skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A Comprehensive System of Energy Intensity Indicators for the US: Methods, Data and Key Trends

Abstract

This report provides an update to a previously published (Rev 1) report that describes a comprehensive system of energy intensity indicators for the United States that has been developed for the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) over the past decade. This system of indicators is hierarchical in nature, beginning with detailed indexes of energy intensity for various sectors of the economy, which are ultimately aggregated to an overall energy intensity index for the economy as a whole. The aggregation of energy intensity indexes to higher levels in the hierarchy is performed with a version of the Log Mean Divisia index (LMDI) method. Based upon the data and methods in the system of indicators, the economy-wide energy intensity index shows a decline of about 14% in 2011 relative to a 1985 base year. Discussion of energy intensity indicators for each of the broad end-use sectors of the economy—residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation—is presented in the report. An analysis of recent changes in the efficiency of electricity generation in the U.S. is also included. A detailed appendix describes the data sources and methodology behind the energy intensity indicators for each sector.

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1373003
Report Number(s):
PNNL-22267 Rev 2
PG0300000
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION; energy indicatators; energy efficiency; energy intensity; energy intensity indicators; commercial buildings; residential buildings; transportation; electricity sector

Citation Formats

Belzer, David B., Bender, Sadie R., and Cort, Katherine A. A Comprehensive System of Energy Intensity Indicators for the US: Methods, Data and Key Trends. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.2172/1373003.
Belzer, David B., Bender, Sadie R., & Cort, Katherine A. A Comprehensive System of Energy Intensity Indicators for the US: Methods, Data and Key Trends. United States. doi:10.2172/1373003.
Belzer, David B., Bender, Sadie R., and Cort, Katherine A. Thu . "A Comprehensive System of Energy Intensity Indicators for the US: Methods, Data and Key Trends". United States. doi:10.2172/1373003. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1373003.
@article{osti_1373003,
title = {A Comprehensive System of Energy Intensity Indicators for the US: Methods, Data and Key Trends},
author = {Belzer, David B. and Bender, Sadie R. and Cort, Katherine A.},
abstractNote = {This report provides an update to a previously published (Rev 1) report that describes a comprehensive system of energy intensity indicators for the United States that has been developed for the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) over the past decade. This system of indicators is hierarchical in nature, beginning with detailed indexes of energy intensity for various sectors of the economy, which are ultimately aggregated to an overall energy intensity index for the economy as a whole. The aggregation of energy intensity indexes to higher levels in the hierarchy is performed with a version of the Log Mean Divisia index (LMDI) method. Based upon the data and methods in the system of indicators, the economy-wide energy intensity index shows a decline of about 14% in 2011 relative to a 1985 base year. Discussion of energy intensity indicators for each of the broad end-use sectors of the economy—residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation—is presented in the report. An analysis of recent changes in the efficiency of electricity generation in the U.S. is also included. A detailed appendix describes the data sources and methodology behind the energy intensity indicators for each sector.},
doi = {10.2172/1373003},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Jun 29 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Thu Jun 29 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • This report describes a comprehensive system of energy intensity indicators for the United States that has been developed for the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) over the past decade. This system of indicators is hierarchical in nature, beginning with detailed indexes of energy intensity for various sectors of the economy, which are ultimately aggregated to an overall energy intensity index for the economy as a whole. The aggregation of energy intensity indexes to higher levels in the hierarchy is performed with a version of the Log Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) method. Based upon themore » data and methods in the system of indicators, the economy-wide energy intensity index shows a decline of about 14% in 2010 relative to a 1985 base year. Discussion of energy intensity indicators for each of the broad end-use sectors of the economy—residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation—is presented in the report. An analysis of recent changes in the efficiency of electricity generation in the U.S. is also included. A detailed appendix describes the data sources and methodology behind the energy intensity indicators for each sector.« less
  • This report describes a comprehensive system of energy intensity indicators for the United States that has been developed for the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) over the past decade. This system of indicators is hierarchical in nature, beginning with detailed indexes of energy intensity for various sectors of the economy, which are ultimately aggregated to an overall energy intensity index for the economy as a whole. The aggregation of energy intensity indexes to higher levels in the hierarchy is performed with a version of the Log Mean Divisia index (LMDI) method. Based upon themore » data and methods in the system of indicators, the economy-wide energy intensity index shows a decline of about 14% in 2011 relative to a 1985 base year.« less
  • The activity of Phase I of the Waste Management Working Group under the United States - Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan started in 2007. The US-Japan JNEAP is a bilateral collaborative framework to support the global implementation of safe, secure, and sustainable, nuclear fuel cycles (referred to in this document as fuel cycles). The Waste Management Working Group was established by strong interest of both parties, which arise from the recognition that development and optimization of waste management and disposal system(s) are central issues of the present and future nuclear fuel cycles. This report summarizes the activity of themore » Waste Management Working Group that focused on consolidation of the existing technical basis between the U.S. and Japan and the joint development of a plan for future collaborative activities. Firstly, the political/regulatory frameworks related to nuclear fuel cycles in both countries were reviewed. The various advanced fuel cycle scenarios that have been considered in both countries were then surveyed and summarized. The working group established the working reference scenario for the future cooperative activity that corresponds to a fuel cycle scenario being considered both in Japan and the U.S. This working scenario involves transitioning from a once-through fuel cycle utilizing light water reactors to a one-pass uranium-plutonium fuel recycle in light water reactors to a combination of light water reactors and fast reactors with plutonium, uranium, and minor actinide recycle, ultimately concluding with multiple recycle passes primarily using fast reactors. Considering the scenario, current and future expected waste streams, treatment and inventory were discussed, and the relevant information was summarized. Second, the waste management/disposal system optimization was discussed. Repository system concepts were reviewed, repository design concepts for the various classifications of nuclear waste were summarized, and the factors to consider in repository design and optimization were then discussed. Japan is considering various alternatives and options for the geologic disposal facility and the framework for future analysis of repository concepts was discussed. Regarding the advanced waste and storage form development, waste form technologies developed in both countries were surveyed and compared. Potential collaboration areas and activities were next identified. Disposal system optimization processes and techniques were reviewed, and factors to consider in future repository design optimization activities were also discussed. Then the potential collaboration areas and activities related to the optimization problem were extracted.« less
  • This report describes and applies a process for validating a model for a risk-based performance indicator. The purpose of the risk-based indicator evaluated, Safety System Function Trend (SSFT), is to monitor the unavailability of selected safety systems. Interim validation of this indicator is based on three aspects: a theoretical basis, an empirical basis relying on statistical correlations, and case studies employing 25 plant years of historical data collected from five plants for a number of safety systems. Results using the SSFT model are encouraging. Application of the model through case studies dealing with the performance of important safety systems showsmore » that statistically significant trends in, and levels of, system performance can be discerned which thereby can provide leading indications of degrading and/or improving performances. Methods for developing system performance tolerance bounds are discussed and applied to aid in the interpretation of the trends in this risk-based indicator. Some additional characteristics of the SSFT indicator, learned through the data-collection efforts and subsequent data analyses performed, are also discussed. The usefulness and practicality of other data sources for validation purposes are explored. Further validation of this indicator is noted. Also, additional research is underway in developing a more detailed estimator of system unavailability. 9 refs., 18 figs., 5 tabs.« less
  • This report presents results of revising the electricity and piped-gas expenditures imputed to households on the 1974 CHRDS file with equations estimated from the WCMS 1975 Household Energy Survey. In section II the revised expenditures are shown to be superior to the original CHRDS expenditures in many respects. The adjustment factors necessary to calibrate the expenditures with state-by-state control data were generally smaller than those previously required, and, more importantly, the variations in expenditures by different characteristics, including income, age of head, race of head, family size, and tenure were much more reasonable than the original expenditures when assessed againstmore » the 1972--1973 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. Without an absolute standard of the ''true'' energy expenditures of the U.S. population by which to assess the CHRDS file, however, it is impossible to conclude that the CHRDS revised electricity and piped-gas expenditures reflect accurately the energy expenditures of different subgroups of the population. There is still some question as to the precise level of the energy expenditures because of unresolved discrepancies between the WCMS 1975 Energy Survey, the 1972--1973 Consumer Expenditure Survey, and the industry control data for the residential sector. It is also extremely unlikely that the revised expenditures will reflect accurately variations for subgroups on a state-by-state basis,because of the omission of some important determinants of energy consumption, such as the presence of air conditioning and insulation characteristics, which affect differences by state, although a detailed assessment of the CHRDS expenditures by state is impossible because of the lack of any comparison data.« less