Recommendations concerning energy information model documentation, public access, and evaluation

In this study we provide an analysis of the factors underlying Congressional concern regarding model documentation, policies for public access, and evaluation procedures of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and its predecessor agencies; we also develop and present recommendations designed to improve current practice. This study reviews the history of Congressional concern; surveys current EIA organization and policies; provides an analysis of the model evaluation process; and presents recommendations to improve organizational efficiency and responsiveness, the model documentation process, public access policies, and model evaluation

Analysis quality report on the EIA Annual Report to Congress 1978, volume III : coal supply

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is charged by Congress to prepare an Annual Report to Congress (ARC) which includes projections of energy supplies, consumption and prices, as well as the relation of energy to other economic activity. As an aid to users of ARC, the EIA Office of Analysis Oversight and Access (OAOA) is preparing "Analysis Quality Reports" on particular components of the energy information analysis system used in developing the ARC-78 projections. This report focuses on the Coal Supply Module used for the midterm projections of the ARC-78. The Coal Supply Module is part of the EIA's National Coal Model. The review and analysis presented here is based upon the MIT Energy Model Analysis Program's (EMAP) evaluation of the documentation and implementation of the Coal Supply Module sponsored by OAOA, and an indepth evaluation of a related model--the ICF Coal and Electric Utilities Model--which also employs the EIA Coal Supply Module. The indepth evaluation has been sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute

Sensitivity analysis of the Brookhaven energy system optimization model

Supported in part by the U.S. Army Research Office (Durham) under Contract no. DAAG29-76-C-006

A review of the Energy Productivity Center's Least-Cost Energy Strategy study

The Mellon Institute's Energy Productivity Center (EPC) has recently completed a study asking the question, "How would the nation have provided energy services in 1978 if its capital stock had een reconfigured to be optimal for actual 1978 energy prices?" Interest in this question is motivated by the unanticipated increases in oil prices since 1973. If policy makers are to learn from history it is important to know what would have happened if the increases in energy prices had been foreseen and if the nation had taken full advantage of that knowledge to minimize costs.EPC concludes that if the 1978 capital stock had been transformed in conformance with a least-cost principal for providing energy services, then, given actual 1978 energy prices and energy service demands, per capita energy service costs would have been reduced by 17%. Market shares of the various energy types would also have been affected substantially. For example, while the gas share of total energy service demand would have increased slightly from actual 1978 levels, the share of purchased electricity would have fallen from 30% to 17% of total energy service demand, and improvements in energy efficiency would have increased from 10% to 32%.EPC's findings have received considerable attention, both from the press and from policy makers. EPC interprets its results as indicating "... the direction in which we coul move to begin realizing some of the benefits of a least-cost strategy." The purpose of this report is to assess and evaluate the EPC methodology, data base, and results. Here we briefly summarize our principal findings

A central line care maintenance bundle for the prevention of central line–associated bloodstream infection in non–intensive care unit settings

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a central line care maintenance bundle to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) in non-ICU settings. DESIGN: Before-after trial with 12 month follow-up period. SETTING: 1250-bed teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with central lines on eight general medicine wards. Four wards received the intervention and four served as controls. INTERVENTION: A multifaceted catheter care maintenance bundle consisting of educational programs for nurses, update of hospital policies, visual aids, a competency assessment, process monitoring, regular progress reports, and consolidation of supplies necessary for catheter maintenance. RESULTS: Data were collected for 25,542 catheter-days including 43 CLABSI (rate = 1.68 per 1,000 CL-days) and 4,012 catheter dressing observations. Following the intervention, a 2.5% monthly decrease in the CLABSI incidence density was observed on intervention floors, but this was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval (CI); −5.3 – 0.4). On control floors, there was a smaller, but marginally significant decrease in CLABSI incidence during the study (change in monthly rate = −1.1%; 95% CI, −2.1 - −0.1). Implementation of the bundle was associated with improvement in catheter dressing compliance on intervention wards (78.8% compliance pre-intervention vs. 87.9% during intervention/follow-up; p<0.001) but improvement was also observed on control wards (84.9% compliance pre-intervention vs. 90.9% during intervention/follow-up; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: A multi-faceted program to improve catheter care was associated with improvement in catheter dressing care, but no change in CLABSI rates. Additional study is needed to determine strategies to prevent CLABSI in non-ICU patients