(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Calendar No. 101
104th Congress Report
1st Session 104-78
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION SALE ACT
April 27 (legislative day, April 24), 1995.--Ordered to be printed
Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 395]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 395) to authorize and direct the
Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration,
and for purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with amendments and amendment to the title and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
1. Strike page 1, line 3, through page 7, line 25, and
insert the following:
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Alaska Power
Administration Asset Sale and Termination Act''.
SEC. 102. SALE OF SNETTISHAM AND EKLUTNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS.
(a) The Secretary of Energy is authorized and directed to
sell the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project (referred to in this
Act as ``Snettisham'') to the State of Alaska in accordance
with the terms of this Act and the February 10, 1989,
Snettisham Purchase Agreement, as amended, between the Alaska
Power Administration of the United States Department of Energy
and the Alaska Power Authority and the Authority's successors.
(b) The Secretary of Energy is authorized and directed to
sell the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project (referred to in this Act
as ``Eklutna'') to the Municipality of Anchorage doing business
as Municipal Light and Power, the Chugach Electric Association,
Inc., and the Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (referred to
in this Act as ``Eklutna Purchasers''), in accordance with the
terms of this Act and the August 2, 1989, Eklutna Purchase
Agreement, as amended, between the Alaska Power Administration
of the United States Department of Energy and the Eklutna
(c) The heads of other Federal departments and agencies,
including the Secretary of the Interior, shall assist the
Secretary of Energy in implementing the sales authorized and
directed by this Act.
(d) Proceeds from the sales required by this Title shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to prepare, survey and acquire Eklutna and
Snettisham assets for sale and conveyance. Such preparations
and acquisitions shall provide sufficient title to ensure the
beneficial use, enjoyment, and occupancy by the purchaser.
SEC. 103. EXEMPTION AND OTHER PROVISIONS.
(a)(1) After the sales authorized by this Act occur,
Eklutna and Snettisham, including future modifications, shall
continue to be exempt from the requirements of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et. seq.) as amended.
(2) The exemption provided by paragraph (1) does not affect
the Memorandum of Agreement entered into among the State of
Alaska, the Eklutna Purchasers, the Alaska Energy Authority,
and Federal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the
protection, mitigation of, damages to, and enhancement of fish
and wildlife, dated August 7, 1991, which remains in full force
(3) Nothing in this Title or the Federal Power Act preempts
the State of Alaska from carrying out the responsibilities and
authorities of the Memorandum of Agreement.
(b)(1) The United States District Court for the District of
Alaska shall have jurisdiction to review decisions made under
the Memorandum of Agreement and to enforce the provisions of
the Memorandum of Agreement, including the remedy of specific
(2) An action seeking review of a Fish and Wildlife Program
(``Program'') of the Governor of Alaska under the Memorandum of
Agreement or challenging actions of any of the parties to the
Memorandum of Agreement prior to the adoption of the Program
shall be brought not later than ninety days after the date of
which the Program is adopted by the Governor of Alaska, or be
(3) An action seeking review of implementation of the Program
shall be brought not later than ninety days after the
challenged act implementing the Program, or be barred.
(c) With respect to Eklutna lands described in Exhibit A of
the Eklutna Purchase Agreement:
(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall issue rights-
of-way to the Alaska Power Administration for
subsequent reassignment to the Eklutna Purchasers--
(A) at no cost to the Eklutna Purchasers;
(B) to remain effective for a period equal to
the life of Eklutna as extended by
improvements, repairs, renewals, or
(C) sufficient for the operation, of
maintenance, of repair to, and replacement of,
and access to, Eklutna facilities located on
military lands and lands managed by the Bureau
of Land Management, including lands selected by
the State of Alaska.
(2) If the Eklutna Purchasers subsequently sell or
transfer Eklutna to private ownership, the Bureau of
Land Management may assess reasonable and customary
fees for continued use of the rights-of-way on lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management and military
lands in accordance with existing law.
(3) Fee title to lands at Anchorage Substation shall
be transferred to Eklutna Purchasers at no additional
cost if the Secretary of the Interior determines that
pending claims to, and selections of, those lands are
invalid or relinquished.
(4) With respect to the Eklutna lands identified in
paragraph 1 of Exhibit A of the Eklutna Purchase
Agreement, the State of Alaska may select, and the
Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the State,
improved lands under the selection entitlement in
section 6 of the Act of July 7, 1958 (commonly referred
to as the Alaska Statehood Act, P.L. 85-508, 72 Stat.
339, as amended), and the North Anchorage Land
Agreement dated January 31, 1983. This conveyance shall
be subject to the rights-of-way provided to the Eklutna
Purchasers under paragraph (1).
(d) With respect to the Snettisham lands identified in
paragraph 1 of Exhibit A of the Snettisham Purchase Agreement
and Public Land Order No. 5108, the State of Alaska may select,
and the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the State of
Alaska, improved lands under the selection entitlements in
section 6 of the Act of July 7, 1958 (commonly referred to as
the Alaska Statehood Act, P.L. 85-508 72 Stat. 339, as
(e) Not later than one year after both of the sales
authorized in section 102 have occurred, as measured by the
Transaction Dates stipulated in the Purchase Agreements, the
Secretary of Energy shall--
(1) complete the business of, and close out, the
Alaska Power Administration;
(2) submit to Congress a report documenting the
(3) return unobligated balances of funds appropriated
for the Alaska Power Administration to the Treasury of
the United States.
(f) The Act of July 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 382) is repealed
effective on the date, as determined by the Secretary of
Energy, that all Eklutna assets have been conveyed to the
(g) Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat.
1193) is repealed effective on the date, as determined by the
Secretary of Energy, that all Snettisham assets have been
conveyed to the State of Alaska.
(h) As of the later of the two dates determined in subsection
(f) and (g), section 302(a) of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152 (a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E),
and (F) as subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E)
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking out ``and the Alaska
Power Administration'' and by inserting ``and'' after
``Southwestern Power Administration,''.
(i) The Act of August 9, 1955, concerning water resources
investigation in Alaska (69 Stat. 618), is repealed.
(j) The sales of Eklutna and Snettisham under this Title are
not considered disposal of Federal surplus property under the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 484) or the Act of October 3, 1994, popularly referred
to as the ``Surplus Property Act of 1944'' (50 U.S.C. App.
(k) The sales authorized in this title shall occur not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of legislation
defining ``first use'' of Snettisham for purposes of section
147(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to be considered
to occur pursuant to acquisition of the property by or on
behalf of the State of Alaska.
2. On page 10, line 21, strike ``Act'' and insert
3. Amend the title so as to read:
To authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the
Alaska Power Administration, and to authorize the export of
Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for other purposes.
Purpose of the Measure
The purpose of S. 395, as ordered reported, is to provide
for the sale of the assets and subsequently the termination of
the Alaska Power Marketing Administration (Title I); and to
authorize exports of Alaskan North Slope crude oil (Title II).
Background and Need
title i, alaska power administration sale act
Title I provides for the sale of Alaska Power Marketing
Administration's (APA) assets, and the termination of the APA
once the sale occurs.
The APA is unique among the Federal Power Marketing
Administrations (PMA). First, unlike the other PMAs, the APA
owns its power generating facilities, two hydroelectric
projects. Second, these single-purpose projects are not the
result of a water resource management plan. Instead, they were
built to promote economic development and the establishment of
essential industries. Third, the APA operates entirely in one
State. Fourth, the APA was never intended to remain
indefinitely under government control. That is specifically
recognized in the Eklutna project authorizing legislation.
The APA owns two hydroelectric projects, Snettisha and
Eklutna. Snettisham is a 78 megawatt project located 45 miles
south of Juneau. It has been Juneau's main power source since
1975, accounting for 80 percent of supply. Eklutna is a 30
megawatt project located 34 miles NE of Anchorage. It has
served the Anchorage and Matanuska Valley areas since 1955,
accounting for 5 percent of supply.
The APA assets will be sold pursuant to the 1989 purchase
agreements between the Department of Energy and the purchasers.
Snettisham will be sold to the State of Alaska, and Eklutna
will be sold jointly to the Municipality of Anchorage, the
Chugach Electric Association, and the Matanuska Electric
Association. For both, the sale price is determined by
calculating the net present value of the remaining debt service
payments that the Treasury would receive if the Federal
government retained ownership of the two projects. The sale
price will vary with the interest rate at the time of purchase.
The bill and separate formal agreements provide for the
full protection of fish and wildlife. The purchasers, the State
of Alaska, the U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine
Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Department of the Interior have
entered into a formal agreement providing for post-sale
protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife
resources affected by Eklutna and Snettisham. S. 395 makes that
agreement legally enforceable.
As a result of this formal agreement, the Department of
Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of
Commerce all agree that the two hydroelectric projects warrant
exemption from FERC licensing under the Federal Power Act. The
August 7, 1991 formal purchase agreement states, in part, that:
NMFS, USFWS and the State agree that the following
mechanism to develop and implement measures to protect,
mitigate damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife
(including related spawning grounds and habitat)
obviate the need for the Eklutna Purchasers and AEA to
obtain FERC licenses. (Emphasis provided.)
This agreed-upon exemption from the Federal Power Act's
requirement to obtain a FERC license will save the purchasers--
and their customers--hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual
The Alaska Power Administration has 34 people located in
Alaska. The purchasers of the two projects have pledged to hire
as many of these as possible. For those who do not receive
offers of employment, the Department of Energy has pledged that
it will offer employment to any remaining APA employees,
although the DOE jobs are expected to be in the lower-48.
title ii, trans-alaska pipeline amendment act of 1995
In 1973, shortly after commencement of the Arab-Israeli War
and the first oil embargo, Congress adopted the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPS), Pub. L. No. 93-153,
authorizing construction of a pipeline to move the oil from
state lands on the North Slope to an accessible port at Valdez,
Alaska. The legislation also established export restrictions on
all domestically produced crude oil carried over any federal
right-of-way by adding a new section 28(u) to the Mineral
Leasing Act. As amended, the Mineral Leasing Act permitted
exports of domestically produced crude oil, including Alaska
North Slope (ANS) crude oil, if the President determined the
exports would be in the national interest, would not diminish
the total quality or quantity of petroleum available to the
United States, and would be done in accordance with the
licensing provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1969.
In 1979, following the second major oil shock, Congress
effectively banned ANS exports by adopting section 7(d) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979. Section 7(d) for the first
time established specific export restrictions on ANS crude oil
independent of the original TAPS provision.
World Oil Situation
Much has changed since the 1970s when the United States
faced energy supply threats. In 1973, Middle East countries
jointly boycotted the United States at the outbreak of the war.
Thereafter, OPEC was able to ratchet up prices repeatedly, as
demand for oil seemed essentially inelastic while energy demand
appeared to grow geometrically.
The flexible U.S. economy, however, reacted to the
anticipated shortage by rapid gains in energy efficiency. By
1990 oil demand was less than 65% of the amount forecast in
1978. By 1992, the ratio of energy expenditure to GNP was only
82% of the 1980 level. However, while the demand pressure has
moderated, domestic crude oil production has dropped
drastically. Last year, imports surpassed the previous all-time
high set in 1977.
Department of Energy Study
In June of 1994, the Department of Energy issued a study
entitled, ``Exporting Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil--Benefits
and Costs.'' The Department concluded that ``there would be a
significant number of benefits to the United States from
allowing the export of ANS crude.'' The Department found that
permitting ANS exports would encourage additional oil
production in California and Alaska, would raise royalty
revenues for the federal government and for the State of Alaska
and California, and could generate between 10,000 and 25,000
additional jobs in the United States by the end of the decade.
The study also determined that the lifting of the ANS oil
export ban would help slow the decline in Alaska North Slope
production. Alaska North Slope production has fallen from a
high of about 2.2 million b/d in the early 1990s to about 1.6
million b/d in 1994. The Department also concluded that
``[l]ittle, if any, increase in consumer petroleum prices would
be likely'' by lifting the export ban and said that ``[n]o
significantly negative environmental implications were found.''
The Department also found that West Coast refiners would be
forced to absorb higher crude oil acquisition costs based on
market-determined prices for the crude oil, rather than the
artificially low prices created by the export ban. The
Department concluded that refiner margins on the West Coast,
currently well above those in other markets, would be reduced
rather than consumer prices being increased. Finally, the
Department said: ``Our review found no plausible evidence of
any direct negative environmental impact from lifting the ANS
Alaskan Oil Movements and the Environment
In 1994, ANS oil moved by vessel to three destinations.
Most of its was carried in American-flag vessels to the West
Coast, Hawaii, and Alaska. In addition, ANS oil moved in
American-flag Virgin Islands. Since 1987, while West Coast
consumption has remained relatively stable, the ANS movement to
the Gulf Coast has dropped from approximately 600,000 b/d to
its present level. The difference already has been replaced by
imports carried in foreign-flag vessels. As indicated, natural
market forces, particularly declining ANS production, already
have substantially reduced American-flag movements. Independent
of lifting the ban, they will otherwise be replaced with
imports in any event as North Slope production reaches
equilibrium with West Coast demand.
All tankers serving the U.S. ports, whether American-flag
or foreign-flag, are subject to the same requirements under the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and are subject to the same safety
and navigation requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard.
At the March 1 hearing, the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska
testified that the proposed legislation should be seen as
environmentally preferable because it encourages additional
energy production without expanding the size of the current
production footprint. Following the hearing, the Committee
received letters from the Borough of Kodiak and the East
Aleutian Island Borough. Both boroughs indicated that they saw
no increased threat or risk to the environment of a change in
Based on likely tanker movements, testimony at the hearing,
and the views expressed by the relevant parties in Alaska that
might be most affected by ANS exports, it appears unlikely that
this change in current law will have any noticeable adverse
The bill requires (with only limited exceptions) that any
ANS crude exported must be carried on ``a vessel documented
under the laws of United States and owned by a citizen of the
United States (as determined in accordance with section 2 of
the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802)).'' At the hearing
held before the Committee on March 1, questions were raised
about whether this requirement violated U.S. international
obligations, in particular requirements of the World Trade
Organization, the ``standstill agreement'' of the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the Code of
Liberalisation of Current Invisible Operations of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
In a letter to Senator Johnston, reprinted below, the U.S.
Trade Representative assured the Committee that the bill as
drafted did not violate U.S. international obligations.
S. 395 was introduced by Senators Murkowski and Stevens on
February 13, 1995. The Committee held a hearing on S. 395 on
March 1, 1995. At the business meeting on March 15, 1995, the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 395, as
amended, favorably reported.
Committee Recommendations and Tabulation of Votes
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in
open business session on March 15, 1995, by a majority vote of
a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 395, if
amended as described herein.
The rollcall vote on reporting the measure was 14 yeas, 4
nays, as follows:
Mr. Murkowski Mr. Hatfield
Mr. Domenici Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Nickles* Mr. Akaka
Mr. Craig Mr. Wellstone
*Indicates voted by proxy.
Section 101 is the short title.
Section 102 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Energy
to sell the Snettisham and Eklutna hydroelectric projects in
accordance with their purchase agreements. It authorizes such
sums as may be necessary to prepare, survey and acquire the two
projects for sale.
Section 103 provides an exemption from the Federal Power
Act for the Snettisham and Eklutna projects. It creates an
enforcement mechanism for the Memorandum of Agreement regarding
the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife. It
provides for the transfer of certain rights-of-way to the
Alaska Power Administration. It provides for the transfer of
certain Snettisham and Eklutna lands. It provides for the
termination of the Alaska Power Administration of the
Department of Energy.
Section 201 designates the title as the ``Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Amendment Act of 1995''.
Section 202 would eliminate all existing restrictions on
exports of Alaskan North Slope crude oil, including those in
effect by statute, regulation, or executive order. Section 202
would add a new subsection (f) to section 203 of the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPS), establishing the
conditions under which ANS crude oil may be exported.
The new subsection 203(f)(1) of TAPS would, subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3), permit exports of any
oil transported by pipeline over right-of-way granted pursuant
to section 203 of TAPS.
The new subsection 203(f)(2) would require that American-
flag vessels be used to carry the exports, except to countries
that already may import the oil under current law such as
Israel and other countries pursuant to the International
Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of the International Energy Agency.
The new subsection 203(f)(3) of TAPS would provide that
nothing in this subsection would restrict the authority of the
President under the Constitution, the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, or the National Emergencies Act to
prohibit exportation of the oil.
Section 203 reaffirms a policy statement made by Congress
in 1973 to confirm the President's authority to ensure an
equitable allocation of available North Slope crude all
resources and petroleum products among all regions and all of
the several States.
Section 205 requires the Comptroller General to conduct a
review and to issue a report. Due five years after the date of
enactment, the report would focus on the effects of Alaskan
North Slope oil exports and would contain such recommendations
as the Comptroller General considered appropriate.
Section 206 establishes the date of enactment as the
effective date of this title.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 22, 1995.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 395, a bill to
authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska
Power Administration, and for other purposes.
Enacting this legislation would affect direct spending.
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
June E. O'Neill, Director.
congressional budget office cost estimate
1. Bill number: S. 395.
2. Bill title: A bill to authorize and direct the Secretary
of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration, and for
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources on March 15, 1995.
4. Bill purpose: Title I of this bill would authorize the
sale of the Alaska Power Administration (APA) in accordance
with the terms of the purchase agreements negotiated in 1989
between the U.S. Department of Energy and the proposed
purchasers of the APA. The sale would be conditional on the
enactment of legislation that would allow Alaska to issue tax-
exempt debt to finance the purchase of the APA.
Title II of the bill would amend the Trans-Alaska Power
Authorization Act to allow exports of Alaskan North Slope (ANS)
oil as long as the oil is transported by vessels documented
under the laws of the United States (unless international oil
supply agreements apply to the particular country). In
addition, the permission to export ANS oil would not restrict
the President's existing authority to restrict exports under
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or the National
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Enactment of
Title I, by itself, would have no budgetary impact because
consummation of the sale would require further legislation. If
such legislation were enacted, it would have the budgetary
effects shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1.--COST OF FUTURE LEGISLATION PERTAINING TO TITLE I: SALE OF THE
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Asset sale receipts:
authority............. -77 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays...... -77 0 0 0 0
authority............. 0 11 11 11 11
Estimated outlays...... 0 11 11 11 11
level................. 5 -7 -7 -7 -7
Estimated outlays...... 4 -5 -7 -7 -7
We estimate that enacting Title II would reduce net federal
outlays by about $55 million over the next five years. These
savings would take the form of increased offsetting receipts as
the result of slightly higher oil prices for crude oil produced
and sold from federal lands. Table 2 shows the estimated budget
impact for Title II.
TABLE 2.--COST OF TITLE II: ALLOWING EXPORTS OF ANS OIL
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
authority............. -16 -13 -10 -8 -6
Estimated outlays...... -16 -13 -10 -8 -6
The costs of this bill fall within budget functions 270 and
Alaska PMA sale
CBO estimates that sale of the APA in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the negotiated purchase agreements
would result in receipts to the government of about $77 million
near the end of fiscal year 1996. Under the purchase
agreements, the sales price would be determined by calculating
the net present value of the remaining debt service payments
that the Treasury would receive if the federal government
retains ownership of the APA. The discount rate for this
calculation would depend in part on the interest rate obtained
by Alaska to finance the purchase of the APA. Under the scoring
procedures specified in the 1995 budget resolution (H. Con.
Res. 218), receipts from the sale would be considered the
proceeds of an asset sale, and thus they would not be credited
as a reduction in the deficit for purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
After the sale is completed, the government would no longer
receive income from producing electric power at APA's
facilities--approximately $11 million annually. The bill would
authorize appropriations of sums necessary to prepare the APA
for sale. Based on information from DOE, we estimate the agency
would need to spend about $5 million in 1995 to conduct land
surveys, obtain appraisals and legal services, and obtain
powerline and substation rights-of-way. Finally, when the sale
of the APA is completed, this government agency would be
abolished and would no longer require annual appropriations of
about $7 million to pay for operating expenses.
Export of ANS oil
If Title II of this bill is enacted, CBO expects that some
ANS oil would be exported to Japan and possibly other Pacific
Rim countries and that such exports would reduce the supply of
oil flowing from Alaska to the U.S. West Coast. Based on
information from the Department of Energy and industry sources,
CBO estimates that this reduction in supply would increase the
price of oil on the West Coast by approximately 50 cents per
barrel. The effect on oil prices is likely to decrease over
time, however, as California's demand for oil and refined
products increase while ANS production decreases.
Higher West Coast oil prices will produce additional income
to the federal government from the sale of its own oil and from
royalties paid by private producers for oil extracted from
federal lands. CBO estimates that royalties paid to the
government on leases of both onshore and offshore federal lands
would increase by an average of about $3 million per year over
the next five years, and that receipts for the sale of oil from
the Naval Petroleum Reserve in Elk Hills, California would
increase by an average of about $8 million per year over the
next five years.
The increases in both federal lease royalties and Elk Hills
sales are likely to be greatest in the first year and to
diminish over time. In total, we estimate that the increase in
receipts would be $16 million in fiscal year 1996 and would
average $11 million per year over the 1996-2000 period.
6. Comparison with spending under current law: For 1995,
the APA has appropriations of $6.5 million and will have
estimated outlays of about $6 million. If the APA were sold,
H.R. 395 would authorize additional sums necessary to prepare
for the sale, and CBO estimates $5 million would be needed for
this purpose. Following a sale, the APA would no longer exist
or require federal appropriations. Hence, beginning in 1997,
appropriations for APA operations would decline by nearly $7
million per year. On the other hand, once the APA is sold,
offsetting receipts would decline by $11 million per year.
7. Pay-as-you-go-considerations: Section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enactment
of S. 395 would affect direct spending by increasing offsetting
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to
Enacting Title II would decrease outlays by increasing
offsetting receipts from the sale of oil and from increased
royalties. The CBO estimate of these additional receipts are
1996 1997 1998
Change in outlays............................ -16 -13 -10
Change in receipts........................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
\1\ Not applicable.
While Title I of this bill would authorize the sale of the
APA, section 103(k) would make the sale conditional upon
enactment of legislation that would allow Alaska to issue tax-
exempt debt to purchase the APA. Any subsequent legislation
that allowed Alaska to issue tax-exempt debt for this purpose
would have a pay-as-you-go cost of $11 million annually in
direct spending over the 1996-1998 period.
8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
9. Estimate comparison: None.
10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
11. Estimate prepared by: Kim Cawley and Pete Fontaine.
12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 395. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing government-established standards or
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 395.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested
formal views on S. 395 from Executive agencies. The Department
of Energy Deputy Secretary Bill White's submitted written and
oral testimony on behalf of the Administration on S. 395 at the
Committee hearing on March 1, 1995 reflects the
Administration's position on S. 395. On March 9, following the
hearing, the U.S. Trade Representative responded to a letter
sent by Senator Johnston addressing concerns about whether S.
395 violated U.S. international obligations. The written
statement and the exchange of correspondence between Sen.
Johnston and Mr. Kantor reprinted below:
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, March 2, 1995.
U.S. Trade Representative,
Dear Ambassador Kantor: The Energy and Natural Resources
Committee is considering legislation, S. 395, to amend the
Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act to remove the current
prohibition on the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil. The
legislation requires that the oil be carried by a ``vessel
documented under the laws of the U.S. and owned by a citizen of
the U.S.'', a U.S.-flag, but not a Jones Act requirement. This
provision has raised several concerns with respect to
international trade agreements.
All interested parties agree that requiring transport by
Jones act vessels would be a violation of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In testimony before the Committee
the Shipbuilders Council of America raised the concern that the
provision requiring U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed ships also could
face a GATT challenge. The Council also cited allegations that
this provision would violate the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Code of Liberalisation of
Current Invisible Operations and the OECD's Common Principles
of Shipping Policy and paragraph 7 of the General Agreement on
Trade in Services (GATS) Ministerial Decision of Negotiations
on Maritime Transport Services.
Deputy Secretary of Energy Bill White testified for the
Administration in support of the bill subject to certain
changes. However, the following trade-related questions were
not adequately addressed in the Administration's testimony.
In the Administration's view, does the shipping provision
proposed in S. 395 violate any trade agreements?
What are the potential legal and practical effects of a
challenge under any of these agreements?
If a challenge were upheld by the World Trade Organization
(WTO), or similar body, what would be the legal ramifications?
That is, could this law be effectively amended by actions taken
by the WTO to allow exports to continue on foreign-flag ships,
or would Congressional or Presidential action be required
before exports could resume?
What would be the Administration's view of an amendment to
S. 395 so as to reimpose the ban on exports if the shipping
requirement is found to violate a trade agreement?
S. 395 will be brought before the Committee for
consideration within the next few weeks, perhaps as early as
March 15. It is critical, therefore, that I have your detailed
response to these questions by Friday, March 10. Thank you in
advance for your response.
J. Bennett Johnston,
Ranking Minority Member.
U.S. Trade Representative,
Executive Office of the President,
Washington, DC, March 9, 1995.
Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
Dear Senator Johnston: This replies to your letter of March
2, 1995, requesting information on the implications of the
cargo preference provisions of S. 395 on our obligations under
the World Trade Organization and the Organisation of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). Specifically, you ask if
the legislation violates any trade agreements, the potential
legal and practical effects of a challenge, as well as its
effect on the ongoing negotiations on maritime in Geneva.
As to WTO violations, I can state categorically that S.
395, is currently drafted, does not present a legal problem.
Further, we do not believe that the legislation will violate
our obligations under the OECD's Code of Liberalization of
Current Invisible Operations or its companion Common Principles
of Shipping Policy. However, the OECD does not have a mechanism
for the settlement of disputes and its associated right of
retaliation. While Parties to the OECD are obligated to defend
practices that are not consistent with the Codes, the OECD
process does not contain a dispute mechanism with possible
retaliation rights. (The OECD Shipbuilding Agreement, by
contrast, does contain specific dispute settlement mechanisms,
although the Agreement does not address flag or crew issues.)
Your letter requests guidance on the implications of S. 395
on the GATS Ministerial Decision of Negotiations on Maritime
Transport Services (Maritime Decision) which is the document
that guides the current negotiations on maritime in the WTO.
The Maritime Decision contains a political commitment by each
participant not to adopt restrictive measures that would
``improve its negotiating position'' during the negotiations
(which expire in 1996). This political commitment is generally
referred to as a ``peace clause.'' Actions inconsistent with
the peace clause, or any other aspect of the Maritime Decision,
cannot give rise to a dispute under the WTO, since such
decisions are not legally binding obligations.
There are, of course, potential implications for violating
the peace clause by adopting new restrictive measures during
the course of the negotiations. These implications could
include changes in the willingness of other parties to
negotiate seriously to remove maritime restrictions and might
lead to certain parties simply abandoning the negotiating
table. But the Maritime Decision does not provide the
opportunity for retaliation.
Our view is that the U.S. flag preference provisions of S.
395 do not measurably increase the level of preference for U.S.
flag carriers and actually present opportunities for foreign
flag vessels to carry more oil to the United States, in light
of the potentially new market opportunities resulting from
enactment of S. 395. Thus, it would be very difficult for
foreign parties to make a credible case that the U.S. has
``improved its negotiating position'' as the result of S. 395.
For reasons I have explained, we are certain that the U.S.
flag preference does not present legal problems for us under
the WTO. However, in the event any U.S. measure is found to
violate our obligations, the WTO does not have authority to
require alterations to affected statutes. That remains the
sovereign decision of the country affected by an adverse panel
ruling. A losing party in such a dispute may alter its law to
conform to its WTO obligations, pay compensation, or accept
retaliation by the prevailing party.
Finally, we agree with you that it would not be appropriate
to include a requirement that ANS oil be exported on U.S.-built
I trust this information is of assistance to you. Please do
not hesitate to contact me or my staff should you need more
Testimony of William H. White, Deputy Secretary of Energy
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to appear before the
Committee today to discuss the sale of the Alaska Power
Administration and permitting the export of Alaskan North Slope
(ANS) crude oil. I am pleased to report that the Administration
supports both of these initiatives and hopes to work with the
Congress toward enactment of legislation to allow for the sale
of the Alaska Power Administration and to permit the
exportation of Alaskan North Slope crude oil.
title i. alaska power administration sale act
Title I of S. 395, the ``Alaska Power Administration Sale
Act,'' would authorize the sale of the Eklutna and Snettisham
hydroelectric projects in Alaska and the subsequent termination
of the Alaska Power Administration. This legislation is
consistent with the President's FY 1996 budget and would
implement the recommendations of the National Performance
Eklutna and Snettisham were authorized in 1950 and 1962,
respectively, to encourage and promote economic development and
to foster establishment of essential industries in Alaska. The
projects have served those purposes well by providing, at
moderate prices, substantial amounts of hydroelectric energy
for their market areas. There are no other authorized or
proposed Federal power projects in Alaska.
With the continued growth of the Alaskan economy, the
relative importance of the Federal power program in Alaska has
become quite small. More than 90 percent of the State's
electric power needs are provided by non-Federal powerplants.
The State and its electric utilities have the capability to
plan, design, finance, build, and operate the power facilities
that they decide are needed. Commercial Federal operations such
as the Alaska Power Administration can be managed more
efficiently by non-Federal public or private entities that are
closer and more responsive to the areas and the customers that
they serve. Under these circumstances, there is no longer a
need for the small Federal power program in Alaska.
Extensive studies and consultations were undertaken,
including opportunities for public comment, before completing
the sale proposals covered by this bill and the associated
purchase agreements. The sales are supported by each of the
Alaska Power Administration's utility customers, the
municipalities of Juneau and Anchorage, Alaska's present and
past three Governors, and this Administration.
Briefly, Snettisham would be sold to the State of Alaska
and Eklutna would be sold to the joint ownership of the
Municipality of Anchorage, the Chugach Electric Association,
Inc., and the Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. This bill
would authorize the sales, which then would be conducted in
accordance with the purchase agreements. Sale proceeds would be
returned to the United States Treasury.
The FY 1996 budget assumes the sales will occur at the end
of that fiscal year, with proceeds estimated at $85 million.
The actual sale prices could vary, however, because the prices
would be determined according to formulae in the purchase
agreements based on interest rates and remaining Treasury debt
on the date of the sales. Following the sales, the new owners
would assume all responsibilities for the projects, and Federal
responsibility would cease. The Alaska Power Administration
would be terminated.
We believe the bill and associated purchase agreements
provide fair and workable terms and arrangement which will
result in the best achievable return to the United States
Treasury, transfer of ownership in an orderly fashion, and
protection of the interests of power consumers. The terms of
this authorizing legislation and the associated agreements are
unique to the Eklutna and Snettisham projects in Alaska.
The sales would eliminate 35 permanent Federal jobs. The
Department and the purchasers are committed to actions to
minimize adverse impacts on the affected employees. The
Purchase Agreements include provisions that would give Alaska
Power Administration employees first call for the post-sale
jobs at the two projects and provide assistance in locating
other non-Federal jobs for the few remaining employees that may
be displaced. For those employees who wish to continue their
Federal careers, assistance would be provided through the
personnel system in locating suitable jobs elsewhere within the
Department or in other Federal agencies. It appears that
existing authorities are adequate to meet these objectives.
The Administration is committed to the sale of the Alaska
Power Administration assets. We look forward to working with
Congress toward enactment of the necessary authorizing
title ii. trans-alaska pipeline amendment act of 1995
I welcome the opportunity to discuss Federal policy on the
export of crude oil from the Alaskan North Slope. The Congress
has addressed this subject many times since the export
restrictions were imposed, and, as always, this hearing
includes representatives of organizations that have diverse and
strongly held views. I note that some of those here today
testified at Chairman Murkowski's July 1983 hearing on this
issue when he was chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian
and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Committee on Foreign
The Administration has carefully considered the important
question of whether the prohibition on exporting Alaskan North
Slope (ANS) crude oil should be lifted. The Department of
Energy released a study on the impacts of permitting export of
ANS crude oil on June 30, 1994. I have attached a copy of that
report to this testimony.
Fundamentally, the existing export restriction distorts the
crude oil markets in Alaska and the West Coast in
counterproductive ways. The benefits of permitting export of
ANS crude oil, according to our analysis, are significant:
Revenues to State governments would rise during 1994-
$180 to $230 million for California from
Federal royalties and taxes;
$700 million to $1.6 billion for Alaska from
severance taxes and royalties.
Federal receipts related to royalties and sales of
Elk Hills oil production would total between $99 and
Oil production-related employment would increase by a
net of 10,000 to 25,000 jobs nationally; many would be
in California oil production. This takes into account a
small number of job losses (less than 500) in the
Refining employment overall would not be affected;
history shows that refinery capacity, and therefore
refining industry employment, is determined by U.S.
In Alaska alone, reserve additions could be in the
200 to 400 million barrel range by the year 2000, a
size that roughly equates to the known reserves in
major North Slope fields such as Point McIntyre and
Incremental oil production would be between 30,000
and 50,000 barrels per day in California by the year
2000, and 50,000 to 70,000 barrels per day in Alaska.
The Department has consulted with the broad range of
interested parties. We held public meetings in San Francisco
and Anchorage in March of 1994, at which more than 50
organizations presented their views. We had a great deal of
comment on our draft report. Since the report's release last
June, the Secretary of Energy, I, and both our staffs have met
many times with members of Congress, various associations and
interest groups, and the public on this issue. I believe that
this process has helped all of us understand the concerns of
all the interested parties.
Based on this extensive consultation process, the
Administration is convinced that there are economic and energy
benefits that can be gained from permitting exports of ANS
crude. In the course of our review, however, the Administration
identified five requirements that must be included in
1. The President must retain the authority he has
under current law, including the Constitution, the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the
National Emergencies Act, to reinstate the ban should
exports be found to be contributing to adverse energy,
economic, or environmental conditions, or otherwise
threatening the national economic security.
2. All ANS oil must be exported in U.S.-flagged and
U.S.-crewed vessels. Reforms should not transfer
existing seafarer employment abroad. Legislation must
provide substantial protection of seafarer employment
opportunities for American workers.
3. Before any oil is exported, a full environmental
review must be undertaken, consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Environmental
resources must be fully protected. All shipping that
occurs as a result of permitting ANS exports, including
exports from Alaska and offsetting imports into the
U.S., will have to meet all prevailing U.S.
environmental protection requirements, including the
new provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
4. Assured access to crude oil supplies at world
market prices. U.S. refineries must have continued
access to adequate supplies of crude oil, including
crude oil produced in Alaska, at prevailing market
prices. Reforms should permit the crude oil market to
operate more efficiently. We would anticipate that ANS
crude oil will continue to be made available to West
Coast refineries, but that the price would adjust to
prevailing market prices. We believe that the abundant
worldwide supply of crude oil will ensure that prices
for ANS crude sold to U.S. refiners will not rise above
world market levels. Nevertheless, those refiners must
be protected from diversions of needed ANS crude stocks
to overseas markets as a result of market-distorting
pricing and supply behavior. If evidence of such
behavior develops--such as sustained crude supply
shortages on the West Coast or price increases
significantly above world market levels--appropriate
enforcement action should be taken, including the
denial or suspension of crude oil export licenses. We
are prepared to track petroleum market and refining
activities in the period following Congressional
modification of the ban. To further ensure that the
West Coast refiners maintain access to adequate
supplies of oil, including ANS crude oil, at world
market prices, any legislation should give the
President authority to impose such terms and conditions
as are necessary or appropriate.
5. Any export of ANS crude oil made pursuant to this
bill should be approved and administered through the
appropriate export licensing process. This will assure
the monitoring and enforcement of all conditions under
which the exports are permitted. Any export license
will be processed on an expedited and user-friendly
process that is consistent with obligations to consider
environmental and energy security impacts.
S.395 already contains provisions corresponding to the
first and second elements on this list. In addition to these
requirements, key factors that must be addressed as legislative
action is pursued include:
1. Consumer Protection.--Exports must not cause
substantial increases to retail gasoline or other
petroleum product prices. Our assessment is that the
product price impacts of permitting ANS crude oil
exports would be minimal or non-existent.
2. Job Growth and Protection.--Any proposal to permit
ANS exports should reasonably be expected to expand
employment opportunities in the U.S. economy, without
causing undue job loss in sectors currently dependent
on ANS production and transportation.
Employment in the Oil Production and Refining
Industries.--DOE's analysis concludes that
permitting ANS exports would result in
increased oil industry employment of between
10,000 and 25,000 jobs.
Employment for U.S. Seafarers.--Reforms
should not transfer seafarer employment
Employmment for U.S. Shipbuilders.--The
Administration is undertaking ongoing efforts
to enhance competitive opportunities for U.S.
shipyards by opening foreign markets to U.S.
shipbuilders. In October 1993, the Clinton
Administration announced a comprehensive plan
to strengthen the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
This plan includes the following elements: (1)
Ensuring fair international competition, (2)
Improving Competitiveness (through increased
research and development funding), (3)
Eliminating unnecessary government regulation,
(4) Financing ship sales through Title II loan
guarantees, and (5) Assisting international
marketing. Consistent with this plan, the U.S.
successfully negotiated a multilateral
agreement to eliminate foreign shipbuilding
subsidies and other distortive trade practices.
3. Adherence to International Trade Commitments.--Of
course, any conditions imposed on exports must be
consistent with established U.S. international trade
policies. On December 21, 1994, the United States,
along with other major shipbuilding nations, signed an
agreement that requires signatories to eliminate
subsidies and other trade distorting measures,
including ``home-build'' requirements, to the
commercial shipbuilding and repair industry. The
Agreement was negotiated under the auspices of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). The application of a home-build requirement to
the export of ANS crude could be challenged under the
terms of the Agreement. Furthermore, a home-build
requirement for ANS crude raises legal issues of
concern vis-a-vis other U.S. international trade
obligations. Permitting export of ANS crude oil would
be an important liberalization of existing trade
We oppose any requirement that ANS oil exports be
carried U.S.-built vessels.
There has been concern expressed that requiring U.S.
flag vessels to carry exports of ANS crude would set a
dangerous precedent with respect to extending cargo
preference in shipping trade. The Administration views
the requirement of flag-preference for ANS crude as
unique, since there is the very real danger of lost
seamen's jobs resulting from the displacement of
shipments carried in the coastwide trade. This action
should not be viewed as opening further possibilities
for cargo preference, which this Administration
4. Environmental Protection.--Environmental resources
must be fully protected. DOE analyzed potential
environmental impacts of lifting the ban in our January
1994 study. In the course of that initial review, we
found no plausible evidence of any direct, negative
environmental impacts. There would be no need to expand
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and the number of overall
tanker movements in U.S. waters would be reduced.
Moreover, indirect effects, such as changes in
California refinery activity and increased California
production, would be strictly regulated under existing
Nonetheless, before any export of ANS crude oil is
permitted, an environmental assessment consistent with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1970 should be undertaken.
Legislation to permit export of ANS crude oil should
not be linked to a change in status of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. The Administration has not
altered its opposition to exploration and development
of any oil resources that may be under the coastal
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Further,
the Refuge will continue to be managed for its wildlife
and wilderness values.
5. ANS Export Policy Monitoring.--Interested parties
should review ANS export activities periodically. Once
ANS exports have begun, appropriation federal agencies
should consult with affected state and local
governments, interested industry and worker
representatives, and environmental organizations to
help ensure that the policy is implemented consistent
with all license terms and any other applicable energy,
economic, and environmental criteria.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that S. 395, introduced by you and
Senator Stevens, can provide a vehicle for permitting Alaskan
North Slope crude oil exports consistent with these principles.
We believe the bill would be substantially improved by
requiring an appropriate environmental assessment before
approving export activities and by providing for appropriate
enforcement action, including revoking permission to export, in
the event of anti-competitive behavior that injures U.S.
Some argue that allowing exports of ANS crude oil will
increase product costs to consumers. We believe the export of
ANS crude oil should not affect consumers adversely. Our
evaluations indicated that ANS oil exports might raise the
market prices of California and Alaskan crude oil by as much as
$1.20 and $1.60 per barrel, respectively, or three to four
cents per gallon. However, more than half ANA crude oil and 75
percent of California crud oil is produced by refiners that
process it themselves, or trade it for more convenient
supplies. When this is taken into account, the average cost
increase to refiners is slightly over one per gallon.
We examined historical price movements on the West Coast
and discovered that small movements in West Coast crude oil
prices were much less a determinant of gasoline and diesel fuel
prices that were prices for these products in other markets
such as the Gulf Coast. We concluded that plentiful supplies of
petroleum products would make it impossible for retailers to
increase gasoline or other product prices about those market
levels. Accordingly, we anticipate that higher refiner ANS
crude acquisition costs will not be passed through to
consumers. As stated earlier, we also believe that plentiful
crude supplies will prevent refiners' crude costs from rising
above market levels.
Those who are concerned bout the potential environmental
effects of permitting exports fear that ``replacement crude''
will be imported into environmentally fragile areas of the West
Coast on poorly maintained foreign-flag vessels. Assuming West
Coast refiners are willing to pay world market prices--as all
other U.S. refiners now do--they should continue to have access
to ANS crude. Therefore, we do not believe there will be
significant additional shipments of crude brought into the West
Coast, beyond quantities they currently import, as a result of
ANS exports. In any event, any tanker traffic will of course
have to meet rigorous national environmental safety standards,
including Oil Pollution Act of 1990 regulations, just as they
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the
Administration's support for a policy that permits export of
Alaskan North Slope crude oil in a manner that is consistent
with the five principles listed above.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
this measure are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ORGANIZATION ACT
Public Law 95-91, as Amended
AN ACT To establish a Department of Energy in the executive branch by
the reorganization of energy functions within the Federal Government in
order to secure effective management to assure a coordinated national
energy policy, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Department of Energy Organization
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--TRANSFERS OF FUNCTIONS
* * * * * * *
transfers from the department of the interior
Sec. 302. (a)(1) There are hereby transferred to, and
vested in, the Secretary all functions of the Secretary of the
Interior under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, and
all other functions of the Secretary of the Interior, and
officers and components of the Department of the Interior, with
(A) the Southeastern Power Administration;
(B) the Southwestern Power Administration;
[(C) the Alaska Power Administration;]
[(D)] (C) the Bonneville Power Administration
including but not limited to the authority contained in
the Bonneville Project Act of 1937 and the Federal
Columbia River Transmission System Act;
[(E)] (D) the Power marketing functions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, including the construction, operation,
and maintenance of transmission lines and attendant
[(F)] (E) the transmission and disposition of the
electric power and energy generated at Falcon Dam and
Amistad Dam, international storage reservoir projects
on the Rio Grande, pursuant to the Act of June 18,
1954, as amended by the Act of December 23, 1963.
(2) The Southeastern Power Administration, the Southwestern
Power Administration, and the Bonneville Power Administration,
[and the Alaska Power Administration] shall be preserved as
separate and distinct organizational entities within the
Department. Each such entity shall be headed by an
Administrator appointed by the Secretary. The functions
transferred to the Secretary in paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B),
(1)(C), and (1)(D) shall be exercised by the Secretary, acting
by and through such Administrators. Each such Administrator
shall maintain his principal office at a place located in the
region served by his respective Federal power marketingP
(3) The functions transferred in paragraphs (1)(E) and
(1)(F) of this subsection shall be exercised by the Secretary,
acting by and through a separate and distinct Administration
within the Department which shall be headed by an Administrator
appointed by the Secretary. The Administrator shall establish
and shall maintain such regional offices as necessary to
facilitate the performance of such functions. Neither the
transfer of functions effected by paragraph (1)(E) of this
subsection nor any changes in cost allocation or project
evaluation standards shall be deemed to authorize the
reallocation of joint costs of multipurpose facilities
theretofore allocated unless and to the extent that such change
is hereafter approved by Congress.
[PUBLIC LAW 322
[To authorize the Secretary of the interior to Investigate and report
to the Congress on projects for the conservation, development, and
utilization of the water resources of Alaska.
[Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That,
for the purpose of encouraging and promoting the development of
Alaska, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to
as the ``Secretary'') is authorized to make investigations of
projects for the conservation, development, and utilization of
the water resources of Alaska and to report thereon, with
appropriate recommendations, from time to time, to the
President of the Congress.
[Sec. 2. Prior to the transmission of any such report to
the Congress, the Secretary shall transmit copies thereof for
information and comment to the Governor of Alaska, or to such
representative as may be named by him, and to the heads of
interested Federal departments and agencies. The written views
and recommendations of the aforementioned officials may be
submitted to the Secretary within ninety days from the day of
receipt of said proposed report. The Secretary shall
immediately thereafter transmit to the Congress, with such
comments and recommendations as he deems appropriate, his
report, together with copies of the views and recommendations
received from the aforementioned officials. The letter of
transmittal and its attachments shall be printed as a House or
[Sec. 3. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not
more than $250,000 in any one fiscal year.]
PUBLIC LAW 93-153--NOVEMBER 19, 1973
AN ACT To amend section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and to
authorize a trans-Alaska oil pipeline, and for other purposes.
Section 203 of that Act
Sec. 203. Authorization for Construction.
* * * * * * *
``(f) Exports of Alaskan North Slope Oil.--
``(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3),
notwithstanding any other provision of law (including
any regulation), any oil transported by pipeline over a
right-of-way granted pursuant to this section may be
``(2) Except in the case of oil exported to a country
pursuant to a bilateral international oil supply
agreement entered into by the United States with the
country before June 25, 1979, or to a country pursuant
to the International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of the
International Energy Oil Agency, the oil shall be
transported by a vessel documented under the laws of
the United States and owned by a citizen of the United
States (as determined in accordance with section 2 of
the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802)).
``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the
authority of the President under the Constitution, the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.), or the National Emergencies Act (50
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) to prohibit exportation of the
Section 410 of that Act
The Congress [declares] reaffirms that the crude oil on the
North Slope of Alaska is an important part of the Nation's oil
resources, and that the benefits of such crude oil should be
equitably shared, directly or indirectly, by all regions of the
country. The President shall use any authority he may have to
ensure an equitable allocation of available North Slope and
other crude oil resources and petroleum products among all
regions and all of the several States.
PUBLIC LAW NO 94-163--DECEMBER 22, 1975
AN ACT To increase domestic energy supplies and availability; to
restrain energy demand; to prepare for energy emergencies; and for
* * * * * * *
Section 103(f) of that Act
(f) Quarterly Reports to Congress.--The President shall
submit quarterly reports to Congress concerning the
administration of this section and any findings made pursuant
to subsection (a) or (b) of this section. In the first quarter
report for each new calendar year, the President shall indicate
whether independent refiners in Petroleum Administration
District 5 have been unable to secure adequate supplies of
crude oil as a result of exports of Alaskan North Slope crude
oil in the prior calendar year and shall make such
recommendations to the Congress as may be appropriate.