own authority, that the replies will be held confidential from individual scrutiny and application against respondents.

The last item of recent experience relates to the refusal of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to give to us a list of retail gasoline stations in the United States, from which we would draw a sample to assess conditions in the market. Refusal was based on our inability under the law to protect the list from disclosure to any other part of the Department of Energy. The Chief of the Bureau of Labor Statistics regarded such potential wide dissemination, not under our control, as giving inadequate security to the list of names and addresses which they had obtained from voluntary respondents and jeopardizing their future relationships with State sources of information.

We take these five recent experiences as indicating strongly that the statisticalanalytical policy supporting function of a statistical system is jeopardized by using that same system to provide effective support to the regulatory and adjudicatory purposes.

THE NEED

The need is to find a way aggressively to serve both the regulatory/enforcement/prosecutorial function, and the policy-informing statistical function, without undermining support for either. It is likely that a carefully conceived dual-track system is the way to go. On the one hand it could be made mandatory to collect under ESECA any information to which regulatory authorities desired future access to individual respondent data. On the other hand the statistical function could be strengthened by providing for individual data collected in other systems to be disclosed only for statistical purposes.

Senator METZENBAUM. But I would like to know since you have not been using it since there seems to be a public purpose to be served, at least Congress thought so, in using it and making it available to the FTC and Antitrust Department in view of the fact that certain prominent Members of the Senate have indicated their concern. I've said nothing on this, but Senator Kennedy addressed himself to this subject just the other day in which he talked about a major preoccupation in the Department of Energy seemed to be in gathering relevant information and analyzing it but keeping it out of the hands of the FTC and the Department of Justice.

Now my point to you is even though some may be a bit queasy about responding, Congress enacted the law and if we expect it to be implemented, we think there is a public purpose to be served in making it available to the other agencies in Government.

Dr. MOSES. We agree. We serve two public purposes both of which Congress has given us. One is to support the regulations and enforcement inside the Department and outside. And the other is to have a data system up and running. There is a natural tension between the two.

It's evidenced in what happened with the form 40 of the Federal Power Commission. That data was collected for regulatory purposes, but it was tied up in courts for 2 years and nobody was getting any data at all. So there is a tension and a question that has caused me to think a whole lot is how to serve both of these purposes aggressively rather than serving one, either one, aggressively and kind of shrinking down on the other one.

And I hope a solution can be found.

Senator METZENBAUM. The Secretary of Energy has been quoted publicly as saying that the national energy plan which originally was supposed to save 4.5 million barrels of oil a day by 1985, a figure which was immediately challenged by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office, has now revised those fig

ures to indicate that the saving would be about half that amount, about 2.3 million barrels of oil a day.

He's also been quoted as saying that the three parts of the energy plan that have been agreed upon, tentatively agreed upon by the conferees, would only save approximately 30 percent of that total amount. And he has put out certain other figures, of course, along this whole course of the natural gas negotiations.

Would you tell me, has he gained his information from your department? Have you supplied him with his information?

Dr. MOSES. No.

Senator METZENBAUM. What other department of the Department of Energy would have the facts and information available to make these computations?

Dr. MOSES. In principle, a large number would because they have access to contractors who are able to use these models and who have access to data bases. Our data is public data.

Senator METZENBAUM. But you are charged with the responsibility of producing this kind of data for the Secretary of Energy, are you not?

Dr. MOSES. We produce data, but we don't evaluate legislative proposals unless we get a request to.

Senator METZENBAUM. I'm not criticizing you for not having them. My question is we're spending a lot of money with your department. Dr. MOSES. Yes.

Senator METZENBAUM. You work for the Secretary of Energy. Dr. MOSES. Right.

Senator METZENBAUM. My question is, why hasn't the Secretary of Energy gathered his information from you which is, as I understand it, the specific arm of the Department of Energy charged with coming up with answers of this kind? And to analyze and determine

Dr. MOSES. The subject matter belongs to us but as we talked about at some length here this morning, it's wise to have, and the Congress has provided, a place within the Department of Energy to get some creditable energy statistics. And that's our job.

And the development of analytical support that defends policy initiatives, the arguments and so forth, is not our job. If it were, our credibility as a source of believable energy statistics would dissipate very rapidly in the heat of battle.

Senator METZENBAUM. If what happened?

Dr. Moses. If we were involved routinely in the support of arguments about policy and legislative proposals, as was the case you see with OEIA and its predecessors, we would suffer their fate.

Senator METZENBAUM. I don't want you to be involved, I just want, to quote that television program, just the facts. All I want to know is what the facts are.

Now would you be good enough to give us the facts then as promptly as possible as to what the three pending agreed-upon measures would save: coal conversion, conservation, and utility rate reform-individually. Also in that a determination as to what the gas guzzler's tax would save as compared to what the ban on the manufacture of certain autos would save.

Fourth, what the natural gas measure in its present so-called compromise form would cost the American people or what would it save as far as natural gas consumption is concerned?

And lastly, what would enactment of the insulation credits part of the tax bill and the natural gas and oil users tax as enacted by the Senate save as well as what would the savings be if the oil and natural gas user tax as proposed by the administration would save?

Now I know that's a lot but it's in the record and we can get it spelled out specifically.

Dr. Moses. It will be necessary to have this request in writing. And an indication of the time scale under which it will be useful.

Senator METZENBAUM. I'd say 48 hours. [Laughter.]

Dr. Moses. And we will necessarily and gladly be cooperative but we have a professional standard to maintain. To answer questions of such complexity and to do it quickly may be more than we can actually accomplish. So in the communication you send us I would be quite interested in knowing which of these you might wish to have the last if necessary.

Senator METZENBAUM. We'll get a letter off to you.

Dr. MOSES. Please prioritize the questions perhaps if you could. Because otherwise we may not be able to be fully responsive and still do our job.

Senator METZENBAUM. We'll try to.

Mr. FISCHER. Senator, two other elements that bear on that. They are general elements. One is that the volume 2 forecasts, which are the current policy-based forecasts, are in the process of being printed. They include a new set of current policy base line forecasts into the future through 1990.

They differ from the reference case that was associated with the President's National Energy Plan because they've been updated for new information and basically new data.

One of the questions that we'd like you to specify if you could, and we'll be glad to discuss this with staff at any length, is whether or not you want us to use this new reference case, and we can tell you the assumptions that underlie it, as the measure or standard from which we would measure the savings from these proposals.

And second, we would like in accordance with all the previous exchange here to be able to give you a range of uncertainty that surround the estimates. In fact, that's part of the professional standard that Dr. Moses was talking to.

Senator METZENBAUM. And I hope also that all new reports as to numbers and figures will also include that which you indicated unequivocally should be included, and that is what assumptions are being made. But that will conclude this hearing and I will ask the staff to include in the record the Christie memo which was from George Hall memorandum for John Christie.

And also ask the staff to meet with you immediately after this hearing so we can work out the specifics of this information. Thank you very much. You've certainly been very helpful this morning and we appreciate the candor of your remarks as well as your service to government.

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIX III

Q1.

QUESTIONS ANSWERED FOR THE RECORD

Questions from Senator Johnston

Please provide the Committee with the appropriate background memoranda describing the changes in the PIES

model referred to on page 37 of the December 1977 report of the Professional Audit Review Team.

A. Attached for your information are the following four memoranda related to the discussion of PIES model

changes:

"Base Case Specifications for the

President's Program" (John D. Christie to

George Hall and Alvin Alm, February 17,

1977) identifies the scenario assumptions

that must be made in order to produce

PIES projections for the President's

Program Analysis, and suggests alternative

specifications.

"Base Case Specifications for the President's Program" (George R. Hall to John D. Christie, February 24, 1977)

responds to the above memo by specifying scenario assumptions to be used in the analysis.

"Differences Between the Draft NEO/77 Reference Case and the President's Program Base Case for 1985" (Elizabeth Chase MacRae and John Solow, memo for the record, July 25, 1977) shows the differences between

scenario assumptions used for the two cases and identifies the model changes (corrections, data updates, and enhancements) made between the two analyses.

which cites the

"Comments on 'Controls Over Model Changes' in the 1977 Report of the Professional Audit Review Team" (Elizabeth Chase MacRae, memo to the record, March 16, 1978) above three memos as evidence to refute the specific allegations of analysis manipulation which appear on page 37 of the PART report.