DOCUMENT RESUME 02460 - [A1712700] The National Energy Act of 1977. June 8, 1977. 9 pp. + 3 enclosures (15 pp.). Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations: Government Activities and Transportation Subcommittee; by Monte Canfield, Jr., Director, Energy and Minerals Div. Issue Area: Energy: Effect of Federal Efforts on Energy Conservation (1607 ; Transpertation Systems and Policies: Energy and Material Shortages (2402). Contact: Energy and Minerals Div. Budget Function: Natural Resources, Environment, and Energy: Energy (305); Commerce and Transportation: Ground Transportation (404). Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Government Operations: Government Activities and Transportation Subcommittee. Reo. Jack Brooks. Authority: National Energy Act of 1977; H.R. 6831 (95th Cong.). Energy Policy and Conservation Act. U.S. Representative Jack Brooks requested GAG comments on the proposed National Energy Act, as well as the Federal vanpooling proposal. The Administration proposed that Congress adopt the following energy goals: reduce the growth rate of energy consumption; reduce oil imports; establish a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, increase coal production; irsulate homes, and use solar energy in homes. GAO considered these goals a good basis for a national energy policy but felt that the plan depended on unspecified voluntary actions or further mandatory actions not specifically identified. Even if fully implemented, the plan will fall short of its goals. The Federal vanpooling proposal is meant to serve as a transportation energy conservation measure by reducing vehicle miles traveled by Federal employees and setting an example for the private sector. Up to 6,000 Government-supplied vans would be used by Federal employees, and fares would cover costs of the program over 8 years. Benefits of the program would include reductions in energy consumption, pollution, traffic, and parking problems. However, it was noted that the proposal would be more effective if it included incentives such as grants for vanpooling by the private sector. 'mprcved approaches for Federal highway funiing to States were suggested tc promote carpooling, vanpooling, and mass transit. Questions were raised concerning insurance provisions, responsibilities for vehicle maintenance, and methods for determining costs. (HTU) UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUN' IING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY o &EXPECTEDAT 10:00 A.M. EDT qEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1977 STATEMENT Or ONTE CANFILD, JR. , DIRECTOR ENERGY AND MINERAL DIVISION SEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE NATIONAL ENERGY ACT OF 1977 nr. Chairman and Members of the Si)bommittee: We welcome the opportunity to be here today to discuss certain aspects of the proposed National Energy Act, and in particular that sectio.' of the Act dealing with Federal vanpooling. On May 10, Chairman Brooks requested our comments on the Administration's proposed National Energy Goals, as well as the vanpooling proposal. Our response to that request is being delivered to the Chairman today in the form of a letter report which is available to the public (EMD-77-45). I will briefly note some of the key points in that letter, including our observations on the Administration's Energy Goals, since they help to place the vanpooling proposal into an overall context. Adwinistration's Ener I Goals As part of its National Energy Plan the Administration proposed that the Congress adopt the following specific national energy goals to be achieved between now and 1985: -- reduce the growth rate of energy consumption to below 2 percent per year; -- reduce gasoline consumption 10 percent below the 17?7 level; -- reduce oil imports below 6 million barrels per day; -- establish a 1 billion barrel Str'tegic Petroleum Reserve; --increase coal production by about 400 million tons over 1976; -- insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings; and -- use solar energy in more than 2-1/2 million homes. We generally agree with these goals and believe that they can form the basis for developing a national energy policy. In general, GAO's prior energy work underlines the seriousness of the Nation's energy problem. We believe that the goals proposed in the Wational Energy Plan provide a useful way to address this problem. One fact that has not been widely recognized, however, is that the Ada.inistration did not design its energy plan to achieve the stated goals without unspecified voluntary actions or further mandatory actions not specifically Identified except by example. Sased on the Adninistration's own estir.ates, with a few exceptions, the Plan will fall short of the goals--even if it is fully implemented. For example, the Administration has proposed a goal of reducing energy growth to below 2 percent per year but the Energy Plan is designed to reduce the growth rate to only 2.2 percent. This differ- ence amounts to an average rate of 650 thousand barrels each day--or a cumulative total of 1.9 billion barrels over the 8-year period. Other similar examples are: -- A goal of reducing oil imports to below 6 million barrels each day; arid a plan which is designed to achieve an iipc-t reduction . only 7 million barrels each day. --A goal of insulating 90 percent of all buildings; and a program which is designed to insulate only 60 percent. --A goal of using solar energy in 2.5 million homes; and a program which is designed to reach only 1.3 million homes. The Administration esti.mtes that its program will achieve or exceed its other goals of reducing gasoline consumption by 10 percent from 1977 levels, increasing coal production by 400 million tons, and acquiring a strategic oil reserve of I billion barrels of oil. We believe that it is somewhat incongruous to ask the Congress to establish a set of National Energy Goals, and 3 then propose a National Energy Plan that is not expected to achieve them. To-meet the goals, the Administration admit- tedly is counting on voluntary conservation actions over and above tnosp called for in the Plan. If such actions are not fcrthcori.i;, the Administration says that additional, mandatory conservation actions will be necessary. Since under the best circumstances, plans designed to meet goals often fall short, we believe that the plan approved by Congress should be designed to provide a reasonable oppor- tunity of achieving the stated goa's. In a6d4t.ion, we believe that tie gap between the goals and what the Plan can accomplish is greater than the above figures indicate for two of the goals. These are the goals of reducing total energy growth to below 2 percent per year, and reducing gasoline consumption by 10 percent from ';urrent levels. The Adminibtration has calculated the estimated effect of the Plan in those areas from a 1977 base, including a projected 1977 growth rate for each of the items of 5 percent over 1976. The actual growth rate that will be experienced in 1977 is, of course, unknown. Based on recent experience. however, a S percent growth rate appears high to us. If a base year of 1976 is used in the two areas, the Plan would result in reducing annual energy growth by 1985 to only 2.5 percent as compared to the goal of 2 percent and gasoline con-- sumption by only S percent as compared to the goal of 10 percent. 4 Ve believe it would be better to establish a goal and a plan which are based on the latest actual experience for a Zull year, i.e., 1976. This eliminates the problem of starting from an estimated base. The Administration is proposing a biannual report to the Congress on progress towards the goals. Eowever, there are no proposed milestones on which to judge the rate of progress. we strongly urge that the Congress require that the Administra- tion establish such milestones; not only as a basis for evaluation, but also as a trigger mechanism for making any necessary adjustments in the plan. Again based on the Administration's estimates, it does not appear that the conservation provisions of the Plan vill cause much reduction in energy demand. The Administration projects that if no action is taken, energy demand will grow by 31 percent between 1976 and 1985, while demand would still grow by 25 percent with the Plan fully implemented. This equates to a reduction of roughly 1.9 million barrels of oil each day, or only 4 percent of total demand after 9 years. The major impact i[ the Plan, as proposed, seem- to be reducing oil imports by shifting to coal rather than by conserving ener7y. We will comment more fully on the goals and objectives in a forthcoming report to the Congress. This zeport, which will be completed about the end of June, will compare the Administration's proposals with the results of past and current GAO work in energy. Vanpooling The basic purpose of the Federal vanpooling proposal, as we see it, is to involve the Federal sector in a transportation energy conservation measure to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by Federal employees and to set an example for the private sector. Under the proposal, the Federal Government wotuld >Stain up to 6,000 vans for use by Federal employees to get to and from work. Rider fares would be established to enable the Federal Government to recover the cost of the program over an 8-year period. We have not had time to assess quantitatively the costs and benefits of the vanpooling program, but we do agree with the program in concept. Some obvious benefits of the program should be -- reduced energy consumption; -- reduced air and noise pollution; --reduced traffic congestion around Government offices and installations; and --reduced demand for parking facilities. The proposal does not include any new initiatives in the non-Federal sector. In our opinion, the program could be made more effective if it were extended beyond Federal vehicles to provide incentives which would promote vanpooling in the private sector. There are several ways this could be accomplished incentives to participating such as providing grants or other Federal Bighway Administration organizations. Chile an existing for Federal-aid highway vanpool demonstration program provides projects, these projects funds to be allocated for vanpool improvements for must compete with other types of highway could be within the available funds. A better approach Program authorized framework of the State Energy Conservaticn Act. Under that program, in the Energy Policy and Conservation things, a program to promote States must develop, among other transit to be eligible carpooling, vanpooling, and smass fo- Federal financial assistance. of the program, the Concerning the insurance aspects self-insure against proposal provides that the Government to vanpooling use. it liability which may be imposed due obtain insurance for any further provides that operators must may wish to consider private use of the vans. The Subcommittee coverage to cover whether to extend Government insurance private use the full use of the van including authorized persons to become van as an added incentive to encourage us indicates that in operators. Informatibn available to to use the van is in the private sector, the person licensed of private use and that many cases permitted varying degrees employer's insuzance. such use is generally covered by the in vanpooling The bill indicates that time spent traveling for the purpose shall not be considered Federal employment Service Commission or of any law administered by the Civil 7 by the Department of Labor pursuant to a specific section of the U.S. Code which relates to injury compensation benefits. We believe that this language should be clarified to make it clear that time spent in vanpools should not be considered Federal employment for any purposes. Certain other provisions in the bill raise questions about vanpool operations and should be further clarified. One deals with the provision in Section 701, which stipulates that each person operating a van under an authorized Federal vanpooling program 'shall maintain the van in good and safe working order.' The responsibilities of the van operator are not made clear by this statement. The Subcommittee may wish to clarify this section to indicate whether (1) the operator is financially responsible for the maintenance of the van (including tune-ups, overhauls, replacement parts, etc.), or (2) the operator is merely required to make the van a'7ailablp for maintenance at Government expense. If the former is intended, then a question arises concerning the condition in which the operator is required to keep the van, which would be Government property, and what the consequences would be if the van is not properly maintained. If the intention is the latter interpretation, then many operational and logistical questions arise. We suggest that this issue be resolved before final approval of the proposal. The bill provides that within 8 years the costs and expenses of the program, including administrative expenses, S incurred by the Government in connection with the program are to be repaid through rider charges. While the direct operating .'osts of the program will be relatively easy to identify, considerable problems could develop in attempting to define and recover the administrative costs because of the lack of a good basis for determining what these are and the possibility that numerous Federal departments and agencies would be participating in the program. We believe that the Subcommittee should consider whether the Federal Government should absorb the administrative costs of the program. This would help reduce fares thereby encouraging greater employee participation. It would also demonstrate the Government's interest in and commitment to the program. I should add that information we have obtained about vanpooling in the private sector shows that many firms sponsoring such program£absorb the administrative expenses. Finally, Mr. Chairman, while vanpooling is a desirable program, it is the only section of the Administration's energy program which addresses urban mass transit. We feel the broader issue of mass 'transit -nd its overall role in energy conservation must be addressed in developing an effective 'ational energy policy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ~(/.~.rs;TS?; e-COMPTRO GENERAL OP THE UNITED STAr=S :LLER \~\ ~.?-'~.~,. 1 WASnINGTON. D.CM ato 1aRt B-179851 JUN 8 1977 Thie Honorable Jack Brooks Chairman, Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of May 10, 1977, requesting our comment, on H.R. 6831, "The National Energy Act." As you know, in an earlier request, Chairman Dingell of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power asked us to prepare a report to the Congress comparing the Administration's proposals with past and current GAD energy work. That assignment is now in progress. We expect that report to be completed by the end of June and will provide you a copy. Your staff informed us that your principal interests are in those sections of H.R. 6831 referred to your Committee, i.e., sections 2-4, which include National Energy Goals, and section 701 on Federal Vanpooling. Those sections are discussed in this letter report. All secLions of the bill will be discussed in the comprehensive report to the Congress requested by Chairman Dingell. Administration's Inert- Goals We generally agree with these goals and believe that they can form the basis for developing a national energy policy between now and 1985. Oa the basis of our prior work, we believe that there is a serious energy problem and that the goals proposed in the National Energy Plan provide a useful way to address this problem. One fact that has not been widely recognized, however, is that the Administra- tion did not design its erergy Plan to achieve the stated goals with- out unsp-;ified voluntary actions or further mandatory actions not specifically identified except by example. Based on the Administra- tion's own estimates, with a few exceptions, the Plar. will fall short of the goals--even if the Plan is fully implemented. EMD-77-45 B-179851 Administration's estimate of Administration's proposed what the Plan can accomplish energv goals for 1985 _thruu=h 1985 1. Reduce total energy Reduction to 2.2% growth to below 27./year 2. Reduce oil imports below Reduction to 7 million 6 million barrels/day barrelr/day 3, Reduce gasoline consump- Reduction of 10% from tion by 10% from 1977 1.577 levels levels 4. Increase coal production Increase by 565 million by at least 400 million tons tons over 1976 5. Insulate 907% of all Insulate app':oximately buildings 60% 6. Use solar energy in 2.5 Use solar energy in 1.3 million homes million homes 7. Acquire Strategic Oil Acquire 1 billion barrels Reserve of 1 billion of oil barrels of oil As you can see, many of the actions are expected to fall short of the goals. We believe that it is somewhat incongruous to ask the Congress to establish a set of National Energy Goals, and then propose a National Energy Plan that is not expected to achieve them. To meet the goals, the Administration admittedly is counting on voluntary con- servation actions over and above those called for in the Plan. If such actions are not forthcoming, the Administration says that, ad- ditional, mandatory conservation actions will have to be instituted. Since under the best of circumstances, plans designed to meet goals often fall short, we believe that the plan should be redesigned to provide a reasonable opportunity of achieving the stated goals. In addition, we believe that the gap between the goals and what the Plan can accomplish is greater than the above figures indicate for two of the goals. These are the goalz of reducing total energy growth to beljw 27. per year aad of re6ucing gasoline consumption by 107. from current levels. The Administration has calculated the estimated effect of the Plan in these areas from a base which is as if the cnd of 1977 and -2- B-179851 includes a projected 1977 growth rate for each of the items of 57. over 1976. The actual growth rate that will be experienced in 1977 is, of course, unknown at this point but, based on past experience, 57. would be on the high side. If 1976 is used as the base, the Plan only redtves the energy growth rate to 2.5% per year and gasoline consumption by only 57.. We believe it would be better to establish a goal which is based on the latest actual experience for a full year, i.e., 1976. This eliminates the problem of starting from an estimated base. The Administration is proposing a biannual report to the Congress on progress towards the goals. However, there are no proposed mile- stones on which -ojudge the rate of progress. We strongly urge that the Congress rewcire that the Administration establish such milestones; not only as a basis for evaluation, but also as a trigger mechanism for making any necessary adjustments in the Plan. Again, based on the Administration's estimates, it does not appear that the conservation provisions of the Plan will cause much reduction in energy demand. The Administration projects that if no action is taken, energy demand will grow by 31% between 1976 and 1985, while demand would still grow by 25% with the Plan fully impl mented. This equates to a reduction of roughly 1.9 million barrels of oil/day, or only 47. of total demand after nine years. The major impact of the Plan, as proposed, seems to be reducing oil imports by shifting to coal rather than by conserving energy. This is illustrated by the figures on enclosure I which show the Administration's estimate of the impact of the specific actions in the Plan over what would be expected if no actions were taken. We will comment more fully on the goals and overall thrust of the program in our forthcoming report. However, the figures in the enclosure also reveal several other interesting facts. --With the exception of coal, which is assumed to be demand limited and for which a substantial supply response is anticipated (see enclosure II), the program is not expected to stimulate signifi- cant additional amounts of domestic energy pro- duction; only .2 million barrels of oil/day and the equivalent of .6 and .1 million barrels of oil/day of natural gas and nuclear power, respectively. The Administration contends -3 - B-179851 that this is all the incremental oil and gas production 'hat can be expected by 1985 and that higher prices.would not elicit significant increased additional supplies from conventional sources. Others disagree with this contention. --By far, the most significant items in terms of energy impact are the oil and gas pricing actions and the oil and gas users tax. The Plan is designed to achieve oil import savings by means of conversion from other fuels to coal. It appears to us that the effect of the oil and gas pricing section would be to transfer a large amount of oil use to natural gas. This would be accomplished by keeping the price of natural gas below the Btu equivalent of oil. The oil and gaq users tax would appear to shift large amounts of industrial oil and gas use to coal. Another effect of these combined actions would be to shift natural gas from the industrial sector to the residential/ commercial sector. --The largest impact from any one conservation action is expected from the residential conservation tax credit coupled with the utility insulation service program. This is expected to save the equivalent of .5 million barrels of oil/day. All other actions result in smaller savings. Unfortunately, as well, the vest majority of the actions in the residential area are deliberately designed to be voluntary. Work which we are completing on past energy conservation actions shows pretty clearly that voluntary actions in the residential sector are hard to achieve and difficult to sustain over a long period of time. --The standby tax is not included in the estimated impact of the Plan, because the Administration assumes that it will not have to be implemented. If it were initiated, an additional savings of .4 million barrels of oil per day would be expected. Vanvoolin& We have not had time to assess quantitatively the costs and do agree benefits of the proposed Federal vanpooling program, but we program with the program in concept. Some obvious benefits of the should be -4- B-179851 --reduced energy consumption, --reduced air and noise pollution, -- reduced traffic congestion around goverment offices and installations, and -- reduced demand for parking facilities. In addition, the Federal Government would be setting an example for the Nation by establishing such a program. One question we do have deals with the provision in Sec. 701, which stipulates that each person operating a van under an authorized Federal vanpooling program "shall maintain the van in good and safe working order." The responsibilities of the van operator are not made clear by this statement. The Committee may wish to clarify this section to indicate whether (1) the operator is financially responsible for the maintenance of the van (including tune-ups, overhauls, replacement parts, etc.) or (2) the operator is merely requ;ired to make the van available for maintenance at Government expense. If the former is intended, then a question arises concerning the condition in iwhich the operator is required to keep the van, which would be government property, and what the consequences wcr.ld be if the van is not properly maintained. If the intention is the lattex interpretation, then many operational and logistical questions arise. We suggest that this issue be resolved before final approval of the proposal. While we believe it is useful for the Federa' Government to be involved in this program, it could be a more effective program if it were extended beyond Federal vehicles to cover the provision of incentives to encourage vanpooling bj the private sector. There are several ways this could be accomplished such as providing incentives or grants to participating organizations. This could be developed within the framework of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 which requires that & State moust promote vanpooling before its Energy Conservation plan can be eligible for Federal funding. Finally, while vanpooling is a desirable program, it is the only section of the Administration's energy program which addresses urban mass transit. We feel the broader issue of mass transit and its role in energy policy must be addressed in any effective energy conservation program. - 5- B-179851 We are sending copies of this letter to the Chairmen of the energy-rel.ated Committees in enclosure III. In addition, we have been requested to testify before the Subcommittee on Government Affairs and Transportation on June 8 and plan to present additional comments on section 701 at that time. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of assistance to you in this matter. ry yours, Comptroller General of the United States Enclosures -6- ENCLOSURE I 0 ow - r4 $W 0I0 o to W cJo co Cc bi O 0 iN I o" p.4 * "0 _ CQ @~ U a rN"1 (YJW~~ a 0 rl 0 ' - O rI0 r· t0 a r 40 L~ u 0 I ("i i a0a 4 h :>4 3 p U 'JI 0- _ _3 : UJ t1 u ci ;-f U 0 Ut C K 00)l a c 3 rU i e0 .w*- 0C C C Z @ -I *0:i0 CW f0 SW 0 - 0 - te. ~ O) 0 U =O = - -- V} CO O · to 0 C 2: > t WYh N N UC) ' Wl .- _t <J a@ ct " C WU-7 0C: r- 0 O O '|-J 0 h a, CPG IIJ .0 OW CO N4 > SNJ. O" 0O J 4 _O 0 W,-4 Q00 0J e-A9co O.4C 1 ** 0Iu, .%0_*U C O = o w > W0 U ;0 x E 0 O S uIO a:@c : c- *0 o e -4u A IW c U' K 41 rhi0U O Ou0 2 OI 0 O0- c vA 0 u O O 0 w ' . 0E M c 0 = u:'A E C Cc w Z c Oc * @u z E Z a0 L u_ 01 a~ U~ 4) Cn l_ n 01 _ O O I O w a 9 0 Chi V0 Kn PJ 7 ENCLOSURE I W 4 V S *0C *a U 4 0E u 0*u 0I C 4 e 00 C 00 o Q' 0 o 0 * 00 Q 0 "Q4 . . & cO 0 "0 CA 0 t :O toq wh fq 0o o . - U h WOO * 0z eJ J0 CJ U U * 4l00 0a v a Oi A to ;.440 0 .0 o 01o L 0 Mrlllu I Erull 0P'00 hiC _4i " ) fA . C 1O > r- Cs QSCo a vceuh O hiS e0 0 '6 5 C =0 -= vc oE 0 Q0 E 00a ,V U a 0 o > te V 3 c c a IA ,a I0 Ir VUO S W D Q ICh w 1 - 11 ' SI 3 10 00 lc o a 0 SW u·E v_ *'a0 0'a W 0 Ai Ai ... 4 _ a __ __Q_ e C hI _ _ _ a0 a O U x v . _s i 0 e s k W w , C w 78 a ri= 5 O Ou L: w sJ W = c Y e c e u o 1 < b uz o P000 0 U . .a es 0 Oa 00 . 0 LO .I whoS ENCLOSURE I U o o o U 0 b u cn V4 _ U I o o ~- W r0 W0 _I r 0 0a CCI b< h c, P4=c i4 S= - ) _* · · · · '.4 · ·· · O% C-: pi 1w O O u a - GJ- * i K la 06 3W a ro c °o J UA w Liw UW i @ 0_00 * - I 00 W WQ-* 0 Cc* U W-4 *- C4C 0. * I 4i1 r 4 C4a C: l 0ICX VI E_ V .W 4 I. * C = r. C °M tCa V- rCJ a ra e - C S O * O W 0 0)-a4 itiq~ 0)LiCCr2C S C. a: Ai 00 KW u 0 q 9- 1- C Ai c1 < 9 1 CIW 0 u i rrl Q M i u : -* 0 a * * *... . fU . a _ C4 CC c V-1o ¢ c: c f _0 3 O L a X X ooUvaao .. E1v cL o Q oC C) .I,2 tS'J ii 003 O 3 E'1 41 Y a r(~ ~ 10 L, O ii O 01 U U~ 1-5- ENCLOSURE I 0 .0 w dJ 6.5 00 &a 1 00 00 0 aa0 irO = l a 0e .(CI0 o - 0 %w * y- U00~ l 0 M Hw0w M M Oz M - aV 0 0~.J'~O0'~M 0 z DD 0 J-I~S n0 * JJU z w 500O.w ua 000 r4Yvr ~ I3OXO rh d ( g i I 4 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~0VIP rNww W 9 * ai I 0a 03O 0 Q ~~~~~~a 9 4 0 F4 0 )1 *rl - O~r o~r~e I cr I M 0 0 rpq0 u 1M IF4 0 "o 01 i 0 > O LI Y .0 0 -W l01 CD M w 0 M V4 w a~~P 0 a co 4 rl0'3 w M 10 0 0 M " z 0 w * to V i z S U" w C w I g 4 M M O a > = V-4 4 >oh0I o"", '4o~~ea U w o0 w i MC 0 co 0 U4 4, 'C C NI~~~~~~ 4 0 J IdMorl~ r~~~~~~~~~ 1-'1 * iS 2 L)Z~43 2 Z ~~~f~ 0 BO 0* * L I0 __ a~~~~~aA ____ 0 ~~~~0 0~ ____ 0 0I 0 vJI I I · 0O rl~~~~~9 I a I U I2 ' a 2 a L~~~lb2oI -- fob LJI~~~1~ 0 Ire u 0 gm -A0 - I d I~ 0 10 ENCLOSURE I 6 4 *w.')c " 0v .) 0 60 x fA 0 X0 zC 3 0 #W" .C 6 0 d41i " 4 43 3 0O rl O tu Ai · 0 o CC M 0 C C < wD C, V- a " I. 1] £C o o -_ c 0.n _I4 _p _04 = Cr 4 0 0 W2n OO 6:C00~ a OF 0 " 0 oO0!0 . a c001 o c0"4 Jc w _ o. W *Z 4JUW0W6"40.% ON E- 0 V^Jnqo.v4 co v . C "U 0~ F4 W Ai 6 PC 0 OC" M * V4 -F 4 - c re . e 0 - d. A4 > .H . vI0 c C "u < C U C -C Iz o *oU C1~. C * co0 C6 0a . *O Zrn~~ 1 's5~ 0 - 0 ma 0 0 ") C JS SS o -I1 e8 *3 6P% 0 0 ts1t ow Eu : 0 U £ NW e W gbUt s6 * 7 D Ca UC 60 ~ ~6 ~ ~ o~ ~ OUO XCO E w S00 C 3 a O uV Z O i 0 0 0 ) ~ UIC Cc '" ~ ~ "Oac ~ " 'a1 _ __ O1^ 0Ii0) w O O u (D L~~~~~~~~~~Olc O~~~ 11~~~ ENCLOSURE II INCREASES IN DOMESTIC SUPPLY RELATIVE TO 1976 PROJECTED XN NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN (MILLIONS OF BARRELS OF OIL EQUIVALENT PER DAY) Without With Plan Plan (1) (2) (2)-(1) Oil 0.7 0.9 0.2 Gas . -1.3 -0.7 0.6 Coal 4.3 6.6 2.3 Nuclear 2.7 2.8 0.1 Other 0.2 0.2 -0- Refinery Gain 0.5 0.2 -. 3 Total 7.1 10.0 2.9 Source: Lxecutive Office of the President, Office of Energy Policy and Planning. 12 ENCLOSURE III Copies of this letter are being sent to: The Honorable Edmund S. Muskie Chairman, Committee on Budget United States Senate The Honorable Warren G. Magnuson Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate The Honorable Henry M. Jackson Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate The Honorable Lee Metcalf Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Resources Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate The Honorable Floyd K. Haskell Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Production and Supply Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Regulation Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate The Honorable Frank Church Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate The Honorable Jennings Randolph Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate The Honorable Gary Hart Chairman, Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate The Honorable Russell B. Long Chairman, Committee on Finance United States Senate 13 ENCLOSURE III The Honorable John Sparkman Chairman, Committee on Foreign United States Senate Relations The Honorable Abraham A. Ribicoff Chairman, Committee on Governmental United States Senate Affairs The Honorable John Glenn Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Federal Services Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Robert N. Giaimo Chairman, Committee on the Budget House of Representatives The Honorable John Dingell Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives The Honorable Leo J. Ryan Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Natural Resources Energy, and Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives The Honorable Morris Udall Chairman, Comunittee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives The Honorable Abraham Kazen, Jr. Chairman, Subcommittee on Mines and Mining Committee on Interior and Insular Rouse of ReDresentatives Affairs The Honorablq Lloyd Meeds Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources Committee on Interior and Insuiar Affairs House of Representatives The Honorable Harley O. Staggers Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives The Honorable Clement J. Zablocki Chairman, Committee on International Relations House of Representatives 14 ENCLOSURE III The Honorable John E. Moss Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives The Honorable Olin E. Teague Chrirn, Committee on Science and Technology House of Representatives The Honorable Walter Flowers Chairman, Subcommittee on Fossil and Nuclear Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Commr,ittee on Science and Technology House of Representatives The Honorable Mike McCormack Chairman, Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation, Development, and Demonstration Committee on Science and Tecnnology House of Representatives The Honorable Al Ullman Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives The Honorable John M. Murphy Chairman, Ad Hoc Select Committee on Outer Continental Shelf House of Representatives The Honorable Richard Bolling Chairman, Joint Economic Committee House of Representatives The Honorable Thomas L. Ashley Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on Energy Policy House of Representatives 15
The National Energy Act of 1977
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-06-08.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)