network of Alaska energy enthusiasts & experts
PCE report anomalies
As part of a different project, we was comparing 2008 and 2009 net fuel consumption for several rural villages using the PCE reports. We noticed several significant anomalies for some:
Buckland: 148639 (2008) 684524 (2009) 360% increase
Atika: 38699 (2008) 191511 (2009) 400% increase
Aniak: 201797 (2008) 41566 (2009) 80% decrease
Are these real, just errors in the report, or is there something else that explains these drastic changes from year to year?
--
Rorik Peterson
Buckland: 148639 (2008) 684524 (2009) 360% increase
Atika: 38699 (2008) 191511 (2009) 400% increase
Aniak: 201797 (2008) 41566 (2009) 80% decrease
Are these real, just errors in the report, or is there something else that explains these drastic changes from year to year?
--
Rorik Peterson
Views: 8
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Markus Mager on -
Each year you can find some “outliers” in the report and averages (e.g. 5 years) are a good way to go. I also look at the population and see if an extremely high/low value can be true. I’m not sure how AEA is dealing with these “outliers” but I asked Jeff Williams to comment.
Markus -
-
Permalink Reply by Markus Mager on
-
Rorik,
I got an email from Jeff responding to your post.
---
Hi Markus,
Sorry that I'm just now getting back with you. I've been swamped lately. Here are the answers to your questions.
The data we publish in our pce report is taken from the data as it is reported to us by the communities in their pce monthly reports that they submit to us. We have the utilities verify this information for accuracy - otherwise we do not change the data.
The figures you see for Buckland are the figures reported by the utility. You would have to ask the utility for an explanation of the variance from FY08 to FY09.
The figures you listed for Atka and Aniak were misquotes from the statistical report. Mr. Peterson transposed the figures for the two communities and that led to his incorrect calculations. He recorded the numbers incorrectly for Atka. His 2009 figures are actually Aniak's figures. The 2009 figure he has for Aniak is wrong also. I don't know where he pulled that one from. They "should" look like this:
Atka 38,699 (2008) - 41,598 (2009) = 7.4911% Increase
Aniak 201,797 (2008) - 191,511 (2010) = 5.0972% Decrease
Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions.
Jeff
--- -
© 2012 Created by Markus Mager.
