CONGRESSIONAL % FS}Eg\E/{ERECH -Universi of Missouri - Columbia LI OF llllllllllll I ll IWI III III! llllllllll lllllllll lllllll CONGRESS o 0- 03861769 ENERGY IMPACT ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB79022 AUTHOR: Zinn , Jeffrey Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 93191412 DATE UPDATED Q24174§Q FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0722 CRS- 1 IB79022 UPDATE-O7/17/80 l§§!§-D§El!lIlQ! Legislation has been proposed in the 96th Congress which would provide greater Federal assistance to States and local governments that are experiencing adverse social and economic impacts from energy development projects. Senate Committees have reported S. 1699, while House Committees have yet to take any action on H.R. 7358. Energy development projects, which often take place in rural areas, may attract a sudden and substantial influx of new population to nearby communities. While these communities may eventually experience benefits from the new development, they are often ill-prepared to cope with the rapid population growth. The rapid growth, with associated local costs, usually occurs before benefits, based on an improved tax base, are realized. Consequently, the local community may not be able to assist in. providing housing, essential services, and facilities. Congress has already established a separate energy impact program for coastal areas; the current debate is focused on proposals to augment Federal assistance to inland areas. Some assistance is available to inland areas impacted by activities associated with uranium and coal production. Furthermore, Congress has authorized States.affected by energy development on Federal land to use their share of Federal mineral leasing receipts to ;ff-set these impacts. But proponents of an inland energy impact assistance program believe that more general Federal aid should be available. most opponents of increased Federal aid would probably agree that local governments need help in coping with energy-related growth; but -they would prefer energy corporations themselves, or state governments, through such devices as severance taxes on coal, to provide most of the assistance. Furthermore, they feel that proposals for energy impact assistance tend to discount the economic benefits that some communities may experience from new energy development. The Administration is attempting to address this issue * through a new rural policy. EéQ§§§QQ!D-AE2-BQLlQX_AEALZ§l§ Most major development projects -- not just energy projects —- bring costs as well as benefits to nearby communities. when placed in rural areas, these projects may induce rapid population growth and may significantly disrupt the social, economic, and environmental character of the area. Because of the recently intensified effort to develop domestic energy resources, however, the impacts of energy .development projects have been singled out for special attention. The President has reenforced this orientation in his energy speeches on April.5 and July 15, 1979, calling for greater national self—sufficiency and rapid development of a range of energy resources to reduce the nation's dependenceron foreign oil supplies. The :esident suggested developing coal synfuels and oil shale to replace 1.fl to 2.0 MMB/D of imported oil. The energy development effort will presumably benefit the nation as a whole, and is, to a large degree, encouraged by the Federal government. But, proponents argue, while the nation as a whole may benefit, a disproportionate share of the costs of this development effort may be borne by communities where energy resources are extracted and processed. cns- 2 11379022 UPDATE-0'1/17/80 A These resources are concentrated in rural areas of The Rocky mountain and Appalachian States where small communities have neither the experience nor the resources to contend with the growth impacts of these projects. Some energy scenarios include a widespread and rapid energy development effort. For example, in 1977 the Carter Administration sought to double U.S. coal production between 1975 and 1985 -- from 608 million tons to 1.265 billion tons. The Administration also foresaw a 70% increase in electrical generation in a decade. The demand for electricity has dropped recently, causing many utilities to replan future needs, but nonetheless, a growth in demand is envisioned. Although many believe these goals to be unrealistic -- the lead time for major energy developments is often five or ten years an demand for coal is lagging at present —— many major new energy developments will be undertaken in the coming decade. A 1977 survey by the 0.5. Department of Interior's Bureau of Mines identified 1333 major energy-related projects that were either proposed or in the planning stage across the nation, including #00 coal mines and about H50 electricity-generating plants of one sort or another. other major categories included uranium mines (115), oil refineries (53), geothermal facilities (#6), and coal conversion facilities (43). Host States will experience some energy-related development, but the most extensive development will occur in the Rocky Mountain West. Severe impacts are also likely in Appalachia. The_§ggky_§9ggtg;n_fig§t. This region contains an estimated 40% of the nation's coal reserves by energy content. wIt also contains geothermal and oil shale resources, which may be utilized more fully in the future. Since half the land in the western States, as well as the mineral rights to .an additional 60 million acres of land, remains in Federal ownership, a substantial portion of the West's energy resources is controlled by the Federal government. During the 1970s, the pace of Western energy development accelerated rapidly. The Bureau of Mines survey found 141 planned or proposed energy projects in Colorado -- more than in any other State —- followed by California, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, each with over 70 planned or proposed projects- Wyoming is the fastest growing coal-producing State, and several recent studies have projected it will become the largest coal-producing State by 1985. A For a combination of reasons -— the rapidity and scope of the new energy development, the rural orientation of much of the West, and geographic characteristics —— the impacts of Western energy development have already been acute. The Rocky Mountain flest has not been prepared for the sudden influx of new population brought by the energy development. one survey of 131 Western communities likely to be impacted by energy development found that few of the communities had.fu1l-time planners, city engineers, or town managers. Only a third of the communities had adopted comprehensive plans that might guide future growth, and many of these did not have effective means for implementing or enforcing the plans. Energy-related growth may be rapid: A 1977 General Accounting Officr report found that some western communities could expect to double, triple, 01 even quadruple in population within a few years‘ time. As for the West as a whole, the Federation of Rocky Mountain States estimates that the region's population could increase by 600,000 by 1985 as a consequence of kcoal, oil CBS‘ 3 IB79022 UPDATE-07/17/80 shale, and uranium development. One well-publicized example of a Western energy boomtown is Sweetwater County, Wyoming, which more than doubled its population between 1970 and 197a. The county's growth rate was so high that fiscal, social, and environmental problems were severe. The county had one doctor per 1,000 people in 1970, but by 1973 the ratio had jumped to one doctor per 3,800 people. Suicide, alcoholism, and divorce were also increasing at an alarming rate, while housing, police services, ami commercial facilities were strained beyond capacity. The county's population growth rate has now leveled off to 6.9% per year, as compared to the 19% annual growth rate experienced during‘ 197o-197u, and the county is now better able to cope with the increased population. Appalaghia. As in the West, many areas of the ‘Appalachian Region could experience a significant amount of new energy development as a consequence of efforts to develop domestic coal resources. For example, the Appalachian Regional Commission has estimated that there could be a migration of 3uu,ooo people into the region as a result of energy-related or stimulated employment if President Carter's goal of boosting coal production in the region by 60% in a decade is achieved. The Commission estimates the cost of supplying these new people with schools, roads, utilities, housing, and land to be $2.9 billion. while many believe that coal production will not increase to the extent envisioned by the President, substantial coal-related growth is likely. Others have made more conservative estimates. Actual production for the region only increased 2 million tons, to 398 million tons, between 1975 Lnd 1978. These studies, prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment and Bureau of Land Management, estimate production will increase by a maximum of only 12%. By contrast, these two studies estimate western production will increase by 200% to 500%. 0 Many of the energy impact problems that Appalachia is experiencing are similar to those in the West. The region is rural in character, with over 70% of the people in Central Appalachia living in small communities of 1,000 people or less, as compared to the national average of 22%. Local planning and fiscal resources are often inadequate. Appalachia is also experiencing an acute housing shortage -— brought on by the destruction of much existing housing in the floods of 1977, as well as by the new housing requirements of in-migration. much of the region's existing housing is rated as deficient. One estimate suggests that there is a need for over 240,000 housing units in Central Appalachia. The housing shortage has been exacerbated by an apparently limited amount of land available for community expansion. much of the bottomland in the region is subject to recurrent flooding and is ill-suited for habitation. A great deal of the remaining land that might be suited for housing is corporately owned, and in many instances these companies are reluctant to make their land available for community expansion. g9a§§al_a;aa§. The nation's coastal areas are already experiencing a significant amount of new energy development. This stems in part from accelerated leasing of the Outer Continental Shelf by the Federal government or oil and gas development. Since OCS development requires on-shore support facilities, some coastal communities are experiencing or anticipating OCS-related energy impacts. Because Congress has already enacted legislation establishing a Coastal Energy Impact Fund, the current legislative debate about energy impact assistance has been limited, for the most part, to inland areas . CRS- n 1379022 UPDATE-O7/17/80% The-!e2ure-2£-§ner91-1!2e92§ Since each local situation is unique, it is difficult to generalize about the relative costs and benefits of new energy developments for nearby communities; A 1978 Report to the President, by an energy impact advisory group composed of local, State, and Federal representatives, noted: The social and economic costs and benefits associated with particular energy development projects varies enormously depending upon the magnitude and rate of growth, the size and social characteristics of the existing population in the area surrounding the proposed growth activity; the capabilities of the area's institutions to plan for, manage and finance the growth; and a host of other factors. But, while generalization is difficult, many energy-impacted communities experience similar Problems: f 222 is §erVi§ s-2nQ.Ee2;;;:;e W) Rural communities may experience problems in financing the additional public services and facilities needed to accommodate the new population» Many communities may initially experience a "front end” financing problem, since it may be necessary to provide the new facilities and services before the tax base has expanded sufficiently to pay for them. some of the communities may have had little or no experience with bond markets and the complexities of public financing. In some cases, financing problems may begin to be resolved as a stable, new workforce assumes the increased tax burden’ required to pay for the facilities. But in other cases, the new population may not be around long enough to generate the needed revenues. The construction of a powerplant, for example, may require a large, transient workforce, while employment to operate the facility will be much smaller. Additional financing problems may occur' if the energy development is located in a different local taxing jurisdiction than the growth-impacted community, as is, for example, Sheridan County, Wyoming. §22§i2qx-§22mer9i§; Eacilitiesl.enQ.Er9£e§§;9nel.§9rz;9e§ The rapid influx of new population may cause acute housing shortages, with inflated land and housing costs. Existing commercial facilities may be inadequate, and the temporary nature of much energy-related growth may discourage additional investment. There also may be a shortage of professional services, such as doctors and lawyers. §22ial-2;§£-2:;2n-and-L;£e§2zle-§2nfli9:§ The sudden influx of new population into a rural community may result in substantial social disruption and may radically alter the character of the community. The incoming population may be better paid and younger and may 0cns- 5 1379022 upnnrz-02/17/so prefer a fast-paced lifestyle at variance with community norms. Many of ’the newcomers may have no expectation of staying in the community for long and may have little commitment or attachment to the community. The growth pressures the community experiences -- housing shortages, inadequate schools and medical facilities, increased traffic, and so forth -- may affect the sense of well-being of both the established and transient residents. Energy boomtowns frequently have high rates of divorce, alcoholism, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, and crime. A£Ler-2he.§99m-i§-Qzer In many cases, the "boom cycles” that energy-impacted communities experience may be followed by "busts" of varying intensities, as the accelerated manpower needs during the construction or mine development phase of a project are reduced to a base workforce sufficient to operate the new facilities. over the long run, further reductions in workforce may occur as the coal deposits are mined out, or as a power-generating facility reaches the end of its life span. The impact of these changes will vary, depending upon whether the community has attracted other businesses to the area or has diversified its economy sufficiently to take up the slack. Communities that experience a bust may have high levels of unemployment and may be both unable to pay for, and have little use for, public facilities installed during the "boom." Eziesing.£22es2-A§§i§tanse Fgdgg§;_gggq;am§. Several Federal programs already provide a measure of assistance to States and local governments that may be experiencing adverse impacts from energy-related development. None of these programs is designed to ameliorate the impacts of all forms of anticipated energy development, but the assistance they do provide can be used by recipient communities to offset some of the impacts of energy development. Among the most significant programs: (1) §.<2<.=:.i.9I.1. 601..<2f the PoI.veI.=12.3L§t.I.1t_:=1.I.;@1-l.I;<1I_1§Q.'J_-a=I.;_ 112.1,- Ilse- A212 2.1:. 1.‘-2Z§ Jg;;:_2§:§gQL. This program is designed to assist States and localities affected by uranium and coal production activities, including extraction, processing and transportation. Administered by the Agriculture Department's Farmers Home Administration in conjunction with the Department of Energy, the program authorizes grants to States covering up to 100% of the costs for developing energy impact plans for eligible affected areas. The law also authorizes Federal impact assistance to affected areas, including direct Federal acquisition of land for housing and.community facilities if the State or locality lacks the fiscal resources or the legal authority to do so. (Such land would be transferred to the State, with provision for reimbursement at fair market value.) For an area to qualify for assistance, the governor of the State must etermine that the area is experiencing, or will experience in the subsequent three years, an increase in employment caused by uranium- orw coal-related activities of at least 8% per year. Authorized at $60 million for FY79 and at $120 million for FY80, the program has been funded at a $20 million level for FY79 and a $50 million level for FY80. DOE approved 91 designations in 20 States eligible for impact assistance in FY80. CR5. 6 1379022 UPDATE-07/17/80 (2) £!.;.I;sr§.l.Lee§iI.19-Ia2e<.=2-Aeeietease- This program has the potential to ameliorate some of the impacts from energy development that takes place on Federal lands in the Western States. Since 1920, the Federal government has earmarked a portion of the receipts it collects from leasing the Federal lands for mineral development (including coal mining) for the States in which the Federal land was located. Until 1976, the allocation to the States was to be used for the improvement of public roads and schools. However, a provision in the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (P.L. 94-579) specifies that the State allocations are to be used as the State legislature directs, "giving priority to those subdivisions of the State socially or economically impacted by" Federal land mineral leasing activities. Under the mineral leasing program, each state now receives half the Federal receipts» collected from mineral leasing within the State. This Federal allocation is substantial. In FY78, mineral leasing payments totaled $192 million -- including $69 million to Wyoming, $59.7 million to New Mexico, $15 million to Colorado, and $11.8 million to California. Payments to the Western States for coal may increase from $5 million in the future if there is increased coal production from Federal lands. In addition to these direct payments, P.L. 94-579 also authorized States to borrow their share of anticipated mineral leasing receipts for any prospective ten-year period, in order to relieve social and economic impacts associated with Federal land mineral leasing activities. In 1978, the law was amended to take into account Administration objections to the low loan interest rates provided in the original Act. Although a total of $21? million has been authorized through FY81 to implement the loan program, money has yet to be appropriated for the program. (3) 1‘.h:e...1.’e1;er.n.t§.;h_ Lisa. 2:. Ease. LL22- 112.-J.-.-.. 2£l.:§22).- Although not intended to be an energy impact program, this 1976 law could provide some assistance to Western communities affected by energy development. As a tax sovereign, the Federal government cannot be taxed by State or local governments that have Federal land within their jurisdictions. Over the years, however, the Congress has authorized the allocation of a portion of the receipts collected from sale or lease of Federal land resources to the States and local governments where the resources were located. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (PILT) augments these resource-basew revenue-sharing programs through an additional payment to most “Federal land" counties. Under PILT, counties receive an additional 10 cents per acre of eligible Federal land within their jurisdictions, or a flat payment of up to 75 cents per acre, whichever is greater. These payments are subject to graduated per capita limits on payments, and PILT payments to any one county cannot exceed $1 million. Payments to counties total about $100 million per year -- most of which goes to the eleven contiguous Western States. Counties may use the payments for any governmental purpose. (“) $E§-Q2§§Eél-§B§£Q1-l!B§QE.§EBQ- ‘This PF°9Famo established hY the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 90-370), applies to the energy impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy development, or to energy developments that occur within the jurisdiction of a State's coastal zone management program. (Energy impact assistance may be given t localities outside the coastal zone if the impacts stem from coastal energy development, however.) The impact program consists of loans, loan guarantees, and grants to affected coastal States and communities. Congress has authorized a total of CRS- 7 IB79022 UPDATE-01/11/80 $1.2 billion for programs through FY86 and ,FY88. obligated assistance yin FY79 totaled more than $46.7 million. While the current congressional debate is concerned with inland energy impacts, the coastal energy impact fund does have some relevence to this debate. The coastal impact.program couples impact assistance to land use planning through State coastal zone management programs. Many believe that such planning is needed if energy impacts are to be dealt with effectively. The Coastal Energy Impact Program is under considerable pressure as Congress A attempts to balance the budget. Most recent action by congressional budget committees would recind the $50M remaining to be obligated in FY80 and defer $54M to FY81, rather than the approximately $120M anticipated for FY81 under the program's present authorization schedule. The Administration finds this to be an easy program to support cutbacks because it involves money passed through to States in an agency where almost all funds go to personnel and equipment. Congress seems to support cuts because they are allocated based on future and difficult-to-define needs. In any period of budget austerity, an inland assistance program would be subject to the same pressures. The planning issue is controversial because of traditional resistance to land use planning in many rural areas. Also, there is potential for some overlap between coastal and inland energy impact assistance unless provision is made to Separate the two programs. The Administration is attempting to address the energy impact issue through the Small Community and Rural Development Policy, announced onw Dec. 20, 1979. The policy includes an energy action agenda with the following recommendation: "assist states to meet rapid increase in needs for public facilities and services resulting from new or expanding energy development through support for legislation which ‘would provide up to, $750 million through FmHA for loan and grant assistance over five years with a limit .of $1.5 billion in total loan guarantees; states would be encouraged to use federal impact assistance to establish revolving funds through which rassistance would be distributed to localities, primarily in the form of loans..." §§QE§_§E§£Q1-l!B§§E-E£9Q£§!§ Several state governments, located primarily in the West, have recently adopted programs that deal with the impacts of energy development to varying degrees- Wyoming and Hontana are two States with strong programs. In 1975, Wyoming adopted several energy impact measures, including a severance tax on coal, which can be granted or loaned to communities affected by henergy development. Another law‘ established a Wyoming Community Development Authority, which can issue up to $100 million in revenue bonds for community development purposes. In addition, a human services project has been established to deal with such problems as alcholism, suicide, and icrime, which may be prevalent in energy boomtowns. Montana also has enacted extensive legislation dealing with energy a development and its resulting impacts. A severance tax of up to 30% has beerr placed on coal extracted within the State. This tax is expected to generatt substantial revenues in the coming years --one estimate is that severance taxes from the State's two leading coal counties will amount to between $2uo million and $1.1 billion by 1985 -- but only about 30% of the revenues will go specifically to offset local energy impacts. The rest of the revenues '" will go into a general fund, or will be used for such purposes as aid to CRS- 8 IB79022 UPDATE—Q?/17/80 public schools, alternative energy research, development of renewable resources, and other purposes. Since 1975, other States, including North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah have adopted various types of programs and procedures to deal with the impacts of energy development. In addition to Federal and State government action to alleviate the problems associated with energy development, some energy corporations have involved themselves in ameliorating the impacts associated with their projects. In a few cases, energy companies are<:onstructing "new towns" for their employees. An example is the community of Wright, Wyoming, which is being developed by ARCO to serve several coal surface mines in the Eastern Powder River Basin region. The company has purchased about 800 acres of land located about 40 miles from Gillete, Wyoming, for this purpose, and is assuming responsibility for a master plan and infrastructure for the community. The plan calls for housing, a shopping mall, medical facilities, recreation facilities, an industrial park, and a range of community services. The estimated cost of the community is $13 million, with a five-year return on investment anticipated by the company. i In southern West Virginia, a non-profit organization called the Coalfield Tousing Corporation -- supported by coal companies and mining unions -- is attempting to alleviate the acute housing shortages experienced in the coal fields of the area. Currently, the Corporation is constructing several dozen moderately priced single—family units near Gary, West Virginia. Le9i§la2i1e-l§§2e§ In its consideration of energy impact assistance proosals, the Congress is likely to be concerned with a number of legislative issues related to the proposals. Among them: (1) §eeé-:2r.£2rther_£ederal_§ner92.Imeast- A§§i§tau2e- The most basic question associated with any piece of legislation is, of course, whether it is needed or is appropriate. There is little doubt that many communities are experiencing significant energy impact problems. But whether the Federal government can afford to absorb the costs of these impacts, or should absorb these costs, is another matter. (2) Bela:i92§hi2.s9- Eriesing- E29291- ;m2ast_ Aéeietauce- £r2qram§- The Federal government already has several programs that either are intended to be used to ameliorate the impacts of energy development or could be used for this purpose -- including the coastal energy impact fund, assistance for impacts arising from uranium and coal production activities, and sharing of Federal land mineral leasing receipts with State governments. How these programs should be coordinated with the proposed legislation is an important testion. (3) 2launin9_ané-;m2a9:.A§§iezance- Rural communities affected by energy development frequently do not have planning or regulatory mechanisms in effect that could guide new growth and development. Hence, one purpose of CRS- 9 IB79022 UPDATE-0]/17/80 some of the energy impact assistance legislation is to foster such State and local planning efforts. The relationship of planning requirements to provision of Federal impact assistance is also an important legislative issue. (4) The-§e§22n§ihili:2-9£;§teLe.§9ze:ugenre- Some State govern-ents have adopted severance taxes on coal or have authorized other programs to help communities deal with energy impacts. Should such State efforts --» or lack thereof -- be taken into account in the legislation? A related issue is they degree to which State and local.governments should be expected to utilize receipts or payments arising from Federal land within their jurisdiction to offset energy impacts. (5) Thg_§g;g_g§_;gdg§§gy. some energy companies have become involved in local efforts to mitigate the adverse impacts of energy projects. The degree to which such industry participation should be encouraged or required is an issue in consideration of energy impact legislation. (6) Financing. Should Federal assistance, if any, be in the form of grants, or loans and loan guarantees, or a combination of all three? The issue is a complicated one -- and not just because communities would quite naturally prefer an outright Federal grant. For one thing, some States prohibit local governments from borrowing at the interest rate levels the Federal Treasury now charges. (7) The-22§§ihi;i§z-2§.£eQerel- Aid. Emeline- Ehe- §99m- While Federal Lmpact assistance is intended to mitigate the impacts of rapid growth, this assistance in some instances might actually stimulate additional growth. (8) ghgg_thg_§gQg_i§_Qg§;. Sooner or later, many energy boomtowns may experience a bust. It may occur after the construction or start-up phase of a project is over or when the energy resource has been "mined out."v Unless the town has managed to sufficiently diversify. its employment base, its economy will be depressed. Should the legislation attempt to deal with the likelihood of an eventual bust? 2§§h-Q9nqre§§ As has been discussed, the 95th. Congress passed an impact assistance program related to uranium and coal production activities as part of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978. In addition, more comprehensive energy impact legislation was introduced’ in both Houses (5. 1493 and H.R. 7817) during the 95th Congress. 5. 1u93, the proposed Inland Energy Development Impact Assistance Act, was reported in two separate versions by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but neither bill was passed. 2§2h-§9n9re§§ Four proposals have been introduced, but three are no longer under onsideration. In addition, H.R. 7358 was introduced earlier this year in the House. This bill is identical to the remaining Senate bill under consideration, 3. 1699. These three Senate proposals no longer being considered include: (1) Senate Amendment 1&5 to S. 971, co-sponsored by Senators Hart and CBS-10 IB79022 UPDATE-07/17/80 Randolph, is a revised version of the so called Hart—Randolph energy impact bill reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the 95th Congress. 5. 971, the Energy Supply Act, wold add an energy impact assistance title to the Public Works and Economic Development Act (P.L- 89-136). Among other things, P.L. 89-136 authorized ,the establishment of multistate economic development regional commissions. This Amendment was withdrawn during Committee debate on S. 971. (2) Senate Amendment 395 to S. 1308, the proposed Inland Energy Impact Assistance Act of 1979, cosponsored by Senators Hart, Ford, Randolph, Baucus, Burdick, Domenici, and Gravel, was introduced on Aug. 3, 1979. It would have also amended and expanded the Section 601 energy impact program. The ‘ proposed amendment was withdrawn. (3) S. 1880, introduced Oct. 11, 1979, and sponsored by Senator Hart, was proposed to amend the section 601 program to allow planning for mitigating adverse economic impacts resulting from energy development activities in specified areas. This bill attracted considerable interest and was cosponsored by Senators Ford, Randolph, Baucus, Burdick, Domenici, Gravel, ’and Melcher. The bill directed the President to establish an interagency council to coordinate energy impact assistance programs. Under this ' proposal, the Secretary of Agriculture would be authorized to provide financial assistance to States, local governments, and Indian tribes when energy development posed a serious threat to public health and safety and when such needs could not be met expeditiously by other Federal programs. 5. 1880 was combined with S. 1699 in December and is now a revised version of S. 1699. The initial 5. 1699, the proposed Energy Impact Assistance Act of 1979, was cosponsored by Senators Ford, Glenn, Huddleston and Hart. Theo bill would have amended and expanded section 601 of the Powerplant land Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (P.L. 955620). 7 Various aspects of revised 5. 1699 are discussed below. §gg§;§;_ggm;ni§t;atigg_gggggy. The Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy both have important responsibilities. Appropriations for the program would go to the Secretary of Energy for subsequent allocation through the Farmer's Home Administration in the Department, of Agriculture. This process is already used in the section 601 program. §gg;gy_ag§;gi§ig§_g9yg;gg. Activities covered include facilities for exploration, production, extraction and processing of depletable resources, coal mine mouth powerplants, any Federally funded major energy project, such as synfuels and nuclear waste storage, and the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, as defined in P.L. 94-586. Impacts from coal and * natural gas are included. §lig;b;;ity_§Q;_g§§i§§aggg. The governor of tribal governing body can designate an energy impacted area if it meets certain criteria. First this bill specifies that employment in energy development-related activities or population in the designated area must have increased by at least 8% in a year not more than 5 years before the designation is projected to increase by 24% during the three years following the designation. Second, present public facilities and services will not be able to absorb population or employment increases during the next five years. Third, the designated area can only receive assistance if it does not possess, and is not! expected to possess, necessary financial resources. of the governor or tribal governing body, that an area should be designated and eligible for assistance. cns-11 1379022 UPDATE-OI/17/80 §n§;gy_;mp§gt_p;§nning. The planning unit, selected by the governor or governing tribal body, would prepare a mitigation plan. The plan would include an identification of projected impacts, specific needs for public facilities and services, and specific proposals to mitigate those needs, including detailed descriptions of programs, projects and activities, a list of priorities, other funding sources, and other governing responsibilities and capabilities. Assistance under this Title is to be a final option, available only as a last resort. Mitigation plans are approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. 1 Blannin9-re92i£e2ent§-£9r-ez2eQi:e§.§§si§§2nse- The local planning unit. upon finding a serious threat to public health and safety resulting from energy development, may prepare a preliminary mitigation plan assessing the need for expedited assistance. The Secretary of Agriculture may make expedited grants and loans available for public services and facilities in such circumstances. E92:e2e§9e2§z-i22e2§-es§i§:ease- Assistance would be in the form of grants and loan guarantees. Grants would be made only when a State could not accept a loan under this provision because of restrictions on debt. Loans are to be made only if there is a reasonable expectation of repayment within 30 years. Provisions for forgiving a loan are included. Finally, an energy impact insurance fund, similar to the rura1.development insurance fund, would be established by the Secretary of Agriculture as a revolving fund to meet obligations under contracts guaranteeing or insuring energy impact loans. ggpggtg. The Secretary of Agriculture would submit an annual report to Congress. GAO would evaluate the program two years after implementation and would report to Congress. Agthggiggtion o§_aQproQr;at;gn§. The bill would authorize $400M per year between FY81 and FY85, with no more than $15M per year for planning. No more than uox of the total annual authorization could be in the form of grants, of which no more than 15% could be in the fiorm of expedited assistance. The Energy Impact Assistance Fund would receive an initial deposit of $10M. The principal amount of loan guaranteed could not. exceed $1.53. The annual authorization of suoou would be reduced«each year by the amount received from the sale of insured or guaranteed notes during the previous year. L§§l§LAIlQE U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public works, Subcommittee on Regional and Community Development. Energy Development Impact Assistance. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. Bay 10, 1978. (Not published) U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Energy Impact Assistance Legislation. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Oct. 18 and 19, 1979. 305 p. "Publication no. 96-56" 0.3. Congress. CRS—12 IB79022 UPDATE-O?/17/80 Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services. 95th Congress, 2d session. ----- Energy Impact Assistance Act, 5. Congress, Energy Impact Assistance Act of 1978. Hearings, Aug. 18, 1978. 138 p. 1699. Mar. 11 and 12, Hearings, 96th 2d session. 1980. (Not published) §§29§$§_A!D-§QE§B.E §§lQ!'.A.1.--P.Q§Q§.1§»'.!!E§. U.S. Congress. report. Senate. Energy impact assistance: a background Prepared by Congressional Research Service and printed at the request of the Committee on Energy and Natural Re S0111’ ces . U.S. 05/15/80 O5/1fl/80 05/02/80 03/11/80 12/19/79 10/13/79 10/11/79 Congress. and on Governmental Affairs. 1979; report to accompany S. 1699. 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. session. Publication 96-Bu. October 1979. 25 p. Senate. Committees on Energy and Natural Resources Energy Impact Assistance Act of June 19, 1980. Washington, 81 p. (96th Congress, 2d Senate. Report no. 96-825) Senate Committees on Energy and Resources and on Government Affairs issued joint report on S. 1699, the Energy Impact Assistance Act (5. Rept. 96-825). Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and on Government Affairs jointly reported 5. 1699. Rep. Staggers introduced H.R. 7358, a bill to amend Title VI of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, to provide energy impact assistance. Referred jointly to Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and on Public Works and Transportation. senate Committee on Government Affairs marked up 5. 1699. 03/12/80 -- Senate Subcommittee on Government Affairs held hearings on S. 1699. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources approved S. 1699. 10/19/79 - Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearings on S. 1699 and S. 1880 to expand energy impact assistance to State and local governments suffering adversely from rapid energy development. 5. 1880, energy impact assistance legislation, was introduced by Sen. Hart and seven cosponsors. It was referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and Senate Committee on Government /<7-\ 08/03/79 10/14/80 09/23/73 08/23/73 08/18/78 06/27/78 06/23/78 06/19/78 06/12/78 05/10/73 05/11/77 Brown, Bertram of Gillette and the Powder River Basin. nental Health. Education, CRS—13 IB79022 UPDATE-01/17/80 Affairs. 5. 1699, energy impact assistance legislation, was introduced by Sen. Ford —- for himself, Sen. Glenn, Sen. Huddleston, and Sen. Hart. Referred to Committees on Government Affairs and on Energy and Natural Resources. The Committee on Public works and the Committee on Government Affairs jointly reported S. 1493, as amended, to establish a program to provide financial aid and technical assistance to States, local governments, and Indian tribes for managing impacts associated with energy development (5. Rept. 95-1fl12). Senate Committee on Government Affairs approved 5. 1493. Senate Subcomittee on Government Affairs considered 5. 1493. Subcommittee on Government Affairs held hearings on S. 1u93. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved 5. 1u93. Committee on Environment and Public Works resumed markup of S. 1493. Committee on Environment and Public works held hearings Committee on Environment and Public Works began consideration of S. 1fl93. Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works held hearings on S. 1u93. Sen. Hart introduced S. 1493, a bill to establish a comprehensive program to provide financial and technical assistance to States, local governments, and Indian tribes to manage the impacts of energy development. Referred to Senate Committees on Environment and Public works and on Government Affairs. A22ll'lQ!AL-§§E§.13E.!§§-§Q!1§QE.§ 3., The impact of the new boomtowns: the lessons New Dimensions in washington, U.S. Department of Health, and welfare. December 1977. 10 p. Krutilla, John V., et al. Economic and fiscal impacts of coal development: Northern Great Plains. Baltimore, Maryland, the John Hopkins University Press. 1978. 208 p. Hurray, Francis X. (editor) coal policy project. Where we agree: report of the national 1978. Boulder, Colorado, Hestview Press. Schneider, 0.5. VanDervalker, John G. g cRs_—1u Volume 1, 332 p. Volume 2, 477 p. Richard and John S. Gilmore. Report of the Denver workshop on State-local+Federal relationships in socioeconomic impact assessment. Denver, Colorado, University of Denver Research Institute. 1976. an p., plus appendixes. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Community Planning and Development. Rapid growth from energy projects: ideas for state and local action. A program guide. Washington, 1976. 59 p. General Accounting Office, Rocky Hountain energy resource development: status, potential, and socioeconomic issues; report to the Congress by the Comptroller General. Washington, 1977. 113 p. (program manager). Northern Great Plains Denver, Colorado, Denver Federal Various pagings. program interim report. Center. September 197a. LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 8'1‘, LQLMIS - M0.