Electricity Demand Growth and the Energy Crisis Author(s): Duane Chapman, Timothy Tyrrell, Timothy Mount Source:

Science, New Series, Vol. 178, No. 4062 (Nov. 17, 1972), pp. 703-708 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1735826 . Accessed: 14/10/2011 07:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science.

http://www.jstor.org

17 November 1972, Volume 178, Number 4062

SCI:E

NCE:

Electricity DemandGrow . and the Energy Crie i1S

th

An analysisof electricitydemandgrowth projectil ons suggests overestimatesin the long rbun.

Duane Chapman,Timothy Tyrrell, Timothy Mc Dunt

least six times, to more than 10 Tkwh. We Ibelieve that these projectionsare generally incorrec,t. However, before we explain the Ibasisfor our conclusion and its possible implication for energy research and development, it is appropriate to note tha,the kind of projection given in Table 1 has been accurate in the past. Consider a hypothe,tical analyst working for a regulatory agency or university in early 1965. He has been asked to project the national electricity requiremenfts 1969 and 1970. Our for analys,t favors extrapolated complound

In one sense the term energy crisis means simply that the supplies of fuels and power are less than we want, or that they might cost much more in the future. {In another sense, an enlargementof ,the first, it refers to a tangliedweb of problems concerning the quality of the environment and the avail-ability, marketing, and growing demand for energy resources. Figure 1 is a diagram of these problems. We can see, for example, that our perceptionof the ne-edfor breeder and fusion reacltors is influenced by our understanding of the energy crisis. In turn, our view of this possilblecrisis is affected by our beliefs aFbout the growth of the demand for energy. If energy prices signifi-cantly influence this growth, then our energy system has some interesting circui,ts. Regulation of surface mines, for example, could reduce the need for the development of fusion power through the mechanism of higher cos,ts and prices and reduced growth rates for demand and supply. However, most observers teday ;believe that the growth of demanldsfor the various types of energy will ibe autonomous: Demand will grow independently of any changes in the "factors"box at the top of Fig. 1, or these factors will themselves continue to dlevelop according to past patterns.
17 NOVEMBER 1972

growth, and empl!oysthat methad. The total sales grew 7.35 !percentper year for the 5 years from 1959 to 1964. So he predicts ,that total sales will grow 7.35 percent per year for the next 5 In this article we focus on the demand years, to 1.28 Tkwh in 1969 and to for elecltricity; genera: a lization to over- 1.37 Tkwh in 1970. For good measure all energy research plroblems is sug- he draws the graph in Fig. 2 (omitting, gested in the conclusio )n. of course, the actual sales for 1969 Observersof electrici demand gen- -and 1970). ity erally believe that it X continue to will Six years pass, a time of war and increase at consltant (or nearly so) rebellion, inflation and unemployment, compound growth rates for the rest of increasingaffluenceand hardeningpovs the century. Table 1 s}hows predictions erty. Tn early 1971 he recalls his premade by government, industry, and diction, and decides to compare it to , university researchers. The Federal actual sales. The actual sales were 1.31 Power Commissizon(F PC) estimate is Tkwh in 1969 and 1.39 in 1970. based on the work of six re!gionaladA year later, in early 1972, our visory c-ommi,tteesfor the 1970 Na- analyst is curious afibout the extension tional Power Survey (1 ). The National of his projection to 1971. His projecPetroleum Coun-cil (NIPiC) projection tion would have been 1.47 Tkwh. The was prepared by Ithe energy demand actual sales were 1.47 Tkwh. This kind task group of the Con nmittee on U.S. of experience, repeated at the regional Energy Outlook (2 ) . The energy de- and national level, has reinforced conmand panel of the C nornell-National fidence in projections made by assumScience Foundation (^ C-NSF) Work ing compound growth or by extrapolashop on Energy and t: Environment tion, or Xboth. headopted a modificatio] of the NPC n Probably the most accurate 10-year projection as the basis for comparing predic!tilon was made in 1960 iby ,the alternative assump,tions(3). Edison Electric Institute. At that time Note the similarityi n projections. In they predic,tedNthat total sales for the 1980 the range is only 0.4 of a Ntrillion 1970 would ibe 1.31 Tkwh. This estikilowatt hours (TkwE). The lowes,t mate -was,in fact, too low. It was,!based t projection is 89 percenl of the highest. D. Chapman and T. Mount are assistant-proThe "double-ten" as,sumption, that at New York elec,tricity demand wil1 double nearly fessorsandCornell University, Ithaca,programmer 14850, T. Tyrrell is a statistical every 10 years, seems tolbe supported at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830. This article is by these projections (4,, 5). By the end a statement preparedin June 1972 for based on the Subcommittee on 3mandfor elec- ment of the Science, Research, and Developof the century, the de Committee on Science and Astro tricity is expected to h!aveincreased at nautics of the House of Representatives.
703

on an extrapolation of the growth of the gross n&tionalproduct and on a predicted population of 208 million (6). The tlotalsales did, irl fact, double in the 10 years from 1960 to 1970. Thus, there IS historicaljustificationfor the type of projecltions reported in Table 1. in CChanges Causal Factors It is -our opinion that many of the factors influencing the demand ifor electricity are tthemselves departing from long-established patterns. Figure 3 shows the post-World War II relationship between the average price of eIectricity and an overall inflation index. Electricilty has lbecome an increasingly better buy. This is apparently true when eleictricity prices in each consumerclass are comparedwith overall price indexes and the cost of gas, uel oil, and coal. labors Icapittal, It seems to be equally true when prices of household electrical appliances and industrial machinery are compared to appropriate overall prices ( 7) . All of the changes in relagtiveprices since World War II have pointedftoward an increased demand for electricityj and this seems to have been true in all regions of the country. The information available to us a,t this time strongly suggests that this pa-t,tern will not continue for the rest of the century. The increasing costs involved in environmentalprotection and decreasingfuel supplies will cause costs and prices to increase. Lasttyear, for the firs,t time since 1946, the deflated average electricity price increased. It rose from 1.66 to 1.69 cents per kilowatt hour in 1971 prices. This marks the beginning of a new period in electri!cityrates. The concern wilth the environmental pro;blemsnoted in Fig. 1 will force continued cost increases in the foreseeable future. The energy demanld panel of the C-NSE workshop reviewed likely cost increases in fuels and environmental protection as well as cost savingls from technological improvements.The panel observed, "In general, we conclude that in the course of the next
Fig. 1. The energy crisis. Energy supply problems influence energy demand growth through their effect on environmental protection costs. Other demand factors such as population and income inRuence energy supply problems by their impact on energy requirements. 704

several decades electricity prices (in 1968 dollars) will increase by at least 50 percent." The 1970 National Power Surveyestimated a -moremodest average national cost increase of 19 percent between 1968 and 1990 (1, p. I-19-10; 3, pp. 151-153). Aubrey J. Wagner, chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)3 has published estimates of minimum and maximum environmental protec tion cos,ts for strip mine regulation, mine safety, fly ash and sulfur removal a sul;furtas, waste heat control, licensing delays, and undergrourldtransmission. Minimum environmenltalprotec would mean a onetion improvemen,t eighth cost increase.To meet all of the nontransmission requirements he discussed, he sltatedthat (8) i'TVA would be faced with an approximatedoubling of its revenue requirements."Pl-acing

Factors influencing energy demand

Population Per capita income New consumer commodities Energy intensive production processes

undergroundthe high-voltage transmissionsystem of TVA would raise its costs to three times its present revenue. Analyses of population trends in the in studies Table 1 have lead ftothe conclusionthat past population trends will continuein the foreseeable fu,ture.The FPC study groups assumed that the populationwill continue to grow 1.3 percent per year. In ,the NPC and the C-NSEstudie-s, Series D projectiions of the Census Bureau, of 1.1 percent popula-tion growth per year, were adopted (1, pp. I-3-3, 1S, 2, p. 5; 3, p. 134). However, there is much uncer,tainty afibout future populaltion growth. The recession and new attitudes have combined to drastically lower the fertility ra,te in the recent past. The birth rate ( children ;born per thousand people) - declined or 13 of the 14 months through March o this year. More significantly, the fertility rate (a measure of children iblorn to women of -childbearingage) has conltinued its decline since 196() and fallen to 2.14 childrenper womian.The significanceof this figure is well known; it is a?proximately the "zero population growth" fertility ratte-At this Ifertility rate, population growth would slowly decline (except as influencedby immigration and age structllre bulges) until stability would be reached in 2035 or 2040 (9). The implication for eIectricity demand growth is clear. To the extent that past population growth rates conin tinue, the l?rojecltions Table 1 are supported. To the ex,tent that the fertility rate declines, the projections will be too high) particularly in the laltter partlof the century. Elasticities of Causal Factors

Energy supply problems

Sulfur and particulate emission control Mine safety Surface mine regulation Natural gas prices Oil import quotas Oit depletion allowanees Offshore oil dexoeSopnlent Alaskan oil and gas Power plant siting
N uclear power safety Breeder and fusion development

Interenergy ownership

is concept of elaslticity The elcono-mic useful in describing the magni,tudeof the influence of causal factors. For particular values of the electricity demand and a causal fastor, an elasticrepresents the pereentage ity estimaFte change in the electricity demand associated with a 1 percent change in the causal factor. For example, a commercial price elasticity estimate of -1 .S means that a 1 percent increase in the average price of commercial eleetricity would in the long run eause ,the demand to tbe 1.5 percent less fthan it otherwise would have been. Wilson (10)s MacAvoy (11), and Halvorsen (12) have made quantitaSCIENCED,VtOL. 178

tive esitima,tesof the influences of The estimat in Table 2 suggest a .es 1400 causal factorsionsthe demand for elechIerarchy of importance of the four . f i97Q predicted tricity. Since each investigator us-ed 1300 ac,tors. The most important factor different definitions of variables and / seems to be the price of electricity, differen,t daltabases and statistical tech,J followed by populatiotl growth, inniques, it is fdifficult summarizetheir to come, and gas prices in order of results (13). For illustrative purposes decreasing irrlpor,tance. While modifi,a Proiectedfrom * t we rexporteight elasticities from the ,8 1959 1964 growth cation of the estimates is certtain, >-se three studies Each of those estimates we believe that future amendmentswill was apparentlysignificantat or beyond be of small rnagnitude. The elstimates the S percent level In these studies indicate that- suibstantial cost increases residential demand and total demand <as indicated above) and a reduction have price elasticities from -1.1 to in population. grow,th will noticeably />( Actuaisale5 -1.3. lower Xelectric tdemand growth inr ity Wilson's estimate of a negaftiveinthe 1980's ani1 l990's. Because of the come inuence of-0.46 is surprising. lengthy time !period of response, It may fiollow rom his cross-secltion growth reduc.igon the 1970s might in study of 77 gban are-asin a single 1959 1961 1953 1965 l967 1969 be limited. X Year year. His explanation is that ". * . federal power projes,ts (and associated Fig. 2. Projectionsjby S-year extrapolagrowth. The projected low wholesale prices) are concengtrated tion of compound correspondclosely to the actual Projecting Gtr!wth for the in low-income areas * * . they are sales for 1969 and sales 1970. The extension Xentury totally absent from the high-income to 1971 projectedsales at 1.47$Tkwh, Rest o the C northeastern industrial bel,t from St. the actual level for last year. The growtlL rate of total electricity E Louis to Boston" (lO, p. 12). Another demand rorn 1970 ito 1971 wlas 5.4 l possible explanation is ithat one or s percen,t. This is the lowest rajte of more omitted ifactors which are neg,a kotal response to occur (7 or 8 years) growth since 1960} andabelow the 7.2 tively related toldemand (such as high follows from the nature of the processes percent of the "double-ten" projecfuel oil prices, climate, and appliance by which electricity is consumed in tions A sigII lifiCant fracition 0 this prices) are>,hrough geography, posi- residences, commerce and industry. growth reduc > tion is probably caused tively related to income. In iany event, Electrici,ty is not consumed directly, by changes i the causal factors disthe resullt is penerse and should be but through intermediaries such as cussed above.]The deflated average naignored. Halvors,en and M-acAvoy ex- smelting furnaces lightgbulbs and iair tJonaIprice cf electricity inereased for amined chiangesover time as well as conditioning. Changes in preferences he firslttime since World War II: It geographic differences. Their income for appliances and machinery are reros-e 1.8 per rcent between 1970 and elasticity estiZmates o, +0.61 and flected, in decisions about replacement 1971. The relal dispos-ableincome per +0.86, respectively, are likely t,o be and new ins,tallations, and these decapita increas 3.3 percent per year Sied more representative. cisions in turn affect electricitydemand from 1960 to 1970. The increase rom MacAvoy reportedia population elas,,- growth. 1970 to the firs,t quarter of this year ti,city estimate of +0.91. Since the n elasti,ci,ty Idemand was defined in terms, of consumptionper household and per TabIe 1. Selected predictions of electricity de]nand gr(3wth. t customerby Wilson and HalvorsenSreElectricity demand (Tkwh) spectively and since no relationship Source Ref. has been reported Ibetweenfthesevari1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 ables and population, their population Federal Power Commission (I) 1.53 3.07 5.83 elasticity estimate is implicitly + 1.00* National Petroleum Council (2) 1.59 2.29 3.29 4.54 (3) 1.57 2.15 2.92 3.96 5.38 10.25 The elassticity of electricitty demand (>rnell-NSE Workshop with respect ito the price of gas was determirledas +0.31 by Wilson and Table 2. Summary of the estimated elasticities of electricity dem lnd associated with electncity +0.04 by Halvorsen; it was not part prices, income, popatlation and gas prices. The units of obserxation are each of the states of the MacAvoy stu!dy. from 1946 to the present. The average price of electricity is c alculated separately for each consumer class. The average price of gas fox a particular cotlsumer class state, and year The major part of our work in the is calculated by dividing the total revenues of gas utilities for n atural gas, mixed gass manularst2 years has been devoted to nufactured gas and liquefied petroleum gas by the total sales in therms. Residentii electricity merically evaluating ,these and other- and gas prices and per capita personal income are deRated b) the Consumer Price Index and comTnercial and industrial prices are deRated by the Wholesale Price Index. The perrelationshipsfor each consumer class. cent of response in the first year is equal to 100 (10) frorn Eq. 1. The elasticities are We are concerned with the stabilittyo derived from coefflcients in an equations which (except for the gas price coefficients) are all these relationships and with the delay significant beyond the 1 percent level. Over 99 percent o the variance of the quantity of electricity is explained by the model for each of the three conswner classes (14). or lagTinttheresponse of electricity demandIto changes in the causal factors. Elasticity First Consumer year Years for Table 2 shows a summary of the prec}ass Electricity . das res ons 50% total li;minary results lof our analysis (14). price Populatlon Income p-ice P e response The small re-sponsein sthefirst year r Residential 13 +0.9 +().3 +a.ls lo 8 (lQ or 11 percent) and the length of Co\mmercial --l.fi f l (} +0.9 +P.15 l1 7 Industrial - 1.7 .timenecessary for 50 percent of the + l.l A0.5 +0.15 11 7
Actual sales
A

- 1969 s818s

200

1100
-

= 1000
-

D -

11

900

Fw 80

700

60C

'

17 NOVEMBFsR 1972

705

population;Y is the per capita income, has been 1.6 percentt year. And, as , 4.0 per noted, the fertility rate continues to PG is the average price of gas; and a, ,B y, and (r are short-runelasticities decline. 3 3.5- \ for electricity price, population, inIt wouldbe incorrectto interpretthe \/N come, and gas price. The units are las statist;icsfor 1971 and early 1972 as V described in Table 2. defining the quantitative nature of a 3.0The results of ItheIfourcombinations growth for the rest of the century. of assumptions are shown in Table 3 < Rather, these statistics should be seen a) 2.5in a more cautious perspective as indiand Fig. 4 as cases A to D. For case E (the fifth case) we assume that the \ cating,that the causal factors inRuenc- X 2.0real average electricity!prices for each < and ing electricitygrowth are changin!g, consumer class and region do not the direction of the change may be to, f 1.5 , ward continued but slower grow,th. change from,their 1970 levels. The de1965 1970 1955 1960 1945 1950 Year tail for case E shown in Talble 4 ilThe methodology of projecting the not estimates in Ta;ble 1 Idoebs provide Fig. 3. Ratio of the average electricity lustrates the framework used in each ] productin- projection.For case F we use the FPC quantitative links between population price to the gross national 1 income, prices, and demand (15). (As flation index. The average electricityprice demand projections and the BEA popnoted above, this has notrbeen neces- (total revenues from utility sa esddcvlildedulation projection, and bsolvefor Ithe by total kilowatt hours sold sary in the past.) In this section we relative to the implicit price ldeflatorfor approprlateprice declines. This shows take independen,t projections of re- the gross national product froem 1946 to the price declines that might be necesthe ce gional and national population,inco-me, 1970. This real average pris inceased sary to tcaufflse growth from 1970 Ito 1990 shown in lna!ble1. and prices and, sthroughthe quantita- in 1971. Someiconclusions;based this analon tive estimates in Talble2, explici,tlyreysis are as follows: late electricity demand proJections to 1) The near futurensay-1975, is not come are not varied. For co-mparaassumptionsabout causal fac,tors. ninating in much affected. All projecitions show of regional bility, factor projections tern One source of estimates O(). Quan- that about 2 Tkwh olf electricity will populations and per capita income is a 1990 are extrapolated to 2C fluences of be generatedin 1975. Supply proble-ms study prepared tby the Bureau of Eco- titative estimates of sthe ini iken from in the next few years will nlotlbe eased nomic Analysis (BEA) of ,the De- the various factors are tz can (16). On a Table 2. IProjections be made with by likely rate increases and population partment of ICom;mierce trends. national level, population growlthis es- this equation: 2) The populationassumptionis untimated at 1.4 percent per year, gross l)04 important ;for demand growth in the X national product grow,th at 4 percent Q..it = A (QwJt (PE, (Njt)n(Y.t) Yt(PGf ijt-t)Cb (l) next 20 or 30 years. per year, and per capita personal income growth at about 2.9 percent per where i is the consumer clavss j is the 3) The generally accepted projecyear. Estimatesare made for each stalte region; t is the year; Q is t] ' d h d tions and the estimates of the influence and for eight regions. The poorest re- for electricity; A is a constant. 0 is a of causal factors are incompatible. In gion, the Southeast, is expected to ex- time response parameter; PE iS the case F, for example, we use the FPC . perience the greatestpercentageineome average price of electricity; N is the demand in Talble1, the parameter;estimates in Table 2, and the BEA popuincrease, but the absolute difference lation and income projecltions.In so between the poorest region and the doing we must reject the FPC price F richest region (the Midwest)is expected assumptionsand instead postulate con/ to increase. We may consider an alrtertinueddecliningprices as indicated. / native estimate of populaitiongrowth, 4) On tbalance,it seems likely that / that the fer;tilizty rates will stay at or the iprojectionsof demand growth in / below the current level, resulting in a Table 1 are too high for the l 980's and / stable population in 2035 or 2040 thereafter. / (17) . As discussed above, there is wide variation in ianalysesof future cost inImtplications Energy for creases. A useful pair of alternatives spans these estimates. Therefore, we Researchand Development use as one assumption the FPC esti- This analysis suggests other aspects mate of a 19 percent real cost increase, of our future energy requirementsthat and as a second assumptiona doubling :o should be investigated. The results of in 30 years. A 13 percent increase in our work are preliminaryand -arelimthe ?ri;ce of natural gas from 1970 to ited to electrici,ty. Additional studies of 1990 is taken from ,the median prothe growsthof the demand for other jection given in an PPC staff memorms of energy are desirable. Perhaps orandum (18). future research can clarify the nature Thus, we have two alternative cost Year projections and two alternative popu- Fig. 4. Electricity demarld projections of substitution between energy for-ms lation projections. Our assumptions from Table 3. Note the near-term agree- as well as the growth of each form and of total energy use. about the growth of gas prices and in- ment and far-term divergence.
o \ s \ n a) \ ._<) a) a)

ty

jt )ti

.-

44

a}

706

SCIENCE, VOL. 178

Table 3. Electricity demand growth and alternative assumptions. BEA, Bureau of Economic Analysis; FPC, Fe-deral Power Commission; ZPG 2035, zero population growth reached sn 2035. In the constant price assumption 1970 prices are maintained in each region. In the "double by 2000" assumption, the average price in each region increases annually by 3.33 percent of its 1970 value for 30 years. In case F, the FPC demand projection in Table 1 and the BEA population proJections were used, and Eq. 1 was solved for prices. Electricity defmand here includes losses of about 9 percent to make the figures comparable with the generation totals in Table 1. A total of 1.53 Tkwh of electricity was generated in 1970. C
A

ase

Population assumption BEA BEA ZPG 2035 ZPG 20ff35 BEA BEA

Electricityprice assumption FPC I)ouble by 2000 FPC Double by 2000 Constant *

1975 1.98 1.88 1.98 1.88 2.02 2.14

Electricitydemand (Tkwh) 1990 1980 2.38 2.07 2.37 2.05 2.54 3.05 3.01 2.11 2.95 2.07 3.56 5.66

2000 3.45 2.01 3.29 1.91 4.56 9.89

B C D E F

* Average prices decline 24 percent from 1970 to 1980, and 12 percent each 10 years thereafter until 2000.

Most observers other than ourselves believe that electricity use per capita will at least quadruple Iby the end of the century. Per capita generation was 7500 kwh in 1970, and the C-NSF projectionis for 35,900 kwh per capita

in 2000. This presumablyimplies substantial growth in the use of metal products in construction and of electric heating, air conditioning, automobiles, plastics, concrete, tpackaging, paper, drugs, fertilizers, pesticides,

clhemicals, and other products connected with an intensive use of electricity. It is desirasbleto know how material living standards wlould be affected if growth is less than presently projected, and whether less growth in the future has any significance for the welfare of low-income groups. Our ana]ysis indicates that if inprotection costs creased environm-ental are passed on to consumersin the form of higher prices, then the rat-e of growth of demand is reduced. Thus, further research into the energy supp]y problems outlined in Fig. 1 is linked of to better Xpredictions future energy demand growth. Finally, a question is raised about technological research and development. If energy demand growth in the 1980's and 1990's is less than expected at present, will the relative importance of research on present energy sources

Table 4. Detailed estimates of electricity demand (in million kilowatt hours) for case E. The BEA population projection and constant price assumption are used (see Table 3). Total demand includes other uses, as for subways, street lighting, and so forth. The estimated transmission losses (average about 9 percent) are added to the demand in order to derive the generating requirements Electricity demand ( Mkwh) Area 1970 20,900.0 69,146.0 79,687.0 35,339.0 129,124.0 40,127.0 9,652.0 63,820.0 447,795.0 149643.0 57,696.0 53,911.0 21,406.0 63,556.0 33,628.0 10,356.0 57,554.0 312,750.0 18>161.0 94,108.0 123,395.0 30,703.0 160,003.0 50,853.0 16,642.0 78,657.0 572,522.0 55,261.4 233,765.1 267,272.7 90,421.2 365,732.3 129,966.1 38,262.6 210,632.6 1,391,312.0 1975 31,733.7 100,351.0 110,721.4 49,549.8 202,016.5 61,098.3 12,842.5 81,279.3 649,592.4 22i546.0 79,827.4 80,329.4 30,375.9 96,842.8 47,667.9 14,273.2 78,612.2 450,474.8 209136.2 107,5i9.6 127,440.1 38,085.8 193,058.1 69,864.1 17,973.4 90,713.8 664,791.1 769573.9 304,384.5 331,230.6 122,023.8 510,118.4 186,311.3 47,073.0 263,887.4 1,-841,601.0 1980 1985 1990 60,529.6 179,365.1 191,-007.4 84,223.4 394,286.7 116,378.9 21,249.3 131,860.8 1,178,901.0 47,410.6 150,476.4 163,702.7 58,153.1 203,815.9 94,053.6 27,639.5 153,682.2 898,933.8 29,578.1 159,293.4 173,705.3 60,241.7 306,20-6.7 125,841.4 25,779.2 142,426.2 1,023,071.9 141,506.3 517,504.7 549,552.0 2()9,507.2 937,768.7 350,733.7 77,953.3 450,651.4 3,235,174.0 1995 68,495.2 200,?64.2 213,706.6 93,471.7 446,574.9 131,778.9 23,866.1 147,990.2 1,326,647.0 55,799.5 174,782.6 191,792.2 67,499.6 240,472.1 110,588.8 32,644.4 181,191.9 1,054,771.0 33,285.7 178,356.0 193,840.3 67,563.8 346,648.6 144,249.6 29,180.9 162,457.5 1,155,582.0 162,150.2 586,029.1 622,312.6236,305.3 1,071,942.0 403,241.8 89,461.8 517,696.4 3,690,136.0 2000 75,994.9 220,864.0 235,384.2 102,123.9 495,391.5 146,326.1 26,454.3 164,024.0 1?466,544.0 64,453.8 199,969.4 220,749.2 77,109.3 278,392.0 127,900.1 37,960.4 210,218.7 1,216,752.0 37,194.1 198,167.6 215,382.5 74,978.0 388,467.9 162,912.2 32,849.0 183,594.9 1,293,544.0 182,794.4 654,884.1 698,376.5 262,854.4 1,205,254.0 455,935.3 101,543.2 587,403.0 4,149,043.0 7()7

New England Mideast Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountains Far West United States New England Mideast Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountains Far West United States New England Mideast Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountains Far West United States New England Mideast Great Lakes Plains Southeast Southwest Rocky Mountains Far West United States 17 NOVEMBER 1972

Residential demand 51,858.4 42,246.4 155,928.6 129,657.1 166,671.1 139,981.8 74,049.1 62,558.2 336,848.4 272,694.1 99,686.9 81,273.6 18,572.1 15,795.9 115,467.0 98,599.3 1,019,081.6 842,806.1 Commercial demand 39,148.1 30>840.3 126,737.3 103,129.0 136,017.4 108,139.0 48,934.9 39,663.0 167,914.3 132,157.8 78,141.6 62,652.6 22,925.2 18,474.5 127,479.1 102,300.1 747,297.6 597,356.1 Industrial demand 26,100.4 229897.8 141,013.1 123,566.9 155,343.8 139,361.6 52,938.6 45,549.8 267,079.3 229,185.7 107,463.4 88,833.6 22,706.8 20,065.0 123,604.7 106,143.1 896,249.8 775,603.4 Total demand 120,502.9 98,768.0 448,252.3 377,021.4 476,353.5 402,981.6 181,903.8 152,795.1 800,400.0 657,496.9 297,559.4 242,768.4 67,029.1 56,726.1 385,978.0 323,315.8 2,777,978.0 2,311,872.0

compared with new energy sources abe changed? We have no answer to this diflicult question. Perhaps the most appropriate con clusion is to ogbservethat energy demand growth is partly a matter of choice. Our decisions about the quality of our natural environment, our material standards of living, and equity will influence our demand for energy and will, in turn, be affected by our use of energy.
References and Notes 1. U.S. Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power S"rvey (Government Printing Ofiice, Washington, D^C., 1971), part I, pe 1-3-15. 2. Committee on U.S. Energy Outlook U5. Energy O"tlook (National Petroleum Council, Washington, D.C., 1971), vol. 2, pp. 7, 10, 11. The NPC projections for electricity generation were actually reported for 1970, 1975, l980, and 1985 as 16: 695; 23: 525; 32: 996; and 44: 363 quadrillion British thermal units, respectively. The heat rate was estimated to decline 7 percent from 1970 to 1985. By taking the average heat rate of 10,508 Btu/kwh for 1970 reported in the Statistical Year Book of the Electrical Utility Industry for ]970 (Edison Electric Institute, New York, 1971) and calculating as indicated, the NPC projections in Table 1 are obtained. These projections grow at 7.2 percent annually, as assumed by the NPC. The amount of electricity generated by the utilities in 1970 was (on a prelirriinary reporting basis) 1.53 Tkwh. The NPC esti-

mate for 1970 may have been prepared before this figure was known. 3. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on lnterior and Insular Affairs, Summary Report of the Cornell Workshop on Energy and xhe Environment (Sponsored by the National Science Foundation) (Print, 92nd Congr., 2nd Sess., May 1972)1 p. 137. 4. In a major pollution control study (5, p. 96) it was concluded that "We i . concur in the Federal Power Commission forecast that electricity consumption will continue to grow at a doublirlg rate of every ten years (i.e., at 7.2 percent per year) during the 1970's.'^ 5 U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency, The Economic Impact of Pollution Control (Govemment Printing OfficeF Washington, D.C., 1972). 6. U.S. Congress, Sellate Select Committee on National Water Resources, Water Resources Activities in the United States: Electric Power in Relation xo the Nation's Water Resources (Print, 86th Congr., 2nd Sess., January 1960), p. 17. This prediction was brought to our attention by P. Auer and H. J. Young. 7. The wholesale electrical machinery price m dex has declined relative to overall wholesale prices since 1959. 8. A. J. Wagner, Public Util. Fortn. 89 (No. 13), 27 (1972). 9. J. Rosenthal, "Birth rate drop is accelerating," New York Times, 24 May 1972; 'Population growth in U.S. sharply Qff," Did., 5 November 1971. 10. J. W. Wilson, Quart. Rev, Econ. Bus. ll, 7 (1971). 11. P. W. MacAvoy, Economic Strategy for Delseloping Nuclear Breeder Reactors (M*I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969). 12. R. Halvorsen, Sierra Ctub Conference on Power and Public Poticy (Public Resources, Inc., Burlington, Vt., 1972). 13. Wilson (10) vrorked with the average annual residential consumption per household (in
9

kilowatt hours) for 77 cities ln (apparently) 1966. MacAvoy {\11) studied the total added electrical capacity (in megawatts) for nlne regions over three 4year periods. Halvorsen (12) examined the annual residentiaI con sumption per customer (in kilowatt hours), by states, in the period from 1961 to 1969. 14. We work with data from 1946 to the present for each state, region, and consumer class. Various functional forms, variables, and dy namic models are compared. Details for our analysis and a more comprehensive review of other studies are discussed elsewhere. T. Mount, D. Chapman, T. J. Tyrrell, in prepZ aration; also papers presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advance ment of Science in Philadelphia, 1971; at (3); and at (]2). 15. In the studies cited in Table 1 various opinions are offered about the competitiveness of elecF tricity prices as a significant influence on electricity demand growth (1, p. I-1-14; 2, volg 1, p. 8, vol. 2, p. 2; 3, pp. 134, 155, 156). In (5, p. 97) it was stated that "We assume for putposes of this report that the demand for electricity is relatively inelastic." R. E. Graham, Jr., H. C. Degraff, E. A. Trotts Jr., Surv. Curr. Bus. S2 (No. 4), 22 (1972). More precisely, we consider that the fertility rate is low enough so that the sum of births and new immigrants less the number of deaths will be zero by 2035 or 2040. P. Kline, "Projectioals of electricity consumption in the United States 197s1990" (unpublished) (Federal Power Commission, Washing ton, D.C., 1971), p. 14. We appreciate the assistance of E. Fleming J. Baldwin, and J. M. Ostro, and the helpful comments of the referees and editor. SuF ported by the National Science Foundation through the Atomic Energy Commission, Union Carbide Corporation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and CSortlellUniversity.

The Economic lmpact of Pollutson Control

I6. 17.

18.

19.

Nutritionand Mental Performance

Prenatalexposureto the Dutch famine of 19441945 seems not relatedto mentalperformance age at
.

19e

Zena Stein MervynSusser,GerhartSaenger,and FrancisMarolla

Nutrition is one among the comples hongetwinfer in the Netherlands in of factors embracedby social class that 1944-1945 have enabled us to isolate may account for the influence of social the experience of famine from other class on intelligence. Despite the atten- elements of the social environment. tion given to the influence of malnutrit Here we relate materialstarvationdurtion on mental performancethrough its ing pregnancy to the mental status of effect on the developing brain (1) the the offspring in adult life. evidence to establish this causal seThe Dutch famine was remarkablein quence in humans is lacking. Published three respects; (i) Famirle has seldom studies have suffered from flaws in de- if ever struck where extensive, reliable, sign or execution; many have not had and valid data allow the effects to be adequate control groups; and both analyzed within spec-ified conditiorlsof specifying and assessing nutritionalin- the social environment.(ii) The famine take in human populationsis very diffi- was sharply circumscribedin both time cult (2 ) . The circumstances of the and place. (iii) The type and the degree
708

of nutritional deprivation during the famine were known with a precisionunequaled in any large human population hefore or since. On 17 September 1944 British paratroops landed at Arnhem in an effort to force a bridgeheadacross the Rhine. At the same time,, in response to a call from the Dutch government-in-exile in London, Dutch rail workers went on strike.The effort to take the bridgehead failed, and the Nazis in reprisal imposed a transportembargo on western Holland. A severe winter froze the barges in the canals, and soon no food was reaching the large cities (3). Several indices attest to the severity of the famine in the cities of wes,tern Holland: 1) At their lowest point the oicial food rations reached 450 calories per day, a quarter of the minimum sttandard cities outside the famine areaS rations almost ne^zerfell below 1300 calories per day (Table 1) The supply of food gradually declined during the first 6 weeks of the embargo, until in
The authors are members of the New York State Departmexltof Mental Hygiene Epidemiology Research Uxlit I of the Division of Epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health axld AdministrativeMedicine New York 10032. ' SC:IENCE,VOL. 178