Abstract
In the United States, manufacturing facilities account for about 32% of total domestic energy consumption in 2014. Robust energy tracking methodologies are critical to understanding energy performance in manufacturing facilities. Due to its simplicity and intuitiveness, the classic energy intensity method (i.e. the ratio of total energy use over total production) is the most widely adopted. However, the classic energy intensity method does not take into account the variation of other relevant parameters (i.e. product type, feed stock type, weather, etc.). Furthermore, the energy intensity method assumes that the facilities’ base energy consumption (energy use at zero production) is zero, which rarely holds true. Therefore, it is commonly recommended to utilize regression models rather than the energy intensity approach for tracking improvements at the facility level. Unfortunately, many energy managers have difficulties understanding why regression models are statistically better than utilizing the classic energy intensity method. While anecdotes and qualitative information may convince some, many have major reservations about the accuracy of regression models and whether it is worth the time and effort to gather data and build quality regression models. This paper will explain why regression models are theoretically and quantitatively more accurate for tracking energy performance improvements. Based on the analysis of data from 114 manufacturing plants over 12 years, this paper will present quantitative results on the importance of utilizing regression models over the energy intensity methodology. This paper will also document scenarios where regression models do not have significant relevance over the energy intensity method.
