The death of energy statistics we can trust in the name of cost-cutting affects not just governmental policy but our daily lives as well.
The American public and government officials are in danger of losing one of their most effective tools in responding to the inevitable and frequent energy crises that the nation faces. The energy statistics and projections that we rely on for making good business and policy decisions are being hampered by unwarranted concerns about how the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) energy projections are prepared, as well as by poorly devised workforce reductions.
The consequences of bad data could be problematic for the president and members of Congress in a personal way. They are constantly called upon to make quick decisions of the utmost importance and will have their own reputations at stake if their judgements are marred by flawed data. Companies are under intense pressure to deliver earnings results that depend on making, or not making, billion-dollar investment decisions. Can they depend on the data used to make their own projections? If they can’t get reliable data, they might decide to forgo investments or opt to delay them.
The consequences for the economy are not good. Growth could be stalled. Shortages of energy products could lead to higher prices and consumer frustration with inflation that will be revealed in election results.
Why the EIA is Essential
The EIA was created as part of the Department of Energy in 1977, when Congress and the president came to understand the importance of unbiased and trustworthy energy statistics and analysis during the 1973-74 oil crisis. The public was concerned about shortages and high energy prices, and most of the energy data available at the time was provided by industry associations that suffered from the appearance of a conflict of interest, while often charging high fees for access to their information. Policymakers, analysts, and the public needed to be confident in the quality, timeliness, and availability of the information that formed the basis for critical decisions by businesses and government.
At its creation, the EIA was tasked with the responsibility to collect, analyze, and disseminate energy information and projections to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy issues. The EIA was expected to foster a comprehensive focus on energy security, the economy, and the environment. By law, the EIA was given the authority to enforce compliance with its surveys. Furthermore, the EIA’s data and reports are prepared independently of policy considerations, and it does not advocate policy positions. By consistently adhering to these directives, the EIA has earned a global reputation as a trusted source for impartial energy data and analysis.
The Value of EIA’s Reference Case Methodology
The EIA has sometimes been criticized for publishing its findings with a “reference case” based on existing laws and regulations. This approach presents a potentially misleading view of future energy scenarios, as it doesn’t account for plausible changes in laws, regulations, or market trends. Over the last few decades, EIA projections for renewable energy growth were biased downward, for example, by the expiration of subsidies that were constantly (usually at the last minute) extended by Congress. More recently, the agency has been faulted for over-forecasting renewables because of legislation and rules that are expected to be reversed by executive order and the current Congress.
Although this approach can seem hidebound, the value of EIA’s analytical methodology is that its reference case is not influenced by anybody’s opinion about what might happen in the future. The EIA acknowledges the inherent uncertainty in forecasts and projections and addresses variability by also publishing alternative scenarios that incorporate how changes in economic growth, technology costs, or policy could influence energy trends. The value of this practice can be favorably compared with the distorted projections published by the International Energy Agency that deliberately chose to abandon the “Current Policies Scenario” in its World Energy Outlook — leading many analysts to conclude that IEA’s findings were biased by wishful thinking on the speed of the transition to renewable energy.
Misguided Workforce Reductions
The EIA, like other executive branch agencies, has been severely affected by workforce reductions and policies applied indiscriminately by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In early July, the US Supreme Court removed a lower court’s injunction that temporarily had halted the administration’s plans to fire large numbers of federal employees and reorganize or eliminate numerous agencies.
The severe contractions in federal employees already imposed on statistical agencies, including the EIA, are having significant and negative effects on the accuracy and timeliness of statistical data and analysis. These cuts, coupled with hiring freezes, have created staffing shortages, hindering the ability of all statistical agencies to collect, process, and analyze data accurately. This will increasingly compromise the reliability of critical energy and economic indicators and other vital statistics used for policymaking, market analysis, and business planning and decisions.
Getting the Nation’s Data Right
At the start of 2025, the EIA had about 350 full-time employees working to collect and analyze the nation’s vital energy statistics. Between firings and buy-outs, the EIA’s workforce has already been reduced significantly. For fiscal year 2026, which starts this October 1, the EIA has been directed to limit its personnel level to 246 people. But there is a high potential for that figure to fall further as the combination of firings, freezes, and normal attrition takes hold.
In the aftermath of the pandemic, the EIA counted nearly 100 talented analysts working from well outside the Washington capital area. With that policy now reversed by executive order, there are forty employees still contributing away from the DOE headquarters building on Independence Avenue. As they are under pressure to return to the office, many will likely choose to seek other jobs rather than relocate.
Meanwhile, the political turmoil in Washington is making hiring more difficult. Human resources experts believe that EIA could have fewer than 200 full-time employees by the end of the 2025 calendar year. At the EIA and other agencies, the human resources teams needed to process the paperwork for hiring and departures have been thinned out, adding to the chaos.
Internally at EIA, the headcount reduction has not been evenly distributed. Some areas, such as natural gas statistics and analysis, for example, have been hit harder than others. Managers can try to compensate for outcomes like this, but they will likely witness a loss in operating efficiency as employees need to shift into unfamiliar territory.
Some of the talent loss at the EIA and other agencies can be softened by the existence of contractors who often are used in a capacity similar to employees. However, flat or lower budgets and uncertainty about how contracts will be affected have made this potential safety net unreliable. In some cases, agencies use grants to accomplish collection requirements. The EIA’s important data on propane production and use is collected via a grant that may be terminated by an executive order.
Severely constrained resources will make it more difficult to properly protect the confidential data that companies have entrusted to the EIA. With many long-tenured employees among the first to depart, less-experienced employees are likely to struggle to keep pace with the rapid changes taking place in policies, industry strategies, and developments in artificial intelligence. Survey design, collection, and processing are likely to suffer.
Building Back the Necessary Talent
The expertise that has characterized the information produced by the EIA and other statistical agencies in the United States is at risk. Business decisions and policy choices are already being hampered by the workforce reductions and the unfamiliarity of new officials with proven and reliable forecasting methodologies. The trust that Americans have placed in the unbiased nature of government statistics is being tarnished. The EIA has often been called the “gold standard” for energy statistics. Congress and the administration should be taking steps to remedy the damage already done, first by stopping the further erosion of the EIA’s resources and credibility, and then by restoring the ability of the EIA to perform its duties.
About the Author: Adam Sieminski
Adam Sieminski is the senior adviser to the board of trustees of KAPSARC, a leading advisory think tank located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Prior to joining KAPSARC in 2018, he held the CSIS James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy & Geopolitics. From 2012 through 2016, he served as administrator of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. Sieminski received both an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and a master’s degree in public administration from Cornell University.
Image: Shutterstock/ImageFlow
