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
------- |