You are here:   SEEA >> SEEA Revision >> Issues - Central Framework
 Home
 SEEA
      SEEA Revision
      Energy
      Water
      Land and Ecosystems
 SEEA Briefing Notes
 Publications
 Meetings
 Technical Cooperation
      Workshops
      Global Assessment
      SEEA EEA
 UNCEEA
      UNCEEA Meetings
      UNSC Reports
 London Group
      LG Meetings
 Library
      Keyword Search
      Country Search
 

Linking energy flow accounts, energy balances and energy statistics

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:24/12/2010
Number of comments:24
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
11/01/2011Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate. We have some specific comments which have been added to section 3 “any other comments”.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances
  3. Any other comments?
We have answered yes to question 1 but would like to pass on the following comments from one of New Zealand’s leading authorities in the energy field (Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority). While the definition of primary and secondary energy should be based on physics, the operational or the practical side should also be borne in mind. It is important that we rely on as many examples as possible to illustrate what is included or excluded from the definition/s. Our guiding criterion is the measurability of the concepts on a unified basis. We support the way primary energy is defined in "embodied" and "source" terms; and secondary energy in "commodity" term. Following this definition roading is a commodity but in reality it is seen as "infrastructure" Is there any way we could explain or qualify what type of commodity secondary energy is? We are aware that here the tradable aspect of energy is being highlighted. There will be cases where some energy type/source will be both a primary and secondary energy, e.g. hard coal Waste is classified as primary energy. What about "waste heat" is it not secondary energy? Generally, it is good to treat secondary energy as a commodity but this will depend on the context. Electricity is a kinetic energy and should therefore be included as secondary energy.
04/01/2011Statistics Finland1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes
  3. Any other comments?
Energy accounts are closely related to air emission accounts, and in many countries to accounts on environmentally related taxes and other transfers as well. In the SEEA, the most important links between energy, air emission and taxes should be highlighted.
28/12/2010Turkey / Turkish Statistical Institute 1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
No. Bridge tables linking energy balances and energy accounts should be made clear for the treatment of the domestic supply and use of products by type of production.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
28/12/2010Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
28/12/2010Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
In general, yes. It could be added that in some cases, the energy balances lack sufficient detail in terms of both industry disaggregation and subsequent transactions to provide the full set of information required for energy accounts. In the first case, the service sector is not defined with much resolution in the balances. In the second, energy balances can have difficulty tracking final use of energy products, particularly where secondary distributors are involved (e.g. wholesalers, or retail pump sales of motor gas).
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes, bridge tables are useful and becoming more policy relevant and should therefore be part of the SEEA. The bridge table concept should be presented as a general tool, useful for all types of accounting when data are compiled according to different methodological or reporting frameworks (e.g. energy balances vs. accounts, IPCC reporting vs. GHG accounts, emissions inventories vs. emissions accounts, etc…)
  3. Any other comments?
Para 12. “never” is too strong here. Balances with a regional disaggregation will show imports and exports in the national territory. Para 16. should state that ISIC is not strictly followed, since ISIC classes can form the basis for much of the balances. Para 17 should say that transportation is generally excluded as this is not always the case. Para 19 the last sentence is not clear. Ancillary production can be part of the monetary accounts. Is “own account” production what it meant? Para 34. Consistency with the product classification is of prime importance for the energy accounts. Para 37. It is agreed that presentation of the bridge table at an industry level is highly useful.
28/12/2010Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
  3. Any other comments?
No
28/12/2010Jordan\Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
yes
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
yes
28/12/2010Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Main differences are described and paper has improved since last version. Some remarks related to differences between energy balances and energy accounts here, but as mentioned in question 3, we are questioning how this issue is to be included and covered in the revised SEEA? When describing distinctions between industries and activities it should also be mentioned that energy used as raw-material (non-energy use) also is separated in the energy balance while in the physical energy flow accounts non-energy use is attributed to the ISIC industry actually using it. When describing “terminology issues” we think that §21-§24 could be better explained systematising this information in a table. We are questioning if the term "consumption of energy by energy producers" is the correct terminology in use? As we understand it, it is not energy converted which is meant here, and that is not to be included? Is it more correct to use "own consumption of energy by energy producers”? When describing the treatment of “statistical discrepancies”, it’s difficult at this point to decide how these are going to be treated in the bridge tables since there is still no conclusion on how to deal with possible “statistical discrepancies” in the physical energy flow accounts. Will the discussions related to treatment of statistical discrepancies in the physical energy flow accounts be treated as part of issue #3a? Difficult issue. We do not recommend distributing the discrepancy across the supply and use categories. Other solutions have to be discussed (storage, incl. statistical discrepancies etc etc). Using SIEC or CPC will be further discussed as part of revision issue #2. However, problems using the CPC classification when referring to energy products were one of the reasons for developing SIEC. At least for the comparisons of energy accounts with energy balances, SIEC is preferred to be used. The problem occurs when making hybrid accounts between energy accounts and economic figures from the national accounts. If wanting to present energy products by CPC-codes rather than SIEC-codes, SIEC should at least serve as the basis for what CPC-products to define as energy products. We question the possibility of making internationally recommendations on the split links between CPC and SIEC? Will these splits vary too much from country to country? One could emphasise, for example in §39, that in principle the same type of data sources should be used when compiling physical energy flow accounts and energy balances, at least for those issues that are similar (with exceptions of those issues that by definition are different due to the use of the territory principle vs. the residence principle). In the last sentences of §40 it should be made more explicit that when mentioning natural gas, it is the natural gas which is re-injected, flaring etc. that are to be included in the physical energy flow account (as we understand it). We would recommend in the text to be more evident in the use of hence energy accounts, energy flow accounts and physical flow accounts. Not only using energy accounts throughout the chapter, although it in § 8 is mentioned that it is the “measurement of physical flows of energy” that is the interest in this paper.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes. Construction of bridge tables is a valuable technique also for checking the quality of the accounts compiled. However, we are questioning if the differences between energy accounts and energy balances presented in the outcome paper are too detailed for inclusion in the revised SEEA? Especially if other environmental themes in SEEA are to be covered in a similar way related to bridging items (water, forest, land etc). Maybe the details presented in this outcome-paper fit better in the SEEA-E, and in the revised SEEA the bridging of energy accounts and energy balances could be covered with a less detailed description? More tables drawing up the main differences etc? Bridging items that can be seen as general for several environmental themes can be covered in the part of SEEA covering “bridge tables” in general, for example differences due to systematising of statistics using the residence principle vs. the territory principle etc..
  3. Any other comments?
In table 1 we would recommend to skip the “of which components” if this is not a full list of possible components. If the ”of which components” are covering all possible purchases by residents abroad/sales to non-residents on domestic territory”, we would recommend to use the terminology ”illustrates” rather than "gives and example of" in the title of table 1. We would on a general basis recommend avoiding terminology like SEEA-based…, SEEA-classification of… etc. For example, “energy accounts” should be a concept that is related to the underlying definitions of the SEEA, and writing “SEEA-based energy accounts” means saying it twice that these energy accounts are based on SEEA recommendations.
23/12/2010UNSD1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
The term “end use (SEEA)” in the bridge tables should be defined. The text currently only defines “total energy use” within the accounting framework and not “end use”. The formula in para 23 is not completely correct: in energy statistics “energy use” only covers the use of energy products for heat raising, transportation and electrical services; “final energy consumption” covers both energy and non energy uses. The formula needs to be revised. Table 3 needs some adjustments. It is developed following the concepts of the 1993 SNA rather than the 2008 SNA and this has implication on the recording of exports and imports for good for processing and merchanting. For GFP: the export column should be broken down in adding exports based on territory principle (based on merchandise trade/customs statistics) with an negative adjustment for those exports undertaken for processing purposes (without change in ownership). Similarly, an additional column has to be added in the bridge table for the imports to correct for those imports without a change of ownership. For "merchanting", the gross positions of imports and exports should be included in the imports and exports.
  3. Any other comments?
The forthcoming International Recommendations for Energy Statistics (IRES) will present a general format of energy balance and it would be advisable to present in the SEEA bridge tables to that format of energy balance.
23/12/2010France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology – Statistical department1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes. Accounts and balances are both useful and follow their own specific logic.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
23/12/2010US/ Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
23/12/2010Statistics Austria1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
  3. Any other comments?
The text should say: “23. Since in both approaches supply and use are not equivalent...” A clear correspondence table between the Central Product Classification (CPC) and the Standard International Energy Classification (SIEC) is necessary for the comparability of the different concepts (energy balances, energy accounts, SNA)
23/12/2010Statistics Lithuania1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Statistics Lithuania does not currently have sufficient subject matter expertise to comment on the questions raised for issue 3a.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
No comment.
23/12/2010Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
No comment.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
23/12/2010Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes. The ABS is pleased to note that the term ‘energy sector’ and the section on ‘Generation of Energy’ referred to in the 10 November document have disappeared.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes. Energy Accounts are typically constructed using energy balances as the starting point. It is therefore a practical necessity that compilers of the energy account understand why and how energy balances are converted to energy accounts. The appropriate place to explain this relationship is in the SEEA; and bridging tables are an appropriate technique to help compilers produce output on the correct basis and to assist users in understanding differences between energy balances and accounts. The wording of paragraph 13 of the outcome paper regarding “… the types of adjustments that are required to bridge between imports and exports …” is very good. It doesn’t claim to be comprehensive (which is fine) and therefore avoids the need to detail adjustments which will in all likelihood be rarely required.
  3. Any other comments?
Paragraph 16 of the outcome paper claims “In the energy balances the same principle is not followed and information on a specific enterprise or establishment is not explicitly linked to the relevant ISIC division/class”. Based on ABS involvement in the Oslo Group, this is somewhat misleading. Referring to Table 8.1 of the draft IRES, the “Final consumption” section of the energy balance follows the ISIC division/class structure, with the sole exception of Transport. Paragraph 34 of the outcome paper states “with one of its Groups not covered by SIEC at all” - this Group being identified as “Ice and snow”. Why would SIEC include “Ice and snow” when this is not an energy product? To suggest this is a weakness is misleading. SIEC should be (and ABS believes is) a subset of CPC, not identical to it. Paragraph 36 of the outcome paper states “No attempt is made to reconcile it” in reference to the statistical discrepancy. This is not true. Those compiling the energy balances should (and do) attempt to reconcile the components causing the statistical discrepancy, but in the end any discrepancy left over is openly and transparently shown. There is an inherent risk of the energy accounts approach—namely, if components causing the discrepancy cannot be reconciled in a meaningful way, then it is possible to ‘adjust away’ the statistical discrepancy in an uninformed and invisible manner (and in so doing hiding certain problems with data sources, methodology, etc.). Paragraph 38 of the outcome paper states “statistical discrepancies, which are normally included in the energy balances in order to reconcile differences between the supply and use side of the balances”. The statistical discrepancy is not included in the balance to reconcile differences, they are included to show the differences that cannot be reconciled. Our question is: does the SEEA need to be definitive on this question of showing or not showing the discrepancy? The ABS has adopted both approaches (i.e. statistical discrepancy explicitly left in place; or else removed on basis of informed investigations) throughout its history of producing environmental accounts.
23/12/2010Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
No. Statistics Sweden calculates both energy balances and energy statistics in the framework of environmental accounts. We support the comments provided by both Statistics Netherlands and Statistics Denmark. We would like to emphasise that we do not wish to create new energy balances and the proposal to introduce statistical discrepancies also for energy accounts is not something we are interested in. There is a fundamental difference in energy accounts and the energy balances i.e. keeping to the national accounts. This should be maintained.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
23/12/2010United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes. Generally yes, but more clarity would be welcome on bridging for use in non-energy products e.g. lubricants and chemical feedstocks.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
  3. Any other comments?
Regarding table 1, could ‘foreign vehicles refuelling’ be redrafted to clarify that this does not refer to foreign makes of vehicles – ‘foreign operated’ possibly ? Regarding paras. 12 to 14 is clarification required on the treatment of fuel for trawlers which do not dock in foreign ports in the energy balances. The following text from the IEA manual refers: "International Marine Bunkers are deliveries of oils to ships for consumption during international voyages (bunker oils) and represent a special case of flows of oil from the country. The oils are used as fuel by the ship and are not part of the cargo. All ships, irrespective of the country of registration, should be included but the ships must be undertaking international voyages, that is, their first port of call must be in a foreign country. International marine bunkers statistics should include fuel delivered to naval vessels undertaking international voyages. Care should be taken to ensure that data representing oil delivered for international marine bunkers meet the definition given here and, in particular, exclude bunker oil used by fishing vessels."
22/12/2010Eurostat1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
No. It is not clear if there is a universally accepted format for "energy balances" and therefore Eurostat is making comments based on the assumption that "energy balances" are based on the IEA/Eurostat/OECD manual and that these are the starting point for this evaluation. Eurostat would like to draw attention to another generic difference between "energy balances" and "energy accounts" which concerns the coverage/range of flows. In our view the balances record only products which circulate within the economy. Whereas, energy accounts include flows from the environment to the economy of resources, the product flows within the economy and the flows of residuals (heat) from the economy to the environment. The SEEA is to include the interactions between the environment and the economy (and vice versa). The following are comments to specific parts of the description: §7: Energy accounts should only focus on energy and use only units related to energy (Joules). Air emissions accounts should NOT be part of energy accounts because they are expressed in different units (tonnes) and the emissions to be included in the accounts are broader than the emissions resulting from the combustion of fuels (for example emissions from agriculture, waste, industrial processes, etc. need to be included in air emissions accounts). §10 – should include international transport since this is the MAJOR difference whereas the other items listed are of relatively minor importance in most cases. §15 states that energy accounts should "strictly follows…ISIC." The accounts should follow the national accounts supply and use system set up. ISIC should be used for the industries but household consumption and stock changes also need to be part of the accounts system. Table 2 – tables that provide guidelines for compilation may not be appropriate for the SEEA unless they are clearly labelled that they are "examples" – since there is seldom a universal 1-to-1 correspondence between the technologies and the industries. Classification: You have to start with the energy statistics which use SIEC so if only making physical energy accounts then using SIEC is fine, there is no need to impose an additional classification system into physical energy accounts. If hybrid accounts are the goal then CPC will be needed at some point so a common aggregation will be needed to be established using a conversion key between the SIEC and CPC systems. Exactly how to describe the treatment of ''discrepancies'' is also important. At this point in time, we feel that the description in the revised SEEA needs to allow for the two approaches described in this paper since the treatment of discrepancies has not been resolved in practice yet. The discrepancies should not simply be hidden by changing stock/inventories. Allowing for specifying the discrepancies in a separate row (or column) next to the stock changes is one option that needs to be included as well as distributing the discrepancies across the various units.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes. Assuming we have a definition of "energy balances" that everyone agrees on – then describing the technique of bridging should be presented. What is unclear to us is exactly which figures/indicators/aggregates should be bridged from one system to the other system. Energy accounts are still being developed in countries and a harmonization of the different country approaches has occurred. It would perhaps be wisest to focus on the principles to be considered and to be less prescriptive than the text and tables in this paper.
  3. Any other comments?
We would like to recommend that the SEEA-rev uses a similar type of diagram to explain the differences between accounts and energy balances (see diagram below).
comment3a-Eurostat.pdf
21/12/2010Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes. It is important to note that energy accounts are consistent with the SNA concepts, and includes accounts of assets, air emissions and hybrid indicators which allows to make more detailed analysis of the relationships between economy and environment.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes. These tables allows to include all energy flows, in addition it make possible to be more consistent with the concepts and definitions of the SNA.
  3. Any other comments?
The implementation of proposed tables allows to generate indicators for international comparisons.
17/12/2010Peru/INEI1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes. The document describes the conceptual and terminology differences related to economical statistics. It also clearly points out the differences between the Territory Principle (Energy Balance), Residence Principle (Energy Accounts). On the other hand, the differences to be considered are described like presentation of information, for the energy accounts for the household and economical activities based on the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC); while for the information related to the Energy Balances having in consideration the used the used technology. Other differences highlighted in the document are related with the presentation and scope of production, terminology, and classification of products, and the statistical discrepancies. We agree that the technical procedures for the construction of bridge tables should be explained, due to its importance to integrate y conciliate the concepts and aggregates of the different measure approaches.
17/12/2010Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
No. How to treat “internal use of energy” in the bridge tables is not described in the paper. This is energy that is produced and subsequently used within the same plant/company. For example, a refinery produces refinery gas which is subsequently internally used. In the energy balances this supply and use of refinery gas shows up. In the (gross) energy accounts, however, both the supply and use of this refinery gas are not shown as the refinery gas does not leave the plant/company and there is no monetary transfer involved. Somehow this difference should also be made clear in the bridge tables.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes.
  3. Any other comments?
Table 4 seems incorrect. It shows the bridge items between final consumption from the energy balances and the end use in SEEA. End use is not defined in this paper, but should include energy conversion losses (or consumption of energy producers as it is called in the paper). It would be much more clear to the user to provide a bridge table for total energy use (energy balances) and SEEA end use.
17/12/2010Malaysia/Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes
  3. Any other comments?
1. The Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) has no experience in developing any environmental account using the SEEA framework. However, DOSM is currently trying to develop one of the SEEA account (eg Water account) with the experience and knowledge gain while visiting Australia Bureau Statistics (ABS), and also with the guide of the SEEA 2003. However DOSM, experience constrains in developing this account with lack of expertise in this field, human resources and budget. 2. DOSM also wants to learn in detail how to develop the SEEA account. Please inform and include us if there is any training/workshop to be conducted in future. 3. Therefore DOSM is unable to contribute fruitful comments for the revision of the SEEA. However, DOSM would like to be involved in further development of this matter.
17/12/2010Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
No. We agree that the main differences are described well. However, in a few places the description should be adjusted somewhat to improve the clarity. As explained below we disagree with the suggestion for the treatment of statistical differences, and find that especially this point needs to be reconsidered before we can agree on the sescription. Para. 19: “In the energy accounts, ancillary production is separately identified as it is not included as part of output in the monetary accounts.” This is probably only true for electricity, and not for heat. IRES recommends that only generation of heat for sale is included. Table 2. could give the impression that all electricity and heat plants should be allocated to ISIC divission 35, Electricity, gas, and steam supply, etc. However, energy production as secondary activity and production for own use may take place in other industries. One example is electricity produced by incineration of waste. According to ISIC thi acticvity should be recorded as belonging to ISIC 38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities. Para 21. The “Total energy supply” formula is correct as far as the often seen presentation of energy balances concerns. In relation to that, only primary energy is included on the supply side. However, more generally the energy supply is also calculated for secondary energy products (cf. commodity balances), and in that case it ismore appropriate to leave out the words primary and secondary from the formula. Para 28 and 29. It is necessary to mention that what is called international marine bunkers in energy statistics and balances is not the same as the bunkering abroad, which is used in the accounts in order to apply the residence principle. para 31-34: When talking about products it is important to mention that the “energy products” in the energy balances is a more general concept in the energy balances compared to the accounts. This is a result of the decision to restrict output of products in SEEA to those outputs which are linked to economic transactions (net output), i.e. excluding losses and own use. Thus, the products of the balances corresponds to a sum of products and residuals from the accounts. para 35. It is stated that statistical differences may be introduced in the accounts. This is a fundamental and crucial change of the principles for supply and use tables in SEEA. This needs more discussion and consideration of the consequenses. If it is accepted to introduce statistical differences in the tables for energy there is no reason not to do it for water, and for all other kind of physical flows. However, this opens up for problems in relation to the link to the monetary SUTs, and whether statistical discrepancies should also be accepted for these. As long as the consequences of such a fundamental change has not been discussed witin the London Group, etc. we are strongly against of the introduction of statistical disrepancies in the PSUTs.
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes
  3. Any other comments?
It should be noted that the bridge table for domestic supply also include secondary products. This involves a generalisation of the supply concept of the energy balances, which does not include secondary energy as supply, cf. our comments to para. 21 above.
06/12/2010Bulgaria, National Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that the outcome paper describes the full range of differences between energy accounts and energy balances and that the descriptions are accurate?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the technique of constructing bridge tables should be explained and used in the revised SEEA, in particular to explain the differences between energy accounts and energy balances?
Yes
 

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2014