Energy Use
First Use of Energy
Feedstock Energy
'Other' Energy Sources
Fuel Consumption
Offsite-Produced Energy
Byproducts 
Net Demand for Electricity
Onsite Electricity Generation
Purchased Energy
End Use
Wood and Wood Related Energy Sources

Energy Expenditures 
Purchased Energy
Average Prices

Other Characteristics
Number of Establishments
Floorspace
Energy Management Activities
Cogeneration Technologies

Note: All of the 1994-1998 comparisons are statistically significant. Exceptions are noted by "NS."

Overview

In 1998, economic growth in the United States continued on its expansion path.   Between 1994 and 1998, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for manufacturing grew at an annualized rate of 4.7 percent. Producer prices for intermediate materials used in manufacturing showed very little growth while producer prices for crude materials actually declined as the real price (chained 1992 dollars) of crude oil was 23 percent less in 1998 than in1994. Labor costs also showed little growth--2.7 percent annually (employment cost index) while labor productivity grew by 4.2 percent (output per hour (all persons)).   Between 1994 and 1998, capital productivity experienced little gain—less than 1 percent annually so the manufacturing growth seems to have been driven by the increase in labor productivity and a decrease in the cost of material inputs.

Most of the growth in the manufacturing sector was in the production of durables such as primary metals, vehicles, computers, and machinery of all types.   Production of durable goods, as measured by the industrial production index, rose at an annualized rate of 8.7 percent while nondurables such as food, clothing, and paper products increased by only an annualized rate of 1.5 percent. 

Interestingly, between 1994 and 1998, energy use did not keep up with production.   Whether one uses the measure “First Use of Energy,” which includes feedstocks, or the measure “Fuel Consumption,” energy use grew annually 2.3 and 1.8 percent, respectively.   In the past, arguments were heard that energy was such a small percentage of costs that manufacturers were not as concerned about the energy costs as they were about their other material inputs. One could argue that U.S. manufacturing became more energy efficient as manufacturers, reluctant to raise prices, looked everywhere to cut costs--even energy.  As seen in the 1998 MECS, between 1994 and 1998 many manufacturers did replace equipment with energy-efficient replacements, and they also participated in Federal Government programs such as the Industries of the Future and the Motor and Steam Challenges sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Also during this time, there was a continuation of a structural change in manufacturing—from energy-intensive manufacturing to less energy intensive.   While the nominal dollar value of durable goods, as measured by value of shipments, experienced twice the growth as nondurable goods--growth in the value of the mix within the durable goods sector   favored less energy-intensive goods.   As an example,  between 1994 and 1998, the less energy-intensive computer and electronic products industry and the information technologies industries grew at a faster rate than did the more energy-intensive primary industries. (U.S. Census Bureau Annual Survey of Manufactures).