coal burning in China. It is so that everybody is able to articulate that. You would be surprised at the impact that will have on people's decisionmaking, whether it is in government or the private sector. The private sector will be all over us trying to show how if we will change policy here or there, it will produce a result that we want in China in coal burning. And it will be in their economic interests to lobby us all over the place to do all kinds of stuff because they will make a buck out of it. And that is OK if we get reductions in CO2. But if we can't articulate that around the country and in the board rooms and whatnot, then we miss an awful lot and reinvent the argument over and over.

So I think there is some utility, I am sure you can't get a list of 25 priorities, you get too many, but there may be a few basic ones in this issue in which we can have a major impact. Excuse me, my time is more than up. Let me recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KLUG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of different questions. A couple, actually, on the underlying assumptions of the plan.

You mentioned, the chairman did, I think correctly, that part of the problem that we all face is not just what the United States does, but other countries around the world do as well. And you, have got a very aggressive program laid out and I compliment the President and the administration for the hard work it has done already on it. But, don't you have a fundamental problem in trying to measure the efficacy of this program, because it is such a fluid system that it is difficult to draw conclusions on in the first place, and, second, how can you separate out what the United States has done in terms of the overall impact of other countries and figure out whether this plan is ever going to accomplish what you hope it will 4 or 5, 6, 7, 8 years from now?

Ms. TIERNEY. Do you want to start? Go ahead.

Mr. HAUSKER. I can start on that. We do have superb measuring systems set up already. Ms. Tierney described the emissions inventory that EIA will do in consultation with EPA. EPA has been doing emissions inventories for several years. Between DOE and EPA, we count just about every lump of coal that is ever burned in this country, every drop of oil, and every therm of gas. Some of these as frequently as monthly or even weekly. So we are going to be able to keep a firm handle on the total emissions in the country.

Then on an end-use basis, in the programs that we have launched, we will be tracking the market penetration of the various technologies that we are out promoting and what kind of efficiency savings they deliver. So I think the monitoring and evaluation problem is challenging but by no means impossible.

Mr. POMERANCE. I think the second part of your question hadwas directed to what other countries might be doing, how does our plan fit with other governments and what is the overall impact on the global situation. One of the requirements of the convention, the United States has signed and ratified on climate change, is that developed countries initially and other governments at a later date submit reports to the Conference of Parties on what they have done and what those measures to reduce greenhouse gases will accomplish in the national context.

Some other governments have submitted their plans or initial plans to date. They are not as specific as ours, including Canada which has a draft plan out now, Germany, Italy, Ireland. We expect a number of others over the next few months. It will then be up to the scientific community to take or one element of the evaluation will take the sum total of those plans and see what difference it makes, the overall global situation. Because it is important to distinguish between emissions of greenhouse gases and concentrations.

All countries that emit greenhouse gases, and they keep loading the atmosphere, concentrations will continue to grow despite these U.S. plans, despite other governments. It will grow more slowly. That is the intent. And the part of the scientific community and others will evaluate the impact of these measures on overall concentrations, and therefore the overall risk to the planet. The governments then will take that analysis and decide over the next couple of years, months and years, really, what to do about it. Have the measures that have been taken adequate?

Mr. KLUG. Let me interrupt, because I only have time for a couple questions and this will actually follow back up, and, Ms. Tierney, you are certainly welcome to answer this one. If you look at some of the plans the other countries are likely to submit, I think specifically the European countries and some of the northern European countries, there is a much greater reliance on nuclear energy than in the United States as a means to achieve some of the emissions reductions. Can you give me a sense of why the plan doesn't say much about nuclear and how you figure that into the total equation?

Ms. TIERNEY. I am probably the person to answer this. The plan assumes that all operating nuclear power plants that are not already otherwise slated for retirement in this decade will continue to operate and produce at high capacity factors. I mean, consistent with records in recent years.

The time period at which this first step plan looks at assumes nuclear power plays an important role just as it does today. That is, about one-fifth of our electricity now comes from nuclear power. We have not changed that. We thought it would be very unrealistic to assume any additions to that mix. There are no new plants ordered. And even if there were any new ones ordered, the lead system estimates are very long, much longer than would be allowed within this decade.

There are, as you know, major barriers to adding new nuclear plants. Many of them are economic. There is no strong interest among utility executives to order new commercial reactors. The Department of Energy, as you know, is continuing a research program to solve two problems which materially affect that problem that I mentioned, which is impediments to new interest in new nuclear reactors. And that is the nuclear waste problem, and we are working on that aggressively, and it is not solved.

The second one is reactor design, standardization of reactor design, in such a way that the economics of new reactors would be more attractive. From our point of view until those problems are solved, it is not realistic to assume a lot of new commercial investment.

Mr. KLUG. But you think it is then reasonable to assume you will have more commercial applications in renewables?

MS. TIERNEY. Yes, we did assume that, yes. And we assume that we will apply Federal funds, especially out of the Department of Energy, to push that.

Mr. KLUG. I have to ask you one last question, and I can't help myself.

Ms. TIERNEY. I can't wait.

Mr. KLUG. Yes. It is action number 39 in your plan.

Ms. TIERNEY. Oh, I know which one you mean.

Mr. KLUG. Representing Wisconsin and the dairy industry, I am fascinated how we are going to change the diet of dairy and beef cattle in order to reduce methane production. Could you please explain this to me so I can explain this to my farmers exactly what the diet is going to look like in the future?

Mr. HAUSKER. I am afraid she is going to have to kick that one to me.

Ms. TIERNEY. I know the answer, but I don't want to tell you.

Mr. HAUSKER. You are in very good company with the President on this one, because he was very fascinated with this one, too. Essentially this program is aimed toward changing the diet of these animals so that they essentially produce less fat and more meat. And, when their metabolism is changed that way, they actually emit less methane.

Ms. TIERNEY. Roughage.

Mr. HAUSKER. I could say that in a less polite way, but that is the most polite way I can say that. Actually it is counter intuitive, but this is a significant source of methane production.

Mr. KLUG. I understand that. I drive a lot in the Wisconsin countryside, so I understand that. But for example, what should they be eating instead? Aside from corn and hay, I am not sure what I can talk the cattle into eating.

Mr. HAUSKER. Not at my fingertips.

Ms. TIERNEY. We will submit for the record.

Mr. KLUG. I will be happy to see it. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHARP. I trust the Department of Agriculture was consulted. Ms. TIERNEY. We will submit the menu as well.

[The information follows:]

Action No. 39 of the Plan involves USDA working with EPA on research, demonstration projects, an outreach program to reduce methane emissions from beef and dairy cattle, plus continuation of efforts to reduce market barriers and create incentives for production of milk and meat with lower fat content. Some of the specific techniques that would be investigated involve changes in dairy cattle feed. The following information is based on a Report, Opportunities to Reduce Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United States, which will be presented to Congress by EPA, and which has been reviewed by USDA.

One area investigated in the EPA report to Congress is the effect of milk pricing and changes in the market for milk taking place in the United States. Currently there is an excess in the supply of milk fat resulting from dietary shifts toward low fat and nonfat milk while the pricing system gives farmers an incentive to continue producing milk with high fat content. Refinements to the pricing system to better match production incentives with consumer demand can not only improve efficiency and reduce costs, but can also reduce methane emissions as a side benefit. Such changes would result in voluntary changes in dairy cow diet and genetic selection. The amount of methane produced depends heavily upon feed characteristics such as its digestibility, type, and quality. Generally, high energy, high grain diets such as those used in beef feedlots will produce smaller amounts of methane relative to diets that are high in roughage such as the diets of grazing beef cows. This is be

cause the fermentation pathways of grains favor the production of certain organic acids that result in lower methane production. For example, a typical feedlot diet that is 90 percent grain will convert about 4 percent of the gross energy of the feed to methane, whereas a forage diet will convert 6-8 percent of consumed feed energy to methane.

Dairy cows are fed specially formulated mixtures of roughage and concentrates. Specific components of diets vary according to local conditions such as season, cost, availability of grains, etc. For the Wisconsin area, most diets will typically be made up of about 50 percent alfalfa hay or up to 70 percent corn silage as the roughage component. If the amount of concentrates were increased and roughage decreased, milk fat production could be suppressed while protein production is increased. An increase in the percentage of grain in the total diet will shift rumen fermentation towards propionate production and away from acetate and butyrate production, which reduces the amount of methane emitted per unit of carbohydrate digested. The costs of a higher grain diet will be offset by increased productivity (more milk per cow) and greater production of protein relative to fat.

Mr. SHARP. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert.

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the chairman. I just want somebody, to start out with some definition of terms. Ms. Tierney, cashing out parking, is that-I represent an area that is the very edge of the Chicago suburbs and covers about 150 miles of corn fields and there is a lot of small industry out there. It happens to be included in Chicago's greater metropolitan statistical area, but we don't have mass transportation and people have to drive to those small places to work. Now, when you start to cash out parking, does that mean that you give employees a cash incentive not to drive their car to work?

Ms. TIERNEY. Let me describe the program. And I think I will answer your question in that fashion. The program would apply to employers who pay out of their pocket to supply parking for employees.

Mr. HASTERT. Is that providing a lot, also?

Ms. TIERNEY. No. If they rent a lot-let me rephrase that. If they rent a parking lot, it would apply to that.

Mr. HASTERT. If they own a lot that they pay capital for it doesn't apply?

Ms. TIERNEY. Correct. For those employers, they would be required, should Congress enact a new law, to offer their employees only if they could avoid paying, like if there is a new lease coming up, avoid paying for the parking, that is, they would offer their employees the choice of either getting the parking or getting the cash. Those employees who get the cash lose the free parking and they have taxable income and then they choose what they want to do. They may continue to drive, they might take mass transit.

Mr. HASTERT. If it was there.

Ms. TIERNEY. If it was there. Our understanding of the environment of employers who fit into this category is that they largely fall in metropolitan areas where there is mass transit available. Then what happens is

Mr. HASTERT. One of the interesting things is that large metropolitan areas, like the city of Chicago want to level down their emissions, so to do this the non-attainment areas encompass large areas of void out there that happen to be called suburban.

Ms. TIERNEY. That is not void.

Mr. HASTERT. Well, I mean areas with less emissions and so suburbs get included in those large metropolitan areas.

Ms. TIERNEY. But employers-no employee would have to accept cash in that circumstances, if there is no alternative. They could continue to take the service of parking from their employer as they have today.

Mr. HASTERT. All right, OK. Second is cool private purchasing power, what does that mean?

Ms. TIERNEY. I am going to let Karl answer this, because EPA has coined this activity in which rebates that are offered from utilities are pooled together. Rebates for efficiency.

Mr. HASTERT. Did this say pool or cool?

Ms. TIERNEY. I don't know, I said pool originally.

Mr. HASTERT. I am sorry, misunderstood, I thought you said cool purchasing. What was it?

Ms. TIERNEY. No, no, he was talking about cool National Performance Review.

Mr. HAUSKER. I am not sure which action

Mr. HASTERT. It was Ms. Tierney who said cool private purchasing power. Now you might have said pool private purchasing power. Was it pool?

Ms. TIERNEY. Would you like us to describe what I meant to say? Mr. HASTERT. Just tell me what you said.

Ms. TIERNEY. Pooled, with a P.

Mr. HASTERT. All right. Let's go and talk about what do you see in the long-term economic growth in this country, say through the year 2000, is there going to be economic growth?

Ms. TIERNEY. Yes, and we assume that in the plan. I am going to get the numbers right, since you have noticed I have missed them before. We assume Gross Domestic Product increases at 2.6 percent a year. Did I get that right? At 2.1 percent a year after that. Industrial growth rates is at a half a percentage point higher each year. So, yes, we do assume so.

Mr. HASTERT. So will there be more energy consumed or less energy consumed in this growth?

Ms. TIERNEY. Yes.

Mr. HASTERT. And you figure that into your numbers?
Ms. TIERNEY. Absolutely.

Mr. HASTERT. You mentioned housing earlier. You might want to put that up again.

Ms. TIERNEY. The chart of the number of houses that would
Mr. HASTERT. Yes, 600 million homes for

Ms. TIERNEY. Six hundred thousand.

Mr. HASTERT. Right. Now is that based on what type of energy? Is that the mix of energy or is that just

Ms. TIERNEY. It is the national average of electric use in those homes.

Mr. HASTERT. Powered by what type? I mean, if you are talking about a million metric tons of carbon, it is a lot different if you power it with coal or power it with nuclear energy.

Ms. TIERNEY. What that is based on is if you looked at the United States as a whole and got the average mix for the United States. Mr. HASTERT. Well, the new housing that comes on line, do you expect that that is going to be a mix or is that going to be a directed type of energy source?