................................................................................. 27

Editing of the Data...................................................................................................................................... 29

Adjustments to the Sample......................................................................................................................... 31

Adjustment of Form EIA-846(F).............................................................................................................. 31

Adjustment of Form EIA-846(S).............................................................................................................. 34

Data on Nonfuel Use of Energy Sources at Petroleum Refineries......................................................... 35

MECS Estimators....................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendices

A. Identification of Issues....................................................................................................................... 41

B. A Description of Data Items In Existing Surveys that Potentially Duplicate Data Collected by

The MECS System............................................................................................................................ 47

C. Questionnaires and Instructions For MECS and Major Draft Versions of MECS Forms................... 51

D. Forms and Specifications Used During the Editing Process of MECS.............................................. 75

E. Details Concerning the Expected MECS Sample Size ..................................................................... 87

F. Derivations of MECS Estimators....................................................................................................... 93

G. Suggestions for Working with Aggregated Data................................................................................ 105

H. A Useful Upper Bound for Errors of Proportions Based on MECS Data ........................................... 109

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Adminstration
Page

Glossary.................................................................................................................................................... 117

Statistical Notation................................................................................................................................. 120

Tables

1. A Comparison of MEGS Sample RSE's for Fuel Consumption Estimates with Estimates of

Relative Undercoverage.................................................................................................................... 10

2. Precision Targets for MEGS, RSE's Obtained from a Trial Sample, and RSE's Actually Achieved

by the MEGS Sample, for Measures of Purchased Fuel and Electric Energy Consumption............ 17

Illustration 

1. Flowchart of the Data Editing Process for the 1985 MEGS .............................................................. 30

iv MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Adminstratlon
Introduction

In 1986, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) implemented the 1985 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MEGS). Forms EIA-846(F) and EIA-846(S) were used to collect data on 

energy consumption, fuel-switching capability, and related matters from a probability sample of establishments, 

designed to represent the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy. The MECS is a statistical data collection system 

designed to produce descriptive statistics related to energy use in the manufacturing industries. This report describes 

the development of and the methodology for implementing the MECS system.

EIA conceived, designed, and developed the 1985 MECS as a single survey. However, during the OMB clearance 

process, fuel-switching questions were removed from the original MECS survey, and subsequently approved as a 

separate data collection. The EIA-846(F) was mailed on July 14,1986, to collect basic energy-consumption and 

expenditures data, and the EIA-846(S) was mailed on November 28,1986, to collect data on fuel-switching capability. 

Form EIA-846(S) was mailed to a subset of respondents to Form EIA-846(F) and was preprinted, for reference, with 

the fuel consumption data reported by the establishment on the EIA-846(F). Future MECS will be collected on a 

single consolidated form.

The MECS system was developed at EIA, and the data collection was administered by the Industry Division of the 

Bureau of the Census under an interagency agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the Census Bureau 

granted several EIA staff members the status of sworn Census employees, so that they could participate fully in all 

aspects of the survey administration. The concept of a general-purpose energy-consumption data base for the manu 

facturing industries in the United States, the development and research of survey content and data issues, and the 

design of the survey instrument were accomplished by EIA. The construction of a sampling frame, the actual 

sampling process, survey administration, data processing, and disclosure analysis were performed by the Census 

Bureau. Specifications for the frame, sample, and estimators were developed by EIA in conjunction with the Census 

Bureau. Quality control, respondent support, and data editing were performed jointly, with final responsibility for data 

quality resting with EIA.

The information obtained from the MECS will be used to construct a data base for the manufacturing sector 

concerning iis acquisition, consumption, and disposition of energy, and its fuel-switching capability. The MECS 

provides data needed for analyses in DOE, other Federal agencies, State governments, and the private sector. Most 

important, it is the only data set on the energy consumption of the manufacturing sector that is both statistically 

reliable and comprehensive.

From 1974 through 1981, the Census Bureau provided EIA with data on consumption of purchased fuels and electric 

energy. Fuel stocks data were provided for 1978-1981. These data were available in "Fuels and Electric Energy 

Consumed," an ElA-funded supplement to the "Annual Survey of Manufactures" (ASM). This supplement provided 

benchmarks for energy consumption in the manufacturing sector and was the principal source of energy data for 

analysts and policymakers throughout the United States. The MECS system was designed to collect more 

comprehensive energy data than were collected previously, while providing as much continuity as possible with the 

previous ASM series.

This report describes the history of the development of the MECS system and the methodology used in implementing 

the two MECS forms administered in 1986 to collect 1985 data. Both Forms EIA-846(F) and EIA-846(S) are parts of 

the MECS survey system, resulting from the same development and consensus-building process. Therefore, MECS 

development will be discussed as a unified whole and the two forms mentioned separately only when they are being

discussed specifically.

Development of the MECS system was authorized under the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

(FEAA, Public Law 93-275). Collection of 1985 data was justified by use of Section 13(b) of the FEAA, 15 U.S.C. 

772(b). Future MECS are required under Title 3, Subtitle B, of Public Law 99-509.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Purpose of the Survey

The MEGS system is ElA's primary data collection activity concerning energy consumption and related data in the 

manufacturing industries of the United States. Its primary purpose is to provide a comprehensive national baseline 

statistical data set for energy consumption in these industries.

The core data collected by the MECS are purchases and expenditures by energy source, fuel use, nonfuel use of 

energy sources, and short-term fuel-switching capability. These data are comparable to energy data collected by EIA 

for other end-use sectors (residential, residential transportation, and commercial buildings) and are an important part 

of ElA's coordinated end-use consumption data base.

The MECS system provides essential input to ElA's legislatively-mandated modeling and forecasting activities, and 

provides data on other topics of interest to the DOE, including fuel switching, storage capacity of certain energy 

sources, and onsite generation and cogeneration of electricity. The MECS system will also provide the means to 

track changes in the consumption of purchased fuels, nonpurchased fuels, and fuel-like feedstocks, within specific 

industries and geographic areas. These types of information are critical to understanding and describing energy 

consumption and are in demand not only by government policy analysts but also by analysts in the private sector. 

Such tracking capability provides critical input for the analysis of proposed energy policies, contingency planning for 

emergencies, and, in general, contributes to an understanding of the factors influencing the demand for energy. 

While the ability to track changes in energy consumption is a key consideration in energy analysis, of equal 

importance is an understanding of why these changes take place. The MECS system, therefore, provides the means 

to account for the influence of the physical and economic characteristics of the establishment on energy consumption.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Types of Data to be Collected by the MECS

The issues addressed on the MECS questionnaires were chosen by means of an iterative development process that 

balanced the data requirements of potential users of MECS data against the difficulties that manufacturers indicated 

they would have in providing the data. This section of the report describes the issues addressed by the 1985 MECS. 

The detailed process of identifying issues for inclusion in the MECS is described in Appendix A.

Data items on the questionnaires were collected separately for each eligible energy source at an establishment (see 

Glossary). The following data issues were addressed on the 1985 MECS questionnaires:

Quantities of energy sources purchased

Expenditures for quantities of energy sources purchased

Quantities used as fuels at the establishment

Quantities used for nonfuel purposes (feedstocks and raw material inputs) at the establishment

The short-term capability of the establishment to use alternate fuels

Onsite generation and sales of electricity

Quantities of renewable energy sources used as fuel

Quantities of fuels generated and used onsite

The storage capacity of major petroleum-based energy sources at the establishment.

Economic data were not collected by the 1985 MECS but were provided by the Census Bureau. This was made 

possible by designing the MECS sample as a subsample of the ASM, allowing direct linkage of ASM economic data 

and MECS energy data for analytical purposes.

The MECS is designed as a survey of manufacturing establishments, rather than of major energy-using processes or 

pieces of equipment within establishments. Certain within-establishment characteristics, such as counts of major 

energy-using equipment, counts of buildings by type of activity, use of complex feedstock streams, and fuel 

consumption by detailed end use, were initially considered for collection. However, collecting data on these issues 

would have resulted in a longer and more burdensome survey than was practical to implement. Therefore, data were 

not collected on any within-establishment characteristics.

Two economic issues which were frequently mentioned by potential data users were not addressed by the 1985 

MECS because they could not be defined precisely enough to provide meaningful data. Investment in energy 

conservation was not included because it could not be clearly separated from other reasons for replacing or updating 

equipment. Capacity utilization was not addressed at this point because a method could not be devised to define the 

concept for many establishments meaningfully, especially those that manufacture multiple products.

Of the data issues that were included on the 1985 MECS, one item, nonfuel use of energy sources, was not collected 

from petroleum refineries. These establishments already report detailed production data to EIA as part of the Monthly 

Refinery Report, Form EIA-810 (See Appendix B). Instead of requesting refiners to report similar data on the MECS 

form, EIA chose to construct nonfuel use data from the production data already in its possession. (See chapter on 

Adjustments to the Sample for a detailed discussion.)

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
The Manufacturing Sector and Its Relationship To the 

Population Surveyed by the 1985 MECS

For purposes of both the ASM and the MECS, the manufacturing sector is a population of manufacturing 

establishments. Technically, it includes all establishments operating predominantly in at least one of the Major 

Industrial Groups 20 through 39 as defined by the 1972 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual 

(see Glossary). Eligible establishments were physically located within the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 

and, additionally, were operating as manufacturers at the end of 1984.

In 1985, EIA chose the Census Bureau to administer data collection activities for the MECS. One result of this 

decision was the use of the ASM mail sample as the sampling frame for MECS. The mail sample is a probability 

sample of about 56,000 manufacturing establishments that receive the ASM questionnaire. This sample represents 

the approximately 225,000 establishments eligible for inclusion in the quinquennial Census of Manufactures. The 

particular ASM mail sample used as the frame for drawing the MECS sample was based on the detailed 1982 Census 

of Manufactures, updated through 1984 from Internal Revenue Service (IPS) lists of new manufacturing 

establishments. This frame consisted of a list of all establishments in the 1984 ASM, minus establishments that 

ceased manufacturing in 1984. It did not contain establishments that began operations in 1984 and continued to 

operate in 1985, or establishments with too few employees to be eligible for inclusion in the mail sample. For most 

industries, between 5 and 9 employees are required for inclusion in the mail sample, but in a few industries, the 

requirement may be as high as 19 employees.

The mail sample provides much, but not all, of the data used to produce ASM statistics for the entire manufacturing 

sector. The remainder is provided by the nonmail file, which contains all establishments not represented by the mail 

sample. These establishments (generally, those with fewer than approximately five to nine employees), receive 

neither ASM nor Census of Manufactures forms, but are represented by employment, payroll, and four-digit SIC data 

taken from IRS and Social Security Administration (SSA) records. These three data items are used to impute the 

contribution of establishments on the nonmail file to economic characteristics measured by the ASM mail 

questionnaire. The combination of the weighted mail sample data and the contribution of the nonmail file represents 

the entire manufacturing sector.

In addition to representing small establishments, the nonmail file is used to represent new manufacturing 

establishments as identified from IRS records. The largest of these new establishments are transferred to the mail 

sample for the next ASM data collection, but single-establishment companies with fewer than 35 employees are 

retained in the nonmail file even if they are eligible for inclusion in the mail sample. This subset of new 

establishments, therefore, is not represented by the mail sample until the next Census of Manufactures, when all 

establishments are reviewed and the mail sample is recreated from the updated population.

Because of the relatively small effect of the nonmail establishments, the MECS sample covers only that part of the 

manufacturing sector represented by the ASM mail sample (which is used as the MECS frame). This population 

accounts for well over 90 percent of the manufacturing employment and payroll, and presumably accounts for the 

large majority of energy use by the manufacturing sector. Data from the nonmail file can be used to calculate rough 

surrogate measures of the proportion of the entire manufacturing sector, or a specific part of the manufacturing sector, 

that is not represented by the MECS.
Undercoverage measures were calculated as the difference between a simple inflation estimate of fuel consumption 

for the MEGS population, and an employment-adjusted MEGS estimate of fuel consumption for the more inclusive 

population. Undercoverage in SIC category s was estimated as:

Fhs Mts - Mhs Mis

Us = ———Mts-Fhs = Fhs ————— = Fhs —— (1)

Mhs Mhs Mhs

where Fhs = Total fuel consumption for establishments in SIC s of the mail file, as estimated from the MECS sample;

Mhs = Total employment from the mail file, in SIC s;

Mts = Total employment from the mail and nonmail file, in SIC s; and

Mis = Total employment from the nonmail file, in SIC s.

Relative undercoverage of estimates of fuel consumption is defined as the absolute Undercoverage divided by the 

corresponding MEGS sample estimate of fuel consumption. Relative undercoverage in SIC s was estimated as:

1 1 Mis Mis

U(rel)s —— Us = —— Fhs —— = ——' (2) 

Fhs Fhs Mhs Mhs

the ratio of employment in the nonmail file to employment represented by the MECS sample.

Similarly, the relative undercoverage for consumption over all industries was estimated as the sum of the individual 

industry values divided by total consumption:

1 39 1 39 Mis

U(rel) = —— S Us = ——— • Z Fhs —— • (3)

~ s=2° ** s=20 Mhs

2 Fhs 2 Fhs

s=20 s=20

All of these measures of undercoverage are based on the assumption that within each industry group, the ratio of 

energy consumption to employment is the same for establishments represented by the MECS sample as for 

establishments on the nonmail list. This assumption is speculative and cannot be directly tested because energy 

data are not collected from nonmail establishments.

Therefore, these measures should only be used as rough approximations of the level of undercoverage of energy use 

in the MECS. However, data from the mail establishments do show a relatively high correlation between 

employment and consumption.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Table 1 lists, by industry, the Relative Standard Errors (RSE) of estimates of total fuel consumption calculated from 

the sample, and estimates of relative undercoverage. RSE's are estimates, expressed as percentages, of the 

degree of uncertainty associated with estimates derived from the sample. They, therefore, estimate uncertainty 

resulting from sampling, and not uncertainty resulting from other sources of error, such as imperfections in the frame 

or errors in reporting. Estimates based on the MECS sample are based on large enough sample sizes that the 

distribution of the MECS estimator can be assumed to be approximately normal, by appeal to the Central Limit 

Theorem. Therefore, for approximately two-thirds of the possible MECS samples that could be selected from the mail 

list used as the ASM frame (that is, all possible MECS subsamples from all possible ASM samples), the percent 

difference between the MECS sample estimate of a characteristic and the value of that characteristic over all possible 

samples will be less than one RSE.

The relative undercoverage measures given in Formulas (2) and (3) measure approximately how completely the 

MECS sample represents the manufacturing sector. Again, the applicability of these measures to consumption is 

directly related to the assumption that coverage of employment approximates coverage of fuel consumption within 

major industries and industry groups. The undercoverage measures presented in Table 1 give some idea of the effect 

of using a noncomprehensive frame on estimates derived from the sample.

Comparing the two measures of variablity gives some sense of how the directional effect of undercoverage compares 

with the amount of random uncertainty in MECS fuel consumption estimates caused by sampling error. For example, 

total British thermal unit (Btu) consumption in all industries nationwide in 1985 was associated with an RSE of 2 

percent and a relative undercoverage of 3 percent (see Table 1). A relative undercoverage of 3 percent suggests 

that the MECS sample represents approximately 97 percent of the energy consumption in the manufacturing sector.

These comparisons pertain only to total fuel consumption for the categories listed in Table 1. They should not be 

extrapolated to detailed geographic or industry classifications, or to estimates for individual fuels.

Table 1 indicates that an estimated 3 percent of the fuel consumption in the entire manufacturing sector was not 

covered by the MECS sample. In addition, relative undercoverage was 5 percent or less for all 10 of the 4-digit 

industries, and 12 of the 20 Major 2-digit Industry Groups, used as sampling categories in the MECS. Estimated 

undercoverage in five of the eight remaining Major Industry Groups was approximately 6 to 7 percent of the total fuel 

consumed in those SIC's.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Table 1. A Comparison of MEGS Sample RSE's for Fuel Consumption Estimates with Estimates of Relative 

U nclercoverage

SIC Major Industry Groups and 

Code Selected Industries

RSE 

(Percent)

Relative 

Undercoverage 

(Percent)

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 .....................

2621 Paper Mills .........................................

2631 Paperboard Mills ...............................

27 Printing and Publishing ..........................

28 Chemicals and Allied Products ..............

2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, nee*....

2821 Plastics Materials and Resins ..............

2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals, nee*......

2873 Nitrogenous Fertilizers ........................

29 Petroleum and Coal Products ...............

2911 Petroleum Refining ..............................

30 Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products........

31 Leather and Leather Products ...............

32 Stone, Clay and Glass Products ............

3241 Cement, Hydraulic ...............................

33 Primary Metal Industries ........................

3312 Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills ............

3334 Primary Aluminum ...............................

34 Fabricated Metal Products ....................

35 Machinery, Except Electrical..................

36 Electric and Electronic Equipment..........

37 Transportation Equipment ......................

38 Instruments and Related Products ........

39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries

	Total U.S. ...............................................

5

6

3

8

11

7

3

3

7

6

2

9

8

3

3

3

3

3

12

3

5

4

5

8

4

4

3

2

6

8

4

1

2

6

12

6

3

1

1

10

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

7

3

6

1

2

1

1

5

6

3

2

4

10

*nec: not elswhere classified.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Energy End Use 

Division, Form EIA-846(F), 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey.

10 MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
The MECS sample in the three remaining Major Industry Qroups (SIC's 24, 27, and 39) had higher levels of relative 

undercoverage (10 to 12 percent). The lesser coverage of the MECS sample in these SIC's reflects the domination, 

and frequent turnover, of small establishments in these industry groups.

The data in Table 1 suggest that the data user needs to be aware of undercoverage when interpreting MECS data. 

Estimates of RSE's are typically available for sample surveys and their use and Interpretation is familiar to most data 

users. Estimates of undercoverage, however, are often not available because they require knowledge of true values 

of characteristics of the population being sampled. The values presented in Table 1 do not capture all of the 

nonsampling error present in the MECS sample, but they do provide approximate indicators of how completely the 

MECS represents energy consumption in the entire manufacturing sector and industrial categories within it.

In summary, consumption estimates from the MECS sample closely represent the entire manufacturing sector in most, 

though not all, cases. A useful working definition of the manufacturing sector that is closely represented by the MECS 

can be defined, however. The manufacturing sector, as represented by the entire MECS sample, consists of 

establishments that:

1) are physically located within the 50 States and the District of Columbia;

2) were in business at the end of 1984;

3) were assigned to one of the manufacturing industries (SIC Major Industry Qroups 20 through 39) 

for purposes of administering the mail portion of the 1985 ASM.

MECS: Methodological Report 11 

Energy Information Administration
Creating Measures of Size For Establishments In the

MECS Frame

In order to select a sample of establishments for the MECS, a probability structure was needed to relate the eventual 

MECS sample to the population of manufacturing establishments it was intended to represent. Certain constraints 

were inherent in the structure, because the MECS sample was planned as a subset of an ASM sample which had 

already been selected according to its own probability structure. However, the ASM survey also provided a benefit 

to the development of the MECS probability structure. The economic and energy-related data collected for the ASM 

sample provided valuable information to control the assignment of probabilities for the MECS so as to maximize the 

precision of MECS estimates.

The manufacturing establishment population is highly skewed with respect to energy use; that is, a relatively small 

proportion of the population accounts for a large proportion of total consumption. In such situations, a sample based 

on probabilities of selection that are proportional to the characteristic of interest can estimate population 

characteristics much more precisely than a sample of the same size selected randomly. The ASM survey collected 

several items of information which could potentially have been used to derive MECS probabilities: economic 

measures such as total employment, value of product shipments, and value added by manufacture, as well as 

energy-related measures such as total cost of fuels, quantities of purchased electricity, and for some large 

establishments that had been in ASM surveys in previous years, consumption of fuels for years as recent as 1981.

The first step in deriving selection probabilities was to attach a measure of size to each establishment in the ASM 

sample. These measures of size would be used as surrogates of the relative amounts of energy consumption 

among establishments. Eventual probabilities of selection for the MECS were to be derived directly from the relative 

size indicators. Because informal studies of ASM data showed that energy cost was more highly correlated with 

consumption than was any economic measure, a decision was made to derive measures of size based on 

energy-related data rather than economic data.

The measure of size that was derived was an estimate of 1984 consumption of purchased fuels and electric energy. 

There were two distinct methods for computing the estimate. For establishments in the MECS frame that had also 

been in the 1981 ASM sample, the size measure was given by

Cs4J 

TBtUj = ——— F8ij + (3.412 x 106) • Ee4j c«,

where

Es4j = Megawatthours (Mwh) of purchased electricity for establishment j as reported on the 1984 ASM

Fsij = Total consumption of purchased fuels for establishment j in millions of British thermal units (mmBtu), 

as reported on the 1981 ASM

Cs4j = Total cost of purchased fuels for establishment j as reported on the 1984 ASM

/\Cs4j = An estimate of the 1984 cost of FBI for establishment j, computed as a sum of fuel-specific costs

at the establishment. Each fuel cost was derived by multiplying the reported consumption of the 

fuel in 1981 by its 1981 price as determined from the reported consumption and expenditure data, 

and then multiplying the result by a national-level inflation index for that fuel covering the 

period 1981-1984. The inflation indexes were computed from the Producer Price Index (PPI) series

3.412 x 106 = The standard conversion factor of 3.412 mmBtu/Mwh of electricity consumption.

MECS: Methodological Report 13 

Energy Information Administration
For establishments that were not in the 1981 sample, total 1981 consumption was not available and the estimated 

1984 cost of that consumption could not be calculated. For those establishments the 1981 fuel-specific consumption 

and expenditures at the establishment level were replaced with comparable totals for the 4-digit SIC category into 

which the establishment was classified. Thus, the formula for the measure of size became

C84J

TBtUj = —— . FS81+ (3.412 x106) . E84j

Cs84 

A

where Fsai and CS84 were the totals for the 4-digit SIC code associated with establishment j.

TBtu was, at best, a rough approximation to the actual consumption of purchased fuels and electric energy at the 

establishment during 1984, because of changes in product mix at the establishment between 1981 and 1984 and 

local differentials in fuel price inflation from the average measure available from the PPI series. However, this rough 

surrogate was considered to be a superior predictor of consumption, and, thus, a better measure of size, than any 

function of economic variables that could be devised.

14 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
MECS Sample Design

The MECS sample was designed through a two-part process to produce the highest quality data achievable. First, 

preliminary estimates of expected sampling error and desired sampling error were used to develop an estimate of 

total sample size, thereby allowing estimation of resource requirements. Second, existing ASM data were used to 

allocate the sample to the different industries of interest. Overall, this process took into account survey objectives, 

characteristics of the manufacturing sector, characteristics of the properties to be estimated, and operational 

constraints caused by finite available resources.

The distribution of manufacturing establishments with respect to characteristics of interest (for example, fuel 

consumption, feedstock consumption) was of primary importance to the MECS sample design. Many economic 

characteristics, such as employment, value of shipments, and energy consumption, are concentrated heavily among 

large establishments, even though small establishments are numerically dominant. In addition, these economic 

characteristics are generally correlated with one another, so that a sample design efficient for one of them should be 

reasonably efficient for all of them.

These characteristics are also distributed unequally among industries, as well as between size groups. This is 

especially true of energy consumption. In 1981, for example, of more than 400 industries (represented by 4-digit SIC 

codes), which comprise the manufacturing sector, 10 accounted for over 50 percent of the total consumption of 

electricity and purchased fuels. 1

For the reasons discussed above, sample allocation was concentrated in the largest energy-consuming industries 

and the most energy-consumptive establishments. From a sampling perspective, this means that the MECS sample 

design would result in the highest quality estimates of characteristics of interest by emphasizing large establishments, 

both with respect to sample allocation among strata, and probability of selection proportional to size within strata.

The primary classification variable used for both sampling and for analyzing MECS data is SIC category. The most 

important groupings in the manufacturing sector for analysis purposes are the 20 Major Industry Groups (2-digit 

SIC's) and the 10 most energy-consumptive industries (4-digit SIC's) shown in Table 2. Within these groups, the 

target RSE's for estimates of Btu consumed, for total consumption, and by individual energy source, were:

• Two percent for energy intensive SIC's in which the MECS was expected to collect substantial information on 

feedstock use, consumption of byproduct fuels, electricity cogeneration, or short-term fuel switching (SIC's 20, 

22, 26, 28, 2911, 30, 33, 35, 36, and 37)

• Five percent for the remaining 2-digit SIC's and the 9 remaining energy intensive 4-digit SIC's

• Ten percent for four major energy sources (electricity, natural gas, coal, and residual fuel oil), in any of the 30 

SIC categories that contribute more than 1 percent to the total consumption of that energy source in the 

manufacturing sector.

Information from two energy consumption surveys previously conducted by EIA indicated that a sample size of 

approximately 12,000 manufacturing establishments, sampled with probability proportional to 1984 energy use, would 

be sufficient to achieve the specified target RSE's. This estimate of total sample size was used for preparing 

estimates of resource requirements for conducting the survey. After the Census Bureau was chosen to administer 

the 1985 MECS, more detailed analyses of sample allocation and expected precision were performed. These 

analyses provided EIA with the optimum allocation of sampling effort among industries and with establishment size 

(as measured by estimated energy consumption).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982 Census of Manufactures Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed: Part 1, 

Industry Groups and Industries Pub. MC81-S-4 (Part 1), Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1983.

MECS: Methodological Report 15 

Energy Information Administration
There was also a structural limitation to achievable RSE's for the 10 four-digit SIC's sampled. The MEGS sample, 

for these SIC's, contained all establishments in the ASM sample (which was used as the MECS frame). Therefore, 

the sample size in these categories could not be increased, even if optimal sample allocation required it. The only 

4-digit category that looked as if it might fall short of RSE targets because of this limitation was SIC 3241, the 

hydraulic cement industry.

Sample allocation, and prediction of the RSE's that would result from a particular allocation, were developed from a 

trial sample selection performed by the Census Bureau. This trial consisted of selecting a subsample of specified 

size from the 1981 ASM using the MECS sample selection procedure. The sample was used to estimate the 

consumption items, their variances, and their RSE's. The sample was designed to yield approximately 10,000 

establishments, corresponding to a sample mail-out of 12,000 forms and a 17 percent nonresponse rate from all 

sources. RSE's from this sample are shown in the column labeled "Trial" in Table 2.

RSE's achieved from the MECS for its consumption measure equivalent to use of purchased fuels and electric energy 

were fairly well in line with target values. Of the 20 two-digit industry groups, 14 had RSE's below, at, or within 1 

percent of the target values. Of the six remaining SIC's, four (SIC's 23, 24,25 and 31) were relatively minor energy 

consumers. The other two, SIC 20 and SIC 35, had relatively low RSE's (4 percent each), but their targets were very 

low. Some minor adjustment of sample size in future cycles of the MECS may be considered based on these data. 

Of the 10 4-digit industries, only two substantially missed their targets: SIC 2819 and SIC 3334. Interestingly, the 

industry of original concern, SIC 3241, met its target. Because all ASM sample establishments in the 4-digit 

industries were also in the MECS, no sampling adjustments are possible here.

One identifiable potential source of differences between RSE targets and error levels actually achieved is the random 

error contribution caused by nonresponse, especially among establishments selected for the MECS with certainty. 

This component is reflected in MECS variance estimates and can have a significant effect on total error. The effect 

would be especially noticeable in SIC's with few establishments, or SIC's with only a few large establishments among 

many smaller ones. Further discussion of this issue can be found in the chapter on MECS Estimators.

Allocation of the sample among the 30 sampling and estimation groups was done proportional to their estimated 

population variance of total 1984 consumption of purchased fuels and electricity (TBtu). The methods for estimating 

TBtu are described in detail in the chapter on Creating Measures of Size for Establishments in the MECS Frame. 

This information was incorporated into the sample design by sampling with probability of selection proportional to the 

energy-related measure of size of the establishment. As mentioned previously in the chapter on Creating Measures 

of Size for Establishments in the MECS Frame, such a sampling method results in better allocation of the sample 

within sampling groups than a random sampling approach, because the sample emphasizes more 

energy-consumptive establishments.

In summary, the following are the major characteristics of the MECS sample design:

• Available resources resulted in a desired sample size of approximately 12,000 manufacturing establishments. 

This relatively small sample, approximately 5 percent of the total number of establishments in the target 

population, accounted for about 80 percent of the total estimated fuel consumption in the manufacturing sector.

• The sample was allocated among 30 industry-based sampling groups, proportional, as far as possible, to the 

estimated population variance of fuel consumption in each group.

• Within sampling groups, each establishment was assigned a probability of selection into the MECS sample such 

that the overall probability of selection from the manufacturing sector was proportional to its estimated 1984 

consumption of purchased fuels and electricity.

• Each establishment in the manufacturing sector was eligible for inclusion in the MECS sample, conditional upon 

its selection into the 1984 ASM sample used as the MECS sampling frame.

16 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
Table 2. Precision Targets for MEGS, RSE's Obtained from a Trial Sample, and RSE's Actually Achieved by the 

MECS Sample, for Measures of Purchased Fuel and Electric Energy Consumption

SIC Major Industry Groups and 

Code Selected Industries

Relative Standard Errors 

(Percent)

Targets Trial Achieved

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.............

2621 Paper Mills .................................

2631 Paperboard Mills ........................

27 Printing and Publishing...................

28 Chemicals and Allied Products.......

2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,

	nee*...........................................

2821 Plastics Materials and Resins .......

2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals,

	nee*...........................................

2873 Nitrogenous Fertilizers...................

29 Petroleum and Coal Products ........

2911 Petroleum Refining......................

30 Rubber and Misc. Plastics

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

31 Leather and Leather Products........

32 Stone, Clay and Glass Products ....

3241 Cement, Hydraulic........................

33 Primary Metal Industries.................

3312 Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills.....

3334 Primary Aluminum........................

34 Fabricated Metal Products .............

35 Machinery, Except Electrical..........

36 Electric and Electronic Equipment..

37 Transportation Equipment..............

38 Instruments and Related Products

39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing

	Industries.....................................

2

5

2

5

5

5

2

5

5

5

2

5

5

5

5

5

2

2

5

5

5

2

5

5

5

2

2

2

5

2

5

2

5

5

5

NA

1

1

5

NA

1

2

1 

3 

NA

1

2

6

NA

9

NA

1

4

3

3

2

1

5

4

6

3

8

10

7

3

3

6

6

2

9

4

3

3

4

4

3

12

3

5

3

4

8

4

4

3

2

5

*nec: not elsewhere classified. 

NA= Not available.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Energy End Use Division, Form 

EIA-846(F), 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

17
The Sampling Method

The sampling method used for MEGS was a two-stage process. The first stage of sampling was the ASM sample 

chosen by the Census Bureau and used by EIA as the MEGS frame. The second stage of sampling was the MEGS 

sample chosen from the ASM sample. The same sampling methodology was used to choose the ASM sample and 

MEGS subsample.

Because the ASM sample is a probability sample, each establishment in the MEGS frame has an associated 

probability of selection from the population of manufacturing establishments of interest to the MEGS. These 

probabilities can be used in conjunction with ASM data to produce estimates of characteristics of the original 

population. This in turn allows a subsample (in this case the MEGS sample) to be selected from the ASM that 

maintains a known relationship to the original population. Total consumption of purchased fuels and electricity (TBtu) 

was the data item derived from ASM values, that when combined with the probability of selection into the ASM, was 

used to create probabilities of selection for the MECS.

Theoretically, the most precise estimates of energy consumption from the 1985 MECS sample could be achieved if 

establishments were chosen for the MECS sample with overall probabilities of selection proportional to their actual 

consumption of fuels and electricity in 1985. The data to be measured are not available, but much of the advantage 

of sampling proportional to actual consumption can still be realized by utilizing an available variable that is highly 

correlated with consumption. For MECS, the chosen variable was the estimate of total 1984 consumption (TBtu). 

The actual method of calculating TBtu was described in the chapter on Creating Measures of Size for Establishments 

in the MECS Frame.

As explained in the previous chapter, to control the amount of sampling variability in consumption estimates for 

individual industries and industry groups, sampling for MECS was carried out separately within each of the 30 

categories shown in Table 2. If the MECS had been a single-stage sample from the manufacturing population, the 

overall probability of selection for establishment j in SIC group s would have been:

(TBtu)sj

s Ni

(TBtu)sk k= 1

where ms is the desired MEGS sample size in group s, Ns is the corresponding population size, and (TBtu)sj is the 

size measure as previously defined, for establishment j in SIC s.

However, because (TBtu)Sj is only available for establishments in the MEGS frame (ASM sample), 7TSj must be 

estimated as:

(TBtu)sj 

Psi= ms .________________,

(1/Qsk) • (TBtu)sk 

k= 1

where n's is the number of establishments in the ASM sample in SIC group s, and Qsk is the probability of selection of 

ASM sample establishment k in SIC s from the establishment population. The denominator of Psj is the weighted 

estimate of total Btu in SIC s of the population, based on the ASM sample.

MEGS: Methodological Report 19 

Energy Information Administration
Of course, the MEGS sample was subselected from the ASM sample rather than being chosen directly from the 

population, so that ASM probabilities of selection had to be taken into account. PSj, the desired overall probability of 

selection for the MECS, can be thought of as the product of two probabilities, so that the previous expression can be 

written

(TBtu)sj 

Psj = Qsj • Rsj = ms • ______________,

0/Qsk) (TBtu)sk 

k= 1

where Rsj is the conditional probability of selecting establishment j into the MECS sample given that it has already 

been selected into the ASM.

The desired sampling probabilities for subselection into the MECS sample from the ASM mail sample are, therefore:

(TBtu)sj 

Rsj = (1/Qsj) • ms • _______________.

n's

X 0/Qsk) (TBtu)sk 

k=1

The process for determining MECS probabilities of selection is iterative. At each stage, if any Rsj is greater than or 

equal to 1, that establishment is assigned a MECS probability of subselection of 1. The MECS probability of 

subselection (RSj) is then recalculated for the remaining establishments after removing the total weighted TBtu of the 

certainty cases from the denominator of the probability formula. Any additional cases with new Rsj of at least 1.0 are 

set aside as MECS certainties. The process is repeated until all cases are classified as certainties for MECS, or 

have Rsj-s less than 1. The final probabilities of subselection for MECS are either 1.0 or

••*' **\' Q n s - m i s 

sj Z (TBtu)sk/Qsk

K — l

where m'i s is the number of establishments in SIC group s with a MECS subselection probability of 1. The only 

exception to this method of assigning probabilities was for establishments that would receive overall probabilities of 

selection (QSj. Rsj) less than 0.002. Their MECS probabilities of subselection were adjusted to keep their overall 

probability of selection at 0.002. This restriction controlled the range of weights for cases that were eventually 

selected for the MECS, and thus was a control on sampling error.

In the sampling method used for MECS, each manufacturing establishment was sampled independently of the 

selection or nonselection of every other establishment. This was accomplished by generating a random number 

between 0 and 1 for each establishment, and comparing it to RSj. If Rsj was as large or larger than the random 

number, the establishment was taken into the MECS sample. If, however, Rsj was less than the random number the 

establishment was excluded from the sample. Because each establishment is selected into or rejected from the 

MECS sample independently of all other establishments in the MECS frame, this sampling method does not result in 

a fixed sample size. The expected value of the actual sample size equals the desired sample size, however (see 

Appendix E). In the 1985 MECS, for example, the expected sample size was 11,972 establishments, but the actual 

sample size was 12,065 establishments.

20 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
The processes just described to subselect MECS sample establishments are analogous to the processes used to 

select the ASM sample. Further information on this methodology can be found in the summary methodological report 

for the Anuual Survey of Manufactures. 2

2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, The Annual Survey of Manufactures: A Report on Methodology. Technical Paper

No. 24, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1971.

MECS: Methodological Report 21 

Energy Information Administration
Design of the EIA-846(F) and EIA-846(S) Forms

The 1985 MEGS was collected on two forms administered sequentially: the EIA-846(F), which collected all MEGS 

data except fuel switching, and the EIA-846(S), which collected fuel-switching data. In the future, MEGS will be 

simplified by consolidating all questions on a single form. To facilitate understanding of the 1985 MEGS forms and 

their relationship to future MEGS forms, the forms design process is described below in detail.

The process of designing the forms for the 1985 MEGS began with the identification of data issues as described in 

Appendix A, and then proceeded in an iterative process both within El A, and between El A, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) and manufacturers. By the middle of 1984, the issues that would be addressed by the MEGS 

system had been identified, and preliminary design work was begun on what was then a single MEGS questionnaire. 

Subsequent evolution of the design of the questionnaire addressed the optimum way to present data issues, and the 

depth to which issues should be explored, but the basic issues themselves remained essentially unchanged. This 

evolution occurred as a result of:

• discussions within EIA

• continued input of manufacturers via Federal Register Notice responses and public hearing testimony

• discussions with manufacturing representatives and site visits to specific manufacturing establishments

• a pilot study.

These sources of information gave EIA an improved understanding of the level of detail of data that manufacturers 

could reasonably be expected to provide while still supplying EIA with enough detail to make the resulting data 

meaningful. The two principal results of these internal discussions of manufacturers' comments were that:

• The section on short-term fuel switching was not initially approved by OMB, but was later approved as a separate 

form after the passage of Public Law 99-509 (Title 3, Subtitle B).

• An accounting approach for collecting basic consumption data at the establishment was dropped. The accounting 

approach (reporting sources of input and output of energy sources, and obtaining consumption by a series of 

additions and subtractions) was intended to clarify energy flows and allow EIA to determine the components that 

represent energy use. In the end, basic consumption data were collected directly with no questions about 

conversion of energy sources within the establishment or shipments of energy sources.

The major versions of the MEGS questionnaires also are reproduced in Appendix C. Included are the questionnaire 

commented on at the public hearings in May 1985, the Pilot Study version of the questionnaire (Form EIA-846), the 

form submitted to OMB for final approval, and the questionnaires administered as part of the full-scale survey (Forms 

EIA-846(F) and EIA-846(S)).

The forms design process can be divided into five stages. These are:

1) Initial development of the basic questionnaire (mid-1984 through the public hearing on May 20, 1985).

2) Simplification and reemphasis of fuel switching to address only oil-related switching and deleting of the 

accounting approach to estimating consumption. (May 20, 1985, public hearing through the OMB 

clearance process for the pilot study in October 1985).

MECS: Methodological Report 23 

Energy Information Administration
3) Administration of a pilot version of the MECS questionnaire (Form EIA-846) to a purposive sample of 100 

manufacturing establishments. The purpose of the pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

proposed MECS questionnaire for collecting energy consumption data from manufacturers in a clear, 

easily understood manner. (December 1985 through February 1986).

4) Clearance of the final simplified Form EIA-846(F), without the section on fuel switching and with the 

provision that refinery data on feedstocks would be obtained from EIA records rather than from the 

Form EIA-846(F). (This form was approved June 5, 1986, and mailed on July 14, 1986.)

5) Clearance of a redesigned fuel-switching section as Form EIA-846(S), after Congress mandated the 

inclusion of fuel switching in the MECS system. (This form was approved November 4,1986, and 

mailed on November 28, 1986.)

The following descriptions trace the development of each of the three basic sections of the MECS data collection, 

which are:

• consumption measures and related data for combustible energy sources

• detailed data on inputs and uses of noncombustible energy sources such as electricity and steam

• data on short-term fuel-switching capability based on actual consumption.

Basic consumption and related data concerning combustible energy sources would have been collected on Sections I 

and II of the form commented on at the public hearing (see Appendix C). An accounting approach was used on this 

form to arrive at fuel consumption, but had already been abandoned as a means of unduplicating total (fuel plus 

feedstock) consumption within an establishment and between establishments.

Additional items appearing on this form are questions concerning the average Btu content of coal consumed, 

beginning and end-of-year inventories, transfers of energy sources into and out of the establishment, offsite use of 

energy, and total quantity used as boiler fuel. Of these, inventories, transfers, and use offsite were included as part of 

the accounting approach to determining fuel use; average Btu content of coal, and fuel used in boilers were included 

as free-standing items.

Dropping the accounting framework also led to dropping the items on transfers. Inventories, Btu content, and 

consumption of boiler fuel were determined to be too burdensome to collect for an initial MECS survey. In addition, 

the questions concerning energy sources extracted onsite and produced onsite from other energy sources were 

combined into a single question ascertaining total quantity produced onsite. These changes rendered the section 

ascertaining reportable energy sources (Section I of the public hearing version of the questionnaire) unnecessary, so 

that section was deleted from subsequent versions of the questionnaire. Section I, from this point forward, refers to 

the portion of the questionnaire designed to collect consumption-related data for combustible energy sources.

The results of the pilot study showed that this version of Section I was easily understood by representatives of 

manufacturing establishments. Therefore, the only basic change made to Section I between the pilot version of the 

questionnaire and Form EIA-846(F) was to request petroleum refineries to enter their identification number for an 

already-existing EIA survey (the EIA-810, Monthly Refinery Report, see Appendix F for an example of the form). 

Refiners were not to enter their feedstock data on the EIA-846JF), since they would be determined from EIA-810 data 

already in the possession of EIA.

The section addressing the acquisition and use of noncombustible energy sources, especially electricity and steam, 

remained almost unchanged between the May 20, 1985, version of the questionnaire and the EIA-846(F) that was 

actually administered in July 1986. The only changes made were to combine all types of renewable sources for the 

questions requesting quantities of electricity and steam generated onsite. This part of the questionnaire was labeled 

Section III on the public hearing version of the questionnaire, and Section II on all subsequent versions.

24 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
The fuel-switching section appears to change the most through time, but the version eventually administered as the 

Form EIA-846(S) is basically a simplified version of the one discussed at the May 20, 1985, public hearing. After the 

public hearing, the concept of fuel switching that was to be used in the MEGS was redefined to include only detailed 

potential switching out of oil and total potential switching into oil (see Section III of the pilot questionnaire and of the 

questionnaire submitted to OMB). The version of fuel switching in the OMB submission (Section III) was the one 

rejected by OMB as part of the proposed Form EIA-846(F). When the necessity of collecting fuel-switching data was 

revived by Congressional mandate in October 1986, this version of Section III could not be redesigned as a 

free-standing questionnaire.

A free-standing version of Section III (fuel switching) had to be designed in such a way that fuel consumption data 

from the EIA-846(F) could be preprinted on it to provide a reference for the respondents to fuel switching. The 

resulting Form EIA-846(S) collected data for switching away from five major energy sources. The redesigned form 

did allow EIA to collect more detailed data on fuel switching than would have been collected on the form originally 

submitted to OMB (compare Section III of the version submitted to OMB with Form EIA-846(S)).

MECS: Methodological Report 25 

Energy Information Administration
Survey Administration and Quality Control

To guarantee the confidentiality of data provided by the respondents to MEGS, EIA contracted with the Bureau of the 

Census to provide the frame and sample, and to administer the data-collection and data-processing phases of the 

survey. Section 9 of Title 13, U.S. Code provides legal guarantees of confidentiality for data provided to the Census 

Bureau by survey respondents. All MECS data are retained at the Bureau of the Census, and EIA receives only 

aggregate statistics that have undergone disclosure analysis.

Design of specifications for data processing, and the data processing operations themselves, were done at the 

Census Bureau headquarters in Washington, DC. The packaging and mailing of the forms, receipt of the forms, 

initial quality control, and data entry were done at the Census Bureau's field office in Jeffersonville, Indiana.

Choosing the Census Bureau to administer the 1985 MECS has several advantages in addition to assuring 

confidentiality to survey respondents. The most important of these are:

• The 1985 MECS sample could be taken as a subsample of the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Manufactures 

(ASM). Respondent burden and survey duplication could, therefore, be reduced by matching establishment-level 

economic data available from the 1985 ASM to energy data from the 1985 MECS, instead of requesting them 

again as part of the MECS.

• The Census Bureau's frame of manufacturing establishments could be used as the frame for MECS, thus, saving 

considerable frame development costs that would have essentially duplicated the ongoing efforts of the Census 

Bureau.

• The Census Bureau's history in working with the manufacturing industries meant that many existing 

administrative tasks such as survey mailout, forms receipt, data entry, and computer editing could be 

accomplished by adopting pre-existing procedures.

Sworn Census Employee status was granted to the four EIA personnel responsible for the technical design work on 

the MECS. These personnel were subject to the same background checks as all other Census employees and are 

subject to the same laws and penalties regarding disclosure of confidential Census data. For purposes of the 1985 

MECS, they were, in actuality, unpaid Census employees. The role of these Sworn Census Employees was twofold: 

to advise on the development and implementation of the procedures used to administer the survey and construct a 

cleaned data set for analysis, and to provide the main line of respondent support and quality control in cases where 

the respondent appeared to have difficulty completing the forms. The Census Bureau determined that these roles 

were appropriate for Sworn Census Employees and were critical to the success of the survey.

Much of the data quality control work performed on the 1985 MECS for both Forms EIA-846(F) and EIA-846(S), was 

done in Jeffersonville by Sworn Census Employees in conjunction with the staff of the Data Preparation Division at 

the Census Bureau. The approach taken was to emphasize communication with respondents and quality control, 

while the forms were still in the possession of the respondents, or as soon as possible after the forms were received 

in Jeffersonville.

The quality control strategy was implemented in two ways. First, a telephone number was printed on the forms so 

that respondents could call with technical questions concerning the completion of the questionnaires. Telephone 

lines were staffed by the same Sworn Census Employees that had designed the MECS system and forms. Second, 

all forms were screened for completeness and quality by Census personnel in Jeffersonville as soon as possible after 

receipt. Difficult cases, or cases in which forms did not pass this basic screening were referred to Sworn Census 

Employees for resolution. The Sworn Census Employees travelled to Jeffersonville to review these cases, often 

resolving them within a few weeks of their receipt. This approach had two positive effects:

MECS: Methodological Report 27 

Energy Information Administration
• It established the MECS as a viable, closely-monitored survey in the minds of respondents. Several respondents 

who were recontacted expressed strong positive impressions of the level of technical support EIA provided as 

part of conducting the MECS.

• It enabled EIA to act as a resource to the Census Bureau staff in Jeffersonville. The 1985 MECS was a new 

survey and was administered on a very tight time schedule. The presence of EIA Sworn Census Employees in 

Jeffersonville enabled the staff there to resolve potential administrative difficulties with the survey rapidly.

28 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
Editing of the Data

Data editing, as discussed in this chapter, consists of all data retrieval and verification procedures implemented after 

MECS questionnaires were received by the Census Bureau. It does not include technical support offered as a result 

of respondent inquiries. The editing procedures apply to Forms EIA-846(F) and EIA-846(S).

The flow of forms and data are illustrated in Figure 1. Checks for data quality, and verification and retrieval of data, 

were performed at four points in this process (labeled 1 through 4 in Figure 1).

1) MECS forms and correspondence were examined upon arrival at the Census Bureau. Correspondence 

without accompanying forms, requests for time extensions, and forms packages returned by the 

Postmaster as undeliverable, were separated from returned questionnaires for separate handling. Valid 

returned questionnaires were forwarded directly to check-in on the status control file. Postmaster returns 

were researched and remailed if appropriate. The status control file was updated using information from 

correspondence not checked in. Questionnaires returned blank the first time were marked and 

remailed at this stage. Questionnaires received blank a second time were not remailed.

2) All checked-in forms were examined for completeness, legibility and a few major logical consistencies by 

clerical staff at the Census Bureau. Any forms that failed this screening process were set aside for review 

by industry specialists and the Sworn Census Employees, as discussed in the previous chapter. 

Acceptable forms were forwarded directly to data entry.

3) All forms that were incomplete or, in some way, failed screening, were examined by industry specialists 

and Sworn Census Employees. These analysts attempted to collect missing data and verify unusual data 

by telephone contact with the individual who completed the questionnaire. In cases where it was 

deemed appropriate, decisions were made to remail forms to respondents or to declare establishments 

ineligible for the MECS because they went out of business or ceased manufacturing before the beginning 

of 1985. Once completed and verified, these forms were forwarded to data entry.

4) After a MECS data file had been created, all records on it were tested against a series of edits for 

consistency. These edits included both checks against corresponding data items from other parts of the 

MECS questionnaires and the 1985 ASM, and checks for outliers in the distributions of individual 

variables. Records with failed edits were output and data items were reviewed by industry specialists and 

Sworn Census Employees.

The overall strategy behind this organization of edits was to automate, as much as possible, the processes for 

handling the most basic problem cases and cases with inconsistencies not readily apparent. Most of the available 

effort was then concentrated on screening and review by industry specialists and EIA Sworn Census Employees.

The screening process was revised as questionnaires came in containing unexpected anomalies. The computerized 

edits, on the other hand, followed strict guidelines developed prior to the start of the editing process. These guidelines 

are reprinted in Appendix D. The forms that were reviewed by analysts were those with difficulties that could not be 

resolved using strict protocols. Such cases were dealt with individually.

MECS: Methodological Report 29 

Energy Information Administration
Figure 1. Flowchart of the Data Editing Process for the 1985 MECS

Begin

Check-in of forms and correspondence

Legend of symbols:

Forms or Documents

Manual Operations

Decisions

Manual Computer Inputs

On-Line Data Storage

Computerized Operation

o

Verification and retrieval of data Electronic data processing

30 MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Adjustments to the Sample

Two types of adjustments were performed on the MEGS sample records before they could be used to produce energy 

consumption-related statistics.

• The inverse probabilities of selection were adjusted to account for nonrespondent establishments, establishments 

deleted from the MEGS frame by oversight, and establishments that ceased manufacturing during 1985. This 

adjustment was applied to all establishments that responded to the EIA-846(F).

• Energy consumption for nonfuel purposes was constructed for petroleum refineries, using existing data available 

from Form EIA-810 (Monthly Refinery Report).

Adjustment of Form EIA-846(F)

Before the data submitted by MEGS respondents could be used to produce estimates of characteristics of the 

manufacturing sector, the basic MECS probabilities of selection (PSj = Qsj • Rsj) of these establishments had to be 

adjusted to account for nonresponse; establishments that began operations in 1984; and establishments that went 

out of business or out of scope during 1985. An adjustment factor, Asc, was computed for each of 90 adjustment 

cells, defined by the 30 SIC sampling categories crossed with three size classes, as defined below. The product of 

the adjustment factors and the inverse of the basic probabilities of selection are the adjusted MECS inflation weights, 

which are used to produce estimates of various population characteristics and the standard error associated with 

each estimate. Thus, the adjusted weight for generating all MECS estimates is:

Wscj= Asc'0/Pscj)

for establishment j in SIC s and size class c. The adjusted weights (WSq) can be interpreted as meaning that each 

respondent establishment j represents itself and similar unsampled establishments, as well as similar 

nonrespondent establishments in the manufacturing sector.

The MECS estimator for the national total of characteristic Y can, therefore, be expressed as:

A Y

m'scr m'scr

where ysq = the reported value of Y for establishment j in SIC s and size class c; 

m'scr = number of MEGS respondents in SIG s and size class c; 

c = size-class subscript, with three possible classes:

1) certainty establishments (PSq = 1.0);

2) large noncertainty establishments (0.2 < PSq < 1.0);

3) small noncertainty establishments (PSq < 0.2). 

Wscj = the adjusted inflation weight for establishment j in SIC s and size class c.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

31
The following characteristics of the ASM sample used as the MEGS frame are pertinent in understanding why and 

how the adjustment factors were utilized:

• Each year, all establishments in the ASM sample identified as having been sold to multiestablishment companies 

are tracked by the Census Bureau. They are kept in the ASM sample if they are still active and operate in the 

manufacturing sector. Establishments that were sold, but do not meet these criteria, are automatically dropped 

from the ASM sample.

• New employer identification numbers (EIN's), supplied to the Census Bureau by the IRS along with employment 

and payroll data, are used to add a "birth cohort" to the mail file each year. All establishments in this cohort that 

have at least 35 employees are contacted by the Census Bureau to ascertain if they were given a new EIN 

because of a change in ownership. Establishments that represent new operations are added to the ASM sample 

with certainty.

• The "birth cohort" in a given year is not accounted for in the ASM sample until the following data collection year. 

Thus, 1985 births were first represented on the 1986 ASM, which was mailed at the beginning of 1987.

The coverage of the 1985 MEGS sample duplicates the coverage of the 1985 ASM mail sample, with the following 

exceptions:

1) Establishments in the 1984 "birth cohort" that were included in the 1985 ASM mail sample were 

inadvertently omitted from the version of the ASM sample used as the MEGS frame. This group is 

accounted for in the MEGS by being represented in the weight adjustment.

2) Establishments that ceased operations during 1985 were not mailed MEGS forms if their status was 

determined prior to the mailout of the MECS forms. Establishments in the MECS sample that were not so 

identified were mailed Form EIA-846(F), and either responded with part-year data for 1985 or were 

nonrespondents to the survey.

To calculate ASc for each adjustment category, the size measure TBtu was calculated for each establishment in the 

1 984 "birth cohort", whether or not it ceased operation in 1 985. TBtu for these establishments was calculated by 

exactly the same method as was used to calculate TBtu for establishments in the ASM sample used as the MECS 

frame, but that were not in the ASM sample in 1981 (see chapter on Creating Measures of Size for Establishments 

in the MECS Frame). The only difference was that cost of fuels and inflation adjustments were based on 1985 rather 

than 1 984 data, since that was the first available ASM data. TBtu for birth establishments in SIC s were, thus, 

calculated as:

C85J 

TBtUj = __ FS81 + (3.412 x 106)E85j

The adjustment factors Asc were calculated using TBtu, rather than using weighted establishment counts, so that the 

resulting adjusted weights would reflect the sample design strategy of allocating and sampling proportional to 

estimated consumption of purchased fuels and electricity (TBtu). Calculating Asc based on weighted TBtu results in 

adjusted weights, for noncertainty establishments, that remain proportional to TBtu. The formula for calculating Asc, 

therefore, is:

m'sc - m'scd n'scb - n'scbd m-scd

X (1/Pscj) TBtUscj + X TBtUscj+ 1/2 £ (1/pscj) ' TBtUscj 

1-1 i = 1 J = 1 

Asc = m'

scr

(1/Pscj)' TBtUscj

32 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
where m'sc = total MEGS sample size, in SIC s, size class c;

m'scd = number of 1985 deaths (including 1984 births) that were MEGS nonrespondents, in SIC s, 

size class c;

n'scb = number of 1984 ASM births, in SIC s, size class c;

n'Scbd= number of 1985 ASM deaths that were also 1984 births, in SIC s, size class c;

The numerator of the formula for Asc represents the total estimated consumption of purchased fuels and electricity for 

all establishments to be represented in published MEGS estimates of energy consumption. Each of the three terms 

represents part of this total.

1) The first term represents all establishments in the manufacturing sector that were in operation throughout 

1984 and 1985, and establishments that ceased manufacturing in 1985 but filed a completed MEGS form 

for their part-year operations.

2) The second term accounts for all ASM establishments that began manufacturing in 1984 and continued 

to manufacture throughout 1985. Since no sampling of births was conducted for either the ASM or the 

MEGS, the TBtu values in this term are unweighted.

3) The third term represents all establishments that ceased manufacturing in 1985 and also did not complete 

a MECS questionnaire. This term is multiplied by one-half, under the assumption that, on the average, 

these establishments manufactured for 6 months during 1985.

The denominator of the formula for Asc represents that part of the manufacturing sector accounted for by the data 

reported by MECS respondents. The Asc, in effect, ratio-adjust weighted data from MECS respondents to estimated 

totals for the part of the manufacturing sector initially targeted by the MEGS frame and sample design. The weighted 

TBtu measure serves as the control variable for the adjustment procedure.

The effect of adjusting MECS probabilities of selection (PScj) in this way is to use the data for MECS respondents to 

estimate for the part of the population represented by survey nonrespondents (including those that ceased operations 

in 1985), and for establishments in the 1984 birth cohort that were not included in the MECS frame.

Adjustment factors varied considerably by SIC category and size class. For certainty establishments the 30 values of 

Asc ranged from 1.00 to 1.25, with a median value of 1.045 and 5 values exceeding 1.10. Asc values for large 

noncertainties ranged from 1.02 to 1.52, with a median value of 1.13 and 5 values exceeding 1.20. For the small 

noncertainties, Asc ranged from 1.00 to 1.55, with a median value of 1.21 and 4 values exceeding 1.40.

MECS: Methodological Report 33 

Energy Information Administration
Adjustment of Form EIA-846(S)

Fuel-switching data for the MECS system were collected on the supplemental EIA-846(S) questionnaire, administered 

subsequent to Form EIA-846(F). An additional, subsequent data collection provided further "opportunity" for 

response errors and data discrepancies that would not exist in a single, unified data collection. Four major issues 

resulted from the design and implementation of Form EIA-846(S) that required data adjustments. These issues, and 

the methods used to deal with them, can be summarized as follows:

1) Of the sample establishments that submitted complete data on Form EIA-846(F), 433 listed electricity 

as their only energy source consumed for heat and power. These establishments were generally small, 

as and belonged to industry groups with low-intensity energy use. Thus, they would not be expected 

to have the capability to substitute for their electricity use. Therefore, to reduce processing costs and 

eliminate response burden for these establishments, they were excluded from the EIA-846(S) mailout. 

All capabilities to switch from electricity to alternate fuels were imputed as 0 for these cases.

2) As mentioned in the Introduction, fuel and electric energy consumption from Form EIA-846(F) were 

preprinted in the appropriate spaces of row one of Form EIA-846(S) as a reference for fuel-switching 

respondents. To meet the November 26,1986, mailout date for Form EIA-846(S), only those MECS 

cases with acceptable consumption data available as of November 7 were included in the mailout. 

Establishments that submitted Form EIA-846(F) after November 7, and all establishments that had 

returned Form EIA-846(F), but whose consumption data had not yet been cleared for use, were not 

mailed Form EIA-846(S). These establishments contributed to MECS totals for energy consumption but 

their fuel-switching capability is unknown. Therefore, all potential fuel-switching data items for these 

cases were assigned to the category "not ascertained."

3) Some of the establishments that were mailed Form EIA-846(S) did not respond. These cases were also 

handled by assigning "not ascertained" status to all potential fuel-switching data items.

4) Some establishments that responded to Form EIA-846(S) changed one or more of the preprinted

consumption numbers that had been transferred from Form EIA-846(F). Those cases were assigned to 

Census Bureau analysts, who followed up as necessary to reconcile all differences.

An alternative to assigning "not ascertained" status in cases 2 and 3 would be to impute fuel-switching data, either by 

filling in data items on individual records, or by applying weight adjustments to EIA-846(S) respondents. These 

approaches were rejected because fuel switching is a complex issue, and many of the nonrespondents to the 

EIA-846(S) comprised a special group of cases-late respondents to Form EIA-846(F). Both of these limitations 

would have created additional suspicion about the already uncertain validity of imputed values.

34 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
Data on Nonfuel Use of Energy Sources at Petroleum Refineries

Because petroleum refineries currently report extensive data on nonfuel uses of petroleum inputs (for example, 

refining operations, process losses) to EIA, refineries were not required to report these data separately as nonfuel 

uses of energy sources on the MEGS. The item requesting quantites of energy sources used for nonfuel purposes 

(Form EIA-846(F), Item 8) was marked with an "R" by establishments that manufactured solely in SIC 2911 

(petroleum refining). Establishments that entered an "R" in Item 8 were then requested to enter, in Item 10, the 

identification number they use when reporting detailed accounting data to EIA on Form EIA-810 (Monthly Refinery 

Report). Establishments that were primarily refineries, but had associated petrochemical plants, were requested to 

enter data on nonfuel uses of energy sources in Item 8 of MEGS Form EIA-846(F) for the nonrefinery part of the plant 

only. They were to report their EIA-810 identification number in Item 10 to allow EIA to compile the establishments' 

energy source inputs to refining processes from monthly data already reported to EIA.

These special rules, which were designed to eliminate duplicative reporting and reduce burden, were confusing to 

many refiners. In the end, the rules created more burden than they saved for these respondents. Some refiners 

omitted data they were required to report, while others submitted data that were supposed to be suppressed by the 

special rules. In addition, some of the unnecessary data was internally inconsistent with other data items on the 

same form, or was incompatible with the data that would have been transferred from the EIA-810.

On reviewing the microdata for SIC 2911, the Census Bureau's staff, in conjunction with ElA's Sworn Census 

Employees, decided that they contained too many apparent errors to be used as a basis for report tabulations. 

Therefore, at ElA's request the Bureau undertook a case-by-case followup effort in that industry to collect revised data 

specifically for those items that were apparent errors. The followup effort was based on a clarified set of instructions 

developed by EIA to address the major sources of confusion. When revised data were collected in the followup, the 

original data item(s) on the MEGS establishment file were replaced with the new data.

Even after the revised data were collected, difficulties remained while trying to merge them with the EIA-810 data to 

produce nonfuel consumption for SIC 2911. Some MEGS establishments classified in SIC 2911 could not be 

matched with an EIA-810 case. Also, shipments of energy sources from refineries had to be excluded from nonfuel 

use at refineries, so that the consumption total would not duplicate energy use reported for other industries. 

Unfortunately, EIA-810 shipments of energy source products from refineries included shipments to colocated 

petrochemical plants. These plants were considered separate establishments for the EIA-810 system, but were 

sometimes considered part of the same establishment for purposes of the ASM (and, thus, the MECS). When this 

discrepancy in definition of the establishment occurred, consumption of products shipped to the petrochemical plant 

should have counted as consumption at the establishment rather than being subtracted out, for purposes of the 

MECS. There was no way to back out this class of shipments from the EIA-810 totals, and there was evidence that 

the amount of energy involved was substantial.

Because of these difficulties, EIA decided to revise the definition of nonfuel use of energy sources specifically for SIC 

2911. Instead of estimating nonfuel use of individual petroleum products at refineries, EIA substituted a single value 

for the United States and each of the Census regions, equal to the Btu equivalent of all "nonenergy-source products" 

shipped from refineries, as reported by the EIA-810 system. The product classes categorized as "nonenergy-source products" were those most likely to be considered raw materials rather than energy sources by the 

entities receiving them. Six product classes were included: special naphthas (solvents); lubricating oils; asphalt and 

road oil; waxes; and two products classified under the heading of petrochemical feedstocks; naphtha < 400* F 

end-point, and other oils > 400 'F end-point.

The rationale behind this revised definition was that the Btu content of shipments of energy sources from refineries 

are accounted for by the end users that receive the products, and should not be associated with the refinery. The 

products mentioned above, however, would not be identified as energy sources by the eventual end users. If their 

energy content is to be accounted for anywhere, it has to be at the refinery. One advantage to this approach is that 

the energy content of nonenergy-source products is appropriately associated with the refinery establishment, whether 

the products are shipped to a petrochemical facility onsite, or are shipped offsite.

MECS: Methodological Report 35 

Energy Information Administration
One concern might be that certain petrochemical feedstock inputs would be reported as energy sources by chemical 

plants. In this case, their Btu would be counted twice. Fortunately, inspection of MEGS records for SIC 28 did not 

reveal any significant reported inputs of these kinds of materials.

The revised approach is not perfect. It does not account for refinery losses (waste, spillage, and industrial 

accidents). Also, shipments of unfinished oils, which are treated as energy sources by this approach, may not be 

classified as energy-source inputs by the receiving establishments. As long as these unfinished oils are shipped to 

another refinery for final processing, their Btu value will eventually be counted correctly. Unfinished oils that are 

shipped to nonrefinery establishments for final processing would be uncounted if the receiving establishment did not 

classify them as energy sources. Fortunately, the vast majority of shipments of unfinished oils are to other refineries.

36 MEGS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
MECS Estimators

All energy consumption, and energy-related statistics, produced from MECS data are calculated by combining data 

collected from sampled establishments, with the adjusted sampling weights. These weights establish the 

relationship between the respondent sample establishments and the manufacturing sector (see chapters on Creating 

Measures of Size for Establishments in the MECS Frame and on Adjustments to the Sample). Two types of 

statistics are produced by MECS. One type is totals of characteristics (for example, total fuel oil consumption in the 

hydraulic cement industry). The second type estimates ratios of characteristtics (for example, the amount of fuel 

consumed per dollar of value added in the manufacturing sector). All of these estimates are accompanied by their 

relative standard errors (RSE's), which provide a measure of the precision of the estimate. Derivations of these 

estimators are presented in Appendix F. A discussion of special properties of MECS variance and covariance 

estimators is presented in Appendix G.

The total value of any aggregate characteristic Y for the manufacturing sector is estimated as:

^ m'scr m'scr

Y = I I Asc I (1/Pscj)yScj = 111 Wscj-yscj,

s c j = 1 s c j = 1

where Asc, m'scr, and WSCj are as defined in the preceding chapter. Estimates for subgroups of the manufacturing 

sector (for example, by SIC or by Census region) are produced by summing over sample establishments within the 

subgroup.

Ratio statistics are produced for MECS using a combined ratio estimator. The formula for this estimator, expressed 

in terms of aggregate characteristics Y and X that form its numerator and denominator, is:

m'scr 

II I Wscj-yscj

A AA s c J =1 R = (Y/X) = —————————————————————— '

m'scr

III Wscj'Xscj 

s c j = 1

Estimates of ratios are based only on data from the MECS sample establishments, whether the data were collected 

on the MECS or on the ASM questionnaire. ASM data can be combined with MECS data because the ASM sample 

was used as the MECS frame, and because the MECS sample is a probability sample with respect to both the ASM 

frame and the ASM sample. Published ASM estimates of economic statistics are not used to produce these ratio 

estimates, because the ASM represents the entire manufacturing sector, whereas MECS does not represent the very 

small establishments in the manufacturing sector. The effect of this difference is discussed in detail in the chapter^ 

on the Manufacturing Sector and Its Relationship to the Population Surveyed by the 1985 MECS. Thus, a statistic X, 

calculated by dividing a MECS statistic Y by the MECS-based ratio Y/X will not exactly equal the corresponding 

ASM-based statistic.

For each MECS estimate of a total or a ratio, an estimate of precision can be produced. The relative standard error 

(RSE) is the form used in all MECS publications. The RSE of an estimate is defined as the ratio of the standard 

error of the estimate (the square root of its variance) to the estimate itself. In algebraic form

A

A / Variance(Y) 

RSE(Y) =

A ~ (Y) 2

MECS: Methodological Report 37 

Energy Information Administration
A

for any total or ratio estimator Y. The variance formula for estimates of totals, for the sampling method used in MEGS 

is:

A A m'sc (1 - Pscj) 

Variance(Y) = S2(Y) = Z Z Z (yscj)2 • —— - —— •

s c J-1 P28cj

under the assumption that all sampled establishments responded to the survey. This formula is discussed in detail in 

Appendix F.

This same formula, however, is commonly used for samples containing some nonresponse by replacing the 

unadjusted probabilities of selection with probabilities of selection that have been adjusted for nonresponse. The 

variance formula then becomes:

-A _ _ mscr (1 - (Pscj/Asc))

S2(Y) = Z Z Z (yscj)2 • -

s c j = 1 P2scj/A2sc

which, when written in terms of adjusted sampling weights, reduces to:

A m'scr 

S2(Y) = Z Z Z (Xscj)2 • A2SC •

s c i= 1

ui.r._i L p2scj J L Asc (1/Pscj) J

m'scr 

Z Z Z (yscj)2 • W2scj • (1 - (1/Wscj))

mfr

s c j=1

m'scr Wscj - 1

Z Z Z (yscj)2 • w2SCj.

Wscj

- Z Z Z (yscj) 2 • Wscj • (W8cj-1)' 

s c j = 1

Including nonresponse adjustments (Asc) in the variance formula increases the estimates of variance In two ways, 

over what they would have been with no nonresponse:

• A component of unit nonresponse that can be considered random under the assumptions of the weight adjustment 

procedure;

38 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
• A component of variance contributed by certainty establishments (which do not contribute to sampling variance 

if nonresponse is zero), that results from inflating 1/PScj by Asc.

The corresponding variance estimator used for ratios is:

A /\ ^ scr t\

S2 (R) = (1/X)2 X Z £ (yscj - R • Xscj)2 • Wscj • (Wscj - 1) ,

s c j = 1

A A A

where R = (Y/X)

A

This estimator provides a suitable approximation of the actual sample variance based on the assumption that X is a 

sufficiently precise estimate of X. Classical statistics suggests that "sufficiently precise" corresponds to a relative 

standard error of 10 percent or smaller.3

For purposes of analytic presentation, data users may create ratio statistics from published MECS aggregates. ByA 

far the most common such ratio is the proportion, a ratio for which the parameter X, estimated by the denominator X, 

"encompasses^parameter Y, estimated by Y. That is, each member of the establishment population that contributes 

to the total for Y also contributes to the total for X, and xscj i yscj for all establishments. It can be shown that, specific 

to the MECS sample design and estimation methodology, a useful upper bound for the variance of a proportion ratio

A R

A 

Y

A 

X

IS

[RSE (R)]2 = —— [SA(1-2R)+ SA(R2)j

X O2

Justification for this expression is found in Appendix H.

3W.G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques, Third Edition. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1977), p. 153.

MECS: Methodological Report 39 

Energy Information Administration
Appendix A

Identification of Issues
Appendix A

Identification of Issues

The data issues addressed in the MEGS questionnaire were identified by a two-stage process. First, data needs 

were clarified based on discussions within EIA, other agencies of the Federal Qovemment, and other potential data 

users. The resulting list of issues was then pared down after extensive discussion within EIA, based on knowledge 

of industry capabilities and concerns. Knowledge was acquired via EIA site visits to manufacturing establishments 

and from written and oral comments received from manufacturers and their trade associations. This process resulted 

in a MEGS system that collects a variety of energy consumption measures of importance to a broad cross-section of 

data users without placing undue response burden on manufacturers.

The following specific approaches, listed roughly in chronological order of their occurrence, were used to obtain 

information:

• On February 27, 1984, EIA published a Federal Register Notice (49 FR 7188) inviting public comments on the 

development of a MECS. Ninety responses were received of which 40 were from data providers (27 

manufacturers and 13 manufacturers' trade associations) and 50 were from potential data users (7 DOE, 13 

other Federal government, 14 State government, and 16 nongovernmental data users).

• During 1984, a total of 55 interviews or correspondence (34 representing 9 entities within DOE, and 21 

representing 9 outside agencies) identified data needs within DOE and other Federal agencies.

• During 1984, a total of 50 interviews or correspondence (17 representing 7 States, 14 representing 9 universities, 

19 representing other private users of the data) identified the data needs of State energy officials and private 

users of data.

• Between June and November 1984, EIA staff members conducted a series of site visits at 20 manufacturing 

establishments throughout the United States. The visits were made to gain a better understanding of the ways 

in which manufacturers use energy in their facilities, and to find out the types of data that they could provide with 

relatively little difficulty.

• On March 21, 1985, EIA published a notice in the Federal Register (50 FR 11486) that invited public comment 

on the proposed Form EIA-846. The notice also announced that public hearings on proposed Form EIA-846 

would be held in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, DC. The Washington, DC hearing was held on May 20, 

1985. The Denver hearing was canceled for lack of response. Sixty-five responses were received of which 54 

were from data providers (36 manufacturers and 18 manufacturers' trade associations) and 11 were from potential 

data users (one DOE, five other Federal government, two State government, and three nongovernment). Of 

these, six manufacturers and three trade associations testified at the public hearing in Washington, DC.

• Between October 18, 1985, and January 1986, EIA tested a pilot version of a consolidated MECS questionnaire 

on a nonrandom sample of 100 manufacturing establishments chosen from Dun & Bradstreet's "Dun's Market 

Identifiers" file. The sample was chosen to represent industries where complex situations regarding energy use 

were thought to occur. Each respondent in the pilot study was interviewed to evaluate the questionnaire. 

Respondents were not required to report actual energy consumption data on this form, but were given the option 

of reporting disguised data.

• During the last half of 1985 and the first half of 1986, OMB provided potential respondents with the opportunity 

to comment on the proposed MECS as part of the approval process for the MECS.

MECS: Methodological Report 43 

Energy Information Administration
Potential data users supported instituting a MECS, and, in most cases, were specific about their data needs. The 

justifications for these needs were stated quite specifically in responses of the Department of Defense (DOD), the 

Department of Commerce (DOC), the State governments, and among the fuel and energy suppliers. Consultants 

and university researchers provided more general justifications. Data items requested were fairly uniform across all 

groups contacted. The most frequently requested items were:

• Fuel cost and consumption

• Cogeneration

• Fuel switching

• Renewable energy sources

• Fuels enerated and used onsite

• Feedstocks. 

Items requested less frequently were:

• Fuel inventories

• Storage capacity

• End-uses of energy.

Most potential users of MECS data requested that any MECS developed be compatible with economic data from the 

ASM. Several users also requested that MECS data be compatible with the former "Fuels and Electric Energy 

Consumed" supplement to the ASM. A detailed compilation of the requests and suggestions of potential users is 

available in the justification document for the MECS that was submitted to the OMB requesting approval for the 

survey.

The topics suggested by data users were among the issues most closely researched during the site visit process. 

The establishments that were visited were medium to large facilities representing 8 of the 10 most energyconsumptive 4-digit industries, and several other 2-digit industry groups.

Site visits usually started with a discussion between EIA staff and the energy manager, operating officers, and/or 

other personnel familiar with energy use at the establishment. The discussion followed the outline of a prearranged 

agenda provided to the establishment well in advance of the meeting. Items on the agenda included a description of 

the establishment's energy-using processes; its recordkeeping practices; the availability of recorded data on a list of 

specific data items that EIA was considering to include in the MECS; and the respondent's conception of more 

involved subject areas such as capacity utilization, within-establishment end uses of energy, and fuel-switching 

capability. Following the discussion, EIA staff were given a tour of the manufacturing and powerhouse facilities at the 

establishment.

The site visits helped the MECS development process significantly by providing clear guidance on issues such as:

• the difficulty in measuring many faceted concepts such as capacity utilization and detailed end uses of energy 

within the establishment

• the importance of byproduct and waste product energy sources as fuel in some industries

• the role of redundant as well as multiple-fired equipment in providing fuel-switching capability

44 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
• the effect on fuel-switching capability of constraints such as binding contacts, interruptible fuel supplies, 

environmental and safety regulations, and maintenance requirements

• the planning and operation of an integrated cogeneration facility within an establishment's energy delivery system.

Several of the industry representatives who arranged and participated in the site visits provided additional assistance 

by critiquing versions of the MECS questionnaire after the site-visit process was completed.

MECS: Methodological Report 45 

Energy Information Administration
Appendix B

A Description of Data Items in Existing 

Surveys that Potentially Duplicate Data 

Collected by the MECS System
Appendix B

A Description of Data Items in Existing Surveys that 

Potentially Duplicate Data Collected by the MECS

System

The importance of both the manufacturing industries and energy issues make it inevitable that both are covered, to 

some extent, by surveys that predate the MECS system. This section describes data collected by these surveys in 

relation to the requirements of the MECS system. An additional purpose is to consolidate and clarify what energy 

data are collected presently. Users of the MECS system will then have a guide to related energy data that may be a 

supplement to MECS data for the specialized data user.

El A carefully examined several survey instruments to ascertain to what extent they overlap the EIA-846(F) and 

EIA-846(S). These instruments are: Form CE-189, Industrial Energy Efficiency Program; Form EIA-3, Quarterly 

Coal Consumption Report-Manufacturing; Form EIA-5, Coke Plant Report-Quarterly; Form EIA-810, Monthly 

Refinery Report; FERC Form 1, Annual Refinery Report; Form EIA-714, Annual Electric Power System Report; FERC 

Form 1, Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities; and Bureau of the Census Form MA-IOOO(MU), Annual Survey of 

Manufactures (ASM). Each of these energy data collection systems was established to collect a specific set of data 

for specific, narrowly defined purposes.

All of these surveys, except the ASM, are censuses that require submissions from all members in a narrow portion of 

the manufacturing or electric-utility populations. MECS, however, is a probability sample survey that requires 

submissions from only selected members of the manufacturing industries. The surveys can be summarized as 

follows:

• The Quarterly Coal Consumption Report (EIA-3) - provides data on consumption of coal only. Its information is 

collected only from manufacturing establishments that are known to consume coal for purposes other than coke 

production. The list of such establishments contains about 1,000 of the 300,000-plus manufacturing 

establishments in the United States. There are no data on inputs, dispositions, and consumption for energy 

sources other than coal.

• The Quarterly Coke Plant Report (EIA-5) - produces balance statistics on input and output for the small universe 

of coking plants, including statistics on the consumption and disposition of the raw materials used to produce 

coke and statistics on the production and disposition of coke.

• Monthly and Annual Refinery Reports (EIA-810 and EIA-820) -- are complementary data collection systems that 

survey petroleum refineries. From the universe of approximately 400 refineries and blenders in the United States, 

these reports collect data on inputs of crude oil and other unfinished products, outputs of petroleum products, 

and onsite consumption of energy. In cases in which the establishment that houses a refinery also contains 

separate petrochemical processing, only refinery activities are reported. Thus, these refinery data systems are 

not designed to cover all energy use in refining establishments comprehensively.

• The Industrial Energy Conservation Program Report (CE-189) -- was collected for the last time in 1986 for 1985 

consumption data. It was a census of very large energy-consuming establishments, and produced national 

estimates of total consumption by fuel at the 2-digit SIC level. The CE-189 survey targeted the most 

energy-consumptive corporations in all Major Industry Qroups (2-digit SIC's). Data were aggregated to the trade 

association or corporation level before being reported to DOE, and so were unsuitable for producing energy 

consumption statistics for individual industries (4-digit SIC's) or geographic regions.

MECS: Methodological Report 49 

Energy Information Administration
• The Annual Survey of Manufactures (MA-IOOO(MU)) -- is primarily an economic survey, producing information on 

such characteristics as employment, payroll, value of shipments, capital expenditures, and total cost of materials. 

The ASM collects limited energy data on total cost of purchased fuels, cost and quantity of purchased 

electricity, quantity of electricity generated onsite, and quantity of electricity sold. ASM establishments are 

defined identically to MECS establishments, and the MECS sample is a subsample of the ASM.

• The Census of Manufactures (MA-1000 plus industry supplements) - is conducted by the Census Bureau for 

years ending in the digit 2 or the digit 7 (for example, 1982 and 1987). The CM, like the ASM, collects primarily 

economic data, but also collects the same limited energy-related data as described above for the ASM.

• Annual Electric Power System Report (EIA-714) and Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities (FERC-1) - collect 

some limited information on purchases and transfers of electricity by utilities, including sales and transfers from 

industrial sources to utilities. Data are reported by utilities in megawatthours per year for each individual supplier 

on Form EIA-714, Annual Electric Power System Report. The EIA-714 is completed by approximately 400 of the 

3,200 utilities in the United States. The report is filed by electric utility systems (which may include one or more 

utilities) whose generation exceeds a certain threshold, and who provides electricity to retail customers. Data 

gathered via the FERC Form 1 include the quantity and value of electricity purchases and transfers from electric 

utilities and other nonutility sources. Because these sources are listed by name and not categorized by type of 

nonutility entity, sales by the manufacturing industries are not separated from the sales from other nonutility 

sources.

50 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
Appendix C

Questionnaires and Instructions For 

MECS and Major Draft Versions of 

MECS Forms
Appendix C

Questionnaires and Instructions For MECS and Major

Draft Versions of MECS Forms

This Appendix Contains the following forms used in the 1985 MECS Data Collection.

1) ASM Form MA-IOOO(MU).

2) Public Hearing Version of the MECS Questionnaire, published in the Federal Register (50 FR 11486), 

March 21, 1985.

3) Pilot Study Version of the MECS Questionnaire, administered from December 1985 through 

February, 1986.

4) Clearance Version of the MECS Questionnaire, submitted to OMB in March 1986.

5) Final Version of Form EIA-846(F).

6) Final Version of Form EIA-846(S).

MECS: Methodological Report 53 

Energy Information Administration
^fe|' MA-1 000 (MI

U.S. Cotftl By the sj<ne I \f vo

198:

«NOTE

J)

1

! ANNUAL SURVEY

in 'Kport to tlte Census Bureau rs

RH^^BH^Bl BUREAU OF T

I^HHHHHH K'°l East Tent 

(^^••••iV Jerfersonvitle.

> Itm 1A - Enployei Itenlilitation Humbert}) r li UM Employtr lOMIIflcatlOH (Ell Number pf right of Id* aMrtu boi ttM SAME ai that u» Hihmtnl on 111 laltil 1M2 Cm»loy«r'i Quartt Natyrn. Tr»a»iwy Farm 941?

094 1 YES

» Item IB - i. li thu aitab 

Physical «em locataa- location >|M S|J "' cau

•M c. -"COfnciole o

tioMl sabs '<fw,TM£u* > hn* 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H

1-

!"' ^

nty. '

WR

'ides

r

1 COMPLCTf EACH ITEtt, CHTt* 

-0" »HeH APPHOPHiATC

L Item 2 - Number of employee* at 

r this establishment a. March

Number of product! on b. May

12th of month d. Nov*mDer

». Sun of Him »-o

1. Average numQer iD'vae '"« 9 hy *i

j. All other employees ipay period 

of March 12i

H. TOTAL t and | (item 2) _

Y emptoyees in item 2, before 

deduction

a. Production workers' mages

c. TOTAL (itoai 3A) ___

Ik Item 38 - Employer's cost loi

r benefits (supplemental labor co

/£icfud» fraM ttonw 3A and 3C

i. Legally required including 

Social Security

b. Payments (or voluntary program

——— »

——— >

nrtfB 

rStS)

s

e. TOTAL (item 3B) —————— *

> ttem3C - First quarter payroll, 

before deductions

Total payrall f« th* flrtl quarter (Jan. -Mar.)

> Item 4 - Plant hows worked by

JKOdttCtiMl -OrtUWl 

a, January through March

b. Apfil through June

e. July through September

t. OctoBer tMough December

t. TOTAL (item 41 —————— »

J

HF CENSUS

hSltMl .'.. '«»-«

nditu 47134

KM In IM »lii 4 for Ihli •ttlHOtgsss 20

! 1 II

i CCS

piaas* r«fit to thu Ctnius F

complete 131 County (4) f you correcle-1

2 Partnership 5 Government - ^pec'tv

e.g . <> oayfol is St.12S.C2t. report e ther

My

w ,

10J

101

104

30S

10*

307

,0.

313

314

its

3<6

JIT

!'•

J19

320

1982

Number

Mil Thou. Hrs

1981

NumOer

Mil Thou- Mrs.

. He* | - Depreciable assets, capital expenditures, and retirements

H»tmr la *• trulntellon umituil far <MM"Mf iattrocttant

b. Capital SMpenOiIu'es 'or new

c. Cap'tat eipenoitures fnr use

value o' assets sold retired

huiidings

d Quiidingi

scrapped

nd macninery

and machinery

destroyed etc >

a Gro» va 1Ue rt dep.ec.atte as«ts at eod o< yei. nhouM e Q u,l t.r*i 8 3 Bh ic &d

1 Item 9 - Depreciation cherfes for the year

Item 10 - Rental payments - M

rl^J •„

OF MANUFACTURES

a Num

19.

Mr iCFN

»«.

b Item 5 - Cost of materials

and services used

a. Cost of m.ilei'd's. parts, compo 

nents containers, etc used

0. Coil o' products sought and 

sold as su:n

c. Cost ol lueis consumed fpr Or power

d. Cost ol purchased e

t. Cost of contract wryk 

you by oiners

etric

Hone

hut

y

for

f TOTAL (item «...

b

it* loim:

Employar Idanllflcation lEIi • 

Number •

It tHIi •itabltiMiaiit phyilcally lecaite lmt*a »• lagjl 

bwiriaflfi af Iha ettjr, IMTH. vllti|i, »U.. ineinMd !• part »im

D9S " YES NO 3 ~ No lagal 4 ^ Don I know 

boundanti ~

c. Type of municipality mdicatad m part a(J)?

096 i _City. v lagt, i """ Town or 1 ~" Olhbr or 

" or Qoroup townintp ' " don '. know

9 _ Othar - Sptc'iy,

Mark

K.,

212

213

22*

22S

0

: o

0

', 0

! 0

t Item 6 - Quantity ol electricity

to cost ai reported n tem Sen

generating station use

c. Electricity sold o< transferred to

b. Item 7 - Inventories of this 

r al end of year {**,

invantoriti at LIFO coil, u 

Iba LIFO imount plut ttM L 

complatinf i throufh ill).

establisrtreent

port botfi y«rt/

t market unrig 

,ig methods FM 

>a tht IUM of 

IFO ratafva far

b. Work in process

c. Mater ait supplies uels.

TOTAL INVENTORIES - 

Sum ol lines a through c eq

Report tne fo'iowing Dreakdow

(2)Am ountSut>, ec tta

etc

ulsd

n of line

LIFO COStirte

Report the ^Mowing app icaDle to line 

f. ill Amount ol the LlFO reserve

(I) LIFO value of im

HOTE - The sum ol ho 

l(2> should egu

ei2)

a

2

— •»•

a eii) (ill and 

a\ line d.

«.,

32)

122

11]

12*

125

32S

127

311

12S

«ay

335

136

3J7

33*

J70

371

1M2

,.,

344

347

193

1»

1»

.6.

Total

( )

Kar

339

342

14S

3S,

»4

3S7

,60

Bu

othi

Id ings and 

elude latid'

( )

Item 11 A - Total shipments »nd other receipts

reasons why .n the remarks sec

CENSUS USE '

ion Repo

-J ————

1 ng Cy product Class is not required or 982 i

: j —— L_ J —

11 126

1*2

Mil Thou Dol.

Ml

low*tt hourt 

Thou. Units

Mil [ Tnou. , Ool.

M,

3*0

343

346

3s r

JSS

isa

]6 .

«>y

130

! ! ! !

OR

Key

311

132

JB3

314

US

3«

367

Machinery and 

equipment 

idi

( )

1912 Value

lions tands 'lart 

SI 125 628

INI

Mil. Thou. [Dol.

Kilowatt hourt 

MIL i Thou. 'Uruti

Mil. , Thou. [Dol.

1M1 

Total

( ' )

1911 VXul

: i ; i :

COMTWUC OH PAQft —— »

I

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

55
Item 116 • Shipments to other domestic plants ol your compan 

'This s a breakout ol the tola' value of shipments reported n

, Iteml

subie

Us ng

•tie

2 - Mifeod of valuation lor inventories not 

t to LIFO costing

e 1 3! tost or .1 i<- ' H '-. ' i :.--.•.-

ocs rid thr i i rmi' 1 : • ' *._ .••• >• - '"

n^'r'V^Vro' 1 ' ' '

Item 13 Cost of purchased services "< -

i. Rep,"

b. *„.,.

'•.«"'„

( ll«m 1

ED

K.y _

of Dum.res ,.,rj -!>- v.-,,,r,,-s :sc

3 r rjcmnny i»i

oa'e'^eg^nTr"' 1 " 01 "'""'

In operation 

CeaseO operjTion

» | o d o- eased s at e ope a.o u *e o . ,1

ten HAi \ • K.,

.,...,-' • ,-.-(..,.-, __._- -j;

Mi T'. 0l, P C ,

B. A.-- 1 .'f> •.:'>' ^8)

c -I,.-- : . :• K-; ilt :•;<;: .-4

d. ')' .'i • , : .,:$' 'B^

B. M.i 1 --' . ,,<.. ,s j''i '0- ; c.i.H on )88

TOTAL ftyrtrt tht teW ftpofW in IN» VTJ hx TMI) > ,,s

• ^ b82 k Item 14 - Breakdown ol machinery and equipment tipenrtituri^ K|

'•* r "•-". o by type reported in item 86. column d (S»* imtrucnon minuifj

b. Co-"cuieis t-: ce' p-^.t i.,t^ pioLess.ng eauipmeni '*«

o «.

C. AM cine- e. C e-:s '.rss 'o- .e,, ^cn.nery an: equipment >9 5

••- TOTAL — Should be the same as Item 8t>. column d ^^- "*

1912

W . Tr 0u Do<

ye^r 1082 did you Change tne -"elhoo

ol /jtu-ng tne

:ne naive

I NO

1982

MM Trtou. Ool

Monffi Vear

J

El Numoer 9 digits

-

Item 156 - Not applicable to this report

Item 16 - Checks to assure a complete and accurate report

The Bureau ol she Census iene*s -cm sepoi! tor om ssi

'ollowmg creeks Delore reiummg youi leooii 

•. Average nourly wages per production womef te

b. Hours 

c. Salan 

d. Mater

fl. li tlw

wo'keo1 per year per production .'.ome' He 

S arcl wages pe' 001131 O i smpmems "e 

a/s cost oe^ floliar o' sftrg^eifs It*

*'! A .c,c u ljl. JM "«nie. r lu -«Ilo. Wlor >easonaDlen» cnlck< Mlo ana „, «w IM ,„„»>

1 / * Co' r ec! you' '^poi! 'ct ii1 / errors vou 'tno anO explain unusual figures in rema 

' ^iw woj( mtnvlieluriny »»tibitthm*n!3 It* tigur»» compute* utuflly fill wttttln

» 5/.T0 M''~t*'ij"Toif —— "fern 'n"'To!J"rHm? o/"s7;>pffi'e'n!" ————————— ——————————————————

ks. 

ffl* '••A*** In4tc»t*a.

Usual range 

J3-J15

1000-3000

05c-95c 

05r-95;-

totil ol vilu* ol ihipmtnlt ut«m 11*1 frtittr than tht turn

REMARKS - Plejse use this space 'or .tny e.Di.m.n.ons in.it <-

' J-w v«

56 MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Public Hearing Version of the MECS Questionnaire

SECTION I - COrBUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCES

Naa* of Coabu* tibia 

Energy Sourca

1

Raiidual Fual Oil (No. 'a B * 

4, Navy Special, Burilar C)

Diatillata Fuel Oil INo. 1.

Cruda Oil and Laasa Condanaata

Motor Gavolina

IPS

Natural Ca,

Bituainou* Coal

Coal Coka

Unit* UMd 

for 

Raporting

t

 wrala

Barrala

 arrvla

1000 

Ballona

1000 

 omda

1000 

CiAio Fact

Short Tom

Short Tom

Entar tha Quantity 

of Purchasad Enargy 

Sourca* Oalivarad 

to tha E<tabli«h- 

 ant in 1*05. 

Includa PurchaM* 

froa) all Souroaa.

I

Entar tha Total 

Expanditura* In 

cluding Dalivary 

Chargov* of tha 

Quantity in 

Coluan 1.

4

1 

Entar tha Quantity of 

All Enargy Sourcaa 

Producad Onftita 

During 1W5. Saa 

Paga 5 of 

Instructiona.

5

Entar tha Quantity Comuaad 

Onaita in 1W5:

A> a Fual.

*

For all Monfual PurpoMi. 

Saa Paga 5 of 

Inatructiora.

7

Entar tha 

Shall Storaga 

Capacity as 

of 1Z/I1/B5.

a

I/////////////I 

I/////////////I 

I/////////////I

I/////////////I 

I/////////////I \//////////f//^ I/////////////I I///////////// i I/////////////I /////////////i

I///V///////Y/I

I/////////////I I/////////////I I/////////////I 

I/////////////I I/////////////I I/////////////I

I///////V/////I

I/////////////I 

\/r////////t//\ 

I/////////////I

I/////////////I 

I/////////////I 

I/////////////I

FOR ESTABLISWCKTS MITH PETROLEUM REFINING OPERATIONS—

•. Entar tha El* 10 NiarfMr for this E«tabli»haant a> Entarad on tha Monthly 

Rafinary Raport. Fona EI*-»10l l_l_l_l_l.l_l

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

57
SECTION II - NON-COMBUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCES

Electricity

la. During 1965* how much electricity Has purchased 

fro* utilities or other firmsi and delivered 

to the establishment? Quantity:.

Ib. Mh.t HM the total expenditure for purchased

electricity? ___.

t. During 1985. KM euch electricity M» transferred 

fro* outside establishments end delivered to 

the establishment? Do not include the purchases 

recorded in ITEM le. Quantity:.

). During 1965* how vuch electricity was generated

onsite by cooeneration? Quantity:.

». During 19»S, how euch electricity Has generated 

onsite from solar power. Mind power, hydropower, 

and geotheraial sources? Quantity:.

S. During IMS, how much electricity Has generated 

onsite by processes other than those covered 

in itaes 1 and *.? Quantity:.

t. During 1*65, hoH such electricity Has sold to 

utilities? Include both (ales and transfers 

for credit. Quantity:.

7. During 19A5> how Much electricity Has transferred 

to other establishments? Do not include amounts 

reported in ITEM 6. Quantity:.

KiloMatthoure

JCiloHatthoure 

_KiloHatthoura

_KUoHatthours 

_Kilouatthours 

_Kilo«atthours 

_KiloHatthours

Mug

la. During 19A5, hoH Much ateae Has purchased 

(froei utilities or other firms' and 

delivered to the establishment? Quvnti ty:.

Ib. What Has the total expenditure for thia purchased

steaai? I___.

1. During 19o5, hoM «uch steae Has transferred froe 

outside establishments and delivered to the 

establishment? Do not include the purchases 

recorded in ITEM U. Quantity:.

3. During IMS, how much steam Has generated onsite

from solar power and geothermal sources? Quantity:.

%. During 1905, hon much steam was sold or

transferred to other establishments? Quantity:.

.Million Btu

.Million fitu 

.Million Btu 

.Million Btu

58 MEGS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
SECTION III * fU.H SWITCHING CAPABILITY TO AND FROH OIL"

NOTE:

o This section deals with your ability to substitute alternate fuels for oil* end your ability to substitute oil for othor fuels.

o Indicate the change in volume of oil that you could accommodate* given your 1965 operating condition! and total consumption of 

combustible fuel*.

o "Fuel SNitching capability" is defined as your ability to vary your oil consumption by waking use of existing Multiple-fuel capa 

bilities with* at most. Minor adjustments in your physical plant.

« Read the instructions concerning the definitions of "Maximum Technical Switching Capability" and "Practical Constraints" before 

proceeding with this section.

* Oef ini tions:

o "Oil" ref 

combined. 

o "Consumpt 

Column 6. 

o 1 barrel

ion" refer* to 

= <i2 gallons.

the quant

and disti Hate 

itie* in Section I*

Maximum 

Technical 

Swi tching 

Capabi li ty 

(Barrels) 

A

Swi tching 

Capabi li ty 

After Allotting 

for Pract ical 

Constraints 

( Barrel* 1 b

Identt f ication of 

Practical Constraint* 

(If Column* A and B 

differ. ) Enter Codes 

From the Lift! Below. » 

C

Part I: Switching Out of Oil

(It Hot* much of the oil you consumed in 196S could 

have been replaced by other fuels?

(2) How much of the oil you consumed in 1985 could have 

been replaced by:

natural gas..............

other fuel(s) (specify):

NOTE: The Sum of the entries in Item 12) mitt be

equal to or greater than the entry in Item (1).

bbl

bbl

bbl 

bbl 

bbl

bbl

bbl 

bbl 

bbl

Part II: Switching into Oil

IJf Hhat is the maximum amount of additional oil that could 

could have been burned during 1985 in place of other 

fuels that were actually burned?

<*) Of the additional oil reported in item (3), how much 

could have been used to replace :

natural gam..............

other fuel(s) (specify):

NOTE: The Sum of the entries in Item Ul must be

equal to or greater than the entry in Item (3).

bbl

bbl

bbl 

bbl 

bbl

bbl

bbl

bbl 

bbl 

bbl

 a Reasons for the difference bet-sen maximum technical capability to snitch and capability to switch given practical 

constraints Icoluen C).

Federal government environmental restriction(s).

State/Local government environmental restrictions!.

Binding contrect in place.

Restrictions under the PoMerplant end Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978.

Fuel supply to the site cannot be established within 7 days of the decision to switch.

Fuel is byproduct of menufecturing process end would not have been switched from.

0 her (specify):

7 ______________________________________________________

a _______________________________________

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

59
SECTION IV - COTflENTS

SECTION V - CERTIFICATION AND CONTACT PERSON

iThil report i« utxtantillly accuroto and hn boon proptrod in occordcnc* uith tho imtruetio

IMMM Of

ItoM of

Pwiod 

cov*r«4

person to contact rogording thi« roport

co^uny

Ifro.: Ho. 1 Ooy 1 T«r 1 To: Ho. 1 Day 1 t«.r 

—— > 1 1 

1 III II

1 

Uol«phor 

1

Addrx* (tk-b«

Signatura of I

lAro* 

»—— > |

1

•nd (troot.

Hjthorizod po

codo

ci tyt

rkon

iNuriMT

1

1

3UU. ZIP coc

(Titlo 

1 

1

Uxtl 

1

1

Ul

moion

iD.t. 

1

1

60 MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Pilot Study Version of the MECS Questionnaire

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

1985 Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey — Pilot Study

The mtorm«on reported on these forms mav Oe d) exempt from disclosure ID the pubkc under ihe e«emotion i Or trade secrets ana confidential commercial information so«-ci<i«<j m tti« Fteedoro ol intotmabort 

Act. 5 U S C 552 101 |4|iFOiAJ or |ni prohibited trom puBfcc release Oy 18 U S C 1905 However before tne determination can be made that particular information is within me coverage o' eitner of these 

statutory provision* tho person submitting (fie mtormafion musi maHe a showing satisfactory to me Deoariment o' Energy concerning iis conlidennal nature Therefore respondents wishing to cu«n sucr. ei 

emphon must state specifically ion an eiement-dy elemeni basts if possiblei m a letter accompanying submission of ttvs form why they consider the information concerned to be a trade secret or other propne 

tary mformabon whether such information rs customarily Treated as confidential information by these companies ana the industry ana the type of coTipefttve Harm that would result trom dwctosure ol the inlormatwn In accordance with rhe provisions ol 1 0 CFR 1 004 11 DOE'S Freeoom o' intofmalion Act Regulatwns DOE w.H determine whether the mtormalion submitted should De withnek) trom puOlic disctoaure 

If DOE receive* the responses out does not receive a request with substantive justification that rhe information submitted should not be released to the puttie DOE may assume thai ma respondent does not obiecl to disclosure TO rhe pubhc o' any information suDmirted by 'I on The forms

This report is mandatory under the Federal Energy Admtalatratlon Act of 

1974. P.L. 83.375. Falhjra to raapond may raauti In criminal flnaa, cMI panalttea and other aancttona aa provMad by law.

Note: for purpoaaa ol this pilot ttudy, raapondanta are parmtttad to 

dlaqutaa their numerical antrtea on tha questionnaire by multiplying or 

dMdlng tham by an undiadoaad factor. Saa anckwad Instructions for 

datalla.

Please read the Instruction booklet carefully before proceeding.

MAILING LABEi.

(Please correct any error in name and mailing address on label, including Zip Code)

SECTION I • COMBUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCES

Energy Source

(CombuettMa

Fuatoand

Faadatooka)

1

Unite Uaad

for 

Raportlng

Enter tha quantity

of purchaaad anargy

sourca* dallvarad

to tha aatabllah-

(Include purchaaaa 

from all source*)

Enter the 

coat, Includ 

ing delivery 

charge*, of 

tha amount In 

column 3.

Enter the quantity of 

energy source* pro 

duced onalta. (l.a., 

byproduct* from uaa 

of faadaloeks or raw 

materiel*, or cap 

tive mine* or waHa)

Enter tha

Quantity

Conaumadaa

a Fuel In

1984.

Enter the 

Quantity

EnMrttN 

Stong*

CapKtty

aaof 

12/31*4

Enter the 

OuantHy

Motor Gasoline

SECTION II - NON-COMBUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCES

1 a Durng 1984. how much etectncrty was pur 

chased (rrom utilities or other firms) and 

delvered to the establishment?

i b What wa* the total cost of this purchased etectrtclty?. ...... .... ...... . . . .

2. During 1984. how much etectricrry was 

transferred from outside establishments and 

defeered to the establishment? Do not in 

clude the purchases recorded n ITEM 1 a

3 During 1984, how much electricity was 

generated on site by cogeneraton'?

4 During 1964. how muct\ electricity was 

generated on site from renewable sources? a (rom sotar ...... .. ...... .

b from wnd

c from other renewable sources .

5 During 1964. how mucn electricity was 

generated on sue by conventional generation 

and other processes besides cogeneratton 

or renewable sources7

6 During 1984, rtow much electricity was sold 

to ut*(»s"> Include both sates and transfers 

for credit ........... ......

7 During 1984, now much electricity was 

transferred to other establishments? Do not 

include amounts reported in ITEM 6

During 1984. how much steam was pur 

chased (from utilities, dealers, or other firms) 

and delivered to the establishment'

What was the total cost of this purchased steam? .......

During 1984. how much steam was trans 

ferred from outside establishments and 

delivered to the establishment7 Do not in 

clude purchases recorded m ITEM ta

During 1984. how much steam was 

generated on site from renewable sources'7 

a from solar . . .........

D from other renewable sources .

During 1984, how much steam was sold or 

transferred to another establishment/'

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

61
SECTION tit~FUEL SWITCHING FROM CRUDE OIL OP OIL PRODUCTS

This section deals wttn your abfttty to substitute alternate fuels tor oil, and your abt'ify to substitute Oil for other fuels Indicate the change in vofume of oil that you cou*d accommodate, 

given your 1964 total consumption and operating conditions 'Fuel switching capability" 15 defined as your ability to vary your oil consumption by makmg use of existing multiple-fuel 

capabilities with, at moat, minor adjustments in your physical plant Read the instructions concerning the definitions of "Technical" and "Practical" ability to switch fuels before 

a wrfh fftfs section

D-rflnlHorw:

• "Or refers to crude, residua', and distillate combined. 

• "Consumption* refers to the quantities in Section 1. Column 6. 

• l bare) = 42 galtons.

( 1 } How much ol the oil you consumed in 1 984 could have been replaced by alternate 

fuels?

(2) How much ot the oil you consumed in 1984 could have been replaced by 

natural 933 

other tuel(s) (specify)

(May add to more than total in (1))

(3) Of your total 1964 energy consumption, wnat is the maximum that could nave 

been in the torm ot oil9

Reasons tor the difference between technical capability to switch and practical capabit

1 Federal government environmental restnctioo(s). 

2 State/Local government environmental restnction(s). 

3 Binding contract in place. 

4 Restrictions under the Powerpfant and Industnal Fuel Use Act of 1978. 

5 Fuel supply cannot be established within 30 days of the decision to switch

Technical 

•wttching 

capability 

(barrala)

A

HU

bbl

bbt

bbf

MM

iwttcMng 

capability 

(barrato)

a

MX

MX

MX

MX

(H column* * and B 

dm*) 

Enter codM from «w

C

[_

ty to switch (column C )

Other (specifyl: 

6

SECTION IV • COMMENTS

SECTION V - CONTACT PERSON

Nam« of person to contact regarding this repon Telephone Area code Number Extension

Nam« ot company

Penod 

covered

wmt

From; Mo Day Year To Mo Day Year

Actual location if different from mailing label (number and street, city. State. ZIP Code)

Signature of contact person Title Date

62 MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Clearance Version of the MEGS Questionnaire

SECTION I - IDENTIFICATION OF PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCES

Pl*a»« rttviiw th« list of «n«jrgy sources on this pag«. Mark tha box n«xt to all Qn*rgy 

sources th«t were physically on the site of th« establishment *t soma 11 m« during 19S5, 

including thai* produced* purchased, used, transferred out. sold, or held in invantory at 

this establi shment in 1985 .

LIST OF PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCES

lark

lere

_

m»

mm.

mm

__

M

«

n

a

a

B

^~ ^jj

j

j

a

Code

Number

11

12

11

15

It

17

21

22

21

11 

12

42

4]

44

45

46

Energy Source

Anthracite coal

High sulfur bituminous coal

Low sulfur bituminous coal

High sulfur subbi tumi nous coel

Low sulfur subbi tumi nous coal

Lignite

Coal coke end breeze

Distillate (11, 12, or 14

fuel oil and light diesel) 

Residual (15 or 16 fuel

oil and navy special) 

Crude Oil

Netural gas 

If d, butane, propene

Blast furnace gas

Coke even gas

Petroleum coke

Refinery effgas (still gas)

Mood, berk, wood waste

(50X moisture basis)

Pulping or black liquor

(bone dry basis)

Short Ton

Short Ton

Short Ton

Short Ton

Short Ton

Short Ton

Short Ton

Barrels «i2

Barrels <42 

Barrels <42

1,000 u. ft 

1.000 u. ft

Millio Btu

Millio Btu

Millio Btu

Millio Btu

Million Btu

Short Tons

sals.> (BBL)

gals.> (BBL) 

gals.> (BBL)

. (MCF) 

. (MCF)

(MMBtu)

(MMBtu)

(MMBtu)

(MMBtu)

(MMBtu)

Average Btu 

par Uni t of

(use HHV)

Other primary energy sources, not listed above, that accounted for at least two 

percent of the total energy consumed at this establishment during 19S5 (Do not

nclude electricity or steam)'

lark Code 

4ere Number Energy Source 

ci> <2> <!>

n si52

51

54

55

54

57

5»

59

» Now COPY the code number (fro* column 2), nan

Unit of Measurement for 

Reporting Amounts 

<4>

Millio

Millio

Mi llio

Millio

Millio

Millio

Millio

Millio

Millio

Btu 

Btu 

Btu 

Btu 

Btu 

Btu 

Btu 

Btu 

Btu

(MMBtu) 

(MMBtu) 

(mBtu) 

(MMBtu) 

(MMBtu) 

(MMBtu) 

(MMBtu) 

(MMBtu) 

(MMBtu)

all energy source* you checked on the list onto Section II. 

o Proceed to Sectian II.

MEGS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

63
uo|iBUiJO}ii| uo||Bj|6|U|iupv 

:SO3W

•» •»!»] »« •» jo sum 'i '«J 'i '» » •s ':Al!lu<mo

HOC 40 A9flW] 13dnOS S1JVJNI QNV NOU^nOOUd 

ills NI •sen !>"»•» ':M 

UNO JSOK1 1983H1 CijanOS 1«H1 3»3M 03SI1 » SUrU NO SIHl 

jut «. . unuJ oui'jo ««n JO -<i)3oi<|»>j i»j •«|>ij»l<ni 

-51 11014 nan* jo >iu| A6j«J« "ajnol ••" (UDOOOOd MO 

NO

MUIII JO i«U»« 

o OlDTVXMd NO lilt •U0l|uc<» » po« ,5 

•] ou) sovM^ajnd pvpjoaaj ui 

AOJOU* *ajno< ••*• oaiwa^sHvai 

i O(j> 

»OJJ OPI«»"0 ni»l«« 

't *<!JnO 'SMI "OM ifTM jo 

":A,| ~:A|iju«ne

"OJJ •••||||i|" ••Jfjifp JO J»M>o •••JiJ P"« 

ou|jnfl 'SKI "o>| qaTM JO I|H> jouo 

pu* jo 

•«• | 

jo m 

I »A»ojm II 

ClJUNI 01 IH1 lM3HHCI1«riSl JUS 

:DUIIJOO>J 

«>iun p.«n joj 

:6ui)jod»j 

«l'"O p»«n JOJ 

»anos nil AoajNj iDonos aiHHi A9IW1 JDIIXIC 1AIJ 

IdOD UOoJ IIOIlDiS I 

Aq 6uiAdo3 «ji •poo 

uoi^ *i }•• dn • 

Aojau* •oajnoi 

JO OJOX JOAOJMft 

uoi|3»s •[ •jouS] AIM pomun 

'0«« p«M fl|IUn JO »H 

•• joj 43«i A8j»uo oajnofl poipoip ui 

o :SNOI1WUSNI 

1903MJ »3anoc 
SECTION II - QUANTITIES Of EHERGT SOURCES (continued)

0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECTION II, PAGE fa. Transfer the energy source code nuober, energy sourco raw*,

corresponding coluons on this page* and continue with

Question 7 bale..

b. If awe than 1 ooluono are nuiliil, use extra sheets. 

c. Entor a Quantity of zero leSorovor o ojuestlon does not apply

to o given energy sourco.

estlMtes My bo ussd.

0 ON SITE USE OF FEEDSTOCKS

7. During 1*»5. hen ouch of this energy source Has used or. He 

as a feedstock, rax oatarial. ingredient, or additive to a 

product (e.g., coal for coking, petrochoeicel toedstocksi;

0 OFFSITI USES

a. During IMS. hoai ouch of this energy source ues used 

offslto for esteblisheent-rolatod purposes lo.g. , delivery 

trucks, ships, airplanes, etc., Mhich Hero fueled eneite 

but used offsitel?

0 SUN OF EHERCT SOURCES ADJUSTED FOR FEEDSTOCK AND OFFSITE USES 

o. Subtract ITEM 7 and ITEM o fro. ITEM 6. Enter eevunt.

0 DISPOSITION OF EHERGT SOURCES (Questions 10 through Itl

10. During IMS. ho* atich of this energy source HBS 

TRANSFERRED OR SOLD to other establishments? Include ALL 

ootebltehaents. whether or not not they ere part of the 

seee corporation as this esteblishoent .

11. Us* ouch of this energy source Has in the INVEHTORT of 

this ostablishoont at the end ol calendar year IMS;

0 TOTAL SALES, TRANSFERS, AND END OF TEAR IHVEHTORT 

It. Entor the sue of ITEMS 10 and 11.

0 TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF PRIMART ENERGr SOURCES 

13. Subtract ITEM 12 fro. ITEM «. Enter Aanunt.

0 TOTAL STORAGE CAPACITT 

IV What nee the TOTAL STORAGE CAPACITT for this energy source

0 EHERGT SOURCES OTHER THAN ELECTDICITT USED AS A BOILER FUEL 

IS. During IMS, hou ouch of this energy source Has used as

EHERCT SOURCE ONE

Code dumber:

Haee:

Units used for 

rooortino:

'tf'fff/'fltltfff/ffft

/////////////////////

Quantitv:

Quantity:

Quantity:

.

Quantity:

Quantity:

Quantity:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

EHERCT SOURCE TWO

Code Huobor:

Hea»:

Units used for 

reoortino:

/////////////////////

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantity:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

COPT FROM SECTION I

EHERCT SOURCE THREE

Code Huober:

Hee»:

Units used for 

raportino:

Quantity:

Quantity:

Quantitv:

Quantity:

QuantityQuantity:

Quantitv:

ouantity:

Quant itv:

ENERGT SOURCE FOUR

ICoda Huabar:

Heoo:

Units used for 

resorting:

I/////////////////////

'//////// ////// //////

Quantity:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantity:

EHERGT SOURCE FIVE

Code Nueber:

Maee:

Units used for 

reporting:

/////////////////////

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantitv:

Quantity:

Ouanti tv:

Quantity:

Quantity:

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

65
SECTION III - NON-PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCES

Electricity 

la During 1985. how much electricity was purchased 

from utilities or other firms* and delivered 

to the establishment?

Ib. What was the total cost of this purchased 

electri ci ty?

2. During 1985* how much electricity was transferred 

from outside establishments and delivered to 

the establishment? Do not include the purchases 

recorded in ITEM la.

3. During 1985, how much electricity was generated 

ensite by cogeneration?

*. During 1985. how much electricity was generated 

onsita from renewable sources? 

a. from Solar 

b. from Wind 

c. from other renewable sources

3. During 1983, how much electricity was generated 

onsite by conventional generation and other 

processes besides cogeneration or renewable 

sources?

6. During 1985, how much electricity was sold to 

utilities? Include both sales and transfers 

for credit.

7. During 1989. how much electricity was transferred 

to other establishments? Do not include amounts 

reported in ITEM 6.

9uantity'. 

*____,__

Quanti ty'_ 

Quantity:_

Quanti ty :

Quantity:;

Quantity:.

Quantity:.

Quantity:.

_Magauatthours

..Megawatt hours 

_Megawatthours

Megawatthours 

~Megawatthours 

"Megawatthours

^Megawatthours

Megawatthours

Quantity:. _Megaw«tthours

Steam

la. During 1989, hew much steam was purchased from 

utilities, dealersi or other firms, and 

delivered to the establishment?

Ib. What was the total cost of this purchased steam?

2. During 1985, how much steam was transferred from 

outside establishments and delivered to the 

establishment? Do not include the purchases 

recorded in ITEM la.

3. During 1985, how much steam was generated onsite 

from renewable sources? 

a. from Solar 

b. from other renewable sources

*. During 1985, how much steam was sold or 

transferred to another establishment?

Quantity'. 

t____,

Quantity:.

Quantity:. 

Quant i ty : .

Quantity 1 .

Million Btus

Million Btus

_Mi11i on Btus 

Mi 11i on Btus

Million Btus

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
SECTION IV - 3MITCXINC CAPABILITY FROM COAL, HEAVY OIL. DISTILLATE, HMD NATURAL G1S

The purpose 0< this section I. to obtain lr.fore.tion on th. technic.l capability of «n establishaent to substttut. .lt.rn.te energy sources for coal, huvy oil. 

dtltill.te. and natural gas coneua«l in IWS. R.ad th. instruction! concerning th* definition of technical capability to s«jitch energy sources before proceeding iiith 

this section. Ansi»or th. following questions for COAL, HEAVY Oil. DISTILLATE, end NATUIAL GAS, if applicable to your establishment.

Energy source 

boing Miitchod 

fr»«.

<1>

FUCL 9UITCHIW 

FROM COAL

FUtt SUI1CHINB 

FROM HtAVT OIL

FUCL WITCHING 

FROTt DISTILLATE

FUCL SHITCHIrn 

FROn HATUHAL GAS

Su. of ojuontitio* fro. 

Soctlon II, ITEFI 13 

for tho ontrgy HurcM 

 poclfiod b«lo..

<Z>

tnt.r It* >u. of 

>nthr>cit«, Io« onrf 

high »ulfur bitu»inou>, 

lex >nd high suHur 

>ubbitu.inou>, tnl 

ligniU. 

«u«<titii:

Entor tho »uo of crudo 

plu> rraiduol.

Qumtitv:

Enter the emunt of 

diitillote.

quentitv:

Enter the leount of 

nature! ga>.

quantity^

Don eueh of tho 

OJuontity in colUBn 

<Z> MOI technicelly 

CAPABLE of being 

 Itched to onothor 

energy »ourc«?

<J>

Ouantltv:

Quantitwi

QuMitity:

Qu»ntity:

1

Check energy BOUTCCS 

that replaced or could 

have replaced pert of 

the eMcxnt reported in 

coluem <5>. Sufantitute 

fuel* need not h»ve 

actually been used in 

196». 

<*>

( to heavy oil!

1 to natural ga* 1

Mo ether <»pect fy>l

1 to other <spccify>)

Mo coal)

Mo difttillatel

Mo natural g»*>.

Mo other <tpecify>l

Mo other <»pecify>»

Mo coell

1 to heavy oil )

( to natural gat 1

I to other <cpecify»

( to other <spectfy»

1 to coal »

1 to heavy oi 1 >

1 to distillate)

Mo other <spcci1y>)

I to other <sprcify>>

Enter the amount of the 

energy ouree reported in 

colunn 5> that wn* 

Icchnic lly CAPABLE of 

being t itched to the 

alterrw e energy eource 

lilted n coluwi < >>.

<5>

Of th* eawttnt *hDMn in 

coluan <5>» how evuch could 

not have been SN itched 

using thi» alternative 

energy kourc*> for legal, 

logistical, or other 

reasons not related to 

technical capability? 

<e>

*eSy couldn't the 

Mount in eoluwi 

<i> be .witched* 

lilt coda* fro. 

the table beloH. 

Circle the cod* 

of the no* I 

i vxport ant reason. 

<7>

R.«om Mhy iNitching «a> not f.aaibl. I for coluan <7> of tho En.rgy Sourc. Snitching Teble):

Federal gov.rn.tent environmental restriction.

State/Local governmant environoental restriction.

Binding contract in place for the energy aourco listed in colu-r, <1>.

Oestrictions of the Po-.rpl.nt Mid Industrial Fu.1 Us. Act of lin.

Oth.r IspKifyl!

SECTION V - CERTIFICATION

• •le^nCe^"!-" >

MMM •« OB^I

ZZL.~*

my

fre»: m.l 0*y 1 Tw T»)i It.. 1 O.y 1 Y«f 

' ———— 1 ———— —————— 1 ———— 1 ————

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

87
Final Version of Form EIA-846(F)

OMB No. 1 9O5-0189: Aooroval Exairas March 31 1989

FO*M EIA-846(F) (B-S-MI 

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of COMMEfTCE 

j^flUb^ BUfltAU Of TM€ CENSUS 

ff^ T\ ^^ ACTtJJG AS COLLECTING AND COMPILING AGENT FO* / 

&• [rtg S UWTID STATES MPAflTMENT OF ENEBGV P 

flL \Uy Jf ENEKV WFOHMATHM IDMMISTfUTIOM V

1985 MANUFACTURIN 

ENERGY CONSUMPTIC 

SURVEY

NOTICE - R««x»»« 10 Wit inoiwy to raqufc»d br tow IFMr* En«w Adm«v,tr«t«xi Ace oil 974. u 

unrOM. P.L. 93-2751. By Section 9 ol nth 1 3. U.S. Cod., your report to Ifw Cen.u. Bureni a 

-^tjs. confidential. It m«y be teen only by iwom Ceniue Bureeu emptoyeee end mey be uied only for etetietice) Wmm TJ^JjijeK nurpoiet. The lew eleo pravidoe the! copiee reteined In your filet ere Immune (foil toexl proo.ee "K ——————————— - —————————————— '

^^ *

G

N

I^^^H^HI^^^k BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

•IDBuDS.^Q^^^V 1 201 EMI Twith StrMl 

^mwv^^^^^^J J.fHrwovW,, Indiana 47132

DUE DATE: August 1 B, 1986

If you cannot file by the due date, a time extension request 

should be sent to the above address; please include your 

T 1 -digit Census Fife Number iCFNI

•M iwtar to thto CmnmM Hto Mun.*.» (CPN)

PLEASE RETURN THIS COPY

PT«M corr«;r *rron in rwne, «Mr«**. vtd ZIP Cods. ENTER srrMt «nd numbir if not shown

k MOTE - Pltoaa rMd tfc* ancfoaarf Jnatnicffoft* bafora flttfno; out tfifa form. CompJata aacfi Mam. 

^ // you hava any ouaattona, c«« I3O1) 793- 7O99.

I Section 1 - COMBUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCES

Combustible Energy Source

(1)

Residual fuel oil (No. s 5 and 6. navy 

special, bunker C)

Distillate fuel oil (No.'s 1 , 2, and 4 

fuel oils and diesel)

Crude oil and lease condensate

Motor gasoline

LPG (Ethane, ethylene, propane, 

propylene, butane, butylene)

Natural gas

Anthracite

Bituminous and subbituminous coal

Lignite

Coal coke

Breeze

Blast furnace gas

Coke oven gas

Still gas

Petroleum coke

Roundwood (i.e., wood cut 

specifically for use as a fuel)

Wood chips, bark, and wood waste 

(50% moisture basis)

Waste materials (wastepaper, 

packing materials, etc. I

Pulping or black liquor

Waste oils and tars

Biomas*

Hydrogen

Other combustible energy sources:

fLJ*t separately/ 7

X

I

C«nsu»

UM

only

1^(21

216

224

208

232

240

307

4O6

414 

422

430

448

604

612

620

703

802

810

729

737

711

901

638

k FOB ESTABLISHMENTS THAT C< 

W Enter tfMtO^lgft EM ID numbtr fore

Units 

Used foe 

Reporting

I3I

Barrels

Barrels

Barrels

Gallons

Gallons

1,000

CU. ft.

Short 

tons

Short 

tons

Short 

tons

Short 

tons

Short 

tons

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Barrels

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Blu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Million 

Btu

Quantity 

Purchased by and 

Delivered to this 

Establishment in 

1985

5fl2~j 14)

MMPLETE THE MONT

Total Expenditure, 

Inctudrng OeJrvery 

Charges, of the 

Quantity in 

Column 4 

15)

Mil. Thou. Do"

7^]

Total Quantity 

Produced Onsite During 

1985

564~1 161

Quantity Consumed Ontrte in 1 985:

As s Fuel

t«n (?)

For all Nonfuel 

Purpoettt (EIA-810 

Retpondenti S«« 

"SpKid 

Proceduras") 

TeT] IB)

Design 

Storage

Capacity as of 

13/31/85

IT] 191

HLV REFINERY REPORT, FORM El A-81 0

•radon form EIA-810 ——————> QzL

68 MEGS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Section II - NON-COMBUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCES

> Part 1 - ELECTRICITY

1 m. During 1 985, how much electricity was purchased by this establishment from utilities or other 

companies, and delivered to this establishment site?

b. What was the total expenditure for purchased electricity?

Kilo wan -hours

2 . During 1 985, how much electricity was transferred from outside establishments and delivered 

to this establishment? Do not include the purchases recorded in item la.

3. During 1 985, how much electricity was generated onsite by cogeneration?

4 . During 1 985, how much electricity was generated onsite from solar power, wind power, 

hydropower, and geothermal sources?

6. During 1 985, how much electricity was generated onsite bv processes other than those 

covered in items 3 and 4?

6. During 1 985, how much electricity was sold to utilines? Include both sales and transfers lor credit.

7 . During 1 985, how much electricity was transferred to other establishments? 

Do not include amounts reported in item 6.

^ Part 2 -STEAM

la. During 1 985, how much steam was purchased by this establishment from utilities or other 

companies and delivered to this establishment site?

b. What was the total expenditure for th s purchased steam?

2. During 1985, how much steam was transferred from outside establishments and delivered to 

this establishment? Do not include the purchases recorded in item la.

4. During 1985, how much steam was sold or transferred to other establishment?

Section III — COMMENTS — Please use this space for any explanations that may be essential in understanding your reported data.

8 action IV — CERTIFICATION — This report is substantially accurate and has been prepared in accordance with instructions.

Name of person to contact regarding 

this report - Print or type Ar§a codeiNumbar

Telephone

by this import *

FROM: Mo.jDay J Year TO: Mo. [ Day ] Year

Address — Number and street Signature of authorized person

City

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration 69
CIA-«4eiF> - I

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FORM EIA-846(F) 

MANUFACTURING ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEY

S DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE 

9UWAU W 'Hi CENSUS

LLIC'IWG AND CMMLING AGtNT fO* 

TATIS DEPABTMENT 0* ENERGY 

EHCV MFOAMATION tOMMISTUTlON

0MB No. 1905-0169 A pi il Expires Mat n31 1969

A. Who la Reeponalble For Conducting The Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey?

The Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MEGS) was designed, 

and it being conducted, by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

of the U.S. Department of Energy. The survey is being administered and 

compiled by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

B. What la Tha Purpoaa Of Thla Survey?

The Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) will collect data 

on energy consumption and usage patterns for the manufacturing sector 

of the U.S. economy. The information obtained from the MECS will be 

usad to publish aggregate statistics on the consumption of energy for 

fuel and nonfuel uses, and on some energy-related issues such as energy 

prices and electricity generation onsite.

The MECS is not a regulatory survey and will not be used for regulatory 

purposes.

C. How la My Privacy Protected?

The confidentially of your response to this survey is protected by law 

(title 13, U.S. Code). Your response may be seen only by sworn Census 

employees and may be used only for statistical purposes. The law also 

provides that copies retained in your files are immune from legal process.

0. Who Should Report?

This survey is mandatory under the Federal Energy Administration Act of 

\ 974, P.L. 93-275. A report is required from each establishment 

selected for the survey. No substitutions are permitted. Failure to 

respond may result in criminal fines, civil penalties, and other sanctions 

as provided by law,

E. When l» The Report Qua?

The questionnaire should be returned no later than August 15,1 986. 

Please use the enclosed return envelope. If it has been misplaced, send 

the questionnaire to —

Bureau of the Census 

1201 East Tenth Street

Jeffersonville, Indiana'17132

F. How la A Manufacturing Establishment Defined?

A manufacturing establishment is an economic unit at a single physical 

location where the mechanical <x chemical transformation o* 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. The assembly of components of manufactured products is 

also considered manufacturing. Also included is the blending of 

materials such as lubricating oil, plastics, resins, or liquors.

O. What Acttvrtloa Should Ba Included?

Include all activities conducted within the establishment, e.g., 

manufacturing, fabricating, processing and assembly; maintenance of 

plant and equipment; use of vehicles onsite; receiving, shipping, 

warehousing and storage; research; recordkeeping; health, safety, 

cafeteria, and other services.

Exclude use of vehicles offsite, even if refueling is done at the 

establishment.

If an establishment operates as a single economic unit, but produces 

several lines of products, the report should cover the activities of the 

entire facility.

H. What Period Should The Report Cover?

Data should be reported for the calendar year 1985. If your records are 

maintained on a fiscal year basis which does not coincide with the 

calendar year, but which ends between November 1 and February 28 

inclusive, fiscal year data may be substituted. If your fiscal year ends 

between March 1 and October 31 inclusive, reasonable estimates for 

calendar year 1985 data will be acceptable.

If the aelected establishment was acquired or sold during 1985, the 

report data should cover the period of operation by your company only.

I. May Eatlmatea Be Provided Rather Than Actual Date?

Actual data should be provided when available and obtainable. In the 

event that such records are not maintained or are not readily available, 

reaaonable estimates may be substituted.

Specie! procedurea for petroleum refining operation*

Establishments that submit the monthly Refinery Report (Form EIA-810) 

to the EIA already provide some data that are requested by the MECS. In 

order to minimize duplication and burden, these establishments will not 

be required to complete certain portions of section I. Therefore, EIA-810 

respondents should include an individual petroleum hydrocarbon as a 

separate energy source line item only if some of that product was burned 

as a fuel at your establishment in 1985. Do not report as separate line 

items those products that were exclusively input into the refining 

operation or sold. Any part of your establishment that is not covered by 

the EIA-810 (eg. onsite petrochemical plants) is not covered by this 

special procedure. Report as separate line items any energy sources 

(e.g., petrochemical feedstocks) delivered from the refinery to the 

nonrefinery part of your establishment for processing,

Specific Instruction*

Column 1 — Twenty two energy sources have been preprinted in 

column 1. If you consumed any additional energy sources onsite during 

1985, please list them in the space provided in column 1,

NOTE — Include energy sources whose sole means of supply to this 

establishment in 1985 was as a byproduct provided that some or alt of it 

was consumed as a fuel onsita during 1985.

Column 3 — Please report all quantities in the units listed in column 3. 

The following conversion factors may be useful:

1 barrel = 42 gallons

1 gallon of LPG - 4.5 pounds of LPG

1,000 cubic feet of natural gas = 10.3 therms

Column 4 — For each listed energy source, enter the quantity that was 

PURCHASED AND PAID FOR BY THE ESTABLISHMENT and delivered to 

this establishment site. Include quantities that were delivered in 1985, 

regardless of when payment was made. Exclude any quantities that 

were delivered from another establishment in your company even if 

these quantities were repurchased from them by your establishment. 

Also, exclude any quantities that were purchased and paid for by a 

central purchasing entity separate from this establishment. In addition, 

exclude any quantities for which payment was made in-kind.

Column 5 - Enter the TOTAL EXPENDITURE for the purchased 

quantities reported m column 3. Include all expenditures regardless of 

when payment actually was made.

Column 6 — Enter the total quantities that were produced onsite as —

• A BYPRODUCT of your establishment's manufacturing activities 

(e.g., coke, hydrogen, stilt gas, coke oven gas, wood1 chips, black 

liquor);

• OUTPUT FROM CAPTIVE IONSITEI MINES AND WELLS in 1985. 

(e.g., natural gas, oil, coal);

• WASTE (e.g., wood scraps, packing materials, waste paper and 

cardboard, waste oil),

Column 7 - Enter the QUANTITY THAT WAS CONSUMED AS A FUEL 

on this site for the production of heat, steam, power, or generated

electricity in 1985.

Column 8 - Enter the QUANTITY THAT WAS CONSUMED FOR ALL 

NONFUEL PURPOSES on this establishment site in 1985.

Include all quantities consumed as feedstocks (e.g., coal used to 

produce coke, crude oil used to produce petroleum products), raw 

materials, additives, or ingredients for products manufactured by this 

establishment.

NOTE FOR ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SUBMIT THE MONTHLY 

REFINERY REPORT (EIA-810) TO THE EIA - Report consumption for 

nonfuel purposes for ONLY those parts of your establishment that are 

not covered by the EIA-810 (e.g., onsite petrochemical plants). If this 

establishment is solely a refinery, enter the letter "R" in the spaces 

provided in column 8. Data for the refinery portion will be obtained from 

the EIA-810.

Column 9 - Enter the TOTAL DESIGN STORAGE CAPACITY ONSITE 

as of December 31.1985. Include any capacity that is dedicated or 

leased for storage of energy sources owned by other establishments. 

Report the shell capacity, i.e.. the design capacity of storage tanks.

EIA-810 ID NUMBER (At bottom of section I) - Establishments that 

submit the Monthly Refinery Report {EIA-810) to the EIA are required to 

enter their 10-digit identification number. This number will allow the use 

of existing feedstock data to complete column 8 for these 

establishments.

Section I - COMBUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCES 

General Inetructlone

Energy sources usad in manufacturing can be divided into two groups: 

combustible (capable of being burned), and noncombustible (such as 

electricity, steam, and hot water). The purpose of section I is to obtain 

data on 1 985 fuel consumption, feedstock use. storage capacity, and 

related data for the combustible energy sources.

Complete section I for all energy sources that will have a nonzero entry 

in columns 7, 8, or 9. Please report using the units indicated. Btu should 

be reported as higher heating value.

Section II - NONCOMBUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCES 

General Instruction*

The purpose of section II is to collect 1 985 data for noncombustible 

energy sources, in particular electricity and steam. Part 1 of section II 

collects data that will provide important information on the components 

of electricity production, and permit an estimate to be made of the total 

consumption of electricity at your establishment. Part 2 of section II 

collects data on the additional contribution that steam makes to the total 

consumption of energy at your establishment through net transfers and 

steam generated onsite by renewable energy sources. Report other 

noncombustible energy sources, such as hot water, on a photocopy of 

part 2 of this section.

70 MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Specific Instruction* - Part 1 - Electricity

la — Enter the quantity of electricity that was PURCHASED AND 

PAID FOR BY THIS ESTABLISHMENT and delivered to this 

eatablishment site. Include quantities that were delivered in 1 985, 

regardlMS of when payment was made. Exclude any quantities that 

were delivered from another establishment in your company even if 

these quantities were repurchased from them by your establishment. 

Also, exclude eny quantities that were purchased and paid for by a 

central purchasing entity separate from this establishment. In addition, 

exclude any quantities for which payment was made in-kind.

Item 1b - Enter the TOTAL EXPENDITURE for the purchased quantities 

reported in item 1 a. Include all expenditures regardless of when payment 

actually was made.

Item 2 - Enter the TOTAL QUANTITY OF ALL OTHER INPUTS OF 

ELECTRICITY FROM OUTSIDE THIS ESTABLISHMENT that were not 

reported in item la.

Item 3 — For purposes of this item, electrical cogeneratron is defined as 

the production of electric energy and another form of useful energy 

(such as heat or steam) through the sequential use of energy. Enter the 

QUANTITY OF ELECTRICITY COGENERATED from all energy sources, 

including renewable sources.

Item 4 - Enter the TOTAL QUANTITY OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED 

DIRECTLY FROM SOLAR OR WIND POWER, GEOTHERMAL SOURCES, 

OR HYDROPOWER. Any electricity produced as part of a cogeneration 

process should be excluded (e.g., electricity generated from geothermal 

steam which is then itself used, should be included in item 3.)

Item 5 - Enter the TOTAL QUANTITY OF ALL ELECTRICITY 

GENERATED BY DIESEL GENERATORS AND ALL OTHER MEANS NOT 

INCLUDED IN ITEMS 3 OR 4 ABOVE.

Item 6 — For purposes of this item, utilities are companies that are 

engaged primarily in producing and/or delivering electricity.

Item 7 — Report all dispositions of electricity not covered in item 6.

Specific Instruction* — Pert 2 —Steam

NOTE — If you keep your steam records in pounds rather than Btu's, 

and do not have conversion factors available, use a factor of 1,000 Btu 

per pound of steam

Item 1e — Enter the quantity of steam that was PURCHASED AND 

PAID FOR BY THIS ESTABLISHMENT and delivered to this 

establishment site. Include quantities that were delivered in 1985. 

regardless of when payment was made. Exclude any quantities that 

were delivered from another establishment in your company even if 

these quantities were repurchased from them by your establishment. 

Also, exclude any quantities that were purchased and paid for by a 

central purchasing entity separate from this establishment. In addition, 

exclude any quantities for which payment was made in-kind.

Item 1b — Enter the TOTAL EXPENDITURE for the purchased quantities 

reported in item la. Include all expenditures regardless of when payment 

actually was made.

Item 2 - Report all QUANTITIES OF STEAM BROUGHT IN FROM 

OUTSIDE THIS ESTABLISHMENT other than that reported in item 1 a.

Item 3 - Enter the TOTAL QUANTITY OF STEAM GENERATED ONSITE 

FROM SOLAR POWER AND GEOTHERMAt SOURCES.

Item 4 - Enter the TOTAL QUANTITY OF ST EAM SOLD OR 

TRANSFERRED to other establishments.

Section III - COMMENTS - Please use this space for any 

explanations that may be essential in understanding your reported data.

Section IV - CERTIFICATION - Period covered by this report -

Enter the month and day of the beginning and the end of period your 

report covers. If a calendar year report: "From January 1 to 

December 31, 1985," if a fiscal year, specify which (such as "From 

December 1, 1984, to November 30, 19851." If a part-year report is 

submitted because the establishment was not in operation or under your 

company's control for the entire year, specify the actual period covered: 

For example, "January 1. 1985 to August 15, 1985," or "June 1, 1985 

to December 31, 1985."

MEGS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

71
Final Version of Form EIA-846(S)

OMBN0.190H11M! «ooc,..l EM^M-a 31 iaea

EIA-84818)

©

U.S. OCPAITTMENT OF COMMERCE 

•UKAU OF TMt CtNSUS 

ACTTNO AS COUfCTIMa AND COMF1UNG AOf NT TO* 

UMTED STATf S OCMJtTMCNT Of ENERGY 

MMMMSTUTION

1985 MANUFACTURING ENERGY 

CONSUMPTION SURVEY

PART II - FUEL SWITCHING CAPABILITY

•UMAU OF THE CENSUS 

1201 I«et Tenth StrMt 

JeffereonvWe, IN 47132

OUIOATE: December 31, 19M

tf you cannot file by the due date, • tlm« axtenaion requeat should be »nt to 

the above addreaa. Pleaee Include your 1 1 -digit Cenaua Flla Number (CFN). 

Can (301 1 783-7066 If you require any eaiietance wrth thla form.

NOTICI - Response to thin inquiry to 1 1 m\lni fc» ttm !F»d<Kil Eiwgy Admmi«iritk»o Act at 1974, •• 

•mended. P-L 93-275). 8v S*wttoo 9 of Trtto 13. U.S. Cod*, your report to th*> CtKiMM BurMu )• confld«niw. 

It may b« §*in only by sworn Census Bureau employeee end mey b* used onh/ tor statleitcel ourpose*. The 

lew slso provides that CODWS rstsined in you* '"•• •'• IIMHUB* from to

IPIrat 1 1 dtfttti o< tof) «M|

nt*M comet crnxv in rum*, fddreM. end Z/P CotM. ENTER MrMt «nd numOvr rf nor srioivn.

MOTE - fluff* nut th» MtclCMeKf frwtructforu bufon fHllny out tMm form. SM r»nr*» tUu tor wnmpfM.

CONTACT — Thii survey la a aupplemenl to Form EIA-846IFI 

"1985 Manufacturing Energy Conaumption 

Survey." The peraon given aa thia 

eatabliahment'a contact waa —

Name

Telephone Area code Number Extenaion

> FUEL SWITCHING

FUEL TYPE FROM THE EIA-846IFI 1 985 MANUFACTURING ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEY

198S fuel conaumption data aa reported on the EIA-846IFI 

" 1986 Manufacturing Energy Conaumption Survey."

I Answer tinea 2 through 1 I aa appropriate. Do M

Enter the amount of the quantity on line 1 that could not 

2 have been replaced within 30 daya by another fuel in 1985.

Subtrect line 2 from line 1 and enter the reaurta. Thia 

repreaenta the aubatitmable portion of line 1.____

Report the meximum amount 

of the quenthy ahown on line 

3 that could have been 

•witched to each of the 

replacement fuele Iteted to 

the right. Do not report 

switching capability that 

would have required more 

than 30 daya to implement.

Do not conaWer oVfrerencea 

in fueV prtcea tv/wn

10

NOrC- Thtiumoflintt4through /Oa/wuWbaaf (eaetaa 

I large ft th* amount on Ifna 3, and rmybe forger.

Minimum lead time required to convert to your primary replacement fuel under the conditions described in the general Instructions. If two or more replacement fuels have equivalent subatitutabMity. wl«t the one with the 11 1 shortest lead time.

5«J 5«j

i D Lees than 1 day i D Lees then 1 day 

2 D 1 day to l week iD l day to 1 week 

aQ More then 1 sC More then 1 

week but week but 

wtthtn 30 days within 30 days

^ COMMENTS — Pleeee use this space or attach a separate sheet for any explanations that may be es

•41 1

691 j 592}

i Q Less then 1 dsy i D La» 

2 G 1 dey to 1 week 2 Q 1 d 

3 D More than 1 3 D M« week but w* within 30 deya will

S92J

sthenlday 1 D Less than 1 day 

iy to 1 weak 2 D 1 dey to 1 week

re than 1 3 Q More than 1 

ikbut week but 

Mn 30 days within 30 dev«

sential in understanding your reported data.

P CERTIFICATION — The data in this report are approximations, prepared in accordance with instructions.

Name of person to contact regarding thie report - Print or type

Sea]

Addreaa - Number end ttreei

City

543]

AfM COO*

State

Telephone

Number

ZIPCc

Extension

tde

_ _. . . FROM: Mo.l Day 1 Year

by thto report -+ i i

fO: Mo. 1 Dey 1 Yeer i i

Signeture of authorized person

Titls

^ COMPLETION TIME — Enter the estimated number of hours spent completing this form. (Include to read the instructions, assemble any necessary information, and enter tr

C

edata.) -

)ate

Hours *u

72 MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
~**CIA-ft46<SH U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU Of THE CCNUS 

ACTING AS COLLECTING AND COMPILING AGENT FOR

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FORM EIA-846(S)

1985 MANUFACTURING ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEY 

PART II - FUEL SWITCHING CAPABILITY

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

PURPOSE - This survey is a supplement to the EiA-846IF) "1985 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey." It is intended to 

measure the short-term (within 30 days) capability of your 

establishment to have used substitute fuels in place of those 

actually consumed in 1985.

• Base your approximations of fuel switching capability on your best 

recollection of the availability of substitute fuels and the physical 

condition of your equipment during 1985.

• For purposes of this survey, capability to use substitute fuels 

means thet this establishment's combustors (e.g., boilers, 

furnaces, ovens, blast furnaces) had the machinery or equipment 

in place (or available for installation) in 1985 so that fuet 

substitutions could actually have been introduced within 30 days, 

without extensive modifications.

• This survey is designed to collect information on your 

establishment's fuel switching capability in 1985. Capability is not 

determined by the rotative prices of fuels; it depends only on the 

characteristics of your equipment and certain legal constraints. 

Fuel switching capability sets limits on the extent to which you 

could switch to a substitute fuel if you wanted to or needed to. It 

has nothing to do with whether you would switch if you could. 

THEREFORE, RELATIVE PRICES OF FUELS ARE NOT RELATED 

TO FUEL SWITCHING CAPABILITY AND SHOULD BE IGNORED 

WHEN COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.

' Include switching capability that resulted from the use of 

redundant and/or standby combustors, and from combustors that 

were already equipped to fire alternative fuels.

• We recognize that records of fuel switching capability are not 

regularly maintained. Accordingly, reasonable approximations of 

fuel switching capability are acceptable for this survey. These 

approximations should be based on the judgement of a person 

knowledgeable about the fuel switching capability and operations 

of your establishment. They are not expected to be formal 

engineering estimates based on a day-by-day analysis of the 

operating levels of individual combustors and interactions 

between them. However, please try to respond as realistically as 

possible, given your actual operations in 1985.

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

FUEL SWITCHING

UIM 1 — The fuel consumption numbers reported on form 

EtA-846(F) have been preprinted on tine 1 to assist you in 

completing this form. If any of these numbers are incorrect please 

line through the incorrect number and enter the correct figure 

above it.

UM 2 — Report the amount of the quantity preprinted in line 1 that 

could NOT have been replaced within 30 days by another fuel in 

1985, even given a severe curtailment. Amounts may be 

nonswitchable due to limitations such as the following:

• The characteristics of your physical plant (e.g., single-fired 

combustors or the absence of redundant and/or standby 

combustors), or the requirements of your manufacturing process, 

limit switching.

' Binding fuel contracts are in place that limit your ability to switch 

fuels.

• Environmental regulations limit the amounts of potential 

replacement fuels that could be burned.

LkM 3 — Subtract line 2 from line 1 and enter the results. These 

values represent the quantities of fuels actually burned that COULD 

HAVE BEEN REPLACED within 30 days by another fuel in 1985.

through 10 — Report the maximum amount of the quantity 

shown on line 3 that could have been replaced within 30 days by each 

of the fuels on lines 4 through 10, UNDER THE CONSTRAINTS 

LISTED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR LINE 2.

Definitions: kWh - Kilowatthour

LPG — ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene,

butane, isobutane, butylene, and mixtures 

Barrels - 42 gallons 

mcf - 1,000 cubic feet (10 ccf)

BTU conversion factors: If you need Btu conversions to 

approximate fuel switching capability, the values in the following 

table should be used. The resulting fuel switching approximations are 

to be reported in the units specified in the questionnaire, however.

Electricity .... 

Natural gas .... 

Distillate fuel oil . 

Residual fuel oil 

Coal and coke .

.... 1 kWh= 3,412 Btu 

1 cubic foot= 1,000 Btu 

... 1 barrel = 5.8 million Btu 

... 1 barrel- 6.3 million Btu

. 1 short ton = 23 million Btu

COMMENTS

Please provide any explanations that may be essential in understanding 

your reported data. Attach a separate sheet if necessary.

CERTIFICATION

Periodro covered covere by thiss report — Enter nthe month and day of the 

beginning and the end of the period your report covers. If a calendar year 

report: "From January 1 to December 31, 1985," if a fiscal year, specify 

which (such as "From December 1 , 1 984, to November 30, 1 985)." If a -

Uiw 11 — Mark the minimum lead time required to convert to the 

primary replacement fuel. If two or more replacement fuels have 

equivalent substitutability, select the one with the shortest lead time.

If you need further Information to help In Interpreting tru

Instructions, see reverse side of report form for examples off fuel 

switching situations.

Call (3O1) 763-7066 If you require) any assistance) In computing thej form.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

73
EXAMPLES OF FUEL SWITCHING SITUATIONS

Example 1: Equipment Capability

The XYZ Manufacturing Plant consumed three energy sources as fuel in 1985: purchased electricity, natural gas, and 

residual fuel oil. The only use of natural gas and residual fuel oil was to fire, at an average 75 percent operating capacity, a 

gas/oil capable boiler where the switch in operating fuel could be made in a few hours. This boiler consumed 15 million 

cubic feet of natural gas (equivalent to 15 billion Btul and 1,600 barrels of residual oil (equivalent to 10 billion Btul. Of the 

6 million kWh of electricity. 5.3 million kWh was used for lighting and the running of machinery. The remaining 0.7 million 

kWh (equivalent to 2.5 billion Btul was consumed in an electric boiler. This boiler was operated at an average 33 percent 

of its operating capacity, given the ongoing plant operation in 1985. However, The only times the electric boiler was 

actually in operation were during scattered peak periods when it supplemented the other boiler, and during times when 

the gas/oil boiler was down for maintenance or repairs. Altogether, the two boilers consumed 27.5 billion Btu of fuel 

during 1 985, providing steam to the plant through a single piping system.

None of the 6 million kWh of electricity consumed is switchable because, (a) there were no alternate fuels for lighting and 

running machinery, and (b) the gas/oil boiler, even though it had unused capacity during 1 985, could not have been 

"turned up" to produce the steam generated by the electric boiler at the times when the electric boiler was operating.

The 15 million cubic feet of natural gas that were consumed in the gas/oil boiler could have been totally replaced by 

residual fuel oil. The other substitution possibility involves burning one-third !*•* natural gas in the gas/oil boiler, and 

running the electric boiler at full operating capacity. Under both of these alternatives, total fuel consumption would have 

remained at 27.5 billion Btu.

The fuel switching capability of the residual fuel oil is derived in the same manner. All of the residual oil could have been 

replaced by natural gas and half (800 barrels) could have been replaced by purchased electricity.

Example 2: Practical Limitations

Assume the same equipment configuration and fuel consumption as Example 1, with the following additional 

considerations:

(1) The XYZ plant has entered into a binding contract to purchase 600 barrels of residual fuel oil at a negotiated price; 

(21 the gas/oil boiler is derated by 10 percent when oil is burned in place of natural gas;

(3) 1 million of the 1 5 million cubic feet of natural gas was burned during a 2 week period when oil supplies were 

interruped because of a strike by delivery personnel;

(4) the price for additional electricity above the 6 million kWh level is 3 cents per kWh higher than the price for the first 6

million.

As in Example 1, none of the 6 million kWh of electricity is switchable. The residual fuel oil contract prevents 600 barrels 

from being switched; however, the remaining 1,000 barrels is switchable. Eight hundred barrels can be replaced by 

increased use of the electric boiler as before. Any increased use of electricity beyond the 6 million kWh may have been 

economically inadvisable because of the increased price, but this is not a constraint to switching capability. All 1,000 

switchable barrels can be replaced with natural gas.

Finally, the capability of switching from natural gas to electricity is the same as in Example 1. However, the capability to 

switch from gas to oil in the gas/oil boiler is reduced from 1 5 million to 14 million cubic feet to account for the period when 

residual fuel oil deliveries were interruped. All 14 million cubic feet can be switched by substituting residual fuel oil and 

running the boiler at a higher percentage of capacity to counteract the derating of the boiler

Exampl* 3: Exclusion* to Fu*l-SwHchlng Capability

The ABC Manufacturing Plant consumed four energy sources during 1 985: purchased electricity, natural gas, coal, and 

waste packaging materials. The 6 million kWh of electricity consumption were used only for lighting and the running of 

machinery. All natural gas consumption (2 million cubic feet) was in a series of paint drying ovens, which were also 

equipped to burn distillate fuel oil. However, distillate fuel oil was not used to fire the ovens because it could change the 

tint of the pigments in the paint, rendering the products unsaleable. Two boilers supplied the plant with heat and process 

steam through a single piping system. One boiler was a "garbage gulper," which was fired intermittently throughout the 

year as sufficient waste packaging materials became available. The total energy consumption of this boiler during 1985 

was 5 billion Btu. The other boiler was capable of burning either coal or residual fuel oil and could be switched from one 

fuel to the other in three days. However, the only input to this boiler during 1985 was 5,000 tons of coal. For economic 

reasons, no residual fuel oil was burned.

None of the 6 million kWh of electricity consumption is switchable because there were no alternate fuels for lighting and 

the running of machinery. Even though distillate fuel oil could have been substituted for natural gas in the drying ovens, 

this would not be reported as switching capability because of the resulting changes in tint (i.e., consistent color is a 

requirement of the manufacturing process). Thus, none of the natural gas consumption is switchable.

The consumption of waste packaging materials could have been replaced by increasing the output of the coal/residual 

fuel oil boiler (if that boiler had unused capacity). However, we are not interested in this capability, and there is no place in 

the fuel switching table to record it.

Under the equipment configuration and plant operations as described at the beginning of this example, all of the coal 

consumption could have been replaced by residual fuel oil in the coal/oil boiler. On the other hand, none of the coal could 

have been replaced by waste packaging materials, because the "garbage gulper" was being used to the maximum 

possible extent, given the plant operations during 1985. However, the definition of switching capability does atlow a 

respondent some latitude in determining switching capability in these circumstances. This latitude is based upon the 

respondent's understanding of the availability of alternate fuels and the condition of energy-using equipment during 

1985. If the respondent for the ABC Manufacturing Plant knew that residual fuel oil was not available to the plant during 

1985, switching capability from coal to residual fuel oil should be recorded as zero, regardless of the capability of the 

equipment to accept residual fuel oil. Conversely, fuel switching from coal to waste materials could be nonzero if the 

respondent knew of additional supplies of waste that could have been hauled in and used to fuel the "garbage gulper" in 

an emergency.

74 MEGS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
Appendix D

Forms and Specifications 

Used During the Editing 

Process of MECS
Appendix D

Forms and Specifications Used During the Editing

Process of MECS

1) Edit Specifications for the 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. (Technical Notes #13 and 

#22)

2) Specifications for Edits Between the 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey and the 1984 

Annual Survey of Manufactures. (Technical Note #14)

3) Edit Specifications for MECS Part II - Fuel Switching Survey. (Technical Note #15)

MECS: Methodological Report 77 

Energy Information Administration
Technical Note #13

February 6,1987 

(Revised January 13,1988)

Edit Specifications for the 1985 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey

Jean Paananen

The following edit specifications apply to the 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). Part I of the 

specifications provides definitions and key codes for variables from the MECS and the Annual Survey of 

Manufactures (ASM) which are used in the edits. Part II tests the unit cost of energy sources and reasonableness.

Part I - Definitions and key codes.

MECS Section I Key Code 562 Quantity purchased by energy source

563 Expenditure by energy source

564 Quantity produced onsite by energy source

565 Quantity consumed onsite as a fuel by energy source

566 Quantity consumed onsite for nonfuel purposes by energy source

567 Design storage capacity by energy source

MECS Section II Part I - Electricity

Key Code 562 Quantity purchased

563 Expenditure

564 Quantity transferred in

565 Quantity generated onsite by cogeneration

566 Quantity generated by renewables

567 Quantity generated by other processess

568 Quantity sold

569 Quantity transferred out 

MECS Section II Part II - Steam

Key Code 562 Quantity purchased

563 Expenditure

564 Quantity transferred in

565 Quantity generated onsite from renewables

566 Quantity sold/transferred out

ASM Key Code 320 Plant hours worked by production workers

330 1982 value of shipments

BFCON Total Btu of fuel consumed.

Sum Section I (Key Code 565 X conversion factor

by fuel code) + Section II, Part I ((Key Codes

562 + 564 + 566 - 568 - 569) X 3412) +

Section II, Part II (Key Codes 562 + 564

+ 565 - 566)

BMOS Btu equivalent of MECS measure of size 

REGN Census region (transferred from ASM) 

SIC2 2-digit SIC (transferred from ASM) 

SIC4 4-digit SIC (transferred from ASM)

78 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
Conversion factors by fuel code

Fuel code 216 - 6.287 million Btu per barrel

224 - 5.825 million Btu per barrel

240 - 3.603 million Btu per barrel

307 - 1.032 million Btu per 1000 cubic feet

406 - 25.01 million Btu per short ton

414 - 22.76 million Btu per short ton

422 - 22.76 million Btu per short ton

430 - 24.8 million Btu per short ton

448 -19.0 million Btu per short ton

Section II Part 1-3412 Btu per kwh

Part II - Unit price and reasonableness.

1) Unit cost of purchased fuels. 

MEGS Sections I and II Key Codes 563/Key Codes 562

Price ranges to use in edits of energy source prices are listed below. Multiply the unit price for each energy source 

by the first factor (1 in all cases), and test against the given range. If the price is outside the range, flag with '*' and 

multiply by the second factor. If the calculated price now falls within the stated range flag with '**'. For all edits with a 

flag of '**', change the amounts in MEGS Sections I and II Key Codes 562 and in Section I Key Codes 565, 566, and 

567 to the result obtained when the reported figure is divided by the second multiplier. Flag the new amounts with 

the double '**' flag. Transfer to the output data set those responses flagged '*' or '**', Including the calculated unit 

price and Key Code 562, 565, 566, and 567 amounts. Include a histogram of unit prices for each energy source in 

the output data set after Edit 1 is completed and any changes made.

Price Range 

Fuel Type ($/unit) Multiplier Code

Lower Upper

216 Residual 20 60 1,42

224 Distillate 20 60 1,42

240 LPG 0.50 1.5 1,0.222

307 Natural gas 2.50 7.5 1,10.3

Electricity 0.02 0.16 1.1EE-3

The next edits identify relationships between variables for each establishment. Any response which does not meet 

the relationship specified goes into the failed edit output data set. Perform Edit 3 on all SIC codes except 24,26, 

2869 and 3312. For those SIC codes, decrease the lower bound to 0.2 and perform Edit 3. Flag with the number of 

each edit any MECS response that does not have the energy measure of size, given in Btu, that falls within the 

specified range for that SIC code. Include the figure calculated in Edit 3 in the output data set if the edit fails. A 

histogram of responses for each edit is included in the output data set.

2) Btu equivalent of all combustible fuels consumed should be greater than the Btu equivalent of electricity 

generated onsite.

Sum of Section I (Key Code 565 X conversion factor by fuel code) should be greater than Section II, 

Part I Key Codes (565 + 567) X 3412.

3) 0.5 < R < 2.0

MECS: Methodological Report 79 

Energy Information Administration
where R equals:

BMOS/[sum of MEGS Section I (min(Key Code 562, 

Key Code 565)) + MECS Section II, Part I ((Key Codes 

562 + 564 + 566 - 568 - 569) X 3412) + Part II (Key 

Codes 562 + 564 + 565 - 566)].

For each fuel code in Section I determine whether Key

Code 562 or Key Code 565 contains the smaller value.

Multiply the smaller figure by the conversion factor and sum.

Use in Edit 3 along with the computed values for Section II, Parts I and II.

80 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
MECS Technical Note #14 

March 30,1987

Specifications for Edits Between the 1985 Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey and the 1984 Annual Survey of Manufactures

Jean Paananen

The following edit specifications apply to the 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) and the 1984 

Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM). Part I of the specifications provides definitions and key codes for variables 

from the ASM and the MECS which are used in the edits. Part II identifies edits of quantity, cost, and consistency. 

Part III identifies edits of reasonableness. 1984 ASM costs in Key Codes 321, 323, 324, and 330 are changed to 

1985 dollars by multiplying by 1.036.

Part I - Definitions and key codes

ASM Key Codes

327 Quantity of purchased electricity

328 Quantity of electricity generated (gross generation less generating station use)

329 Quantity of electricity sold or transferred to other establishments

CMU Cost of materials, parts, components, containers, etc., used Key Code 321 times 1.036

CFC Cost of fuels consumed for heat or power Key Code 323 times 1.036

CPE Cost of purchased electricity Key Code 324 times 1.036

VOS 1984 Value of shipments Key Code 330 times 1.036

MECS Key Codes Section I Combustible Energy

562 Quantity of combustible energy purchased, by energy source

563 Expenditure for combustible energy by energy source

565 Quantity of combustible energy consumed onsite as a fuel by energy source

CCEF Cost of combustible energy consumed as a fuel, Section I Key Codes (563/562) X 565

MECS Key Codes Section II Part I Electricity

562 Quantity purchased

563 Expenditure

ECTO Quantity of electricity sold or transferred out, Section II Part I Key Codes 568 + 569

QEGO Quantity of electricity generated onsite, Section II Part I Key Codes 565 + 566 + 567

Part II - Edits

Match and merge ASM responses to MECS responses by Census File Number. ASM responses are on the left side 

of each equation with MECS responses on the right. If the ASM response has been imputed, flag the edit and do not 

compare the MECS response to the imputed ASM response.

For edits one through four, if the ASM and MECS responses differ by more than 5 percent, flag the edit with the 

number of the failed edit. If the ASM response in edit five is less than half of the MECS response, the edit fails. Flag 

each failed edit with the edit number(s) and transfer to an output data set of failed edits. Include the Census File 

Number, SIC code, company name, flag number(s) and the ASM and MECS figures for each failed edit. Include in the 

output data set a histogram of responses for each edit.

1) Cost of combustible energy consumed as a fuel. ASM CFC = MECS Section I CCEF

2) Cost of purchased electricity. ASM CPE = MECS Section II, Part I Key Code 563

3) Quantity of electricity purchased. Key Code 327 = MECS Section II, Part I Key Code 562

MECS: Methodological Report 01 

Energy Information Administration
4) Quantity of electricity sold or transferred out. 

Key Code 329 = MEGS Section II Part I ECTO

5) Quantity of electricity generated onsite

Key Code 328 * .5 MEGS Section II, Part I QEGO 

Key Code 328 < 2 MEGS Section II, Part I QEQO

Part III - Reasonableness

For the final edits, group MEGS responses by SIC codes into the nine categories as shown:

Category 1 SIC codes 20,22,24,26

2 21

3 23,25,27,31,38,39

4 28,30

5 29

6 32

7 33 (excluding 3334)

8 3334

9 34,35,36,37

Subdivide each category into quartiles based on the measure of size (MOS) of each respondent. Perform the 

following edits on each member within the 36 cells. Calculate the mean, variance and standard error for the MECS 

responses by cell. Flag any response two or more standard errors from the cell mean with the number of whatever 

edit(s) failed. Transfer all flagged edits to the output data set of failed edits. Include for all failed edits the Census 

File Number, SIC code, company name, flag number(s) and MECS responses of the failed edit. Include the standard 

error of the failed edit and the number of standard deviations the failed response differs from the cell mean, as well 

as a histogram of responses by quartile.

6) Cost of combustible energy consumed as a fuel divided by the cost of materials. 

MECS Section 1 CEF/ASM/ CMU

7) Cost of combustible energy consumed as a fuel divided by the value of shipments. 

MECS Section 1 CCEF/ASM VOS

82 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
Technical Note #15 

April 27,1987

Edit Specifications for MECS Part II 

Fuel-Switching Survey

Jean Paananen

Part I - Column Numbers, Key Codes, and Definitions

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey Part I - MECS 

Column 2 Energy Source Code Identifier

216- Residual fuel oil

224 - Distillate fuel oil

307 - Natural gas

406 - Anthracite

414 - Bituminous & subbituminous coal

422 - Lignite

430 - Coal coke

448 - Breeze

Key Code 562 Section II, Part I - Quantity of electricity purchased 

Column 7 Quantity consumed onsite as a fuel, by energy source

Fuel-Switching Capability Survey - FS

Key Code 581 

Column C 

Column D 

Column E 

Column F 

Column G 

Line 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Part II - Edits

Energy Source Code Identifier

109 - Electricity

307 - Natural gas

224 - Distillate fuel oil

216-Residual fuel oil

455 - Coal and coke

Quantity consumed onsite as a fuel, Columns C through G

Nonsubstitutable quantity, Columns C through G

Substitutable quantity, Columns C through G

Potential quantity substitutable by purchased electricity, Columns D through G

Potential quantity substitutable by natural gas, Column C, Columns E through G

Potential quantity substitutable by distillate fuel oil, Columns C and D,

Columns F and G

Potential quantity substitutable by residual fuel oil, Columns C through E, Column G

Potential quantity substitutable by coal and coke, Columns C through F

Potential quantity substitutable by LPG, Columns C through G

Potential quantity substitutable by other fuels not listed, Columns C through G

Time required to convert to alternative energy source, Columns C through G

The first edit compares the quantity of each energy source consumed by the respondent between the MECS and FS. 

The fuel codes listed on the left are from Line 1 of the FS, and codes listed on the right are from Column 7 of the 

MECS. If the FS value is not equal to the MECS value, the response fails the edit. Flag with the edit number and 

transfer to an output data set of failed responses which includes the Census File Number, SIC code, company name, 

FS and MECS reported figures.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

83
1) Comparison of reported energy consumption

Fuel Switching MEGS

Line 1, Column C = MEGS Section II, Part I, Key Code

D = Energy Source Code 307, Section I Column 7

E = Energy Source Code 224, Section I Column 7

F = Energy Source Code 216, Section I Column 7

G = Sum of Section I Column 7 values for Energy 

Source Codes 406 + 414 + 422 + 430 + 448

In the following edits, all variables are from the FS. Any response that does not satisfy the relationship specified fails 

the edit. Flag with the number of whichever edit(s) fail, and transfer to the failed edit output data set. Include the 

number of the failed edit(s), the Census File Number, SIC code, and company name. For edit number two, and for 

each Column C through J that fails the edit, include in the output data set the value in each Line, 1 through 3. For 

edits three and four, for each Column C through J that fails the edit, include in the output data set the value in each 

Line, 4 through 10.

2) Verification of substitutable quantities by energy source. For each Column C through G, Line 3 = 

Line 1 - Line 2.

3} Comparison of total substitutable quantity and individual alternatives, by energy source. For each 

Column C through G, the value in Line 3 > the value in each Line, 4 through 10.

4) Comparison of quantity substitutable and the sum of identified alternatives. For each Column C through 

G, the value in Line < 3 the sum of values in Lines 4 through 10.

5) Time required to substitute fuel. For each Column C through G, 1 < Line 11^3.

84 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
Technical Note #22

Addendum to Edit Specifications for 

the 1985 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey

Jean Paananen

The following edits are to be considered part of the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) edit 

specifications mailed to Census on February 6,1987, a copy of which is attached. For the first two edits, flag any 

response which has an entry in Section I, Column 8 (Key Code 566-Quantity Consumed On site for All Nonfuel 

Purposes) corresponding to energy source code 802-roundwood, or energy source code 810-wood waste. Transfer 

to the output data set the number of failed edit(s), the Census File Number, SIC code, Company name and amount 

reported in Column 8.

4) For energy source code 802 in MECS Section I, Key Code 566 = 0

5) For energy source code 810 in MECS Section I, Key Code 566 = 0

For the final edit, transfer to the output data set any response that does not meet the condition listed. Include the edit 

number, the Census File Number, SIC code, Company name and amounts in Key Codes 562, 563, 565, 566, and/or 

567.

6) For each energy source code in MECS Section I, if Key Code 562 and/or Key Code 563 > 0, then the sum 

of Key Code 565 + Key Code 566 + Key Code 567 > 0.

MECS: Methodological Report 85 

Energy Information Administration
Appendix E

Details Concerning 

the Expected MEGS 

Sample Size
Appendix E

Details Concerning the Expected MECS Sample Size

This appendix is intended as a supplement to Technical Paper 24, a methodological report on the ASM published by 

the Census Bureau. The subject of the technical paper, the ASM, is a one-stage probability sample, whereas the 

MECS is a two-stage probability sample. Because a Bernoulli sampling method is used to choose ASM samples 

and MECS subsamples, the number of establishments in a sample is a random variable rather than a fixed quantity. 

In Technical Paper 24 a proof is given that, for a one-stage sample such as the ASM, the expected value of the actual 

sample size is equal to the desired sample size. The proof of expected sample size is here extended to the case of 

a two-stage Bernoulli sample (the MECS sample design).

The proof for a one-stage sample proceeds as follows: 

If aj is defined as a count variable, where:

1 if establishment j is in the sample, and

0 otherwise 

and Qj is the probability that establishment j is selected for the ASM, the actual sample size can be written as:

N r N -i N r -I

n'= X aj, and E(n') = E I £aj | = £ I E(aj) I •

1 = 1 L j = i J 1 = 1 L J

Because E(aj) = (Qj) • 1 + (1-Qj) • 0 = Qj

N N N 

E(n')= E Yaj = Y E(aj). y Qj • (1)

Because n'i establishments are chosen into the sample with probability 1 , (that is, they are in every possible sample), 

(1) can be rewritten as:

N-n'^ QJ •

(2)

For the ASM, Qj for the (N - n'i) noncertainty establishments is defined as:

MECS: Methodological Report 89 

Energy Information Administration
where n represents the desired sample size and Z is any arbitrary measure of establishment size. 

The expected value of n' is now seen to be:

N-n'i (n'-n'^'Zj

E(n')=n'i +

j = 1 (N - n'1)

I

j =1

(n'-n'i) N-n'i 

= n'i + ————— £ Zj = n'i + n - n'i = n

N-', , , , 

I?, 2*

Using conditional expectations, it can also be proven that the expected value of the actual sample size of a two-stage 

sample, such as MECS, is equal to the desired sample size. This proof runs as follows:

The actual two-stage sample size, m', is defined as:

N

1 if establishment j is in the MECS subsample, and 

I

where •

0 otherwise.

The expected value of the sample size is, therefore: 

E(m') - E I £ aj • °c j

L j.i J

Rewriting this equation in terms of conditional expectations, where Em is the conditional expectation over all possible 

MECS samples within a given ASM sample, and Ea is the expectation over all ASM samples, the expected two-stage 

sample size is:

E(m') = Ea Em I £ a, . oc j I

90 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
}

I N

= Ea < Y aj • Em (<* j) > • (3)

But because Em ( ^j) = Rj • 1 + (1 - Rj) • 0 = Rj, the conditional probability that establishment j is selected into the 

MEGS sample, given that it has already been selected into the ASM sample, (3) can be rewritten as:

Ri \ 

J

E(m') = Ea < £ aj • Rj > - (4) 

lj-1 J

This sum can be separated into two components, the m'i certainty establishments in the MECS (two-stage) sample, 

and the (N - m'i) establishments that are not certainty establishments in the two-stage sample. The equation now 

looks like:

{

m'-| N-m'-| |

^ H . 1 i V1 -> . D \

> 1 • 1 + > 81 • Hi f

1-1 J-1 /

N-m'1

= Ea(m'i) + Ea £ aj • Rj 

j = i

Replacing Rj with the expression given for the MECS selection probability in the chapter on the Sampling Method,

{

N-m^ 1 (m- m'i) • TBtUj "I ]T — ———————————— • aj >

j = 1 Qj n'-m-i J

(5) 

(1/Qj) • TBtUj

n'-m'i N-m'i

But note that ]T (1/Qj)TBtuj = ^ (1/Qj) • TBtUj • aj, because aj = 1

i-1 J-1

only for the n' establishments in the ASM sample. Equation (5) can, therefore, be rewritten as:

{

N-m'i 1 (m-m'i) TBtUj "I X — ———————————— * ai f

j = 1 Qj N-m'1J

^ (1/Qj)- TBtUj *aj i =1

MECS: Methodological Report g1 

Energy Information Administration
E(m') = Ea(m'i) + EaV (m-m'i)

N-m'1

J-i

(1/Qj)TBtujaj

N-m'1

(1/Qj)TBtuj aj

= Ea(m'i) + Ea(m-m'i) = Ea(m'i) + m-Ea(m'i)= m. 

Thus, E(m') = m.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Appendix F

Derivations of 

MECS Estimator
Appendix F

Derivations of MECS Estimators

Estimators used to obtain totals, and the variances oi totals, were developed as an extension of earlier work on ASM 

estimators performed by the Census Bureau. This earlier work is described in detail in Technical Paper 24, "The 

Annual Survey of Manufactures: A Report on Methodology" published by the Bureau of the Census. ElA's work on 

these estimators for use in MECS consisted of extending the Census Bureau's derivations and proofs to a two-stage 

Bernoulli sample.

In addition, unlike the ASM, the MECS is designed to produce estimates of ratios of industry characteristics. EIA is 

currently conducting research on these estimators for both ratios and the variances of these ratios. This appendix will 

concentrate mostly on formulas for the relatively simple estimators used to produce totals. Work to date on ratio 

estimators will also be described. This work follows from discussions of ratio estimators presented in standard statistics 

texts.

A simple inflation estimator of an aggregate characteristic Y based on ASM sampling probabilities is given by:

Y- I Xjd/Qj) (1) i=i

where n' = the number of ASM sample establishments and

Qj = the ASM probability of selection for establishment j.

This expression can be rewritten as:

A £

Y- X yj • (i/Qj)-aj (2)

where the summation is over all establishments in the population, and aj is a random variable defined as: 

f 1 if establishment j is in the ASM sample; and

ar{

0 otherwise.

A Expression (2) can be used to show that Y is an unbiased estimator of Y.

PROOF:

(3)

:

E(Y>- E X yj -0/Qj) • aj I 

Lj =1 J

MECS: Methodological Report 95 

Energy Information Administration
where yj and Qj are fixed constants with respect to the sample selection process, and a; is the variable representing 

the uncertainty of selection.

Since selection is independent from establishment to establishment:

A

E(Y)= £ 

1 = 1

but E(aj) = Qj, so the formula simplifies to:

A N

X y\ = Y (5) j =1

A subsample of the ASM is now desired for use as a sample to collect MECS data, and estimate energy-use 

parameters for the portion of the manufacturing sector covered by the ASM mail sample. Let m be the desired 

MECS sample size.

CLAIM: A set of well-defined subselection probabilities can be determined for the ASM establishments such that if an 

independent Bernoulli process is used on each establishment, the resulting MECS subsample will have the 

following properties:

1) Overall probabilities of selection (not subselection probabilities) will be, as closely as possible, 

proportional to a specified measure of energy consumption.

2) A simple inflation estimator applied to sample data from MECS will be unbiased for ASM frame totals.

3) The expected MECS sample size will be m.

The MECS basic inflation estimator for population totals can be written in either of two ways. Written in terms of 

MECS sample observations, it takes the form:

Y- Z yj • (1/Qj) • (1/Rj) (6)

Written in terms of the entire population, the estimator is:

A N

Y= V y, '(1/Qj) -a • (1/R=) • oc, (7) i—t \ j j ii i =1 

_ 1 if ASM establishment j is selected into the MECS sample; and

where °c. = \

0 Otherwise.

96 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
A

To show that Y is an unbiased estimator of Y, consider

r N -I

E(Y) = E £ yj • (1/Qj) • a, • (1/Rj) • ocj I

L i =1 J

(8) j j s .. —j, —j x -. - -j, - -j -

i =1

where the expectation will be carried out in two stages: conditional expectation over all MEGS samples within a given 

ASM sample (denoted by Em), followed by the expectation over all possible ASM samples (denoted by Ea). Note that 

yj and Qj are fixed with respect to all ASM samples and MEGS subsamples; a\ and Rj are constant over all MEGS 

subsamples within a given ASM sample,jbut vary among ASM samples; and <*•. varies among MEGS subsamples. 

Using this information, the formula for E(Y) can be rewritten as:

E(Y) . E, / < Em r I J N y, (1/Q|) a, (1/RJ • «j i\I >

N 

= X y, • (1/Qj) • Ea{ aj(1/Rj)

i=i 

Using elementary properties of the expectation operator, the above expression simplifies to

N 

- £ fl * (1/Qj) • Ea [ 3j . (1/Rj). Pj] (9)

because the expected value of a Bernoulli random variable is the probability that it takes on the value 1 . The formula 

further simplifies to:

A N

E(Y). £ yj • (1/Qj) • EaOj) • 

J-1

But aj is also a Bernoulli random variable with expected value Qj • Therefore,

A N N

E(Y)= £ yj • (1/Qj) • Qj. £ yj-Y, 

j=i J=1

A

and Y is thus unbiased.

MECS: Methodological Report 97 

Energy Information Administration
The sampling variance of Y can be derived from the definition of variance:

9 A A A „

02 (Y) =E(Y-E(Y))2

= E yj • (1/Qj)-aj • (1/Rj) -ocj - Y

Expanding the squared summation:

• oc'

+ 2 £ [yj(1/Qj).aj.(1/Rj)- «={)•

[yk • (1/Qk) • ak • (1/Rk) • <* JJ V - Y2

The next step is to rearrange terms in the cross product, and proceed with the same two-stage expected value 

argument used to derive E(Y). That is:

(10)

a2 y2j • (1/Q2j) • a2j • (Y) = Ea< Em

+ Ea\ Em

(1/Rj) • (1/Rk)

Using the previously-stated dependencies of the y, Q, a, R, and oc terms (which also apply to their squares), the 

preceding expression can be rewritten as:

,A

°2(Y) = 32j (1/R2j)[Em (oc 2j)] }

N (

+ 2 £ yj • yk' (1/Qj) • (1/Qk) • Ea{aj • ak- (1/Rj)

(1/Rk) • Em (11)

98

MEGS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Because the a's and oc 's are independent Bernoulli random variables, 

Ea (a2j) = Ea (ey) = Qj ;

Em (oc 2j) = Em ( oc j) = Rj ;

Ea (aj) • (ak) = Ea (aj) • Ea (ak) ; and 

Em (ocj) « ( OCK) = Em ( ocj) • Em

so that the first summation in (11) simplifies to: 

N

X y2j • (1/Qj)-Ea { a2j 

i =1

N 

Z y*j ' O/Qj) ' Ea { 32j • (1/Rj)}

and the second summation simplifies to:

N

2 £ Yj • yk'O/Qj) ' (1/Qk)'Ea aj -ak • (1/Rj) • (1/Rk)

[Em(ocj)].[Em(oc kj]} 

2 £ yj • yk .(1/Qj)-(1/Qk)-[Ea(aj)]-[Ea(ak)]

* k 

N

= 2

The variance formula is now reduced to:

A N 

<?(Y) - 1 y2i • (1/Q2j) 'Ea [a2j

i =1

N

+ 2 X yj- yk -Y2 (12)

j * k

Next, note that the probability of selecting an individual establishment into the ASM is independent of the probability of 

selecting that establishment into a MEGS subsample, given a fixed ASM sample including it. Thus, Ea(aj) • (1/Rj)- 

Ea(aj) • Ea(1/Rj), and the first summation in (12) becomes:

MECS: Methodological Report 99 

Energy Information Administration
N

I 

J=1

N

Ea(a2j) • Ea(1/Rj)

Ea(1/Rj) ,

and the complete variance formula is now:

<j2 (Y) = j) ' Ea(1/Rj) + 2 (13)

Next, note that

2 N N

= y. v2i + 2 y

so that (13) can be rewritten:

A N N

o2 (Y)= X y2j • (1/Qj) • Ea(1/Rj) + 2 £ yj • yk

1=1 i>*

:: y2i -2:

1 j:

Ea(1/Rj)

-.

-lJ (14)

J-1

N

Z y2i • Ea " (1 - Qj • Rj)

_ Qj • Rj _

(15)

100

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
The corresponding estimate of a2 (Y), based on the MEGS, is:

m

s2(Y)= X y2)

(1 - Qj • Rj)

Q2i • R2i

(16)

S2(Y) can be shown to be unbiased for o2 (Y) by rewriting (16) as:

A N d-Qj-Rj) S2(Y)= X y2j • ——-——-— - aj

j.i Q2 .R2

and using previously-invoked independence arguments to proceed as follows:

;[S2(Y)]= Eajl :m

(1 - Qj • Rj) 

Q2j • R2j

1-1

(1 - Qj • Rj)

Q2j • R2j

aj Em(ocj)

(1-Qj.Rj)

Q2j • R2j

Ea(aj) • R]

= I y2i'Ea

J-1

(1-Qj -Rj)

Qj • Rj

a2 (Y), as given in (15).

The same line of argument can be used to prove that an unbiased estimator of the covariance of totals for two 

variables X and Y is:

Cov(X,

A

Y) =

N

xi • yj

" d

Q

-

2. 

J

Qj

•

•Rj)

R2i

"

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

101
One observation at this point will help to simplify later algebra: the bracketed expression 

1 - Qj • Rj 1 1

Qj2 • Rj2 (Qj Qj-Rj

Qj.Rj Qj.Rj

Jf - T,

Where Tj = 1 / Qj • Rj is the overall inflation weight associated with MECS sample establishment j.

The preceding formulas can be combined to give an approximate estimator for the mean square error (MSE) of ratio 

estimates produced for MECS.

A A A

For a MECS ratio estimator R = (Y/X), of population ratio R = (Y/X):

A AA AA AA A A A

R - R = (Y/X) - R = (Y/X) - (RX/X) = (Y - RX)/X . (17)

For sample sizes large enough so that X is sufficiently close to X, (17) is approximately: 

R-R= (1/X) (Y-RX)

By the definition of MSE:

A A .

MSE(R) = E(R-R)2 .

A A Given the approximation of X for X, and adding and subtracting Y from the difference factor (R - R),

MSE(R)= (1/X2) E [ (Y - Y) - (RX - Y) ] 2 

= (1/X2)E[(Y-Y)-R(X-X)] 2

o ( A ,, oA 0 r A A \

- (1/X2)<E(Y-Y)2 + R2E(X-X)2 - 2R[E(Y-Y)(X-X)JJ

9 9 9

o2 (Y) + R2 o2 (X) - 2Ro (X, (18)

102

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Substituting into (18), term by term, the unbiased estimators of variance and covariance for aggregate statistics based 

on MEGS, yields the MSE estimator:

A

MSE'(R)= I y2j 'Tj • (Tj -1)+ x2j • Tj • (Tj-1)

-2R £ yj • Xj • Tj • (Tj -1) 

J-1

(1/X2) £ (y2j - 2R • yj • Xj + Rz • x2j) • (Tj) • (Tj -1) 

J-1

= (1/X2) £ (yj- R-Xj)2 • Tj • (Tj -1). 

J-1

(19)

However, MSE'(R) contains two population parameters that must be estimated. A corresponding biased estimator of 

MSE(R), based totally on MEGS sample data, is:

A

MSE (R)

A

j • (Tj - (20)

J-1

A A A /\ A

MSE (R) is a biased estimator of MSE(R) because £ is a biased estimator of the population parameter R. MSE (R) 

can be shown to be a consistent estimator of MSE(R), however, as follows:

2 MSE (R) - MSE (R) = (1/X") £ (fl - R * xj) * TJ * (Tj ' 1 )

J-1

(1/X2)

m

Xj)2 • Tj . (Tj -1)

J-1

m A, A

I [(i/xV(yj-R«><j)2 -(1/x2)'(yj-R*xj)2 ]-Tj. (Tj-i). j-i (21)

It is clear that as the sample size approaches the number of establishments in the population, Tj goes to 1.0 and the 

rightmost term in (21) goes to zero for all terms in^jhe summation. Therefore, the difference between the estimator 

MSE (R), based on sample estimates, and MSE(R) based^on the population parameters X and R, goes to zero as 

the sample size approaches the population size. Thus, MSE (R) is a biased but consistent estimator of MSE(R).

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration

103
Appendix G

Suggestions for Working with Aggregated Data
Appendix G

Suggestions for Working with Aggregated Data

All publicly-available data produced from the MECS are in the aggregate form. Establishment-level data are not 

published to protect the privacy of the respondents. The Bernoulli sampling method used for the MECS results in 

estimators that have properties that alleviate some of the difficulties normally associated with working with aggregated 

data, however.

In particular, the estimators used to produce variances for MECS are additive, that is, the variance of an aggregate 

total produced from any complete group of subtotals is equal to the sum of the variances of the subtotals, as long as 

no establishments are represented in more than one subtotal.

The reason for this is that the basic MECS variance estimator consists of the sum of the weighted squared data 

values, with no subtracted constant preceding the summation. That is:

S2(Y)= I f, y2gj • (Wgj) • (Wgj-1) 

g i-1

S2(Y) is the same expression derived in the chapter on MECS Estimators. However, instead of being summed over 

weight adjustment cells, the expression is written as a summation over any set of subgroups g that partition the 

population. The subtotal for subgroup g is the variance estimator for that subgroup and the sum of the subtotals 

estimates the variance of Y. In other words,

{

m * 

L V29i ' (Wgj)'(Wgj-1)1

I S2 (Yg)

The same relationship holds for estimates of covariances:

A Av ^

S(Y,x)= £

g J-i

In this relationship, the sum of the covariances of any arbitrarily defined subgroups of establishments equals the 

covariance of totals for Y and X added over the same set of subgroups.

MECS: Methodological Report 107 

Energy Information Administration
The additive property of variance and covariance estimates from MEGS, can easily be shown to carry over to 

variance estimates fo ratios of totals:

,, A A A

S2(R) = S2(X7Y)

A A AA = Var(Y)+ Rz Var(X) - 2R Cov(Y.X)

= Z 

999

var(Y9) + R* Z var(Xg) - 2R Z Cov(Yg,Xg)

Thus, published MEGS estimates of aggregate table cell totals, variances of totals, and covariances of totals, can be 

used to produce variance estimates for totals and ratios for any population subgroup that is an aggregation of 

published subgroups.

108

MEGS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Appendix H

A Useful Upper Bound for Errors of Proportions Based on MECS Data
Appendix H

A Useful Upper Bound for Errors of Proportions

Based on MECS Data

Often in Government statistics systems, error estimates are computed for aggregate statistics but data are also 

presented and/or analyzed in the form of proportions, with no directly-computed error measures available for them. A 

proportion is a ratio statistic that can be written in the form

A

A Y 

R

A

X

or its equivalent percentage form

A

A Y R= —— • 100

A

X

A A

where Y and X are survey-based estimates of aggregate parameters, and characteristic X "encompasses" 

characteristic Y. That is, each population element that contributes to the total for Y also contributes to the total for X, 

and the value of X for each element is ^ the value of Y. An example of a proportion statistic is the percent of total 

energy consumption in manufacturing that is accounted for by natural gas.

Proportions represent one specific class of the general ratio estimator 

A

A Y

R A

X

A

The error in R, if it is not computed directly, can be approximated using the formula

VA : VA% VA - 2VA A [1]

where

2 A 

V A denotes the estimated relative variance of R

R

2 A 2 A

VA denotes the estimated relative variance of Y, given by S/^ /(Y)

MECS: Methodological Report 111 

Energy Information Administration
2 A 2 A

W denotes the estimated relative variance of X, given by S A / (X)

A A

A A

A A Cov(Y.X) denotes the estimated relative covariance of Y and X, given by

/\ A

Y • X

Expression [1] can be simplified for proportions which are based on attributes (where population elements are 

assigned the value 1 if they have an attribute, 0 if they do not) and which are estimated from a simple random sample. 

For this special case V?,£ can be shown to equal v| so that the relvariance estimator of the proportion simplifies to

This simple formula is very appealing, and fully takes into account the variance-reducing effect of the positive 

correlation between the numerator and denominator of a proportion. Because of its appeal, the formula has been 

applied to derive approximate errors of proportions for many types of complex survey designs. However, the validity 

of the approximation is uncertain, because VY,£ cannot be shown to be equal to v| for all survey designs, or for 

proportions based on nonattribute variables. One alternative way of approximating variances of proportions would be 

to assume V$e = 0 and estimate errors by

Y,A

V* = V* + yj • [2] 

R Y X

A A

Such an upper bound is very conservative when Y and X are highly correlated and, thus, suggests a much higher level 

of uncertainty in survey estimates than is actually the case. However, a smaller, more useful upper bound can be 

derived, specific to the sample design for the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS).

As stated in the chapter on MECS Estimators, the aggregate parameter estimator for the MECS is given by

A mV

Y = I y] • Wj

where y\ = the value of characteristic Y for establishment } in the MECS sample.

Wj = the reciprocal of the probability of selection of sample establishment j, adjusted to account for 

nonresponse and undercoverage

m'r = the number of MECS respondents.

The independent Bernoulli processes used to select the MECS sample result in the relatively simple unbiased variance 

expression

112

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
2 m'r 2

= I (yj)- (Wj)« (Wj-1) i =1

which accounts for sampling error and a part of nonsampling error caused by random effects of the loss of 

information due to nonresponse and undercoverage. A corresponding expression for covariance can be shown to be

m'r

s?s= Z (yj) *(xi) i =1

2

An Upper Bound for "ft

Expression [1] given earlier can be rewritten as

'| = V| + V|-2V9 ,

m'r

£ (yj)-(xj)-(Wj)-(Wj-i)

= VA + vl - 2 ————^———^______ [3] 

Y x X • Y

The strategy at this point is to replace the quotient in the rightmost term of [3] with something simpler, such that the 

revised term is smaller than the existing one, and the resulting expression will be an upper bound for vl • The way 

to create a revised term that is smaller is to replace the numerator with a smaller expression, or replace the 

denominator with a larger expression. We know that for purposes of the MECS, X and Y values represent 

consumption and related measures. If characteristic X encompasses characteristic Y, the observed value xj for any 

sample establishment must by definition be ^ the corresponding yj •

Therefore, by substitution

m'r m'r „

)^ (yj) <yfl i=i i =1

Substituting back into [3]

s

MECS: Methodological Report 113 

Energy Information Administration
A A

The right-hand term of [4] may be small relative to the first two terms if Y « X. However, in that case, it is likely that 

V2 will dominate V2 also, so that v£. = VA regardless of the approximation that is used.

Y X R Y

An alternative computational form of [4] can be derived as follows:

1 VA + VA - < 

Y X

2 2

VA + VA - - 

Y X

"A A

X «Y

2(VA2 ).

*

A X •

A 0 (Y)2

A 

Y

= VA + VA - 2(R) • VA

VA [5]

A

Expression [5] can be expressed in terms of variances rather than relative 

variances by writing

2 

VA = —— R

so that

A.

Y2 I Y A

[

Q fc 

X^ LYF2

(1-2R)

1 f 2 A 2 Aw I

-^ I S9(1-2R)+ S-- (R2)|

x2 L J [6]

114 MFCS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
A A

As an example of the effect of the upper bound, consider a 30 percent statistic, that is, Y = 0.3X, for which V?« 2Vx 

(an eminently reasonable circumstance). The conservative upper bound in [2] yields

v + V

Y X

(2V-)2 + V

5VA X

and the upper bound in [5] yields

£- >£.<1-2R) + VA 

R Y X

(2V/ .

4vl(1-.6)+ VA X X

1.6VA+ VA X X

2.6 VA X

a reduction of almost one half.

MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
Glossary
Glossary

ASM: Annual Survey of Manufactures. An annual survey of the manufacturing sector conducted by the Bureau of 

the Census. The ASM surveys a panel of approximately 56,000 manufacturing establishments annually about their 

economic activity in the previous year. The panel is updated yearly from Social Security Administration lists of new 

manufacturing establishments.

ASM Mail Frame: The population of manufacturing establishments from which the ASM mail sample is chosen. 

The frame is updated every fifth year using data collected on the Census of Manufactures, and includes all 

manufacturing establishments above a fixed payroll cutoff. The cutoff is determined for each industry so that, at the 

time of updating, 98 percent of the total value of shipments in an industry is represented in the mail frame. This lower 

bound corresponds to a cutoff between 5 and 9 employees per establishment for most industries, but ranges as high 

as 19 employees per establishment.

ASM Mail Sample: A probability sample of approximately 56,000 establishments chosen from the ASM frame. A 

new ASM sample is selected every fifth year subsequent to the updating of the ASM frame. The ASM sample is then 

updated each year using respondent data and IRS records, until collection of the next Census of Manufactures.

Census of Manufactures: A complete census of the approximately 350,000 establishments in the manufacturing 

sector. The Bureau of the Census administers this census once every 5 years (in years ending in 2 or 7). The 

census collects more detailed economic data than the ASM, and serves as the frame for creating a new ASM panel 

every 5 years.

Energy Source: A substance used as a fuel or feedstock.

Establishment: An establishment is an economic unit, generally at a single physical location, where business is 

conducted or industrial operations are performed. An establishment is not necessarily identical with a company, 

which may consist of one or more establishments.

Feedstock: A fuel-like substance used as a raw material, additive, or ingredient to manufactured products.

Frame: A set of elements that are, or can be linked in some way with, the observational units of the target 

population. The MECS frame is a list of manufacturing establishments (the frame elements) that can be linked to the 

target population (all establishments in the manufacturing sector) through the ASM sample design and through 

supplementary information about the "births" and "deaths" of manufacturing establishments.

Fuel: A material consumed to produce heat, steam, power, or generated electricity.

Industry: The 1972 edition of the SIC Manual defines industry as the 4-digit level of classification of establishments. 

A narrower definition of industry is used in publications produced by EIA, which defines industry as SIC Major Groups 

01 through 39, consisting of establishments in agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, and construction, as well as in 

manufacturing.

Manufacturing: Manufacturing consists of establishments 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 characteristically use power-driven machines and materials-handling equipment. Establishments engaged in 

assembling component parts of manufactured products are also considered to be manufacturers if the new product is 

neither a structure nor other fixed improvement. Also included is the blending of materials such as lubricating oils, 

plastics, resins, or liquors. Manufacturing is defined as activities covered by SIC Major Qroups 20 through 39.

Manufacturing Sector: The total population of U.S. manufacturing establishments.

MECS: Methodological Report 119 

Energy Information Administration
MECS Frame: The ASM mail sample.

SIC: Standard Industrial Classification. A hierarchical classification system grouping establishments according to 

their primary economic activities. The SIC Manual defines three levels of classifying manufacturing industries:

• Major Industry Groups: Twenty broad, 2-digit categories such as Food and Kindred Products, and Chemicals 

and Allied Products.

• Industry Groups: Intermediate, 3-digit categories within the Major Industry Groups. Examples of Industry 

Groups include Meat Products, Drugs, and Household Appliances.

• Industries: Four-digit categories within Industry Groups. Examples of Industries include Creamery Butter, 

Alkalies and Chlorine, and Motors and Generators.

The standard reference for SIC codes is the 1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual published by the Office 

of Management and Budget.

Target Population: The population intended to be represented by the MECS sample.

Statistical Notation

This section is divided into five groups of symbols. The first four groups are used to identify various parameters, data 

items, statistical operators, statistical measures and size indicators that are manipulated in the algebraic explanations 

and derivations in this document. The last group consists of subscripts, which are used to define or limit the scope of 

application of the first four sets of symbols to specified population subgroups or time periods. The subscript definitions 

identify the types of symbols in Groups I - IV with which the subscripts are used.

I. Survey Data Parameters and Reported Values

C: Total cost of purchased fuels as reported on the ASM.

E: Total purchased electricity consumption as reported on the ASM.

F: Total fuel consumption as reported on the ASM.

M: Total employment as reported on the ASM.

X,Y: Unspecified aggregate parameters for the establishment population.

x,y: Values of the population characteristics represented by X and Y, for an individual establishment.

R: A ratio of two aggregate parameters.

II. Selection Probabilities, Weights, and Weight Adjustments

71: Theoretical exact probability of selection into the MECS sample based on energy consumption 

as a measure of size.

120 MECS: Methodological Report 

Energy Information Administration
P: Computed probability of selection into the MEGS sample. It is equal to the probability of selection 

into the ASM mail sample (Q) multiplied by its conditional probability of subselection into the 

MEGS sample (R).

Q: Probability of selecting an establishment from the mail file to be in the ASM sample.

R: Conditional probability of selecting an establishment for the MEGS sample, given that it is in the 

ASM sample.

T: The inflation weight associated with the overall sampling probabilities for the MEGS by the 

relationship

1

P OR

A: Weight Adjustment factor, used to adjust MEGS inflation weights to account for nonresponse and 

undercoverage in the MEGS survey.

W: The final MEGS weight, equal to the inflation weight T multiplied by the weight adjustment factor A.

III. Counts and Count Variables

N: Number of establishments in the list from which the ASM sample is drawn.

n: Target (desired) number of cases in the ASM sample.

n': Actual size of the ASM sample.

m: Target (desired) number of MEGS sample cases.

m': Actual size of the MEGS sample.

a: A random variable which takes on the value 1 for establishments that are selected for the ASM; 

O otherwise.

oc: A random variable which takes on the value 1 for establishments in the ASM sample that are 

selected for the MEGS; O otherwise.

IV. Statistical Operators and Variability Measures

Ea: Expected value over all possible ASM samples from the establishment population.

Em : Expected value over all possible MEGS subsamples of a fixed ASM sample.

o2: True variance of a survey estimator.

S2: Estimated variance of a survey estimator.

U: Estimated level of undercoverage of consumption in the target population by the MEGS sample.

MEGS: Methodological Report 121 

Energy Information Administration
U: Estimated level of undercoverage of consumption in the target population by the MEGS sample. 

U(rel): Estimated relative level of undercoverage of consumption in the target population by the

MEGS sample, defined as the absolute level of undercoverage U divided by the MEGS

consumption estimate.

V2: Estimated relative variance of a survey estimator. 

V. Subscripts Delineating Population Subgroups and Collection Times

b: Subscript denoting the set of establishment births during 1984; used with establishment counts.

c: Subscript denoting an establishment size class based on overall probability of selection for the 

MEGS; used with various parameters, reported values, probabilities, weights, weight 

adjustments, counts, and count variables.

d: Subscript denoting the set of establishment deaths during 1985; used with establishment counts.

g: Subscript denoting an unspecified subgroup of the manufacturing sector; used with various data 

parameters, reported values, weights, and establishment counts.

h: Subscript denoting the set of establishments in the ASM mail file; used with various data 

parameters.

i: Subscript denoting the set of establishments in the ASM nonmail file; used with various data 

parameters.

j,k: Subscripts denoting unspecified individual establishments; used with various parameters, 

reported values, probabilities, weights, weight adjustments, and count variables.

r: Subscript denoting the set of establishments that responded to the MEGS; used with various 

counts.

s: Subscript denoting a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category; used with various data 

parameters, reported values, probabilities, weights, weight adjustments, counts, and variability 

measures.

t: Subscript denoting the set of establishments in the total manufacturing establishment file (the 

mail file + the nonmail file); used with various data parameters.

81,84: Subscripts denoting values for calendar years 1981 and 1984; used with various data 

parameters.

Symbols from Groups I - IV are combined with subscripts from Group V to describe all of the specific measures 

referred to in this document. For example, m'scr represents the number of responding (r) MEGS sample establish 

ments (m1 ) in SIC s and size class c. Similarly, Es4j represents the purchased electricity consumption for 

establishment j, as reported on the 1984 ASM.

122 MECS: Methodological Report

Energy Information Administration
1

Choosing the RIG HI Data Products? 

Make Sure! With the ...

CENSUS

CATALOG AND GUIDE: 1988

Helps you select from all the products

Every Census Bureau product issued since 1980-

Reports Microfiche Computer tapes 

Maps Floppy disks Online access

Features facts about each product

Topics Areas Dates Prices

Makes finding the right product easy

Extensive overview chapter Detailed index 

Guides to each statistical subject

Identifies sources of assistance

1,300 State Data Center organizations 

200 Census Bureau specialists 

1,500 depository libraries 

Other Federal statistical agencies 

4 other directory lists

*6458 Superintendent of Documents Publication Order Form

Charge your order. Yes, please It's easy! send me: __ copies of Census Catalog 

and Guide: 1988 at $19, S/N 003-024-06785-4

The total cost of my order is $____ (International customers please add an additional 25%.) All prices include regular

domestic postage and handling and are good through 1/89. 

202-783-3238 to verify prices. 

Please Type or Print

2. ____________________ 

(Company or personal name)

(Additional address/attention line)

After this date, please call Order and Information Desk at

3. Please choose method of payment:

I_I Check payable to the Superintendent of Documents 

I I GPO Deposit Account I I I I I I I I ~ I I 

I I VISA or MasterCard Account

(Street address)

(City, State, ZIP Code) (Credit card expiration date)

Thank you for your order!

(Daytime phone including area code) (Signature) 

4. Mail To: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9325

(To charge by phone, call 202-783-3238.)
u.s Natural Gas Consumption

Cubic F»«D

_ _ „_-

"iQ

60

74

6'

>hj 4 i

''5

Mu* som

—— — —— Electn<

K ai JJt^§?

860 H3C 

S" I

e 40 J

B» 

806 3

6 6^

7 ?3 ;

h ^0

s fte

!l ' '"'Tor" Annudl 1

Trans

i_— — E5^-5-!- — -

R 0 M

s

2 S

s s

' ", 53

"<

2 w to ?8A *

^ 10 ,nO«pPnden' ' OL 

E»e.9l n^ 1 <- ""

_Tol*i__

19 5«

1895 

19 52 

19 63 

20 2»

1988 

19 «0 

1800

17 96

17 28 

16 22

1668

in.liiq

Total Consumption

1987 Consumption

"tGet the facts!

A quick reference to U.S. and international 

oil gas, coal, electricity, and nuclear energy 

data.

Average Price of Natural Gas to Residential 

Consumers in 1986

(Doton p*r ThouMnd Cubic FMt)

fO

u s »,e.a9« « 83 

^ S3 89 loS*" 

• $500loS59S

cs,,

„ M—«"»" N"

jrce Etiaroy lolom""""

Y^> C3w»'° !88J 

,,u ,»ia« *""«•" "^

S'8^." 5' ^/

"ENERGY 

FACTS 

1987

Available for $2.00 from:

Energy Information Administration

National Energy Information Center, El-231 

Washington, DC 20585

(202) 586-8800

Make checks payable to:

U.S. Government Printing Office

ENERGY INFORMATION 

ADMINISTRATION
Energy Information Administration 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Forrestal Building, El-231 

Washington, DC 20585

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

THIRD-CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY

PERMIT NO. G-20