August 1979
         ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN THE
OHIO RIVER BASIN ENERGY STUDY REGION, 1974,
         BY END USER AND FUEL TYPE
               Walter P. Page
        Bureau of Business Research and
            Department of Economics
           West Virginia University
       Morgantown, West Virginia  26506
                Prepared for
     Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES)
          Grant Number R805585010
      OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

-------
                                   PREFACE

     This is a report of research completed on regional energy consumption
patterns as of 1974.  The study was part of the Ohio River Basin Energy
Study (ORBES), funded through the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  The principal investigator was Walter P.
Page, West Virginia University.  The work was undertaken at the request of
the ORBES Core Team and Project Office, which specified the scope of work
and general methodology for performing the calculations.

     The author wishes to thank John Gowdy, Mahmood Moghimzadeh, Kyung Hun
Lee, and John Uribe for assisting with the calculations of energy consumption
patterns.  Special thanks are extended to Mary Ann Albertazzie for her compe-
tent typing services and cooperative attitude and to the Bureau of Business
Research, West Virginia University, for managing the grant.

-------
                           CONTENTS

Preface	ii

Figures	iv

Tables 	 v

   1.  Introduction	1

   2.  Work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory	4

   3.  Procedures for Calculating Regional Energy
          Consumption Tables	11

   4.  Calculation of Regional Energy Consumption Tables .  .16

   5.  Regional, Six-State, and United States Energy
          Consumption, 1974	19

References	22

Appendices

   A.  Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type Tables
          A-l to A-9, 1974, and Corresponding Figures A-l
          to A-4	23

   B.  Regional Electricity Exports	37

   C.  BEA Areas Partly and Totally in the ORBES Region. .  .42

   D.  Factors for Allocating OHBES Portions	51
                              111

-------
                              FIGURES

Number                                                        Page

   1      ORBES Region	2

   2      Flow Diagram of Fuel Use:  Crude Oil	7

   3      Flow Diagram of Fuel Use:  Coal	8

   4      Flow Diagram of Fuel Use:  Hydro-Nuclear,
             Geothermal, and Solar	9

   5      Flow Diagram of Fuel Use:  Natural Gas	10

   6      BEA Areas Totally or Partly in the ORBES Region . .  .13

  A-l     Total Energy Consumed, 1974, by End User for the
             United States, ORBES  Six-State Area, and
             ORBES Region	33

  A-2     Total Primary Fuels Consumed, 1974, by Fuel for
             the United States, ORBES Six-State Area,
             and ORBES Region	34

  A-3     Percent of Total Energy  Consumed, 1974, by End
             User for the United States, ORBES Six-State
             Area, and ORBES Region	35

  A-4     Percent of Total Primary Fuels Consumed, 1974, by
             Fuel for the United States, ORBES Six-State
             Area, and ORBES Region	36
                                IV

-------
                              TABLES

Number

   1      Regional Energy Balance Statement by Sector and
             Fuel Type	6

  A-l     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             United States	24

  A-2     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             ORBES Region	25

  A-3     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             ORBES Six-States	26

  A-4     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             Illinois	27

  A-5     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             Indiana	28

  A-6     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             Kentucky	29

  A-7     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             Ohio	30

  A-8     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             Pennsylvania	31

  A-9     Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel Type, 1974,
             West Virginia	32

  C-l     BEA Areas Partly within the ORBES Region	43

  C-2     BEA Areas Totally within the ORBES Region  	46

  D-l     Factors for Allocating ORBES Portion of BEA-Region
             Energy Consumption	52

  D-2     Factors for Allocating ORBES Portion of State Fuel
             Use for Electric Generation.	54

-------
                              TABLES

Number                                                        Page
  D-3     Factors for Allocating ORBES Portion of State
             Fuel Consumption of Petroleum Products in
             Refining	55

  D-4     Factors for Allocating ORBES Portion of State
             Consumption of Natural Gas in Refining. 	 56

  D-5     Factors for Allocating ORBES Portion of State
             Losses and Omissions by Fuel and Electric
             Generation	57
                                VI

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                                INTRODUCTION

     The Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES) is charged with assessing
"...the potential environmental, social,  and economic impacts of the proposed
concentration of power plants in the lower Ohio River Basin."  Phase II of
the study, spanning a two-year period ending October 31, 1979, focuses on a
regional analysis consistent with the above mandate.  In ORBES Phase II, the
study region is defined to include all of Kentucky and portions of Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (see Figure 1).  Among tech-
nology assessments, the project is unique with respect to its regional focus;
the study region is not simply the sum of six states.  Regional boundaries
for Phase II were determined in such a way as to include (1) desired portions
of the Ohio River drainage basin and (2)  regional coal fields.

     To the same extent that the project is unique among technology as-
sessments, its information and modeling needs also are unique.  In particu-
lar, alternative regional characteristics for the year 2000 are obtained
through use of several scenario and impact models.  Alternative futures are
generated by altering the conditions (parameters, policies, and so forth)
specified as inputs to the scenario models.  Thus, evaluation of the environ-
mental, social, and economic impacts associated with these futures requires
comprehensive regional baseline data.  Among the required sets of baseline
data, regional energy consumption data by fuel type and end user are im-
portant for an understanding of regional energy characteristics and for
purposes of comparing energy and fuel use between the present (1974) and a
set of possible futures (2000).

     The purpose of this work, then, is to provide two sets of information:

     1.  Data on energy consumption in the ORBES region by end user and fuel
         type for the baseline period (1974).

     2.  Comparisons between regional baseline energy consumption and  energy
         consumption in the six-state area and the United States.

     As noted above, the ORBES region boundaries do not correspond to  state
boundaries.  This raises a unique problem with respect to the purposes
outlined above because energy consumption data, by fuel type and end user,  is
not readily available below the state level.  Two general approaches are
available to estimate substate regional energy consumption information.  The
first would be to construct a regional energy table by developing a series
of regionally based energy-sensitive weights.  These weights would be  used
(1) to allocate state energy consumption data, by fuel type and end user,

-------
               FIGURE I
OHIO RIVER  BASIN  ENERGY STUDY REGION
              PHASE  II
                                .***•*
                      Ohio River Drainage Basin

-------
from existing sources to the ORBES portion of each state and (2) to sum
across the total and partial states included in the study region.  The second
approach would be to take advantage of the one existing source of substate
energy consumption information, that from Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL) at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
level (1), and to aggregate across BEA areas for an approximation to the
ORBES region.  As some BEA areas are only partly within the ORBES region, the
latter approach would require a set of "factors" for allocating partial BEA
area energy consumption to the ORBES portion of the given BEA area.  These
two options were presented to the ORBES Core Team and Project Office, which
requested the author to provide the above information on regional baseline
energy consumption following the second approach.  This is a report of that
work.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                    WORK AT OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

     The only consistent source of substate energy consumption data is that
prepared at the BEA level by researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
That work, initially funded by the Economic Development Administration, pro-
vides both baseline and projected energy balance statements by fuel type and
end user for each BEA area in the United States, as well as for several
aggregations of BEA areas.  In the present work, only the 1974 baseline BEA-
area energy consumption data from ORNL are used.

     The ORNL procedure for calculating BEA-area baseline energy consumption
is to allocate state-level data to county groups, which are then assembled
into BEA areas.  The allocations by end use for the baseline energy con-
sumption data were based on a series of energy-sensitive weights developed
at ORNL.  The details of the ORNL procedure, as well as its handling of other
components in the energy balance statements, can be found in the relevant
ORNL documents (1, 2).  To achieve consistency in state-level data sources,
ORNL used well-defined and well-documented state-level aggregates from the
Bureau of Mines (BOM) (3).  The state-level energy consumption aggregates
serve as control totals that constrain the level of individual (BEA) dis-
aggregated components.  A wide variety of other sources is used to develop
energy-sensitive weights for distributing aggregates to the disaggregated
components.  The baseline data, then, are derived from an accounting pro-
cedure where energy-sensitive weights are used to allocate state totals to
substate areas, the former serving as control totals.

     The ORNL regionalization procedure for calculating baseline BEA area
energy consumption was based on two assumptions:  (1) for each consuming
sector, the primary determinant of the subregion's share in the state's
energy consumption is its relative share in the state level of activity in
that sector and (2) the effects of spatial differences in energy consumption
between states can be measured by an aggregate comparison of state differ-
ences in energy use per unit of historic activity (residential, commercial,
etc. energy use).  Given these assumptions, the procedure consists of  three
steps:  (1) initial estimates of energy demand for each subregion are  ob-
tained using the historic patterns of energy use per unit of activity  and the
regional activity in each sector; (2) subregional estimates are adjusted for
consistejicy.'.^fi.th the; aggregate consumption totals (state-level totals); and
(3) sub'regional estimates of energy consumption are aggregated to the  desired
level of spatial and sectoral detail.  This provides BEA-area estimates of
baseline energy consumption for the 1972-1974 period.

-------
     The ORNL results are presented in tables containing energy balance
statements for several spatial units (BEA areas, states, and so forth).  As
an illustration, our Table 1 reproduces one of the ORNL energy balance
statements which forms, in this case, the necessary data for constructing our
1974 United States energy consumption table (Table A-l).  Unlike most con-
ventional energy balance tables (e.g., those of BOM), the ORNL tables report
energy consumption, production, and transformation in one energy balance
statement that gives explicit recognition of the flows into and out of the
transformation sectors.  The ORNL 1974 data volume (2) provides such tables
for all BEA areas in the United States, the 50 individual states, and census
regions.

     Two unique features of the ORNL energy balance tables deserve comment.
First, these tables are unique with respect to the careful handling of the
transformation sectors.  The tables include more detail than most other
energy consumption tables (e.g., those of BOM) and permit careful tracing
of flows within the transformation sector to obtain total final consumption
and total use of primary fuels.  Figures 2-5, are flow charts representing
the cycle from primary fuels to intermediate or final consumption of usable
energy.  In each case, the flows are representative of the data found in the
ORNL tables.  With respect to crude oil, Figure 2 represents the flow of
crude oil to transformation sectors, including nonenergy use of fuels, where
refined products are obtained for use in electric generation or directly by
end users of refined products.  In addition, natural gas liquids are included
in this fuel category.  Electricity generated from refined products, in turn,
flows into the end use sectors as usable energy.  In the case of Figure 3,
the ORNL procedure is to deal with steam and coking coal all within the fuel
category so that there is no transformation flow from the fuel to end user
associated with coking.  In Figure 4, hydro-nuclear, geothermal, and solar
are all included in the fuel box, hydro-nuclear and geothermal flowing to the
electric sector while solar flows directly to the residential and commercial
sector for space and/or water heat.  Natural gas (Figure 5) flows to both the
electric sector and transformation processes.  Out of the natural gas trans-
formation box, natural gas liquids flow directly back to the crude oil fuel
in Figure 2.

     The second unique feature of the ORNL tables for BEA energy consumption
is the treatment of exports and imports of fuels and energy.  The tables are
constructed in such a manner that one can aggregate BEA areas to any desired
region and intraregional flows will "net out."  That is to say, for any
aggregate of BEA areas, imports (or, conversely, exports) are net of intra-
regional flows.  This is a particularly important characteristic when con-
structing regional energy consumption tables that consist of a number of
aggregated BEA areas.

-------
OBITED STATES
            TABLE 1

REGIONAL IHIGT BALARCB STATWB»T
    BI SECTOR   AID FOEL TTPB
                                                                                                      1974
SECTOR
PIRAL DEBARD SECTORS
RESIDENTIAL, C08R.
IRDOSTRIAL
TRARSPORTATIOR
BISCEILABBOOS OSES
TOTAL FIRAL
DEHARD SECTORS
TRARSFORBATIOR
ELECTBICITT GBR.
PETROLED!) PEODDCTS
RATOBU G»S
STR-GAS
RET POEl OSED
IR TRARSPORHATIOI
TOTAL GROSS FLO«S
LOSSES t OK IS SIO*S
TOTAL RET USAGE
DISTILLATE
OIL
2,870,295
735, 492
2,121,707
59,391
5,786.888
300,052
-5,672,176
-5.372.12H
6.086,940
177,172
591,936
RESIDUAL
on.
891,224
1,219,606
709,003
214.874
3.034.707
3.032.434
-2.455.021
577.413
6.067.141
-36,180
3.575,939
OTHER
HYDRO- CRUDE
GISOLIRE CUBOES OIL
(ALL ORITS IR 10**9 BTO'S)
12,727,303
12,727,303
-12,261,334
-12,261,331
12,727,303
-80.823
385,145
2,192,302
3.954,307
2, 175, 605
132,296
8,454,510
34,811
-6,265,364 25.686,613
-1,411,579
-7,642.132 25.686,613
8,489,321 25,686,613
-574,832 234,213
237.545 25.920.826
RAT ORAL
GAS
7,083,205
10,018,175
684,891
»3«,382
18.220,653
3,500,833
1,098.552
1, 511,279
6,1UOr66«
24,361,317
439,487
24,800,804
COAL
297.503
4,129,400
2.089
4,428,992
8,683,269
8,681,269
13,112,261
533,126
13, 645.387
SECTOR
ELECTRICITY TOTAL
3,305.988
2,429,620
14,561
84,404
5,834,573
-4,925,362
-4,925,162
5,834.573
569,894
1,479.105
16.640.517
22.486.600
18,435,159
925,350
58,487,626
10.626.037
131.27C
129,700
10,887,007
69,374,633
1,262.055
70,636.688
24*
32«
261
11
831
^
O O Ul
«• * at
151
961
2«


SOP PL I OF EREBGI
FOSSIL TO EL
HYDROELECTRIC
•OCLEAR
GEO.CSOLAR
TOTAL SUPPLY
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 18.565.956
- 18.565.956
23,781,305
23,781,305
15,018,061
15,018,061
1,037,954
388,927
8.902
1,435,783
57,365,322
1.037.954
388.927
8,902
58.801,105
981
2*
IS
01


RET IMPORTS
OF RE6IOR
591,936
3.575.939
385,145
237.545 7,354.870
1,019,499
-1,372,673
43,322
11, 835.SU


   ROTES:
    1  TBiisromnoi LOSS FOB   ZUCTRICITT GIB.    *68.3»
    2  TRARSFORHATIOR LOSS FOB   PETROLEDH  PRODUCTS  ' 0.49f
    3  TRARSFORMTIOR LOSS FOB   RUOBIL GAS         ' 8.42V
    4  TRARSFOBHATIOR LOSS FOR   STR-GAS             » 0.0 «

-------
                               FIGURE 2
                FLOW DIAGRAM OF FUEL USE: CRUDE OIL
      t
Residential
   and
Commercial
                         Crude Oil and
                          Natural Gas
                            Liquids
               Electric
              Transformation
   ±
Industrial
Transportation

-------
                              FIGURE 3
                  FLOW DIAGRAM OF FUEL USE: COAL
                           Coal
              Electric
              Transformation
Residential
   and
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation

-------
                             FIGURE 4
                    FLOW DIAGRAM OF FUEL USE:
              HYDRO-NUCLEAR, GEOTHERMAL AND SOLAR
                     Hydro-Nuclear
                     and Geothermal
                         Solar
             Electric
            Transformation
Residential
   and
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation

-------
                                 FIGURE 5
                FLOW DIAGRAM OF FUEL USE: NATURAL GAS
                         Natural Gas
              Electric
             Transformation
     Natural Gas
       Liquids
Residential
   and
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation

-------
                                  SECTION 3

        PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING REGIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION TABLES

     Using the ORNL tables, four steps are necessary to arrive at estimates
of 1974 energy consumption by fuel type and end user in the ORBES region:
(1) construct a format for the regional energy consumption tables consistent
with the ORNL framework for reporting those data; (2) identify BEA areas
totally or partly in the ORBES region and specify counties in each partial
BEA that are within the ORBES region; (3) develop a set of appropriate
weights for allocating partial BEA-area energy consumption to the counties
that lie within the ORBES region; and (4) aggregate energy consumption by
fuel type and end user" for BEA areas partly or totally within the ORBES
region.  The procedure is, of course, more straightforward for constructing
a table that does not require allocating partial BEA area energy consumption,
such as the six-state or United States tables, because steps (2) and (3)
above are not necessary.

     For baseline information we are interested in knowing, by end use
sector, the consumption of fuels (including nonelectric transformation) and
of electricity.  Further, given the assumed prominent role of electric gener-
ation in the ORBES region, we would like detail on the consumption of fuels
for electric generation in the region, as well as regional electricity
export/import characteristics.  While detailed information on particular uses
of energy within given end-use sectors would be desirable  (e.g., space con-
ditioning versus transportation use in the household sector or materials
modification in the industrial sector), the ORNL data tables do not permit
this level of detailed analysis.  We have used a format for our energy con-
sumption tables similar to that found  in BOM end use consumption tables by
fuel type.  However, our tables also include electric power exports/imports,
which can be calculated from the ORNL  tables.  Further, our format includes
the consumption of fuels for nonelectric transformation processes  (captured
in our "losses and omissions" row—see Appendix A tables).

     Within this format, two special characteristics require some  expla-
nation.  The first relates to handling non-fossil-fuel generation  of elec-
tricity; the second to the notion of electricity "exports."

     In the ORNL tables, as well as in this work, non-fossil-fuel  generation
of electricity enters into total generation in terms of output units.  In
many energy consumption tables the convention has been to  report non-fossil-
fuel generation of electricity in fossil-fuel equivalents.  When calculating
exports/imports of electricity, however, the use of fossil-fuel equivalents
will seriously distort  (from conventional values) the estimate of  exports/
imports.  Because this is the case, we choose to follow the same procedure as


                                     11

-------
adopted by ORNL; that is, non-fossil-fuel generation of electricity is re-
ported in output units (Btu's).

     The second important characteristic of our format concerns the notion of
electricity exports.  In this case, exports are simply the difference between
total electricity generated within the spatial area and the total consumption
of electricity in the same area over the relevant time period.  Such a calcu-
lation does not, of course, represent a "flow" of electricity outside the
physical boundaries of a region at any point in time.  Rather, it represents
an estimate, over the relevant accounting period, of the difference between
production and domestic consumption.  We have chosen to use an annual ac-
counting period, which is justified in terms of the seasonal component of
electricity demand.  Further, the estimate of electricity exports will, of
course, be sensitive to the geographic boundaries of the region under con-
sideration.  Changing the boundary will include or exclude certain generating
units and/or consuming sectors in such a way as to alter the estimates of
generation and/or consumption and, hence, exports.  All one can do is carry
out the calculations for the prescribed geographic boundaries and report the
associated estimate of electricity exports for those given boundaries.  Such
a notion of "exports" should not be confused with load management consider-
ations that lead to system sharing.  Because electric exports/imports are
important to the ORBES project, we include an Appendix B dealing further with
this topic.

     The second step discussed above was the identification of BEA areas
totally or partly in the ORBES region and the specification of those counties
in each partial BEA that lie within the ORBES region.  Figure 6 is an overlay
of BEA areas totally or partly within the ORBES boundaries.  Slashed areas
represent portions of BEA areas that lie outside the ORBES region.  Of the
32 BEA areas shown on the map, 16 are totally and 16 partly within the ORBES
region.  In order to develop the ORBES-region shares for partial BEA areas,
it was necessary to identify those counties for each BEA area that are within
the ORBES region.  Maps of the ORBES region and BEA areas were used, in con-
junction with a list of BEA-area counties (4), to prepare a list of ORBES and
non-ORBES counties for each BEA area within the region.  Appendix C lists
counties according to the above dichotomy, relevant BEA number, and state.

     Given the information in Appendix C, and the delineation of appropriate
BEA areas, it was necessary to develop a set of factors for allocation of
total BEA-area energy consumption from the ORNL tables to the ORBES-region
portion of a given BEA area by fuel type and end user  (step 3 above).

     The ORNL energy-sensitive weights represent a sophisticated effort to
allocate state totals to BEA areas by specific fuels and users.  In reporting
the ORNL results for BEA-area consumption, however, certain end user cate-
gories are aggregated (residential and commercial, for instance).  Thus, it
was not possible to apply the same weighting scheme that was used by ORNL.
In most cases, however, the factors used here do correspond to the activity
variables used by ORNL.  As a consequence, the factors reported below seem
reasonable, although somewhat crude when compared to the ORNL weighting
scheme.  Further, the selection of single factors can be justified by the
construction of BEA areas, which are comprised of contiguous counties where:

                                     12

-------
                     FIGURE 6
BEA  AREAS  TOTALLY OR PARTLY^ IN THE  ORBES REGION
                                 E3 Out of ORBES Region

-------
(1) economic and employment activities are concentrated; and (2) there is a
minimum of in/out movement of the working population (see reference 5).  Con-
structed in this way, patterns of energy consumption by end user within a BEA
area will be relatively stable and well-defined compared to patterns between
BEA areas located either within the same state or in two states.

     The allocation of partial BEA-area energy consumption to the ORBES
regional share requires calculation of nine different sets of factors, which
appear in Appendix D:  (1) residential/commercial (Table D-l), (2) industrial
(Table D-l), (3) transport (Table D-l), (4) miscellaneous (Table D-l), (5)
electric generation use of all fuels (Table D-2), (6) consumption of petrole-
um products in refining (Table D-3), (7) consumption of natural gas in refin-
ing (Table D-4), (8) losses and omissions by fuel (Table D-5), and (9)
electric generation (Table D-5).

     The first four factors employ activity variables that are determined by
those used in the ORNL work.  The residential/commercial factors were based
on population.  For each BEA number, tne factor is the ratio of the popu-
lation in the ORBES counties to the total BEA-area population.  Because the
ORNL tables do not report the residential and commercial uses of energy
separately, it was not possible to develop a weighted factor where employment
was the activity variable for the commercial sector and population for the
residential sector.  Given that a high correlation tends to exist between
residential and commercial locations within a given BEA area, population
appears to be a reasonable weighting factor for the use of energy in the
residential/commercial sector.

     Factors for the industrial sector were based on employment in the manu-
facturing, mining, and construction sectors.  Each factor for the industrial
use of energy is the ratio of total employment in ORBES counties within the
BEA area to total employment for these three sectors in the BEA area.  In
some cases, to avoid disclosure, mining employment was not reported.   In
those cases, it appeared  that mining output, and hence employment, were rela-
tively small.  Where this was not the  case, we examined the percentage of
total income from manufacturing, mining, and construction in the BEA area
associated with mining and found, in most cases, that the percentage was
small.  As a consequence, the extent of bias introduced by our convention
should be similarly small.  In  the ORNL tables, most nonenergy uses of fuels
are included in the industrial  sector.  Asphalt and  a few other hydrocarbons
are included in the residential/commercia] sector.

     The transportation sector  includes many heterogenous items  (truck and
bus—rail and transit—air, water, and pipelines, etc.), and  ideally  a
weighted factor using population for some  items and  employment  for others
should be constructed.  Time constraints and lack of disaggregated data in
the ORNL tables did not permit  constructing such an  index.  The use of em-
ployment rather than population is justified as the  U.S. Department of
Commerce data used  for defining the transportation  sector includes transpor-
tation, communication, and public utilities.  The ORNL  researchers responsi-
ble for this energy consumption work agree that as  between just employment
or population, employment would be the better single allocating factor for
BEA-area fuel use in the  transportation sector.  This is due  largely  to the

                                      14

-------
fact that transportation fuel use data tend to be recorded at the place of
sale (personal communication, David Vogt, ORNL).   Each factor, then,  is the
ratio of employment in the transportation sector of ORBES counties to total
employment in transportation in the BEA area.

     The allocating factors for miscellaneous consumption of energy are based
on the ratio of the populatibn in the ORBES counties to total BEA-area popu-
lation.

     Factors for allocating fuel use in electric generation to the ORBES
region were based on the ratio of generation, by fuel type, within ORBES to
total generation by fuel type in each state.  Because generating units can
be identified as in or out of ORBES at the state level, it was not necessary
to develop factors for the BEA level and to sum across BEA areas.  BEA-area
consumption is calculated by ORNL using state totals as controls, and thus
no bias is introduced by using state proportions rather than individual BEA-
area factors.  Consequently, the factors are applied directly to state-level
data.

     The ORBES-region portion of total state use of petroleum products in
refining is based on capacity data in barrels per calendar day or barrels
per stream day.  Conceptually, the two measures are different, although in
one case, the percentages are identical for each state.  Again, it is possi-
ble to determine the ORBES portion for each state directly without deriving
separate BEA-area allocating factors.

     For natural gas refining (processing), again, we use the ratio of ORBES
capacity to total state capacity.

     State factors for total electric generation in the ORBES region were
based on the ratio of ORBES-region generating capacity (all fuels) to total
state generating capacity (all fuels).

     Losses and omissions (largely inventory changes) were allocated to the
ORBES region within states according to the average of fuel factors for
generating and refining.

     Following the above procedures, then, step 4 in the process entails
aggregation of the energy data by fuel type and end user to the desired
spatial area.  In this case, we follow the above procedures to provide 1974
energy consumption tables (see Appendix A).  Aggregated data  are provided  for
(1) the United States (Table A-l), (2) the ORBES region  (Table A-2), (3) the
ORBES six-state area  (Table A-3), and  (4)  individual states totally or partly
in the ORBES region (Tables A-4 through A-9).  The ORBES six-state and United
States energy consumption tables are calculated for purposes  of comparison
with the ORBES regional energy characieristics (differences in the export  of
electricity, end use of fuels, etc.).  Energy consumption tables for each  of
the six ORBES states are provided in order that the reader may understand  the
contribution to six-state energy consumption by each of  the individual
states.  Because this report focuses on ORBES region energy consumption, we
do not discuss the individual state tables below.

-------
                                  SECTION 4

              CALCULATION OF REGIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION TABLES

     The aggregation step discussed in Chapter 2 entails relatively complex
and tedious calculations.  Several assumptions are necessary in the process,
with adjustments made to the basic ORNL data to accomodate our own energy
consumption table format.  As this is the case, we describe below the details
of constructing our tables with reference to the basic ORNL data and adjust-
ments made to that data set.  The description of calculating procedures is
with reference to our United States energy consumption table (Table A-l)
using the data from the ORNL United Spates energy balance statement (Table
1).  The reader should refer to Table 1 when reading the following descrip-
tion of calculation procedures.

     The calculations described below also apply, of course, to the con-
struction of the ORBES region, ORBES six-state, and individual state energy
consumption tables.  For the ORBES-region energy consumption table (Table
A-2), it was necessary to apply the factors discussed above (Table D-l
through D-5) to the energy consumption for each BEA area (Tables C-l and C-2)
prior to aggregating for the regional table.  Total and partial BEA-area data
were then summed for the appropriate entry in the regional table.  For the
individual state energy consumption tables (Tables A-4 to A-9), direct use
was made of the individual state energy balance statements from the 1974 ORNL
document.  For the ORBES six-state total energy consumption data (Table A-3),
appropriate sums were taken from the individual state tables.

     Coal consumption for residential/commercial, industrial, transportation,
miscellaneous, electric power, and losses and omissions in our United States
table (Table A-l) is taken directly from the ORNL table (Table 1).  The sum
over these entries, then, represents the total estimated consumption of coal
in 1974 for all uses:  final demand, transformation processes, and inventory
changes (losses and omissions).

     Calculations for all petroleum products required first summing over
distillate oil, residual oil, gasoline, arid other hydrocarbons in the ORNL
table.  These data for final demand sectors, petroleum products, are taken
directly from Table 1.  Similarly, the sum for petroleum products used in
electric generation is taken from that table.  The refining and electric
generation sectors use energy in one form but provide it in another for final
consumption.  Because this is the case, the total energy use in the trans-
formation sector equals the conversion losses in the transformation process;
this is treated as part of final regional demand.  In the ORNL table a
positive number represents input to the transformation process; a negative
number, the output of the process.  To calculate our losses and omissions for


                                     16

-------
petroleum products, we took the sum of losses and omissions over the four
petroleum products in the ORNL table (preserving signs) added losses and
omissions from the crude oil column, and added the transformation losses from
the petorleum product row of the transformation sector in the ORNL table.
The latter figure is the "sector total" for the petroleum products row.  The
losses and omissions figure in our table, then, includes all these elements.
The sum of final demand sectors, electric power use of petroleum products,
and losses and omissions (including refining losses) represents the total
estimated 1974 consumption of petroleum products.  By following this pro-
cedure, it is not necessary to include a separate entry for crude oil in the
table.  In our ORBES regional table, specific fuels used in electric gener-
ation were determined by the proportion of a state's total generation within
the ORBES region for each fuel (Table D-2).

     In Table A-l, natural gas use is handled in the same manner as coal with
respect to the final demand sectors and electric generation (read directly
from the ORNL table), but losses and omissions are the sum of natural gas
losses and omissions plus the transformation loss in refining (processing),
which is read from the  "sector total" of the natural gas row in the transfor-
mation sector.  Losses  and omissions in natural gas, like petroleum products,
include the transformation losses  in refining as part  of regional total  con-
sumption.  The sum of final demand sectors,  electric generation use of
natural gas, and  losses and omissions  (including processing losses) repre-
sents the total consumption of natural gas.  Again, in our ORBES regional
table, specific fuels used in electric generation were determined by the pro-
portion of state  total  generation  within the ORBES  region  for each  fuel
 (Table D-2).

     Hydro/nuclear in Table A-l  is  obtained  from the appropriate entries in
the  "supply of energy"  portion  of  the  ORNL table; it is  reported in Btu's of
output.  This column  is labeled  hydro/nuclear  because, other than a trivial
amount in Ohio, there is essentially  no  other  non-fossil-fuel generation of
electricity in the region.

     The total primary  fuels  column in Table A-l  is the  row  sum for each
defined  sector.   Signs  must be  preserved in  the  summing  process.

      For distributed  electricity in the  final  demand  sectors of Table  A-l,
the  data were taken directly  from  the ORNL  table  but  adjusted upward  to
account  for transmission losses.  That is  to say, the  transmission  losses
were inputs to  the individual  final  demand  sectors.   A factor of 1.0977 was
 applied  to each  entry in the  final demand  sectors,  distributed  electricity,
 of the ORNL table;  this value  is the national  ratio for 1974 of losses and
 omissions  in  the  electricity  row in the ORNL table  to  total  final  demand for
 electricity  in  the same table.   The same adjusting  factor was used  for all
 our energy consumption  tables.   Proceeding in this  manner does  slightly
 overestimate  the  total  losses and omissions  data from the ORNL  tables (by 144
 in the case  of  the United  States—570,038  as compared to 569,894),  but it has
 the virtue of allocating the  associated transmission losses to  specific end
 user.   The difference in results between our estimated net imports  and that
 of ORNL,  however, is  trivial.   The "electric power" figure under distributed
 electricity'in  Table  A-l represents total  generation;  it was calculated as

                                      17

-------
electric generation (negative sign) from the ORNL table (electricity gener-
ation row, electricity column), to which is added the negative of hydro/
nuclear, geothermal,  and solar production of electricity.   Although no geo-
thermal and solar are reported for the ORBES region (except a trivial amount
in Ohio), there is a relatively small amount for the United States, which has
been included in the calculations for our national table of energy con-
sumption.  There are no losses and omissions in the distributed electricity
column; they have already been allocated to the final demand sectors.

     The total energy input column in Table A-l is the horizontal sum of the
total primary fuels column and the distributed electricity column.  In the
case of the electric power row, the sum of total primary fuels and distribu-
ted electricity (total generation with negative sign) represents waste heat.

     The "grand total" in our energy consumption tables represents an esti-
mate of the total amount of energy consumed during 1974 in the relevant geo-
graphical boundaries for each table.  it is obtained as the vertical sum
down the total energy input column.  Aside from the imputed transmission
losses to the final demand sectors in the distributed electricity calcu-
lations, our "grand total" will roughly correspond to the "total net usage/
sector total" figure in the ORNL tables.  That is, our figure is net of waste
heat and consequently is less than the total .primary fuel figure.  In each
case, for reasons discussed above, our total will be somewhat larger (sub-
stantially less than 1%) than the corresponding ORNL total net usage.

     Our row labeled "total final consumption" appears only for purposes of .
calculating the net import figure for electricity in our table.  Net imports
(if negative, exports) is the difference between the total final demand for
distributed electricity and total generation (electric power row, distributed
electricity column).  The percentage column, of course, is simply the ratio
of total energy input to the grand total figure for each sector.  As noted
earlier, exports of electricity should not  be interpreted  as a flow but
rather as a point estimate of the difference between generation and consump-
tion over the relevant accounting period (see Appendix B).

     The "total consumption, primary fuels"  row is the column sum over  each
fuel of  total final consumption, electric power, and losses and omissions.
The percentage row represents  the percentage each fuel is of the  total
primary  fuels figure.

     Following the above calculating procedures, our tables report,  for
different spatial definitions, energy consumption by designated fuel types
and end-use sectors as well as imports/exports of electricity, grand totals
of all  energy consumed, and total primary fuels.  For purposes of comparison,
we also  calculated two percentages:   (1) relative to the "grand total"  of
energy  consumption, the percentage associated with each defined sector  and
 (2) relative to the total use  of primary fuels, the percentage associated
with each particular  fuel.
                                     18

-------
                                  SECTION 5

       REGIONAL, SIX-STATE, AND UNITED STATES ENERGY CONSUMPTION,  1974

     Table A-2 reports energy consumption in 1974 for the ORBES region,  while
Tables A-l and A-3 report, respectively, the United States and ORBES six-
state area energy consumption for the same year.  Tables A-4 to A-9 report
the individual state energy consumption data.  Figures A-l and A-2 provide
graphic presentations of total energy consumed and total primary fuels con-
sumed, respectively, in the ORBES region, the six-state area, and the United
States.  Figure A-l is by end user, while A-2 is by fuel type.  Figure A-3 is
a graphic representation of the percentage of total energy consumed for each
geographic area by end-use category, while A-4 contains graphic materials
on the percentage each primary fuel is of total primary fuels used in each
geographic area.  The following discussion of results is in terms of Tables
A-l, A-2, A-3 and Figures A-l to A-4.

     While various details of the results reported here may be of interest
to different readers, several points are particularly important to the ORBES
project.  These points are discussed below; the interpretation of other re-
ported results is left to the reader.

     A marked difference is evident between total energy consumed during
1974 in the ORBES region and the six-state area.  An examination of Figure
A-l  (or Tables A-2 and A-3) reveals that total energy consumed in the ORBES
region by final demand sector and the total final demand for energy is every-
where approximately 50% of that consumed in the six-state area.  With regard
to total energy consumed in electric power, however, regional consumption is
approximately 77% of the six-state area total.  In total energy consumed,
then, the ORBES region tends to use relatively more in electric power than
does the six-state area (the region uses approximately 50% fewer quads in
toto but only 23% fewer quads in electric generation).

     Figure A-3 (and Tables A-l, A-2, and A-3) further supports the above
conclusions and adds additional insights into comparative energy consumption.
While the percent of total energy  consumed by individual final demand sectors
is everywhere less in the  ORBES region  than  in the  six-state  area  (except in
the miscellaneous sector, where they are the same), in the case of electric
power use of total energy  the percentage in  the ORBES region  is substantially
greater than in the six-state area  (24% compared  to 18%).  The percentage
difference is even greater between the  ORBES-region use  of total energy  for
electric power  and that of the United States  (24% as  compared to  15%).
Relative to both  the United States and  six-state  area, then,  the ORBES region
has  a greater concentration of total  energy  use in  electric power generation.
                                     19

-------
     The data on primary fuels consumed in each area reveal several other
features of regional energy consumption that reinforce the above conclusions.
As shown in Figure A-2 (and Tables A-l, A-2, and A-3), except for coal, the
amount of primary fuels used in the ORBES region is approximately 50% of that
used in the six-state area.  In the case of coal, the region uses approxi-
mately 72% of that used in the six-state area.  Further, as seen in Tables
A-l, A-2, and A-3, the percentage of total primary fuels used in all final
demand sectors is less for the ORBES region than for the six-state area or
the United States:  the ORBES region >ises 64% of total primary fuels in all
final demand sectors while the six-state area uses 71% and the United States
75%.  Said differently, the ORBES region uses approximately 34% of total
primary fuels for electric generation compared to 24% and 27% for, re-
spectively, the United States and the six-state area  (losses and omissions
bring these totals to 100%).  As was true of total energy consumption, then,
the ORBES regional pattern of primary fuel consumption is dramatically
different from that of the six-state area or the United States:  the region
uses approximately 50% as much primary fuels as the six-state area except for
coal where it uses 72% as much, and primary fuel use  in the region is more
concentrated in electric production than is true of the six-state area or the
United States.

     These results suggest, of course, that coal plays a prominent role in
the region relative to the six-state area and the United States and, more-
over, helps account,  in part, for the  relative specialization of  the region
in  electric power production.  Figure  A-4 shows that  coal accounts for
approximately 49% of  total primary fuels  in the ORBES region but  only 40% in
the six-state area and 19% in the United  States.  Further, as seen in Tables
A-l, A-2, and A-3, coal constitutes approximately 95% of total primary fuel
use in electric generation in the ORBKS region compared to 90% and 51% for,
respectively, the ORBES six states and  the  United States.  For industrial
use of total primary  fuels, coal constitutes  approximately 48% and 21% for,
respectively, the ORBES six states and the  United States.  Clearly, relative
to  the six-state  area and  the United States,  the ORBES  region makes heavy
use of coal as  a  primary fuel.

     The  distribution of total coal used  in the  ORBES region reflects  the
relative  concentration of  its use  in electric power  generation:   67%  of
total coal used in  the ORBES  region is for  electric  power  generation,  com-
pared to  60% and  64%  for the  six-state area and  the  United States, re-
spectively.

     The  conclusion  regarding coal, then,  is  quite  clear:  the ORBES  region
uses a  substantially  greater  percentage of  coal  as  a primary fuel than
either  the United States or the  six-si ate area,  and  coal  use in  electric
generation for  the  region  constitutes  a higher  percentage, by  end user,  of
coal  than is true for the  United States or  the  six-state  area.   This  char-
acteristic of coal  use  in  the region  is further supported  by the  data on
total energy use  depicted  in  Figures A-l  and  A-3.

     The  above  discussion  of  electric  generation makes  clear that,  relative
to  the  United States  and the  six-state area,  the ORBES  region  is  specialized
in  the  use of total  energy and  total primary  fuels  for  the production of

                                     20

-------
electricity.  Tables A-l, A-2, and A-3 further reveal the extent to which the
region is a net exporter of electric:ty.  In the ORBES region, net imports
are -276,357 (exports), compared to -112,450 for the six-state area and
+43,469 for the United States (imports).  It should be noted that the method
of calculating energy consumption for different spatial regions does not tell
us, of course, whether the exported electricity is going to non-ORBES areas
within the six states or to other states.  Nonetheless, we can determine the
extent to which the ORBES region is export-oriented relative to the six-state
area and the United States.  From our tables, the ORBES regional exports of
electricity are 246% of the six-state total exports of electricity, while
total ORBES-region generation is only 69% of generation in the six-state
area.  Another way to view the matter is to note that 93% of electricity
generated in the six-state area is used locally, while only 74% of that
generated in the ORBES region is used locally.

     The conclusion regarding electric consumption and export, then, is
quite clear:  relative to the six-state area, the ORBES region is special-
ized in the generation of electricity and is heavily oriented toward the
export of electricity.

     Of some interest also is the relative role of hydro/nuclear, geothermal,
and solar in the three spatial regions.  With reference to Figures A-2 and
A-4, non-fossil fuels play a conspicuously smaller role in the ORBES region
than in the six-state area or the United States.  In terms of percentage use
of total primary fuels, the United States, six-state area, and ORBES region
uses of non-fossil fuels are 2%, 1%, and 0%  (36,827 X 109 Btu's),
respectively.

     This work, then, supports the following general conclusions:

     1.  The ORBES-region consumption of total energy and primary fuels
         is dramatically different from that of the six-state area.

     2.  Relative to the six-state area and the United States, the ORBES
         region is highly specialized in electric production and the
         export of electricity.

     3.  Relative to uses of primary fuels in the six-state area and the
         United States, the ORBES region is more oriented toward (1) the
         use of primary fuels for electric generation and (2) the use of
         coal as a primary fuel.

     4.  Within the ORBES region, non-fossil fuels play an insignificant
         role when compared to their use in the six-state area and the
         United States.  In all cases, the percentage of total primary
         fuels associated with non-fossil fuels is very small  (the
         maximum is 2% for the United States).

-------
                                 REFERENCES

1.   Rice,  P.  L.,  and D.  P.  Vogt,  Energy Availabilities  for State  and  Local
    Development;   A Methodological  and  Data  Overview,  (ORNL/TM-5890),  Oak
    Ridge  National Laboratory,  Oak  Ridge,  Tennessee,  1977.

2.   Vogt,  D.  P.,  P. L.  Rice,  and  V. P.  Pai,  Energy Availabilities for State
    and Local Development:   1974  Data Volume,  (ORNL/TM-5890/53),  Oak  Ridge
    National  Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,  1977.

3.   Crump, L. H., Fuels and Energy  Data:  United States by States and Census
    Divisions, 1974 (1C 8739),  U.S. Department of the Interior,  Bureau of
    Mines, Washington,  B.C.,  1977.

4.   Coleman,  E. J., and J.S.  Goodman, Local  Area Personal Income 1970-75,
    Volume 1, Summary,  Department of Commerce,  Bureau of Economic Analysis,
    Washington, D.C., 1977.

5.   Olsen, R.J.,  et al., Multiregion:  A Simulation-Forecasting Model of
    BEA Economic  Area Population and Employment, (ORNL/RUS-25),  Oak Ridge
    National  Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,  1977.

-------
                APPENDIX A

ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE
       TABLES A-l TO A-9, 1974,  AND
           CORRESPONDING FIGURES
                A-l TO A-4

-------
                                                         TABLE A-l

                              ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE, 1974, UNITED STATES

                                                   (all units 109 Btu's)


Sector/Source
HesiUentiaf
L Commercial
Indust n al A
Iransportation
'ti seel laneous
Total Final
A
Floe' ri c Power fi
I osscs L
umi.ss i ons
Total
Consumpt ion 13
Primary Fuels
Percentage?

Coal
297,503
,129,400
2,089
-
,428,992
,683,269
jj.i, 1 J(i
,645,387
19
XOTK: Transfornidt ion loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Total
Petroleum Natural Hydro/ Primary
Product Gas Nuclear Fuels
5,953,821 7,083,205 - 13,334,529
5,909,405 10,018,175 - 20,056,980
17,733,618 684,891 - 18,420,598
406, ?64 -134,382 - 840,946
30,003,408 18,220,653 - ^2,6^3,0=3
3, 367,. '97 3,500,833 1,435,783 16,987,179
-l«iy,itf(J 3t>9, Itii - 953,133
33,221,525 22,290,673 1,435,783 70,593,365
47 32 2 -
electric generation --- 68.33.,
petroleum products = 0.49%
natural gas = 8.42%
synthetic gas = 0.00%
Total
Distributed Energy
Electricity Input. Percentage*
3,628,983 16,963,512 24
2,666,994 22,723,974 32
15,984 18,436,582 26
92,650 933,596 1
6 , 104 ,611 5
-------
                                                         TABLE  A-2
                             ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY  SECTOR  AND  FUEL  TYPE,  1974, ORBES REGION

                                                 (all  units in  10  Btu's)
Sourcc/bector Coal
Residential
C C omme re i a 1 '
Industrial 1,368,807
Transport. it t on 21 7
Miscellaneous -
'!UUU hinal 1,431,711
consumption
Electric Power 3,316,566
';°SSeS £ 213.518
Omissions
Total
Consumption 4,961,795
Primary Fuels
Percentages 49
Total
Petroleum Natural Hydro/ Primary
Product Gas Nuclear Fuels
577,391 1,070,768 - 1,710,846
618,754 867,748 - 2,855,309
1,752,561 73,742 - 1,826,520
34,227 55,171 - 89,398
2,982,933 2,067,429 - 6,482,073
86,768 41,444 36,827 3,481,605
-18,033 46,333 - 241,818


3,051,668 2,155,206 36,827 10,205,496

30 21 0
Total
Distributed Energy
Electricity Input Percentage*
375,959 2,086,805 21
420,375 3,275,684 33
1,649 1,828,169 18
7,203 96,601 1
805,186 7,287,259 73
-1,081,543^ 2,400,062^ 24
0 241,818 3

NET IMPORTS - -276,357
GRAND TOTAL (NET) - 9,929,139

NOTE:  Transformation loss  for  electric  generation  =  68.55% (weighted  average  of  six-state  transformation  losses)

* Percentage of grand total
/ Total generation
^ Waste heat
5 Percentage of total consumption,  primary fuels

-------
                                                         TABLE A-3

                            ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND  FUEL TYPE,  1974,  ORBES  SIX  STATES
                                                                 g
                                                 (all units in 10  Btu's)

Sector/Source Coal
Residential
£ Commercial 106,795
Industrial 2,415,479
Transportation 445
Miscella
t: l'.| a! ! •
Consumpt
Electric
neous 0
'"ll J. 5^.719
i on
Power 4,148,052
LUSSCS ^ 271 220
Omissions '
Total
Consumption 6,941,991
Primary Fuels
Percentages 40
Petroleum
Product
1,177,488
1,366,200
3,341,810
75,392
5,960,890
280,060
-30,986
6,209,964
36
Total
Natural Hydro/ Primary
Gas Nuclear Fuels
2,072,422 - 3,356,705
1,607,644 - 5,389,323
110,321 - 3,452,576
87,791 - 163,183
3,878,178 - 12,361,787
91,773 113,006 4,632,891
81,364 - 321,598
4,051,315 113,006 17,316,276
23 1
Total
Distributed Energy
Electricity Input Percentage*
694,959 4,051,664 24
738,592 6,127,915 36
4,797 3,457,373 20
12,952 176,135 1
1,451,300 13,813,087 80
-1,563,750^ 3,069,141^ 18
0 321,598 2
NET IMPORTS - -112,450
GRAND TOTAL (NET) - 17,203,826

NU1K
   K:  'Iransfurnidlion lus^eia i'ur each individual state ut>ed in calculation.   See  Tables  C—3  to  C—fi
* Percentage of grand total
/ Total generation
^ Waste heat
! Percentage of total consumption,  primary fuels

-------
                                                         TABLE A-4  '
                                ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE, 1974, ILLINOIS
                                                   (all units in 109 Btu's)
Sector/Source
                     Coal
                                                      Total                        Total
            Petroleum      Natural        Hydro/     Primary       Distributed     Energy
             Product         Gas         Nuclear      Fuels        Electricity     Input
                                                                                                                 Percentage*
Residential
G Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
Mi seellaneous
Total Final
Consumption
Electric Power
Losses £
 24,896
198,698
    127
223,721
671,652
 36,404
  315,083
  369,488
  915,174
   29,153
1,628,898
   72,196
   -7,257
  666,121
  413,783
   19,621
   27,139
1,126,644
   43,590
   24,960
67,228
1,006,100
  981,969
  934,922
   56,292
2,979,283
  854,666
   54,107
 179,000
 124,536
   1,200
   5,945
 310,681
-312,601''
    0
1,185,100
1,106,505
  936,122
   62,237
3,289,964
  542,065^
   54,107
31
29
24
 2
85
14
 1
Total
Consumption
Primary Fuels
Percentages

931,777

24

1,693,837

44

1,195,214 67,228 3,888,056

31 2 -

NET IMPORTS
GRAND TOTAL (NET)


-1,920
- 3,886,136

NOTE:  Transformation loss for electric  generation = 68.84%
       Transformation loss for petroleum products  =  0.42%
       Transformation loss for natural gas          =  8.42%
       Transformation loss for synthetic gas       =  0.00%
* Percentage of grand total
/ Total generation
4 Waste heat
§ Percentage of total consumption,  primary  fuels

-------
                                                         TABLE A-5

                                 ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE,  1974,  INDIANA
                                                                 q
                                                 (all units in 10  Btu's)


Sector/Source Coal
Residential
£ Commercial '
Industrial 439,151
Transportation 47
Miscellaneous -
Total Final
Consumption 451,882
Electric Power 542,806
''°SSeS 40,442
Omissions
Total
-Consumption 1,035,130
Primary Fuels
Percentages 42
NOTE: Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for

Petroleum
Product
222,696
192,290
438,738
16,216
869,940
16,707
1 ,235
887,882
36

Natural Hydro/
Gas Nuclear
228,362
268,262
12,845
11,093
520,562
14,251 1,518
10,347
545,160 1,518
22 0
Total
Primary
Fuels
463,742
899,703
451,630
27,309
1,842,384
575,282
52,024
2,469,690
~
Total
Distributed Energy
Electricity Input Percentage*
85,570 549,312 22
90,501 990,204 40
100 451,730 18
206 27,515 1
176,377 2,018,761 82
-190,229 385,053 16
0 52,024 2

NET IMPORTS - -13,852
GRAND TOTAL (NET) - 2,455,838

electric generation = 67.11%
petroleum products = 0.62%
natural gas = 0.00%
synthetic gas = 0.00%
* Percentage
/ Total generation
£ Waste heat
§ Percentage of total consumption,  primary fuels

-------
                                                         TABLE A-6
                                ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE, 1974, KENTUCKY
                                                 (all units in 10  Btu's)


Sector/Source
Resident ial
£ Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
Miscellaneous

Coal
9,008
94,579
30
-
Total Final
Consumption 103,617
Electric Power 480,535
Losses £
Om i s L : u r i ,
Total
23,750
Consumption 607,902
Primary fuels
Percentages
NOTE: Transformation
Transformation
Transformation
Transformation
49
loss for
loss for
loss for
loss for
Total Total
Petroleum Natural Hydro/ Primary Distributed Energy
Product Gas Nuclear Fuels Electricity Input Percentage*
55,843 111,645 - 176,496 65,365 241,861 20
65,787 79,277 - 239,643 95,632 335,275 27
267,167 30,027 - 297,224 - 297,224 24
2,666 9,608 - 12,274 2,903 15,177 1
391,463 230,557 - 725,637 163,900 889,537 72
1,258 5,578 11,596 498,967 -176,073 322,894 26
-2,643 5.828 - 26,935 0 26,935 2

390,078 241,963 11,596 1,251,539 NET IMPORTS - -12,173
GRAND TOTAL (NET) - 1,239,366
31 19 1
electric generation = 66.25%
petroleum products = 0.56/t
natural gas = 8.42%
synthetic gas = 0.00%
* Percentage
/ Total generation
/ Waste heat
§ Percentage of total consumption,  primary fuels

-------
                                                         TABLE A-7

                                  ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE,  1974,  OHIO
                                                                 9
                                                 (all units in 10  Btu's)


Sector/Source Coal
Hesidential g
c» Commercial
Industrial 630,122
Transportation 102
Miscellaneous -
Total Final
f fin sump f i <>n
Klectrie Power 1,010,180
Losses C . ,
68,113
Omissions
Total
Consumption 1,743,376
Primary Fuels
Percentages 42
NOTE: Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for

Petroleum
Product
195,995
272,332
772,939
6,964
1,248,230
38,992
-11,909
1,275,313
31
Total
Natural Hydro/ Primary
Gas Nuclear Fuels
619,804 - 850,658
433,532 - 1,335,986
10,295 - 783,336
22,818 - 29,782
1,086,449 - 2,999,762
19,980 44 1,069,196
20,760 - 76,964
1,127,189 44 4,145,922
27 0 -
Total
Distributed Energy
Electricity Input Percentage*
175,115 1,025,773 24
219,344 1,555,330 37
100 783,436 19
3,433 33,215 1
397,992 3,397,754 81
-335,114^ 734,082^ 17
0 76,964 2

NET IMPORTS - 62,878
GRAND TOTAL (NET) - 4,208,800

electric generation = 68.66%
petroleum products = 0.12%
natural gas = 0.00%
synthetic gas = 0.00%
* Percentage
/ Total generation
^ Waste heat
§ Percentage of total consumption,  primary fuels

-------
                                                         TABLE A-8

                              ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE, 1974, PENNSYLVANIA

                                                 (all units in 109 Btu's)



Sec tor /Source
Residential
C Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
Mi seel laneous
Total Final

Electric Power
I osses E
Omissions
Total
Consttmption
Primary Fuels
Percentage§


Coal
15,364
797,411
120
-

812,895
844,218

67 ,375
1,724,488

41
NOTE: Transformation lot>s for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Total Total
Petroleum Natural Hydro/ Primary Distributed Energy
Product Gas Nuclear Fuels Electricity Input Percentage*
374,354 370,658 - 760,376 162,753 923,129 22
374,682 301,906 - 1,473,999 170,904 1,644,903 39
820,770 21,515 - 842,405 3,397 845,802 20
19,332 12,776 - 32,108 426 32,534 1

1,589,138 706,855 - 3,108,888 337,480 3,446,368 82
143,491 7,989 30,993 1,026,691 -339,830 686,861 16

-4,572 13,862 - 76,065 0 76,665 2
1,728,057 728,806 30,993 4,212,244 NET IMPORTS - -2,350
GRAND TOTAL (NET) - 4,209,894
41 17 1
electric generation = 68.98%
petroleum products = 0.26%
natural gas = 8.70%
synthetic gas = 0.00%
* Percentage of grand total
/ Total generation
4 Waste heat
i Percentage of total consumption,  primary fuels

-------
                                                         TABLE A-9
                              ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND FUEL TYPE, 1974, WEST VIRGINIA

                                                 (all units in 109 Btu's)


Sector/Source Coal
Residential g gg4
£ Commercial '
Industrial 255,518
Transportation 19
Mascel laneous
Total Final
265,521
( onsumn1" u>n
OJ
to
Electric 1'ower 598,661
Losses C
3 f> , 1 .^fr
Total
Consumption 899,318
Primary Fuels
Percentage? 67
NOTE: Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for
Transformation loss for

Total
Petroleum Natural Hydro/ Primary
Product Gas Nuclear Fuels
13,
91,
127,
] ,
233,
7,
-5,
234,
517 75,832 - 99,333
621 110,884 - 458,023
022 16,018 - 143,059
061 4,357 - ?,418
221 207,091 - 705,833
416 385 1,627 608,089
340 5,607 - 34,903
797 213,083 1,627 1,348,825
17 16 0
Total
Distributed Energy
Electricity Input Percentage*
27,157 126,490 11
37,675 495,698 41
143,059 12
38 5,456 0
64,870 770,703 64
-209,903 398,186 33
0 34,903 3

NET IMPORTS - -145,033
GRAND TOTALS (NET) - 1,203,792

electric generation - 65.66',o
petroleum products = 0.53%
natural gas = 8.42%
syntehtic gas = 0.00%
* Percentage
•f- Total generation
^ Waste heat
i Percentage of total consumption,  primary fuels

-------
                    FIGURE A-l

  TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMED, 1974, BY END USER FOR THE
UNITED STATES, ORBES SIX-STATE  AREA, AND ORBES REGION
IUU
75

fe 50
in
O
25
. ffl UNITED STATES
• — « i * ^f ^* i » *^ ^« ^^ • * ••>. ^ i •^ i v
70.6
D SIX-STATE
H ORBES
22.7
vn M ™
^412, P
«%3 li^ ^_2 ,
59.
^
13.8

S:S;1 K^/l L.'.J
'ffj


17.2
I9'9
.^ ^y «i/ ^* Co v/ o o o- ^^
^> ^- ^T -^fc N^ ^y ^^ O-' /^ *^
, -o ^ n> fu zX
^ ^ xf^"
Jf/ V A/ f?

^


-------
                       FIGURE  A-2
ID
h-
GD
to
O
   80
   60
40
   20
             TOTAL  PRIMARY FUELS CONSUMED,
          1974, BY FUEL FOR THE UNITED STATES,
         ORBES SIX-STATE AREA, AND ORBES REGION
UNITED STATES
SIX-STATE
ORBES
     33.2
                                          70.6
                               •/ ,O


-------
                     9

                           m

        m
        o



        ^
        m

                 m

                 c
                 2
             70
             O
             m
          m
          o  o

          CO
          rj  H
          >  O

          m  t>
                 o m
                 33 2
                 CD m
                 m 33
                 CO CD
w
X
1
CO
H
>
H
m
>
33
m
>
0
o
CO
c
S
m
o
4*
CD
->l
.&
O
C
m

J>
OJ


                                       o

                                       o

                                       CD
                                       m
                    -<
                    m
                                          CO
                                          m
                                          •n
                                          O

-------
                 FIGURE  A-4
       PERCENT OF TOTAL PRIMARY FUELS
    CONSUMED, 1974, BY FUEL FOR THE UNITED
STATES, ORBES SIX-STATE AREA, AND ORBES REGION
IUU
fcS 75
° LL
LU >-
CD Q;
? g 50
-^ *2
lit rw*
LU LL
LU —1 OR
Q_ < £0
h-
o
1-









_



" 19
I

(
t







40



>s/
?
>






49









0 UNITED STATES
D SIX-STATE

H ORBES
A* 7 C\.
" I i O
IS/S

V/ 36
^ I30 32
/^ :•:•:::•:: %V ;>:Si
% m % 11 „
^ A$|H ^ SSS j^j 1 0(36.827 x!09BTU)
^ co v co ^ ^ Q:
*S cT ^ r'*" 
-------
         APPENDIX B




REGIONAL ELECTRICITY EXPORTS
             37

-------
                                 APPENDIX B

                        REGIONAL ELECTRICITY EXPORTS           '  .,

     In this report, electricity exports are the difference between the esti-
mated annual consumption of electricity in the region and the total annual
generation of electricity by plants within the region.  The purpose of draw-
ing a distinction between annual domestic and export consumption of elec-
tricity is to provide a comparison between the 1974 situation reported in the
text and year 2000 domestic and export electric demand characteristics from
the output of the ORBES regional fuel and energy demand model.  Further, the
split between domestic and export consumption of electricity generated in the
region, 1974, is an important piece of input information to the specification
of parameters in the regional demand model.  The notion of electricity ex-
ports, then, used in this report is based on the difference between "stock"
variables over an annual period rather than "flow" variables.  Hence, the
estimate of ORBES electricity exports, 1974, in the text does not suggest
that magnitude is realized in any particular day, week, or month, but rather
over the year that amount is exported from the region.

     Load management considerations by a given generating company reflect
"flow" considerations at a point in time where time tends to be dichotomized
with respect to baseload and peaking requirements.  Conceptually, a gener-
ating company perceives of a specific service area it attempts to satisfy
with respect to estimated baseload and peaking requirements (it estimates a
load curve).  These are only estimates and generation/load will not neces-
sarily be in balance at any specific point in time.  Consequently, purchases
and sales of electricity take place between the given company and others in
order to correct for any over or underestimation at a point in time.  Such
transfers, from the point of view of a given company, would constitute ex-
ports or imports of electricity relative to the geographic boundaries of the
service area.  Similarly, exports or  imports of electricity for a larger geo-
graphic area than a company service area, say a reliability council area,
would be estimated by aggregating over the companies within the reliability
council area.  Such estimates could be performed for any time period desired
(daily, weekly, etc.).  These estimates would rely upon knowledge of company
service areas and intercompany sales of electricity over the relevant time
period.  If the exercise were performed for a specified region over a one
year period, say the ORBES Phase II boundaries, the estimate of electricity
exports should roughly correspond to  that derived by the procedure used in
this report.

     As noted in the text of this report, the calculation of 1974 ORBES
region (Phase II boundaries), electricity consumption by end user and fuel
type is handled with a fairly elaborate estimating procedure.  Generation is


                                     38

-------
estimated with a more straightforward procedure,  again outlined in the text.
The results of those calculations (Table A-2)  reveal that approximately 26,5%
of electricity generated in the ORBES region,  1974,  was exported outside of
the region.  Calculations performed by staff members of ECAR and reported to
this author in a letter from Mr. Owen Lentz, Executive Manager of ECAR, dated
April 16, 1979, estimates electricity exports from the ORBES region, 1974, at
26.6% of generation.  The calculations performed by Mr. Lentz and his staff
represent, of course, the second approach outlined above.  There exists,
then, a very close degree of correspondence between the two estimates, each
following different approaches to calculating regional electricity exports.
One has confidence, therefore, in the electric sector estimates reported in
this text.

     There exists, however, two conceptual matters concerning electricity ex-
ports which require further discussion.  These are:   (1) the sensitivity of
electricity exports to the selection of geographical boundaries and (2) the
relationship of electricity exports to the distribution of social costs from
power generation.

     As generating units and service areas can be located spatially, clearly
the specification of a regional boundary will be an important determinant of
the estimated export of electricity.  During the ORBES project, electricity
exports have been calculated for three different regional boundaries; Phase I
and II boundaries as well as the area approximately either side of the Ohio
River from Pittsburgh to the extreme southern tip of Illinois.  Phase I
boundaries are identical to Phase II (see Figure 1 in text) except Pennsyl-
vania and West Virginia were not included in Phase I.  The region from
Pittsburgh to the extreme tip of Illinois along the Ohio was examined as an
area approximating the present and proposed concentration of power plants
along the Ohio River.  The present writer provided calculations of elec-
tricity exports for the ORBES Phase II boundary and the Ohio River boundary
while Mr. Lentz of ECAR provided calculations for Phase I and Phase II
boundaries (letter dated April 16, 1979).  For convenience, these estimates
and the designation of geographical boundaries are presented below.
Estimates of Electricity Exports with Alternative Boundaries
Boundary ECAR (Lentz) Page
ORBES Phase II
ORBES Phase I
Ohio River
26.6%
14.3%
none
26.5%
none
41%
     As noted earlier, the Phase II electricity export calculations performed
by Mr. Lentz's office and those reported here are almost identical.  The
Phase I boundary calculation performed by Mr. Lentz shows a lesser degree of
specialization in electricity export.  In large measure this is due to the
addition of the West Virginia electric sector for the Phase II boundaries, as
West Virginia is a major exporter of electricity.  Such an addition, in this
writer's view, is justified in terms of the project mandate from Congress.  A
similar justification can be made for the addition of southwestern

-------
Pennsylvania to the study area in Phase II.   In terms of potential impacts
from power development, the addition of West Virginia to the study regions
seems necessary in order to examine the implications for regional coal use
associated with power developments.  The Ohio River boundary calculation
noted above represents a much higher percentage of eJectricity exported than
either Phase 1 or Phase II boundaries.   This is due, of course, to the
boundary capturing the present concentration of power plants along the Ohio
River.  Much of what is generated in that area (41%) is exported to centers
of economic activity away from the river.

     The purpose of the above discussion, then, is to clarify the sensitivity
of electric export calculations to the selection of geographic boundaries.
The point, of course, is quite clear:  The closer the boundary corresponds to
concentrated power plants, the greater tends to be the estimate of electrici-
ty exports for a given year.  As to the selection of the boundaries for Phase
II of the project, several criterion were employed and discussed by the Core
Team and Advisory Committee.  Among other criteria for final selection of the
boundaries, inclusion of the Interior and Appalachian coal reserves, exclu-
sion of areas bordering on the Great Lakes and relative economic homogeneity
appear to have been important.  The selected boundary appears to be a reason-
able compromise on those criteria and was selected with input from both the
Core Team and Advisory Committee of ORBES.  Given that boundary, Mr. Lentz's
calculations correspond extremely well to those of the present writer.

     The final matter requiring discussion concerns the relationship between
electricity exports and the distribution of social costs from power gener-
ation.  This issue goes to the original discussion leading to funding of the
ORBES project.  That is to say, what is the justification for arguing that
the proposed concentration of power plants in the Ohio River Drainage Basin
constitutes a social economic and/or political issue of sufficient magnitude
to undertake the present project?  Further, of what significance are elec-
tricity exports to that concern?

     The characteristic of the problem is the difference between private
costs (the producer's perspective) and the distribution and magnitude of full
social costs (the perspective of organized citizens such as Save the Valley).
To illustrate the point, assume the area (A) formed by the solid line in the
figure below is some arbitrary geographic service area for electricity while
the dashed subarea (B) represents a concentration of power plants to service
the load requirements throughout the entire region A.  The utilities, focus-
ing on private cost minimization subject to system integrity, site
                                   /   B
                                     40

-------
feasibility and other decision rules,  argue that the concentration of plants
within area B is justified.  Organized citizens, however, may argue as
follows:  (1) The environmental quality within B is substantially deterio-
rated because of residuals associated with generation and, as a consequence,
the human, etc. impacts from power production are heavily concentrated in B
and (2) there may be region-wide (throughout A) impacts associated with
generation and transmission over long distances of residuals which effect the
health and well-being of the entire population in the region A.  To the ex-
tent that there are substantial exports of electricity from corridor B, those
living in B believe they have even stronger arguments related to localized
impacts and the distribution of health and other costs of servicing total
demands in A (they must bear an inordinate amount of the social costs asso-
ciated with electric demands substantial distances from them).  The utili-
ties, as a regulated industry, are focusing attention on the private (legally
defined) costs of servicing electric demand in region A while concerned
citizens are looking to the social costs associated with power production,
both the total social costs to the area and what they perceive to be the un-
equal distribution of those costs (concentrated in area B).  Both perspec-
tives are legitimate, although one represents a less comprehensive notion of
costs (utilities) than the other (concerned citizens) in the sense that full
social costs from power production are not considered in the former.

     The above discussion  is relevant only to the extent that environmental
emissions (liquid, gaseous or solid residuals emitted into the environment)
do indeed entail human "costs" in the form of health damages, reductions in
agricultural productivity, etc. which are not internally calculated as a
private (legal) cost by producers.  The object of the present project is to
estimate the magnitude and concentration of these costs  (impacts) to citizens
of the Ohio Valley or to those in areas removed from the Valley but exposed
to environmental deterioration due to long-range transport of pollutants.
These estimates are made under a variety of hypothetical or plausable future
conditions.

     To the extent, then,  that the ORBES region is export oriented with
respect to electricity, there may be a concentration of these social costs
within the region and the  charge of ORBES researchers is to estimate those
costs.  The calculation of the electricity export nature of the region serves
as an index  (comparatively speaking) of the potential magnitude of these
social costs.  Viewed differently, the electric export characteristics of the
region serves  implicitly as a parameter for the extent to which the citizens
of the Ohio Valley bear social costs for servicing the electric demand loads
outside of the region.  Electricity exports, then, are analytically important
in examining regional impacts associated with energy and fuel developments  in
the Ohio River Valley.
                                     41

-------
                   APPENDIX C




BEA AREAS PARTLY AND TOTALLY IN THE ORBES REGION
                       42

-------
                                APPENDIX C

              BEA AREAS  PARTLY  AND  TOTALLY  IN THE ORBES REGION


                                 TABLE  C-l

                   BEA AREAS PARTLY WITHIN  THE  ORBES  REGION
BEA Number
          ORBES Counties
          Non-ORBES Counties
    10

    11


    19
    49
PA:  Venango, Forest

PA:  Elk, Jefferson,
     Clearfield

WV:  Grant
KY:  Trigg, Christian, Todd,
     Logan, Butler, Warren,
     Simpson, Allen, Monroe,
     Cumberland, Metcalfe,
     Barren, Edmonson,
     Clinton
PA:  Erie, Crawford, Warren

PA:  Centre, Cameron, Clinton,
     Lycoming, Sullivan

WV:  Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire,
     Morgan, Berkeley, Jefferson

VA:  Bath, Rockbridge, Augusta,
     Rockingham, Page,
     Shenandoah, Warren, Clarke,
     Frederick, Highland, Buena
     Vista*, Harrisonburg,
     Lexington*, Staunton*,
     Waynesboro*, Winchester*

TN:  Stewart, Houston, Benton,
     Perry, Lewis, Lawrence,
     Giles, Marshall, Moore,
     Bedford, Coffee, Warren,
     Van Buren, White, Putnam,
     Wilson, Robertson,
     Montgomery, Dickson,
     Overton, Pickett, Clay,
     Macon, Sumner, Davidson,
     Cheatham, Hickman,
     Humphreys, Maury,
     Williamson, Rutherford,
     Cannon, Dekalb, Smith,
     Jackson, Trousdale
independent cities
                                 (continued)

                                     43

-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
BEA Number
ORBES Counties
Non-ORBES Counties
    50    KY:  Wayne, McCreary,
               Whitley,  Bell, Knox,
               Harlan, Laurel
    51    WV:  McDowell,  Mercer
    66    WV:  Hancock, Brooke, Ohio,
               Marshall, Tyler, Wetzel

          OH:  Monroe, Belmont,
               Harrison, Jefferson

          PA:  Clairon, Armstrong,
               Indiana, Cambria,
               Somerset, Westmoreland,
               Fayette, Greene,
               Washington, Allegheny,
               Butler, Beaver

    68    OH:  Wyandot, Crawford,
               Richland, Ashland,
               Morrow, Knox,
               Coshocton, Tuscarawas,
               Carroll, Holmes, Wayne,
               Stark, Portage,
               Columbiana, Summit,
               Medina

    69    OH:  Mercer, Allen,
               Auglaize, Hardin
                        TN:  Claiborne, Grainger,
                             Hamblen, Jefferson,  Cocke,
                             Sevier, Blount, Knox,
                             Anderson, Monroe,  Loudon,
                             Morgan, Roane,  Fentress,
                             Cumberland, Scott, Campbell,
                             Union

                        TN:  Hancock, Hawkins,  Sullivan,
                             Carter, Johnson, Unicoi,
                             Washington, Greene

                        VA:  Buchanan, Bland, Dickenson,
                             Lee, Russell, Smyth,
                             Tazewell, Norton,  Wise,
                             Washington, Scott, Bristol*,

                        WV:  Mineral
                        MD:  Allegany, Garrett
                        OH:  Erie, Huron, Lake, Lorain,
                             Cuyahoga, Geauga, Ashtabula
                        OH:  Putnam, Van Wert
                                 (continued)


                                    44

-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
BEA Number
     ORBES  Counties
          Non-ORBES Counties
    75    IN:  Noble,  Allen,  Whitley,
               Adams,  Wells,
               Huntington,  Wabash
    76    IN:  Fulton, Marshall,
               Kosciusko
    77    IL:
          IN:
    79    IL:
La Salle,  Grundy
Putnam, Livingston,
Iroquois,  Kankakee

Jasper, Pulaski, Starke


Mercer, Henry, Bureau
   113    IL:
   114    IL:
Henderson, Hancock,
Adams, Schuyler, Brown,
Pike
Calhoun, Greene,
Jersey, Madison, Bond,
Macoupin, Montgomery,
Fayette, Effingham,
Jasper, Richland, St.
Clair, Clinton, Marion,
Clay, Wayne, Jefferson,
Washington, Monroe,
Randolph, Perry,
Franklin, Jackson,
Williamson
                             IN:   Steuben,  Dekalb
OH:  Williams, Defiance,  Paulding

IN:  St. Joseph, Elkhart,
     Lagrange

MI:  Berrien, Cass, St. Joseph

IL:  Kendall, Cook, Dekalb, Kane,
     DuPage, McHenry, Lake, Will
IN:  LaPorte, Porter, Lake,
     Newton

IL:  Rock Island, Whiteside,
     Carroll

IA:  Clinton, Scott, Muscatine,
     Louisa

IA:  Lee, Henry, Des Moines
MO:  Clark, Lewis, Marion, Rails

MO:  St. Louis, St. Louis City,
     Franklin, Jefferson, St.
     Charles, Pike, Lincoln,
     Montgomery, Warren,
     Gasconade, Maries, Pulaski,
     Laclede, Texas, Dent,
     Reynolds, Iron, Madison,
     Perry, St. Francois, St.
     Genevieve, Washington,
     Crawford, Phelps
                                 (continued)

                                     45

-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
BEA Number
ORBES Counties
Non-ORBES Counties
   115    IL:  Union, Johnson,  Pope,
               Hardin, Massac,
               Pulaski, Alexander
          KY:  Livingston, Lyon,
               Marshal1,  Cal1oway,
               Graves, Fulton,
               Hickman, Carlisle,
               Ballard, McCracken
                        MO:  Carter, Ripley,  Wayne,
                             Bellinger, Butler,  Cape
                             Girardeau, Scott, Stoddard,
                             Mississippi, New Madrid,
                             Pemiscot, Dunklin

                        TN:  Obion, Lake
                                  TABLE C-2

                  BEA AREAS TOTALLY WITHIN THE ORBES REGION
BEA Number
ORBES Counties
Non-ORBES Counties
    52    OH:  Meigs, Gallia,
               Lawrence, Scioto

          WV:  Jackson, Roane,
               Calhoun, Gilmer,
               Braxton, Webster,
               Pocahontas, Nicholas,
               Clay, Kanawha, Putnam,
               Mason, Cabell, Lincoln,
               Wayne, Boone, Logan,
               Mingo, Wyoming,
               Raleigh, Summers,
               Monroe, Greenbrier,
               Fayette

          KY:  Greenup, Boyd, Carter,
               Rowan, Elliott,
               Lawrence, Johnson,
               Martin, Floyd, Pike
                                 (continued)


                                    46

-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
BEA Number          ORBES Counties                    Non-ORBES Counties
    53    KY:  Russel,  Adair,  Green,
               Taylor,  Casey,  Pulaski,
               Rockcastle,  Lincoln,
               Boyle,  Mercer,
               Anderson,  Franklin,
               Scott,  Woodford,
               Jessamine, Garrard,
               Madison, Fayette,
               Bourbon, Clark,
               Harrison,  Nicholas,
               Bath,  Montgomery,
               Powell,  Menifee,
               Morgan,  Magoffin,
               Wolfe,  Breathitt,  Lee,
               Estill,  Jackson,  Clay,
               Leslie,  Perry,  Letcher,
               Owsley,  Knott

    54    IN:  Orange,  Crawford,
               Harrison,  Floyd,  Clark,
               Scott,  Jefferson,
               Washington

          KY:  Trimble, Henry, Oldham,
               Shelby,  Jefferson,
               Bullitt, Spencer,
               Hardin,  Grayson,  Hart,
               Breckinridge, Larue,
               Marion,  Washington,
               Nelson,  Meade

    55    IL:  Saline,  Gallatin,
               Hamilton,  White,
               Edwards, Wabash,
               Lawrence

          IN:  Knox,  Daviess,  Martin,
               Gibson,  Pike, Dubois,
               Posey,  Perry, Spencer,
               Warrick, Vanderburgh
                                 (continued)

                                    47

-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
BEA Number
ORBES Counties
Non-ORBES Counties
    55    KY:  Hancock,  Daviess,
               Henderson,  Union,
               Crittenden, Webster,
               Hopkins,  Caldwell,
               Muhlenberg, Ohio,
               McLean

    56    IL:  Crawford, Clark

          IN:  Vigo, Clay, Greene,
               Sullivan, Parke,
               Vermilion

    57    IL:  Mason, Logan, DeWitt,
               Cass, Menard, Sangamon,
               Morgan, Scott,
               Christian,  Shelby,
               Moultrie, Macon

    58    IL:  Ford, Piatt, Champaign,
               Vermillion, Douglas,
               Edgar, Coles,
               Cumberland

    59    IN:  White, Benton, Carroll,
               Clinton, Tippecanoe,
               Montgomery, Fountain,
               Warren

    60    IN:  Lawrence, Jackson,
               Jennings, Monroe,
               Brown, Bartholomew,
               Decatur, Rush, Shelby,
               Johnson, Morgan, Owen,
               Putnam, Hendri cks,
               Marion, Hancock,
               Hamilton, Boone,
               Tipton, Howard, Cass,
               Miami

    61    IN:  Wayne, Henry, Randolph,
               Delaware, Madison, Jay,
               Blackford,  Grant
                                 (continued)
                                     48

-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
BEA Number          ORBES Counties                    Non-ORBES Counties
    62    IN:  Switzerland, Ohio,
               Dearborn, Ripley,
               Franklin, Fayette,
               Union

          OH:  Butler, Warren,
               Clinton, Hamilton,
               Clermont, Brown, Adams,
               Highland

          KY:  Boone, Kenton,
               Campbell, Gallatin,
               Carroll, Owen, Grant,
               Pendleton, Bracken,
               Robertson, Mason,
               Lewis, Fleming

    63    OH:  Logan, Shelby, Darke,
               Miami, Clark,
               Champaign, Greene,
               Montgomery, Preble

    64    OH:  Marion, Union,
               Deleware, Licking,
               Franklin, Madison,
               Pickaway, Fayette,
               Ross, Pike, Jackson,
               Vinton, Hocking,
               Fairfield, Perry,
               Muskingum, Morgan,
               Athens, Washington,
               Noble, Guernsey

          WV:  Wood, Pleasants,
               Ritchie, Wirt

    65    WV:  Monongalia, Marion,
               Taylor, Preston,
               Tucker, Randolph,
               Barbour, Upshur, Lewis,
               Harrison, Doddridge
                                  (continued)

                                      49

-------
TABLE C-2 (continued)
BEA Number          ORBES Counties                    Non-ORBES Counties


    67    OH:  Trumbull, Mahoning

          PA:  Mercer, Lawrence

    78    IL:  Warren, Knox, Stark,
               Marshall, Woodford,
               McLean, Tazewell,
               Fulton, McDonough,
               Peoria
                                     50

-------
             APPENDIX D




FACTORS FOR ALLOCATING ORBES PORTIONS
                 51

-------
              APPENDIX D '

 FACTORS FOR ALLOCATING ORBES PORTIONS


               TABLE D-l

FACTORS FOR ALLOCATING ORBES PORTION OF
     BEA-REGION ENERGY CONSUMPTION

BEA Number
114
115
49
77
76
10
19
11
69
75
79
68
50
51
66
113
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Residential /Commercial
0.34
0.44
0.19
0.04
0.14
0.14
0.02
0.37
0.78
0.76
0.18
0.43
0.19
0.14
0.96
0.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2
Industrial
0.29
0.42
0.30
0.04
0.14
0.11
0.02
0.40
0.82
0.78
0.09
0.42
0.15
0.10
0.99
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3
Transport
0.28
0.52
0.40
0.03
0.14
0.17
0.02
0.47
0.86
0.85
0.13
0.36
0.18
0.14
0.96
0.38
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Miscellaneous
0.34
0.44
0.19
0.04
0.14
0.14
0.03
0.37
0.78
0.76
0.18
0.43
0.19
0.14
0.96
0.45
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
              (continued)

                  52

-------
TABLE D-l (continued)

BEA Number
61
62
63
64
65
67
78
Residential /Commercial
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2
Industrial
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Transport
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Miscellaneous
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.  Factors calculated as ratio of ORBES county population in a given BEA
region population.  County population data for 1974 are taken from Current
Population Reports, Series P-26, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Census, Washington, D.C.

2.  Factors calculated as ratio of ORBES county employment in manufacturing,
mining, and construction to total BEA region employment in same sectors.
County employment data for 1974 are taken from Employment by Type and Broad
Industrial Sources, 1974-75, Regional Economic Information System, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, D.C., for
appropriate states.  In a large number of cases county mining employment was
not disclosed for the states used in the calculations, although mining
employment data was reported in the state total.  We assumed a value of "0"
when mining employment for counties was not disclosed.

3.  Factors calculated as in column 3 (according to employment) for the
transportation sector.  In the Bureau of Economic Analysis data source cited
above, the sector is defined as including transportation, communication, and
public utilities.  In the employment data, Grant County employment in trans-
portation was not disclosed.  We used the same factor as for the industrial
sector.
                                     53

-------
                                 TABLE D-2

                  FACTORS FOR ALLOCATING  ORBES PORTION  OF

                  STATE FUEL USE FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION1
          Fuel
IL
IN
KY
OH
PA
WV
Petroleum products
Natural gas
Coal
Hydro-electric
Nuclear
0.37
0.25
0.67
0.18
0.33
0.72
0.35
0.79
0.88
none
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
none
0.57
1.00
0.81
1.00
none
0.12
0.00
0.64
0.02
0.00
1.00
none
1.00
0.97
none
1.  Factors based on proportion of state totals generated within the ORBES
region.  Calculations were made using 1976 data from Electrical Generating
Unit Inventory,  1976-1986, by Steven D.  Jansen, Energy Resources Center,
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago,  Illinois (November 1978)
                                     54

-------
Ul
m
                                                    TABLE D-3

                                  FACTORS FOR ALLOCATING ORBES PORTION OF STATE

                               FUEL CONSUMPTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN REFINING

Total Capacity ORBES
b/cd1 b/sd2 b/cd b/sd
Illinois 1,181,550 1,251,105 712,050 746,369

Indiana 561,650 592,947 70,650 72,947

Kentucky 164,470 170,500 164,470 170,500
Ohio 589,950 615,000 274,700 287,000

Pennsylvania 804,920 846,415 22,220 23,115

West Virginia 19,450 20,200 19,450 20,200
Factors
b/cd

1,181,550 ~ °-6°
60%

561,650 ~ "
13%
100%

589,950 "
47%
.... 	 n 	 >- - — n n*3.
804,920 °'°3
3%
100%
(2/1)
b/sd
746,369
1,251,105
60%
72,947
592,947
12%
100%
287,000
615,000
47%
23,115
846,415
3%
100%

0.60

0.12


0.47

0.03


      1.  b/cd  is barrels per calendar day.
      2.  b/sd  is barrels per stream day.
      3.  Calculated from data in Oil and Gas Journal, March 28,  1977, pp.  97-123,

-------
                                  TABLE D-4

                FACTORS FOR ALLOCATING ORBES PORTION OF STATE

                   CONSUMPTION OF NATURAL GAS IN REFINING1
State    Illinois   Indiana   Kentucky   Ohio   Pennsylvania    West Virginia

Factors      10101                1
1.  Calculated from capacity data in Oil and Gas Journal, July 11, 1977,
pp. 82-132.
                                     56

-------
                                  TABLE  D-5

                FACTORS FOR ALLOCATING ORBES PORTION OF STATE
            LOSSES AND OMISSIONS BY FUEL AND ELECTRIC GENERATION

State Sector
Illinois Petroleum products
Natural gasl
Coal1
Electricity2
Indiana Petroleum products
Natural gas1
Coal1
Electricity2
Kentucky Petroleum products
Natural gas1
Coal1
Electricity2
Ohio Petroleum products
Natural gas1
Coal1
Electricity2
Pennsylvania Petroleum products
Natural gas1
Coal1
Electricity2
West Virginia Petroleum products
Natural gas 1
Coal1
Electricity2
= 0.49
= 0.63
= 0.67
= 0.54
= 0.42
= 0.18
= 0.79
= 0.77
= 1.00
= 1.00
= 1.00
= 1.00
= 0.52
= 0.50
= 0.81
= 0.78
= 0.07
= 0.50
= 0.64
= 0.43
= 1.00
= 1.00
= 1.00
= 1.00
1.  Ratio of ORBES generating capacity to total state generating capacity.

2.  Average of ORBES generating and refining factors for each fuel.
                                     57

-------