Tag Archives: sports

Super Bowl Sunday and Electricity Demand: What Happens in Cities with Super Bowl Teams and Host Cities?

The Super Bowl is upon us once again, along with all the fun sideshows that go with it. There are few events in American culture that bring as many people collectively around a single event quite like the Super Bowl, with even non-football fans gorging on fatty foods, enjoying the commercials, and relishing in the excuse to attend parties on a Sunday evening. The grip that Super Bowl Sunday has on our group consciousness allows for some interesting analysis of data (how much food do we collectively eat?) and myths (despite what I heard on the schoolyard growing up, the simultaneous flushing of toilets during halftime has not actually caused damage to sewer systems).

Thinking of the ‘everyone flushing the toilet at the same time’ myth got me to wondering about how electricity demand as a whole is affected by the Super Bowl, particularly in the regions whose teams made the big game (and presumably cause even more of the population to tune it) and the region hosting the Super Bowl. Indeed, grid operators like ISO New England recognize that ‘even when the game is thousands of miles away, the Super Bowl can have a big impact on regional electricity demand with spikes and dips throughout the game,’ requiring them to monitor the demand closely throughout the day.

So just as I started this football season analyzing the sustainability-ranking of each team, I’ll end it by analyzing the championship game in energy terms. Going into this analysis, I expected that a city/region having their team in the Super Bowl, or hosting the festivities, would lead to a definitive increase in power demand– but keep reading to see why I was surprised to find that assumption was misguided.



Graphical Results

We’ll jump right into the graphical results of this analysis– if you’re interested in reading the methodology, head down to the Methodology section now. The methodology section will also answer where the data came from and why for Super Bowls from 2015 and earlier there isn’t data available for each of the three relevant cities (two participant teams and the host city).

Super Bowl 51

Starting with the most recent Super Bowl and working backwards, first up is Super Bowl 51. This game saw the New England Patriots defeat the Atlanta Falcons in Houston, Texas, in the largest comeback in Super Bowl history. Below is the graph of electricity use in the power regions that are home to Boston, Atlanta, and Houston compared with a typical Sunday of comparable weather (note that all times displayed in this and other graphs are in Eastern Standard Time even when the region in question is in a different timezone):

For this specific Super Bowl, the electricity demand in all three regions is mostly lower than a normal Sunday for the whole day, though the demand of the Atlanta fans drops even lower than normal come game time and we see the New England electricity demand increase compared with normal as the games continues. As will be discussed later, this difference in how the two cities reacted over the course of the game likely reflects the attitudes and activities each fan-base had to what was looking like a blowout victory for Atlanta.

Super Bowl 50

Super Bowl 50 featured the Denver Broncos defeating the Carolina Panthers in Santa Clara, California. Comparing the electricity use this Super Bowl Sunday with a typical winter Sunday in the power regions that contain Denver, Charlotte, and Santa Clara gives the following visual:

In what we’ll find is a more typical effect of Super Bowl Sunday, the electricity use in both Denver and Santa Clara saw an increase from normal use early in the day, only to fall below average during the time when the game was on. Panthers fans, however, set an unparalleled increase in power demand compared with a normal Sunday all day, but especially high during the afternoon lead up to the game and notably dropping during the game.

Super Bowl 49

Working backwards, Super Bowl 49 is the first instance where we find that data is not available for all three regions (see Methodology section for an explanation). In this game, which found the New England Patriots defeating the Seattle Seahawks in Glendale, AZ on a game-ending interception in the end zone, we only have data from the New England power region to consider:

In looking at the New England electricity demand, we find a peak compared with normal early in the day and a general increase compared with normal over the course of the game.

Super Bowl 48

For Super Bowl 48, where the Seattle Seahawks dominated the Denver Broncos all game in East Rutherford, NJ, the only available data was for the power system that is home to East Rutherford.

Here we again find a peak in electricity demand compared with normal early in the day, which dissipates and eventually leads to lower electricity used during the actual playing of the Super Bowl compared with a normal day.

Super Bowl 47

Last but not least is Super Bowl 47, featuring the Baltimore Ravens defeating the San Francisco 49ers in New Orleans, LA. I was particularly looking forward to gathering the data from this one (and was disappointed to find only the Baltimore area data available) because this is the game that infamously featured a power outage in the stadium that delayed the game by over half an hour. I was hoping specifically for the New Orleans data to see what the electricity demand looked like before and after the blackout, but it was not meant to be.

However we can see from the Baltimore data a peak in electricity use compared with normal early in the day and a distinct drop off as the game is set to begin and throughout the course of the game. Because the data provided is hourly, it’s not clear if there was any effect during the half hour delay in the Super Bowl, but it looks like people in Baltimore continued whatever it was they were doing during the power outage in New Orleans, rather than decide to use the break in action to start up the dishwasher or the clothes dryer.

Conclusions

General trends

Interestingly, we don’t find one iron-clad trend that weaves its way through the entire data set analyzed, though there are some patterns.

  • For regions with teams in the Super Bowl, four out of six (Baltimore in 2013, New England in 2015, Denver in 2016, and Carolina in 2016) of them show an increase in electricity use during the lead up to the game, while four out of six (Baltimore in 2013, Denver in 2016, New England in 2017, Atlanta in 2017)  of them show a decrease in electricity use during the game.
  • For the regions hosting the Super Bowl, a similar trend is found. Two out of three host regions (East Rutherford in 2014 and Santa Clara in 2016) showed an increased electricity demand in the hours preceding the game, while all three host regions showed a general decrease in electricity demand during the game.

While these data are not complete or detailed enough to make definitive conclusions (in addition to the lack of more years of historical data, the issue of controlling for the weather is difficult to do since some of the wider regions will have more varied temperatures throughout the region and make it more difficult to ensure the weather is not causing electricity fluctuations as a whole), they do generally follow the results of U.S.-wide studies. A study by Outlier found, through working with utilities during Super Bowl 46, the following:

More specifically, versus a typical Sunday afternoon/evening in the winter, home power usage was 5 percent lower during the Super Bowl, with big consequences for overall energy use:

Source

Going further, ISO New England’s minute-by-minute graphical analysis during Super Bowls 49 and 50 show the types of effects the big moments like the start, halftime, and end of the game have on the total demand load (and also serve to solidify that the effects are more pronounced when a region’s local team is in the game!)

Source

 

Explanation of the trends

The conclusion of less electricity usage over the course of the Super Bowl may sound surprising at first, given that it’s an event centered around an electronic device in the TV, but when you break it down it really makes sense. While it’s true that Americans gather around the television, they are often doing so collectively– going to parties or bars. So while the Super Bowl is often uncontested as the most watched television program of the year, that does not necessarily lead to an increase in the number of television sets being powered as people congregate around TVs together. These effects are going to be even more drastic if a local team is in the game (drawing in the more casual viewer) or if the game is being played locally (meaning more people will be in or near the stadium to enjoy the festivities).

Further, just because people are turning on their TVs does not indicate that household energy use is going up. That is because TVs require less than 400 Watts (W), and sometimes as few as 20 W, compared with most energy-sucking appliances like the vacuum (650 W), washing machine (2,500 W), or water heater (4,000 W). During the Super Bowl when the TVs are on, households are significantly less likely to be using these more electricity-consumptive appliances (not to mention many households would regularly have their TVs on during these hours anyway) and thus overall electricity demand noticeably drops.

That combination of people gathering together as opposed to being in separate households and using TVs instead of other appliances satisfyingly explains the drop in power use during the game. We could also conjecture that power use goes up before the game as people are getting the energy intensive chores (washing clothes, vacuuming, washing dishes, etc.) done earlier in the day before heading out to their Super Bowl gathering. They might also be preparing food to enjoy during the big game using their ovens/microwaves/stove tops in these early afternoon hours when they would not normally be in the kitchen.

Exceptions to the trends

Though the previously discussed trends were found in a majority of the cases analyzed in this article, there were a couple that bucked the trend. Specifically, analyzing the electricity use on Super Bowl Sunday compared with a comparable Sunday found that:

  • In 2017, both New England and Atlanta, as well as host city Houston, had lower than normal electricity demand in the hours before the game;
  • In 2016, the Carolina region saw large peak in electricity use compared with normal in the afternoon leading up to the game; and
  • In 2015, New England had increased electricity demand the morning of the Super Bowl as well as during the game.

There are a number of potential reasons that these specific instances did not meet the trends found in other places. The main one could be that while the average temperature used to find a comparable Sunday was close to the temperature on Super Bowl Sunday, there could have been wildly varying temperatures in different parts of the region or in different times of the day that prompted heating or cooling systems to be ramped up. Without the availability hourly temperature data and/or the analysis of temperature data of many cities within a region, it is impossible to know for sure. Further, grid operators also monitor aspects of weather like dew point, precipitation, cloud cover, and wind to predict electricity demand– which would be significantly more difficult for me to control for here. So for aberrations outside of the expected trends, these type of weather effects are the most likely culprit.

Another interesting explanation to look for is how captivating a particular game might have been. In its analysis of Super Bowl energy numbers, MISO notes that the more captivated and the more glued to their seats watchers are during the game, the more the demand will remain steady and low. As soon as people start to get up and do other things in the house (either because its halftime or a game is uninteresting), they notice a real uptick in electricity demand. This effect could perhaps explain why electricity use started to go closer to normal levels in New England in 2017 when the Patriots were building a seemingly insurmountable deficit, and it could also explain why electricity demand started to increase compared with normal in Carolina in 2016 about midway through the game (while never down by more than 10 until the closing minutes, more casual Panthers fans might have been frustrated with their team’s lackluster offense and inability to score more than 7 points through the third quarter and tuned out to partake in more energy-intensive activities).

Methodology

Availability of data

The availability of a region’s electricity demand depends on the entities who deliver energy and how far back in time you are looking. At the suggestion of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a number of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs) have been established in the United States to coordinate, control, and monitor complex and sometimes multi-state grid systems. One of the results of the use of these systems is they often make hourly electricity demand data publicly available going back a number of years, which allows for us to look back on some of the regions of the participants/hosts of the Super Bowl. The cities/years where those data are available are shown in the table below.

For regions that are not a part of RTOs or ISOs, unfortunately the electric companies rarely make public the same type of data. However a proxy we can utilize the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Electric System Operating Data tool. While it only goes back to the summer of 2015, it does provide the same type of hourly electricity demand data for regions and utilities outside of RTOs/ISOs. So where needed, this data is used as well as indicated in the below table.

When going back to Super Bowl 49 and earlier, some data become unavailable and those cities are not included in the analysis, shown below as ‘not available.’

 

For links to each of the electricity data sources listed in the above table, go to the ‘Sources and additional reading‘ section.

Finding a reasonable day for comparison

To determine the changes in electricity demand that are attributed to each region for Super Bowl analyzed, a reasonable day for comparison was found in each region using the following criteria:

  • As pointed out in the previous post analyzing electricity usage during a federal government shutdown, nothing will affect a region’s power demand more than the weather. If all buildings and homes are turning up either the air conditioning or the heat, that will have a greater effect on electricity usage than anything else– even an event as large as the Super Bowl. With the goal of comparing electricity demand on Super Bowl Sunday with other days and controlling for other factors, the methodology used was to assure that the comparison day chosen had an average temperature as close as possible to the average temperature on the day of the Super Bowl in that region. As a rough proxy, the average temperature on the day of the Super Bowl in the major city associated with each team/region was found on Weather Underground, and the goal was to find a comparison day with an average temperature within a few degrees Fahrenheit;
  • There are also distinct patterns to electricity demand depending on the day of the week, so the comparable day chosen was always made to be a Sunday; and
  •  Lastly, the comparable day chosen was kept to be within one to three weeks of the Super Bowl (either before or after), while avoiding any Sunday that had a playoff football game for the region’s home team, to assure any other externalities are kept as constant as possible.

With that criteria in mind, the following were the days used for comparison to Super Bowl Sunday in each region:

Click to enlarge

Graphical comparisons

Once the hourly data for each Super Bowl Sunday and chosen comparable dates were pulled, the hour-by-hour comparison is calculated using a simple percentage change from the regular non-Super Sunday. These percentages are what are ultimately graphed on an hourly basis, with the up to three regions (depending on how many available) on the same graph to see if there are any trends based on the cities. Similar comparison was not included for overall U.S. electricity trends because the large and varied geography of the United States makes controlling for the effects of weather on electricity demand much more complicated and difficult (however, as noted earlier, a study that looked at thousands of households during the 2012 Super Bowl found that an on overall basis, electricity demand increases on Super Bowl Sunday in the hours before the game and decreases once the game begins).

Sources and additional reading

5 Facts About Energy During the Big Game: MISO

Baltimore Gas & Electric: PJM RTO

California ISO: Pacific Gas & Electric electricity demand

Carolinas region electricity demand (EIA)

Energy Reliability Council of Texas (RTO) Coastal Region Electricity Data

How a Patriots Super Bowl affects the region’s power grid: ISO Newswire

How the Super Bowl saves energy: ABB

New England ISO Electricity Data

Northwestern region electricity demand (EIA)

Public Service Company of Colorado (EIA)

Public Service Electric & Gas Company: PJM RTO

Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO)/Independent System Operators (ISO): FERC

Southeastern region electricity demand (EIA)

Why people use less energy on Super Bowl Sunday: Washington Post

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

How Much Power Is Really Generated by a Power Play?

As a huge sports fan who works in and writes about the energy industry, stumbling across this article that compared the kinetic energy produced by the high velocity projectiles in different sports got my creative juices flowing. By the estimates in that article, shooting a hockey puck produces the highest kinetic energy in all of sports.

Not only does it appear that hockey can take the ‘energy crown’ in sports, but a common occurrence during a hockey game is a ‘power play.’ A power play occurs when the referee determines that a player has committed a foul and that player is sent to spend a set number of minutes in the penalty box. During that time in the penalty box, the opposing team has the advantage of one additional player and are said to be on a power play– and if they score during that time then it is called a power play goal. While this power play has absolutely nothing to do with power plants or power generation, the idea that hockey pucks have the most kinetic energy in sports got me to wondering about what sort of power generation could be harnessed by power play goals in the National Hockey League (NHL).



If we wanted to harness the power of power plays (why would we want do do that? Maybe it’s the part of a plot by a wacky cartoon villain!), how much would that be? Why don’t we sit down and do the math!

Energy from a hockey puck

To start, we need to determine what the energy of a single hockey shot should be assumed to be (as the previously mentioned article does not include all of the necessary assumptions for academic rigor). High school physics class taught us that the kinetic energy is determined by taking one half times the mass of the object times the square of the speed of that object.

Source

Official ice hockey pucks weigh 170 grams, so we just need to figure out what to assume as the speed of the puck. Obviously every shot of the puck comes at a different speed depending on who is shooting, what type of shot is used (e.g., slap shot vs. wrist shot), how fatigued the player is, the condition of the ice, and many other factors. But for the sake of this back-of-the-envelope calculation, we can look at a couple of data points for reference:

  • The official NHL record for shot speed is 108.8 miles per hour (MPH) by Zdeno Chara in the 2012 All-Star Skills Competition;
  • Guinness World Records recognizes the hardest recorded ice hockey shot in any competition as 110.3 MPH by Denis Kulyash in the 2011 Continental Hockey League’s All-Star Skills Competition;
  • When discussing the benchmark of a particularly strong slapshot, 100 MPH is often used as the benchmark of a player getting everything behind a shot;
  • Finding benchmarks for the wrist shot is not as prevalent (people like to discuss the hardest shots possible, hence data on slap shots and not wrist shots), but some estimates show that wrist shots can reach speeds of 80 to 90 MPH; and
  • Estimates put wrist shots as accounting for 23 to 37 percent of all shots taken in professional hockey.

Given those figures, a rough estimate of average NHL shot speed can be determined by assuming slap shots are about 100 MPH and account for 70 percent of shots, while wrist shots are about 85 MPH and account for 30 percent of shots:

For the sake of this exercise, we’ll call the speed of a NHL shot 95.5 MPH, which equals about 42.7 meters per second (m/s). Plugging that speed and the 170 gram weight of the puck into our kinetic energy equation leaves us with an assumed ‘Power Play Power’ of an NHL power play goal of 154.9 Joules (J)– just over 0.04 kilowatt-hours (kWh).

For the rest of this article, we’ll refer to the energy gathered from power play goals, 154.9 J at a time, as ‘Power Play Power’– though please keep in mind the cardinal rule that power is the rate of energy over time, while the Joules and kilowatt-hours we’re talking about is total energy

Source

How much power can be harnessed from power plays?

The next step in reality would be to figure out how exactly you intend to extract ‘Power Play Power’ into actually generated energy, though that can be left up to the hypothetical cartoon villain who would be using such odd methods to create energy for his evil plots, as he did with the champagne bottles on New Year’s Eve (Side note, if I continue to write articles about the bizarre energy sources only thought up by a misguided cartoon villain, he needs a name– so in the spirit of villains like Megatron, Megamind, and Mega Shark, the energy-obsessed villain will be named Megawatt!)

But ignoring the question of how or why we would be extracting energy from ‘Power Play Power,’ let’s just look at what type of power will be generated based on 154.9 J per power play goal. Also note that there’s nothing special about the energy generated by a power play goal compared with a regular goal or even a shot that misses the goal– but where would the fun be without wordplay? POWER play goals only!

Most individual power play goals in a season

Note that all of the statistics pulled for this analysis are current as of January 1, 2018. Any power play goals scored after that date will not be accounted for in these statistics and calculations.

Pulling the top 10 individual player seasons with the most power play goals in NHL history, and assuming each of those power play goals account for 154.9 J, gives the following results:
Despite an impressive 34 power play goals in the 1985-86 season, Tim Kerr’s NHL record season would only generate enough ‘Power Play Power’ to run a large window-unit air conditioner for one hour at almost 1.5 kWh.

What about considering single players over their entire career?

Most individual power play goals over a career

As of January 1, 2018, the top 10 power play goal scorers for an entire career are as follows (note that as of writing, Alex Ovechkin is still active, as is Jaromir Jagr who is only two power play goals behind him in 11th place):
Looking at Dave Andreychuk, the individual with the most career power play goals in NHL history, his career ‘Power Play Power’ accounts for almost 11.8 kWh. Despite being an incredibly impressive number of power play goals, it’s only enough to power an energy-efficient refrigerator for about a week and a half. That’s a useful amount of energy to use in your home, but when it takes 274 career power play goals that that might be more work than it’s worth…

However looking at these first two charts, one aspect really jumps out– players who come from Canada appear to dominate ‘Power Play Power’ generation! Let’s dig into that a bit more.

Most power play goals by country of origin in the NHL

To start, Quant Hockey’s data shows that there are only 25 different home countries across all the players who have ever scored a power play goal in NHL history. Those 25 countries are listed in the below chart with their respective ‘Power Play Power’ totals generated:

Now we’re talking about some real energy. Canada, as predicted, dominates with almost 2,250 kWh of ‘Power Play Power’ since the beginning of the NHL. This amount of energy equates to about 20% of the average annual electricity used by an American household in 2016.

So that’s a pretty significant amount of energy on a micro-scale, but because we’re talking about the total ‘Power Play Power’ generated by all Canadian NHL players over nearly a century of play it is still not terribly impressive. For reference, the smallest nuclear power plant in the United States has a generation capacity of 582 Megawatts, meaning the 2,250 kWh of ‘Power Play Power’ of Canadian NHL players would be generated in under 14 seconds by the smallest U.S. nuclear plant operating at full capacity. Even if we included all power play goals scored by players of any nationality, the total ‘Power Play Power’ would only reach 3,339 kWh– or almost 21 seconds from the smallest U.S. nuclear plant.

Source 1, Source 2

Obviously the actual energy generation of each of these 25 nations will be much greater than the ‘Power Play Power’ generated by their respective NHL players– but is there some sort of correlation between ‘Power Play Power’ and actual energy production of the nations? Using the silly initial premise of this article as an example of the type of information available from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a part of the U.S. Department of Energy, and how to find that data, we can pull the total primary energy production for these 25 countries and get a rough idea! While the NHL started recording power play goals in the 1933-34 season, EIA’s country-by-country energy production data dates back to 1980 (measured using quadrillion British thermal units, or quads), but we’ll still use these two complete time frames for the comparison’s sake. Putting the two energy figures on one graph for a relative comparison provides the following:
This graph presents a couple of interesting points:

  • Among the 25 eligible nations included in the survey, Canada, the United States, and Russia all find themselves in the top 4 countries in terms of both ‘Power Play Power’ and Total Primary Energy Produced by the nation;
  • In an interesting coincidence, when the two types of energy being measured here are put on comparative scales, Canada and the United States appear to be almost mirror images of each other, swapping relative strength in ‘Power Play Power’ and Total Primary Energy Production;
  • In another similarity between the two measures of energy, the totality is dominated by the top three nations, and the relative scale of any nation after about the halfway point shows up as barely even a blip on this graph.

But other than that, it can be considered fairly unsurprising that NHL power play success doesn’t directly translate to Total Primary Energy Produced by nation. And even if Canada saw their NHL power play prowess as their opportunity to increase energy exports (which would only serve to increase the fact that Canada is the largest energy trading partner of the United States), translating ‘Power Play Power’ into real energy, their 2,250 kWh over NHL history would only translate to 0.00000004% of Canada’s primary  energy produced in 2015 alone. Unfortunately, I do not think I’ve discovered a viable energy to be harnessed by the villainous Megawatt.

Source

More benevolently, it would also appear that ‘Power Play Power’ will not serve as a reliable new renewable energy source for hockey-crazed areas (in this scenario, are we to consider penalty minutes a source of renewable energy?? If so, Tiger Williams might be the most environmentally friendly player in major sports history). However, at 419 billion kWh of renewable generation in 2015, Canada is the fourth largest renewable energy producer worldwide (with the United States and Canada being the only nations this time to finds themselves in the top four of of renewable energy and ‘Power Play Power,’ as North America accounts for majority of NHL players and has collectively agreed to generate 50% of electricity from clean sources by 2025). Following the link for EIA international renewable energy data to bring this back to educational purposes, you’ll find other top-15 ‘Power Play Power’ nations that also account for the top-15 in global renewable energy production, including the United States, Germany, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Coincidence? Probably.

Interesting and informative, nonetheless? Definitely!



Sources and additional reading

Appliance Energy Use Chart: Silicon Valley Power

Comparing Sports Kinetic Energy: We are Fanatics

How much electricity does a nuclear power plant generate? Energy Information Administration

How much electricity does an American home use? Energy Information Administration

Iafrate breaks 100 mph barrier: UPI

International Energy Statistics: Energy Information Administration

Most Power-Play Goals in One Season by NHL Players: Quant Hockey

NHL & WHA Career Leaders and Records for Power Play Goals: Hockey Reference

NHL Totals by Nationality – Career Stats: Quant Hockey

Now You Know Big Book of Sports

Ranking the 10 Hardest Slap Shots in NHL History: Bleacher Report

Saving Electricity: Michael Bluejay

Scientists Reveal the Secret to Hockey’s Wrist Shot: Live Science

Score!: The Action and Artistry of Hockey’s Magnificent Moment

Sherwood Official Ice Hockey Puck: Ice Warehouse

Slap Shot Science: A Curious Fan’s Guide to Hockey

Total Renewable Electricity Net Generation 2015: Energy Information Administration

Wrist Shots: Exploratorium

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.  

Energy Efficiency in the NFL: Declaring a Champion

The National Football League (NFL) has been making immense strides towards implementing strategies for energy efficiency and sustainability in recent years, recognizing the money that could be saved on stadium power bills as well as the influence of being stewards of environmentally friendly practices (taking a page out of the books of the number of beers brewed with renewable energy that are served in NFL stadiums!). Whether these efforts are marked by using recycled materials or installing solar panels in stadiums, sponsoring events for the recycling of electronic waste, or using interactive digital media guides instead of printed guides, it seems that NFL teams are constantly working to one-up each other for the title of greenest, most energy-efficient team.

So why keep that hypothetical?!

What if the 2017-18 NFL season played out according to the teams who performed best on a (admittedly pretty arbitrary) ‘green scale?’ That’s exactly what I do in this article, playing out the whole 16 game schedule for all NFL teams, making my way through the playoffs, and ultimately declaring a Super-Efficient Bowl Champion!



Methodology and rankings

A note before starting—this analysis is pretty subjective, could go any number of ways depending on types of data chosen to analyze, and is merely meant to be a fun exercise praising teams who have put effort into energy efficiency. Nothing is meant to be taken overly serious, so don’t be offended if your team rates lowly or there are certain energy efficiency efforts of your team I was unaware of and thus didn’t account for. That said, if there’s additional interesting information I haven’t captured, please do let me know in the comments!

To play out the season, several pieces of data were gathered and then quantified for each team to determine which team was the most efficient. A team’s efficiency score comprised the following:

  1. The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score of each team’s home city, as determined by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE);
  2. The level of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification achieved by a team’s home stadium, as determined by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), or, when LEED certification was not reached, the presence (or lack thereof) of significant sustainability practices at the stadium;
  3. The total round trip distance traveled by the team during the 2017-18 season to all eight of its away games; and
  4. The distance to a team’s stadium from the geographic center of the home city.

These various factors are normalized on a scale of 0 to 100 to determine a team’s efficiency score.

To make things more interesting than just having a single list of teams ranked from 1 to 32 of most-efficient scoring to least efficient-efficient scoring (and thus making the ultimate champion obvious before the games are even played out), each team is awarded a ‘Home-Efficiency Score’ (HES) and an ‘Away-Efficiency Score’ (AES). The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score and the LEED certification factor into both the HES and AES, however the round trip distance traveled (which pertains to teams traveling to their away games) only factors in to the AES, while the distance to a team’s stadium from the city’s geographic center  (which pertains to the average distance home-team fans are likely to travel to watch a home game) only factors into the HES.

As such, the HES is the simple average of above factors 1, 2, and 4, while the AES is the simple average of above factors 1, 2, and 3.

1. 2017 City Energy Efficiency Score

Again, these scores are on a scale of 0 to 100 and are awarded by ACEEE. In determining the City Energy Efficiency Score, ACEEE takes into account local government operations, community-wide initiatives, buildings policies, energy and water utilities, and transportation policies.

Most NFL teams either play in or clearly represent one of the cities that is scored by ACEEE in this annual list. However, there were a few notable exceptions that had to be addressed separately:

  • The Packers play and represent Green Bay, Wisconsin. Green Bay is an extremely small city compared with typical cities with professional sports teams,and wasn’t on the list. The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin was used from the ACEEE score card due to it being the closest major metropolitan area to Green Bay and the high concentration of Packers fans throughout the state of Wisconsin.
  • The Raiders play and represent Oakland, California (though they are soon moving to Las Vegas, Nevada—but that is for another season so it won’t affect their 2017 score). With Oakland not in the ACEEE list, the next best city to use was San Francisco, California due to the proximity of these metropolitan areas.
  • The Bills play and represent Buffalo, New York. There were no representative cities in the ACEEE scorecard in the Upstate New York region. This analysis used ended up using the average of all NFL cities since it seemed fair to avoid rewarding or punishing Buffalo for the lack of data on its performance and instead award it a middle of the pack rating.

The following table summarizes the scores received for each of the 32 NFL teams based on the ACEEE score of their designated cities:

Click to enlarge.

2. Stadium LEED certification or other initiatives

While an NFL team might not have much it can do to influence its city’s ACEEE City Energy Efficiency Score, one thing they can control is how energy efficient their stadium is. Each team will typically play eight games in their home stadium during the course of an NFL season (more if you count preseason and playoffs). Football teams sometimes fall under more scrutiny for the sustainability (or lack thereof) of their stadiums compared with other sports that have dozens of home games per year, because so much land and so many resources are being used for the bigger football stadiums that get used a fraction of the time.

Such factors make the energy efficiency and general sustainability of football stadiums more crucial, and in recent years there have been a handful of stadiums that have pursued LEED certification for their stadiums. LEED is a program from the USGBC that certifies all sorts of buildings, including stadiums, based on their design, construction, operation, and maintenance. New buildings often strive to be LEED certified before blueprints are even drawn up, though existing buildings can also be retrofitted to comply and be certified as a LEED building.

Based on the points awarded (out of a possible 100), buildings can be classified as:

  • 40-49 points is LEED Certified;
  • 50-59 points is LEED Silver;
  • 60-79 points is LEED Gold; and
  • 80-100 points is LEED Platinum.

These 100 possible points are awarded based on the categories of Location & Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation in Design. There are an additional 10 points that can be earned based on Regional Priority and Innovation.

As such, the points awarded in this analysis to NFL stadiums that are LEED certified will correlate with the minimum points necessary to reach that level of certification (e.g, a team with a LEED Silver stadium will be awarded 50 points). Additionally, many stadiums do have significant sustainability efforts in their stadiums but they have not yet pursued or achieved LEED status. To give due credit to these initial steps, stadiums who are found to have other efficiency and sustainability initiatives at their stadiums will be awarded 10 points (representing the additional 10 points LEED makes awardable outside of the base 100 points).

The following table summarizes the scores received for each of the 32 NFL teams based on the LEED certification or sustainability initiatives found for their stadiums*:

Click to enlarge.

*The sources for all of these stadium initiatives can be found in the ‘Sources and additional reading’ section at the end of the article. One stadium worth noting is the AT&T Stadium of the Dallas Cowboys. It is possible to find literature citing that they are aiming to reduce energy use by 20% per year, they were still counted without any major initiatives. The reason for this is because any concrete completed projects towards this goal could not be identified, in addition to the fact that at peak draw the energy-use starting point was using three times the amount of energy the whole nation of Liberia can produce—this idea makes it hard to award points just yet until the stated goals are realized.

3. Total round trip distance traveled to away games

Another large energy expense of every NFL team is that amount of travel required for each team to go to each of its away games. Some teams are centrally located compared with their common opponents and thus able to take buses or trains, while other teams find themselves in cross country trips several times a year that require the use of a privately chartered airplane. The traveling process varies team-by-team, but the total number of people traveling to each game ranges from 135 to 200, bringing with them up to 16,000 pounds of equipment (which will travel by 18-wheeler truck for all but the longest of trips). Most traveling is done by privately chartered planes, at a costs high enough that the Patriots found it cost-effective to become the first team to own their own team planes.

All of these factors use up a massive amount of transportation fuel, and the best proxy available for how much energy each team’s travel will account for in the 2017 season is to look at who is traveling the furthest distance to games away from their home stadium (accounting for traditional away games in other teams’ stadiums as well as any games taking place at a third location, such as a number of games taking place in England during the 2017 season).

The following table summarizes the total travel miles for each of the 32 NFL teams during the 2017 season, as well as a score normalized out of 100—where 0 represents the number of miles traveled by the team with the most road miles and 100 representing a hypothetical team that would travel zero total miles:

Click to enlarge.

4. Distance from city center to stadium

The last factor considered in this analysis examines how far fans would have to travel to get to a home game of their favorite NFL team. While the ideal data for this would be to find the average distance that fans who bought tickets, or even just season ticket holders, lived from the stadium of their team. Unfortunately, this type of data set does not seem readily available. Instead, a proxy for this distance traveled that was used in a 2014 analysis I came across was the distance from the city center of each team’s implied/representative city and its stadium. This data (which I have updated for stadiums or teams that have moved since that analysis) would give a rough idea how much (and what type of) game day travel is needed by an average fan in that city—whether they would have to use a lot of fuel drive a long distance (because their beloved San Francisco 49ers are actually 43 miles away in Santa Clara) or if they could walk or use more efficient public transportation to get to their local team (such as the New Orleans Saints who are positioned a mere half mile from city center and the typical pre-game restaurants and bars of their avid fans).

The following table summarizes the distance from city center to stadium for each of the 32 NFL teams, as well as a score normalized out of 100—where 0 represents the number of miles of the stadium that’s furthest from its implied city center and 100 representing a hypothetical team that would travel zero total miles:

Click to enlarge.

 

Putting together these four factors as described earlier the following final scores for each team’s efficiency at home (HES) and away (AES):

Click to enlarge.

Notes on methodology

Before playing out the 2017 NFL season using these Home and Away Efficiency Scores to determine the winner of all 256 regular season matchups, a couple of notes about the methodology used:

  • The average HES is 50.5 while the average AES is 37.6. This setup clearly favors the average home team in each matchup, due to the fact that the ‘city center to stadium distance’ scores are significantly higher than the ‘road miles traveled’ scores.’ This fact is seen as realistic, since in any given NFL game the home team is more likely to win (an average 3 point swing is given to the home team in an NFL game by sports odds makers).
  • There are some clear favorites heading into the season, as the HES of the several of the teams with LEED stadiums have a HES higher than the AES of every team, while a number of teams at the bottom of the AES ranking have scores so low they can’t beat the HES of any team.
  • Through it all, this is an inherently silly but fun exercise. We could instead just assign point values for all the sorts of factors an NFL team can control and declare the top 10 teams in those rankings—but isn’t it more fun to be a bit arbitrary and go through to declare a champion? Read on if you think so!

Regular season results

I used the NFL Playoff Predictor tool to plug in the results of all of the regular season matchups of the 2017 NFL schedule. This tool then uses the NFL’s rules to determine what teams make the playoffs and in what seeds.

You can see a saved version of what this played regular season would look like on a game-by-game process by following this link, but the final standings for the playoffs come out as follows:

Source

It is worth noting that after the first 7 weeks of the NFL season, the results based on this scoring system were already incorrect 52% of the time. But nonetheless, we have our twelve playoff teams in the Baltimore Ravens, New York Jets, Denver Broncos, Tennessee Titans, Pittsburgh Steelers, and New England Patriots representing the AFC, while the Atlanta Falcons, Chicago Bears, Philadelphia Eagles, Minnesota Vikings, and New York Giants represent the NFC.

By highlighting the playoff teams in the below table, we can find out what carried teams to the playoffs and what caused teams to miss the playoffs:

Click to enlarge.

A few things stick out:

  • The Tennessee Titans and Atlanta Falcons were the only team that overcame a below average ACEEE score to make the playoffs, with the Titans seeming to rely on their extremely high city center to stadium distance score and the Falcons were carried by their new stadium being the only one certified as LEED Platinum while also being so close to city center.
  • Every team that has some sort of LEED certification on their stadium had enough of a leg up to make the playoffs. Further, no teams that had zero points from the lack of any significant energy initiative ended up making the playoffs.
  • Half of the playoff teams that scored below average on the road miles traveled, while one third of the playoff teams scored below average on city center to stadium distance (including the San Francisco 49ers who’s stadium is the furthest from city center, but luckily for them was certified as LEED Gold).

Playoffs

Playing through the first three rounds of the playoffs, we’ll continue to use the NFL Playoff Predictor tool and our HES and AES figures, as teams with a higher playoff seed still host the games.

Wildcard Round

Source

The Wildcard Round finds the Broncos, Steelers, Vikings, and Eagles moving on to meet the top four seeds from the regular season.

Divisional Round

Source

The Divisional Round finds all four home teams, bolstered by their LEED certified stadiums that aren’t too far from city center, advancing to the Conference Championships.

Conference Championship

Source

The pre-season favorites in the Baltimore Ravens and the Atlanta Falcons advance to the Super-Efficient Bowl. Both of these teams are carried by the energy efficiency and the central location of their stadiums, as the ACEEE score for both Baltimore and Atlanta are average while they also have significant road miles traveled as they are both on the East Coast and find themselves traveling to the Midwest and the West Coast.

Super-Efficient Bowl

Again, the two teams left standing at this point are the ones with the highest level of LEED certification on their stadiums, and they both come into this game with compelling story lines.

For the Atlanta Falcons, this marks a return to the Super Bowl after being victims of the largest comeback in Super Bowl history last year. However, last year they had not yet opened the Mercedes-Benz Stadium—the LEED Platinum certification of which propelled them back to the big game. Is this bump in sustainability enough to overcome the ghosts of last year’s devastating loss? Was the missing ingredient to last year’s team a stadium that set the bar as far as energy-efficient stadiums go?

For the Baltimore Ravens, the last time they were in the Super Bowl was five years ago—and this was a notable game in the energy world. It was this Super Bowl where the a power outage caused a half hour stoppage in play, the cause of which was later discovered to be a recently installed relay that was actually supposed to prevent just such a blackout. This lack of energy did not derail the Ravens, as they won the game with a goal line stand towards the end of the fourth quarter. Perhaps this caused a realization that they could win it all even without energy pumping into the stadium, as it was the following season that M&T Bank Stadium, home of the Ravens, earned LEED Gold certification. But that LEED Gold Certification is no longer the gold standard in the NFL, with their opponents only this year achieving LEED Platinum.

How will this play out?!

For the Super-Efficient Bowl, since neither team is playing at its home stadium, we should determine an efficiency score without the home or away components. That means the score of the Super-Efficient Bowl will be determined by the average of ACEEE City Score and LEED Points awarded. Using that as a basis we find a champion and final score to the inaugural Super-Efficient Bowl to be….

Source

 

 

The Atlanta Falcons have received redemption and won the Super-Efficient Bowl! Despite Baltimore jumping out to an early lead with a higher ACEEE City Energy Efficiency score, but it wasn’t enough to hold back Atlanta with their state-of-the-art LEED Platinum stadium. Let the confetti rain down (but make sure it’s made of recycled paper)!

Conclusion

Because of the year-to-year volatility of several of the metrics used to determine the energy-efficient winners, anyone could come out of the pack to take the title of Super-Efficient Bowl Champion next year. As shown by Atlanta and Baltimore’s success in this inaugural season, though, the key is to get a LEED certified stadium and to locate it as close as possible to the center of your city. The number of LEED stadiums has grown to account for almost 20% of stadiums in the NFL, and that’s after the first one was certified only six years ago. More and more teams seem to be finding the value of a LEED stadium, and now maybe the Super-Efficient Bowl will prompt more to join the trend.

And best of luck to the Dallas Cowboys, who finished last in the league. Worry not, they’ll be awarded the first draft pick in next year’s draft—which maybe they can spend on the top prospect in energy-efficiency!

Sources and additional reading

Can Stadium Sports Really Be Green? Mother Jones

Chiefs Focus on Solar Energy Solution: Chiefs

Cleveland Browns Begin Initiative to Convert Food Waste Into Energy: Waste Today

Does Cowboys Stadium Use More Energy on Gameday Than Liberia? Sports Grid

Eagles & Ravens Receive LEED Certification Just in Time for Greenbuild Conference: Green Sports Alliance

Going Long and Going Green: How the NFL is Embracing Sustainability: Georgetown

Guide to LEED Certification: United States Green Building Council

How AEG Is Bringing Energy Storage To LA’s StubHub Center With Tesla Powerpacks: SportTechie

LEDs Take Over Tampa Bay’s NFL Stadium: Facilitiesnet

LEED Certified Green Building: Soldier Field

LG Electronics and Nissan Stadium Win Big in LED Lighting Overhaul: PR Newswire

Levi’s Stadium Achieves LEED Gold Certification for Operations and Maintenance of an Existing Building: Levi’s Stadium

Los Angeles Coliseum “Modernizes” With Zero Waste: Green Sports Alliance

Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Falcons’ new home, to sport state-of-the-art sustainability: USA Today

NFL Stadiums Attempt to Lower Energy Costs: 24 of the Most Energy Efficient Stadiums in the League: Electric Choice

Patriots Become 1st NFL Franchise to Buy a Team Plane: Bleacher Report

Planes, Trains and Automobiles: Truths About Traveling in the NFL: Bleacher Report

Playoff Predictors

Seahawks To Travel Sixth-Most Road Miles in NFL In 2017: Seahawks

Some NFL Teams Are Going Green: Wall Street Journal

Super Bowl LII E-Waste Recycling Rally: MN Superbowl

Team travel directors preparing as if there will be a 2011 season: NFL

The 2017 City Energy Efficiency Scorecard: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

“Timing is everything”: Behind the scenes of an NFL team’s travel day: CBS News

U.S. Bank Stadium goes for the green: Finance & Commerce

Which NFL Stadiums Are The Most Convenient To Drive To: Deadspin

 

About the author: Matt Chester is an energy analyst in Washington DC, studied engineering and science & technology policy at the University of Virginia, and operates this blog and website to share news, insights, and advice in the fields of energy policy, energy technology, and more. For more quick hits in addition to posts on this blog, follow him on Twitter @ChesterEnergy.