[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 173 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8236-S8237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CBO COST ESTIMATE--S. 2012
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in compliance with paragraph 11(a) of
rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources has obtained from the Congressional Budget Office
an estimate of the costs of S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization
Act of 2012, as reported from the committee. I respectfully ask
unanimous consent that the summary of the opinion of the Congressional
Budget Office be printed in the Congressional Record. The full estimate
is available on CBO's Web site www.cbo.gov.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
S. 2012--Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015
(October 15, 2015)
Summary: S. 2012 would amend current law and authorize
appropriations for a variety of activities and programs
administered primarily by the Department of Energy (DOE). The
legislation also would:
Expand and extend federal agencies' authority to use
certain types of long-term contracts to invest in energy
conservation measures and related services;
Specify various energy-related goals and requirements for
federal agencies;
Modify DOE's authority to guarantee loans under Title 17 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and
Establish a pilot program to streamline the review and
approval of applications for permits to drill for oil and gas
on federal lands.
Assuming appropriation of amounts specifically authorized
and estimated to be necessary under S. 2012--roughly $40
billion over the 2016-2020 period (and an additional $3
billion in later years)--CBO estimates that implementing this
legislation would result in outlays totaling $32 billion over
the 2016-2020 period from those appropriations, with
additional spending of about $11 billion occurring after
2020.
CBO also estimates that the bill would result in additional
direct spending. The estimated amount of direct spending
depends on the budgetary treatment of federal commitments
through certain types of long-term energy-related contracts,
which CBO expects would increase under the bill. In CBO's
view, commitments under such contracts are a form of direct
spending because agencies enter into such contracts without
appropriations in advance to cover their full costs. On the
basis of that view, CBO estimates that enacting S. 2012 would
increase direct spending by $659 million over the 2016-2025
period.
However, for purposes of determining budget-related points
of order for legislation considered by the Senate, section
3207 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal
Year 2016 specifies a scoring rule for provisions related to
such contracts (referred to in this document as the scoring
rule for energy contracts). Specifically, that rule requires
CBO to calculate, on a net present value basis, the lifetime
net cost or savings attributable to projects financed by such
contracts and to record that amount as an upfront change in
spending subject to appropriation. Under that rule, CBO
estimates that S. 2012 would increase direct spending by $29
million over the 2016-2025 period.
Enacting S. 2012 could affect revenues, but CBO estimates
any such effects would be insignificant in any year. Because
the bill would affect direct spending and revenues, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 2012 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion
in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in
2026.
S. 2012 would impose an intergovernmental and private-
sector mandate, as defined in the
[[Page S8237]]
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), on public and private
entities regulated by FERC, such as electric utilities, by
requiring them to pay fees in some circumstances. The bill
would impose two additional mandates on public entities. One
would require state and tribal governments to certify to DOE
whether or not they have updated residential and commercial
building codes to meet the latest standards developed by
building efficiency organizations. The other would preempt
state and local environmental and liability laws if they
conflict with emergency orders issued by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). The bill also would impose
private-sector mandates on electric transmission
organizations and traders of oil contracts and on individuals
seeking compensation for damages caused by utilities
operating under certain emergency orders. Based on
information from DOE and analyses of similar requirements,
CBO estimates that the aggregate cost of complying with
mandates in the bill would fall below the annual thresholds
established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates ($77 million and $154 million in 2015, respectively,
adjusted annually for inflation).
CBO has not reviewed some provisions of section 2001 and
section 4303 for intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates. Those provisions would provide the Secretary of
Energy with emergency authority to protect the electric
transmission grid from cybersecurity threats and would
protect entities subject to that authority from liability.
Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from
the application of that act any legislative provisions that
are necessary for national security. CBO has determined that
those provisions fall within that exclusion.
____________________