The price responsiveness of U.S. petroleum consumption began to attract a great deal of attention following the unexpected and substantial oil price increases of 1973-74. There have been a number of large, multi-equation econometric studies of U.S. energy demand since then which have focused primarily on estimating short run and long run price and income elasticities of individual energy resources (coal, oil, natural gas & electricity) for various consumer sectors (residential, industrial, commercial).' Following these early multi-equation studies there have been several single-equation studies of aggregate U.S. petroleum consumption [4; 3; 9; 5; 6]. These singleequation studies have found that U.S. demand for petroleum products can be quite price inelastic in the short run (estimates range from -0.04 to -0.08) but exhibits long lags of anywhere from 6 to 10 years that yield long run price elasticities ranging from -0.25 to -0.56. Income or GNP elasticities are usually found to be much higher (0.69 to 1.13) with the complete response often assumed to occur in the current period. Single-equation studies are often justified as efficient shortcuts, or reduced forms for identifying the central behavioral aspects of a particular market. The main issue addressed in this paper is the extent to which the existing empirical results from single-equation studies of aggregate U.S. petroleum consumption have been influenced by the researchers' choice of dynamic model specification. This question is relevant because the econometric methodology usually followed in such studies is to start with a relatively simple specification, such as a partial adjustment model or some kind of a distributed lag structure on price alone. This initial specification choice is rarely justified, except possibly to cite its previous success in similar work. Given that models which produce insignificant or perverse coefficient estimates are not usually publishable, the reported specification is almost certain to provide reasonable, statistically significant estimates with the signs. The primary diagnostic test of the chosen specification is the Durbin-Watson test statistic, or perhaps Durbin's h statistic in the presence of lagged dependent variables. When this test gives evidence of serial correlation in the residuals, the usual response is to correct for this by estimating a first or second-order autoregressive model (AR(1) or AR(2)). Should this easilyimplemented correction not solve the problem, there is a tendency to chalk it up to some kind 1. An excellent survey of these results may be found in Bohi [2, 159].