[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17488-17491]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORT


                       Senate Report No. 106-373

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-373 
was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I 
ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed 
in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate--September 1, 2000

     S. 1612--Missouri River Basin, Middle Loup Division 
         Facilities Conveyance Act
       As reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
           Resources on August 25, 2000


                                summary

       S. 1612 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
     convey certain facilities, lands, and rights to the Farwell 
     Irrigation District, the Sargent Irrigation District, and the 
     Loup Basin Reclamation District, in the state of Nebraska. 
     Under the bill, these districts would pay the federal 
     government about $2.8 million for the Sherman Reservoir, 
     Milburn Diversion Dam, Arcadia Diversion Dam, related canals 
     and lands, and other associated rights and interests 
     currently owned by the United States.
       Based on information from the Bureau of Reclamation, CBO 
     estimates that enacting S. 1612 would result in net receipts 
     of about $1.3 million over 2001-2005 period; $2.8 million in 
     asset sale receipts, offset by $1.5 million of forgone 
     offsetting receipts over that period.
       Because enacting S. 1612 would affect direct spending, pay-
     as-you-go procedures would apply. CBO estimates a net pay-as-
     you-go cost of $1.5 million over the 2001-2005 period, 
     reflecting the forgone offsetting receipts. The asset sale 
     receipts would not count for pay-as-you-go purposes because 
     the sales of assets under S. 1612 would result in a net 
     financial cost (on a present value basis) to the federal 
     government.
       CBO estimates that implementing this bill would have no net 
     effect on discretionary spending in 2001, but would result in 
     a very small decrease in discretionary spending each year 
     thereafter.
       S. 1612 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
     (UMRA). The conveyance provided for in this bill would be 
     voluntary on the part of the districts, and all costs 
     incurred by them as a result of the conveyance also would be 
     voluntary.


                estimated cost to the federal government

       The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1612 is shown in the 
     following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
     budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        By fiscal year, in millions of
                                                    dollars
                                     -----------------------------------
                                       2001    2002   2003   2004   2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
     CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Asset Sale Receipts:
  Estimated Budget Authority........    -2.8      0      0      0      0
  Estimated Outlays.................    -2.8      0      0      0      0
Forgone Offsetting Receipts:
  Estimated Budget Authority........     0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3
  Estimated Outlays.................     0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3
Net Changes:
  Estimated Budget Authority........    -2.5    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3
  Estimated Outlays.................    -2.5    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           basis of estimate

       For the estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1612 will be enacted 
     near the start of fiscal year 2001. We expect that the 
     project would be conveyed to the districts in fiscal year 
     2001. The bill would require the water districts to pay about 
     $2.8 million for the facilities that would be conveyed.
       Currently, those districts have fixed repayment and water 
     service contracts with the Bureau. Those contracts result in 
     payments of about $300,000 a year through 2016 and about 
     $130,000 a year over the remaining life of the contract 
     (through 2042). Once the assets are conveyed to the 
     districts, those repayments would no longer occur, and would 
     result in a loss of offsetting receipts to the federal 
     government. In addition, customers of the Western Area Power 
     Administration (WAPA) are scheduled to pay a total of $29 
     million to the government over the 2036-2042 period to assist 
     with the repayment of the cost of these facilities. Enactment 
     of S. 1612 would lead to a loss of these receipts as well.
       S. 1612 would direct the Western Area Power Administration 
     (WAPA) to transfer $2.6 million of receipts from the sale of 
     electricity at the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin project to 
     the reclamation fund at the time of the transfer or as soon 
     as certain conditions are met. That intergovernmental payment 
     would represent the net present value of $29 million in 
     payments that WAPA customers owe to the government under 
     current law over the 2036-2042 period. The bill specifies 
     that WAPA shall not increase the electricity rates to offset 
     this payment; consequently, this provision would have no 
     budgetary effect.
       Based on information from the Bureau of Reclamation, CBO 
     estimates that the agency currently spends less than $60,000 
     each year for expenses related to the projects to be conveyed 
     under S. 1612. After the projects are conveyed, these 
     expenses would no longer be incurred, resulting in a small 
     savings to the government. However, in the year of the 
     conveyance, CBO expects that the bureau would spend about the 
     same amount to administer the conveyance, rsulting in not 
     change in discretionary spending in 2001.


                      pay-as-you-go considerations

       The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets 
     up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
     spending or receipts. Enactment of S. 1612 would result in 
     the loss of offsetting receipts of $0.3 million annually over 
     the 2001-2010 period, and additional amounts later. For the 
     purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the 
     effects in the current year, the budget year, and the 
     succeeding four years are counted.

[[Page 17489]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            By fiscal year, in mIllions of dollars
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005        2006        2007        2008        2009         010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays..........................................           0         0.3         0.3         0.3         0.3         0.3         0.3         0.3         0.3         0.3         0.3
Changes in receipts.........................................                                                             Not applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Under the Balanced Budget Act (BBA), proceeds from 
     nonroutine asset sales (sales that are not authorized under 
     current law) may be counted for pay-as-you-go purposes only 
     if the sale would entail no financial cost to the government. 
     Under BBA, ``financial cost to the government'' is defined in 
     terms of the present value of all cash flows associated with 
     an asset sale. CBO estimates that the sale of the Sherman 
     Reservoir, Milburn Diversion Dam, Arcadia Diversion Dam, and 
     all other associated rights and interests as specified in S. 
     1612 would result in a net cost to the federal government of 
     about $0.4 million. Therefore, the proceeds of this sale 
     would not be counted for pay-as-you-go purposes. The forgone 
     offsetting receipts resulting from this asset sale--less than 
     $500,000 annually--would be counted for purposes of enforcing 
     pay-as-you-go procedures.


        estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments

       S. 1612 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
     in UMRA. The bill would require the districts to pay 
     approximately $2.8 million to receive title to federal 
     facilities, and would impose a number of other conditions. 
     The conveyance would be voluntary on the part of the 
     districts, however, and all costs incurred by them as a 
     result would be voluntary. The bill would impose no costs on 
     any other state, local, or tribal governments.


                 estimated impact on the private sector

       This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as 
     defined in UMRA.


                         previous cbo estimate

       On September 1, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for 
     H.R. 2984, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior, 
     through the Bureau of Reclamation, to convey to the Loup 
     Basin Reclamation District, the Sargent River Irrigation 
     District, and the Farwell Irrigation District, Nebraska, 
     property comprising the assets of the Middle Loup Division of 
     the Missouri River Basin Project, Nebraska, as ordered 
     reported by the House Committee on Resources on June 21, 
     2000. These two pieces of legislation are similar and our 
     costs estimates are the same.
       Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Lisa Cash Driskill 
     (226-2860); Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
     Marjorie Miller (225-3220); and Impact on the Private Sector: 
     Sarah Sitarek (226-2940).
       Estimate Approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-324 
was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I 
ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed 
in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, July 24, 2000

     S. 2071--Electric Reliability 2000 Act
       As passed by the Senate on June 30, 2000


                                summary

       S. 2071 would establish new standards and procedures for 
     regulating the reliability of the nation's electricity 
     transmission system. It would authorize the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) to adopt and enforce reliability 
     standards that would apply to all users of bulk power, 
     including federal agencies. The bill also would establish the 
     terms and conditions under which those regulatory functions 
     would be delegated to a private electric reliability 
     organization (ERO) and its regional affiliates. Rule adopted 
     by the ERO regarding reliability, governance, and funding 
     would be subject to FERC approval, and would be enforceable 
     by both the ERO and FERC.
       S. 2071 would require membership in the ERO and the 
     appropriate regional affiliate for any company that operates 
     any part of the bulk power system in the United States. 
     Finally, costs incurred by the ERO and its regional 
     affiliates would have to be recovered by assessments that CBO 
     assumes would ultimately be paid by electricity consumers.
       In CBO's view, the cash flows of the ERO and its regional 
     affiliates should appear in the federal budget because their 
     regulatory, enforcement, and assessment authorities would 
     stem from the exercise of the sovereign power of the federal 
     government. We expect that it would take about one year for 
     those cash flows to begin. Under S. 2071, CBO estimates that 
     over the 2002-2005 period, direct spending would total $420 
     million and governmental receipts (revenues) would total $309 
     million, net of income and payroll tax offsets. Because the 
     bill would affect direct spending and receipts, pay-as-you-go 
     procedures would apply.
       In addition, we estimate that implementing this bill would 
     cost $2 million annually, starting in 2002, subject to the 
     availability of appropriated funds. Those costs would be 
     incurred by the government's three power marketing 
     administrations (PMAs) that are funded by annual 
     appropriations.
       S. 2071 contains three mandates that would affect both 
     intergovernmental and private-sector entities and an 
     additional intergovernmental mandate as defined in the 
     Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). While there is some 
     uncertainty about how fees will be assessed, CBO estimates 
     that the costs of those mandates would begin in 2002 but 
     would not exceed the thresholds established in UMRA. (The 
     thresholds are $55 million for intergovernmental mandates and 
     $109 million for private-sector mandates in 2000, and are 
     adjusted annually for inflation).


                estimated cost to the federal government

       The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2071 is shown in the 
     following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
     budget function 270 (energy).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
                               -----------------------------------------
                                 2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Estimated Budget Authority....      0      0    102    104    106    108
Estimated Outlays.............      0      0    102    104    106    108
 
      CHANGES IN REVENUES
 
Estimated Revenues............      0      0     75     77     78     79
 
      SPENDING SUBJECT TO
         APPROPRIATION
 
PMA Spending Under Current
 Law:
Estimated Authorization Level     187    193    198    204    209    213
 \1\..........................
Estimated Outlays.............    214    206    198    201    206    210
Proposed Changes:\2\
Estimated Authorization Level.      0      0      2      2      2      2
Estimated Outlays.............      0      0      2      2      2      2
PMA Spending Under S. 2071:
Estimated Authorization Level.    187    193    200    206    211    215
Estimated Outlays.............    214    206    200    203    208    212
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year. The 2001-
  2005 levels reflect anticipated inflation.
\2\ The increase in PMA spending would be offset by increased
  collections, following PMA rate increases.

                         basis of the estimate

       For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2071 will be enacted 
     by the beginning of fiscal year 2001 and that a private 
     organization will be designated as the ERO by the beginning 
     of fiscal year 2002. We also assume that the cash flows of 
     the ERO and it's regional affiliates would appear on the 
     federal budget because of the governmental nature of its 
     activities and the degree of governmental control over the 
     ERO.
     Direct spending
       CBO estimates that implementing S. 2071 would result in new 
     direct spending by the ERO and its affiliates, and also would 
     affect the net outlays and receipts of the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority (TVA) and the Bonneville Power Administration 
     (BPA).
       Electric Reliability Organization. S. 2071 would direct the 
     ERO and its affiliates to levy assessments to cover the cost 
     of their activities. Such assessments would be classified as 
     revenues (as explained below). Funds collected through such 
     assessments could be spent without further appropriation. 
     Hence, such outlays would be classified as direct spending.
       Based on information from the North American Electric 
     Reliability Council (NERC), CBO estimates that the newly 
     formed ERO and its regional affiliates would spend between 
     $75 million and $150 million a year. For this estimate, CBO 
     assumes that spending by the ERO and its regional affiliates 
     would start at $100 million a year and increase by the rate 
     of anticipated inflation. NERC and its regional councils 
     currently spend about $45 million annually for voluntary 
     measures related to reliability in the United States, all of 
     which is covered by fees paid by most users of the bulk power 
     system. According to NERC, spending by the new ERO and its 
     affiliates would more than double because of the additional 
     workload associated with implementing mandatory reliability 
     standards, such as developing software, monitoring the 
     transmission grid, auditing companies, and writing and 
     enforcing standards. Costs also are expected to increase 
     because of the additional building space needed to 
     accommodate increases in staff.
       Annual spending could exceed the $100-million level assumed 
     in this estimate, especially if the regional affiliates used 
     assessments to facilitate investments in facilities needed to 
     implement the reliability standards. For this estimate, 
     however, CBO assumes that infrastructure investments would 
     made by the private sector without the involvement of the ERO 
     or its affiliates.

[[Page 17490]]

       Federal Power Agencies. CBO estimates that S. 2071 would 
     increase direct spending by TVA and BPA by $2 million a year 
     over the 2002-2005 period, but would eventually result in 
     higher offsetting receipts once those federal agencies adjust 
     their electricity prices to reflect any increase in fees 
     charged by an ERO or its affiliates.
       Requiring TVA and BPA to pay higher assessments should have 
     no net effect on direct spending over time, but is likely to 
     increase spending in the near term because of the timing of 
     planned rate adjustments. Together, these two agencies 
     currently pay a total of about $1 million to NERC and its 
     regional affiliates. CBO assumes that, under this bill, the 
     agencies would pay fees to the ERO and its affiliates instead 
     of NERC and that the net increase in assessments would be 
     about $2 million a year, starting in 2002. Based on the 
     agencies' current plans, we expect that these added expenses 
     would not be reflected in TVA's or BPA's electricity prices 
     until the next cycle of rate adjustments, which are expected 
     to occur after 2005.
       Repayments of amounts appropriated for ERO fees paid by the 
     Western, Southwestern, and Southeastern PMAs should increase 
     offsetting receipts relative to current law, but those 
     changes are not included in this estimate because they would 
     be contingent upon an increase in discretionary spending.
     Revenues
       The bill would affect revenues by authorizing the ERO to 
     collect mandatory assessments from the electricity industry 
     to pay for activities related to the bill and by authorizing 
     the ERO and FERC to collect penalties for noncompliance with 
     reliability standards.
       Mandatory Assessments. S. 2071 would require the ERO and 
     its regional affiliates to fund reasonable costs related to 
     implementation or enforcement of reliability standards 
     through assessments. CBO estimates that these organizations 
     would collect about $100 million in 2002, and similar 
     inflation-adjusted amounts in subsequent years. FERC would be 
     required to review the costs and allocation of such 
     assessments.
       The amount of the assessments, however, do not represent 
     the total change to government receipts that would occur as a 
     result of the legislation. The assessments add to the costs 
     of the electricity industry, which is expected to pass them 
     forward to consumers in prices. But as long as the nation's 
     total output (gross domestic product, or GDP) remains at the 
     levels assumed in the budget resolution, consumers would have 
     to absorb the additional costs by spending less on other 
     goods and services in the economy. As less in spent in other 
     sectors of the economy, the overall effect would be a 
     reduction in the level of profits and wages paid relative to 
     total GDP. Corporate and individual income taxes and payroll 
     taxes would shrink accordingly. CBO estimates that the 
     decline in income and payroll tax receipts would equal 25 
     percent of the total amount of the ERO assessments. Hence, 
     the net impact on receipts to the government from this change 
     would only be 75 percent of the amount.
       Penalties. The bill would allow both the electric 
     reliability organization and FERC to charge civil penalties 
     for noncompliance with the new reliability standards. CBO 
     expects that the ERO and its regional affiliates would retain 
     and spend any penalties it collects and that any amounts 
     collected would be classified as government receipts. CBO 
     estimates that any increase in revenues resulting from these 
     civil penalties would not be significant.
     Spending subject to appropriation
       The bill would impose new discretionary costs on FERC and 
     three of the Department of Energy's power marketing 
     administrations. The impact on FERC, however, would have no 
     budgetary impact because it collects fees to offset its 
     costs. CBO estimates that implementing S. 2071 would cost $2 
     million a year, starting in 2002, for payments by the PMAs to 
     the ERO.
       FERC. CBO expects that S. 2071 would increase FERC's 
     workload because of the additional regulatory and oversight 
     activities required by the bill. We also expect that FERC 
     would adopt and enforce interim reliability standards before 
     the ERO is established. Once the ERO is established, FERC 
     would have to review all proposed rules and changes to the 
     entity's governance and budget, and help enforce its actions 
     on users of the bulk power system. Based on information from 
     FERC, CBO estimates these new responsibilities would cost 
     about $5 million per year. Because FERC recovers 100 percent 
     of its costs through user fees, any change in its 
     administrative costs would be offset by an equal change in 
     the fees that the commission charges. Hence, we estimate that 
     the provisions affecting FERC's workload would have no net 
     budgetary impact. Because FERC's administrative costs are 
     limited in annual appropriations, changes to FERC's budget 
     under S. 2071 would not affect direct spending or receipts.
       Federal Power Marketing Administrations. CBO expects that 
     all of the federal power agencies would pay assessments 
     levied by the ERO and its affiliates. For three of the PMAs--
     Western, Southwestern, and Southeastern--such payments would 
     be funded by appropriations, but under current law those 
     costs would have to be repaid by the PMAs' proceeds from the 
     sale of electricity. Hence, such discretionary expenditures 
     would be offset, over time, by an increase in offsetting 
     receipts, which are classified as direct spending. Currently, 
     the three PMAs are members of NERC, the industry organization 
     that sets voluntary standards for reliability of the bulk 
     power system, and its regional councils. Fees paid by the 
     three PMAs to NERC and its regional councils currently total 
     about $1 million a year. CBO expects that, under this bill, 
     the PMAs would no longer pay those fees to NERC, but instead 
     would pay new higher fees to the ERO and its regional 
     affiliates. CBO estimates that implementing S. 2071 would 
     increase the net cost of those fees by about $2 million a 
     year, starting in 2002.


                      pay-as-you-go considerations

       The Balance Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets 
     up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
     spending or receipts. CBO estimates that S. 2071 would affect 
     both direct spending and receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
     procedures would apply. The estimated changes in outlays and 
     governmental receipts that are subject to pay-as-you-go 
     procedures are shown in the following table. For the purposes 
     of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in 
     the current year, the budget year, and the succeeding four 
     years are counted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005        2006        2007        2008        2009        2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays..........................................           0           0         102         104         106         108         110         110         114         116         118
Changes in receipts.........................................           0           0          75          77          78          79          81          82          84          85          87
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              intergovernmental and private-sector impact

       S. 2071 contains three mandates that affect both 
     intergovernmental and private-sector entities and an 
     additional intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA. CBO 
     estimates that the costs of those mandates would be incurred 
     beginning in 2002 but would not exceed the thresholds 
     established in UMRA. (The thresholds are $55 million for 
     intergovernmental mandates and $109 million for private-
     sector mandates in 2000, and are adjusted annually for 
     inflation).
       First, the bill would require all users of the bulk power 
     system to abide by standards set by the ERO, or until the ERO 
     is designated, by standards approved by FERC. The bill 
     defines `bulk power system user' as an entity that sells, 
     purchases, or transmits electric energy over the bulk power 
     system (i.e., the electric transmission grid); that owns, 
     operates, or maintains facilities or control systems within 
     that bulk power system; or that is a system operator. Users 
     of the bulk power system include intergovernmental entities 
     such as municipally owned utilities as well as private-sector 
     entities such as utilities, nonutility generators, and 
     marketers. Users who violate ERO standards would be subject 
     to financial penalties.
       Currently, reliability is promoted through NERC, a 
     voluntary organization. According to the American Public 
     Power Association (APA), Edison Electric Institute, and the 
     Electric Power Supply Association, virtually all state and 
     local government entities and private-sector users of the 
     bulk power system included under the bill's definition of 
     `bulk power system user' voluntarily comply with NERC 
     standards. For those entities, the mandate to comply with 
     FERC or ERO standards would impose no significant additional 
     costs in the short term relative to current practice because 
     neither FERC nor the ERO is expected to significantly change 
     current standards. In the future, market conditions may 
     prompt the ERO to impose stricter standards to maintain 
     reliability. In that case, costs for entities that could 
     otherwise elect to disregard NERC standards could increase. 
     CBO cannot predict how or when the ERO might change its 
     standards.
       Second, the bill would require each system operator (which 
     NERC interprets to be a transmission owner or an independent 
     controller of transmission) to become a member of the ERO and 
     any regional affiliate to which the ERO delegates its 
     authority. The mandate on the system operators to become a 
     member of the ERO and its regional affiliate would impose no 
     significant costs.
       Third, the bill would direct the ERO and each regional 
     affiliate to assess fees sufficient to cover the costs of 
     implementing and enforcing ERO standards. Those fees would be 
     considered a mandate under UMRA. According to NERC and the 10 
     current regional reliability councils, NERC and the regional 
     councils collected approximately $45 million in 2000 from 
     U.S. entities for reliability. (Their current budget, 
     including Canadian

[[Page 17491]]

     utilities, is $48 million.) Based on information from NERC, 
     CBO estimates that the newly formed ERO and its regional 
     affiliates would spend anywhere from $75 million to $150 
     million a year. CBO estimates that the combined annual budget 
     for the ERO and the new regional affiliates would be about 
     $100 million in 2002 (and would grow with inflation), to 
     cover the additional responsibilities created by the bill for 
     compliance, monitoring, and enforcement. However, the bill 
     does not specify who would pay these fees, only that the fees 
     should take into account the relationship of costs to each 
     region and reflect an equitable sharing of those costs among 
     all electric energy consumers.
       While there is some uncertainty about how fees would be 
     assessed, the most likely scenario is that the ERO and its 
     regional affiliates would assess fees only on its members. 
     This is the current practice of NERC and the regional 
     councils, and NERC expects that ERO would assess fees only on 
     members under S. 2071. In that case, depending on how fees 
     are allocated among members, CBO estimates that of the 
     additional costs of the ERO and regional affiliates ($55 
     million each year), roughly 80 percent to 85 percent would be 
     paid by entities in the private sector and another 10 percent 
     to 14 percent would be paid by state and local government 
     entities. (The remainder would be paid by federally owned 
     entities.)
       Finally, the bill would preempt the authority of any state 
     to take action to ensue the safety, adequacy, and reliability 
     of electric service if NERC determines that action to be 
     inconsistent with ERO standards. To the extent that states 
     currently have jurisdiction to regulate electric service, the 
     preemption in S. 2071 would be a mandate under UMRA. Based on 
     information from APA and the National Association of 
     Regulatory Utility Commissioners, CBO estimates that this 
     preemption would impose no significant costs on state, local, 
     or tribal governments.
       Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Lisa Cash Driskill and 
     Kathleen Gramp; Federal Revenues: Mark Booth; Impact on 
     State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria Heid Hall; and 
     Impact on the Private Sector: Gail Cohen.
       Estimate Approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis and G. Thomas Woodward, 
     Assistant Director for Tax Analysis.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-173 
was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I 
ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed 
in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Congressional Budget Office, Pay-as-You-Go Estimate, July 14, 2000

     S. 986--Griffith Project Prepayment and Conveyance Act
       As cleared by the Congress on July 10, 2000
       S. 986 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), to convey the 
     Robert B. Griffith Water Project to the Southern Nevada Water 
     Authority (SNWA). The transfer would occur after the SNWA 
     pays about $112 million to the Bureau to meet its outstanding 
     obligations under an existing repayment contract with the 
     federal government.
       CBO estimates that enacting S. 986 would yield a net 
     increase in asset sale receipts of $103 million in 2001, but 
     that this near-term cash savings would be offset by the loss 
     of other offsetting receipts over the 2002-2033 period.
       CBO's estimate of the impact of S. 986 on direct spending 
     is shown in the following table. The change in outlays 
     resulting from this legislation would fall within budget 
     function 300 (natural resources and environment).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2000        2001        2002        2003        2004        2005        2006        2007        2008        2009        2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays..........................................           0        -103           9           9           9           9           9           9           9           9           9
Changes in receipts.........................................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
Not applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Based on information from the SNWA and the Bureau, CBO 
     expects that the authority will make the prepayment during 
     fiscal year 2001, and that the formal project conveyance will 
     be completed during fiscal year 2002.
       S. 986 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell 
     the Griffith Project to the SNWA for a one-time payment of 
     about $121 million. The legislation would allow the sales 
     price to be adjusted for any payments made after September 
     15, 1999, and before the project transfer is completed. 
     According to the Bureau, the SNWA has made a payment of about 
     $9 million during fiscal year 2000. Thus, CBO expects a 
     payment of about $112 million to occur during fiscal year 
     2001 and estimates that those receipts would be offset by the 
     loss of currently scheduled repayments of about $9 million a 
     year between 2001 and 2022 and $6 million a year between 2023 
     and 2033.
       Under the Balanced Budget Act, proceeds from nonroutine 
     asset sales (sales that are not authorized under current law) 
     may be counted for pay-as-you-go purposes only if the sale 
     would entail no financial cost to the government. Based on 
     information from the Bureau, CBO estimates that the sale 
     proceeds would exceed the present value of the repayment 
     stream currently projected to accrue from the Griffith 
     Project; therefore, selling the project would result in a net 
     savings for pay-as-you-go purposes.
       The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. 
     This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 
     Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                          ____________________