p .1, _. r- F 5”‘ "“““"’% N WI , ‘HE 3&5 9:: 3 r .‘f 3; ‘Z " .5.-“"7 =":=.1-3' '»i:‘;' gifimy E. *4 :.;.'..;42; ‘~:. Issue Brief NOV1'?/198$ . ‘ A ," -. ‘ . .. 3' r _ ‘ ~ _ ~. W: V \< - ;aJ.'S| ‘tn ‘$3:-J“‘3‘: gr. L'f;iai;J*££3. W3- T — ; LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GASOLINE BATIONIHG AND OTHER STAEDBI CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES Issnfi BRIEF NUHBER 1359561 AUTHOR: Bamberger, Robert L- Environment and National Resources PoIicy Div1sion THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS COIGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE uaaon issuns sysrnn DA$E oaxexuarnn Qgggggzg DATE UPDATED Qgglgggg FOR ADDITIONAL IBFORHATIOI CALL 287-5700 0215 cas— 1 7 1379001 Urbain-02/14/so l§§Q§-2§§-£'.£.'-HQ! The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (SPCA, P.L. 94-163), enacted in December 1975, called for the development of a standby contingency gasoline rationing plan, and other energy conservation contingency measures which could be implemented in the event of supply emergencies such as the Arab oil embargo in late 1973. The Administration transmitted final proposals for a gasoline rationing plan, and additional standby emergency plans to congress in march 1979. The Senate and House defeated proposals which would have restricted weekend gasoline sales and would have banned inessential outdoor advertising lighting, but approved a plan to establish building and not-water temperature restrictions in non-residential buildings. when the House disapproved the gasoline rationing plan in Bay 1979, the President angrily challenged Congress to devise its own rationing and emergency conservation proposals. The Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (P.L. 9o—102),_ developed by Congress and enacted into public law in November 1979, requires the Administration to submit another rationing plan to Congress, but establishes specific guidelines for its development, and streamlines the congressional review and approval process. on Dec. 7, 1979, the Economic Aufiegulatory Administration (EBA) released another version of a proposed rationing plan for public comment. Once public and official comments on the proposed plan are reviewed, a final proposal will once again be transmitted v,to Congress, perhaps in late February. The Standby Federal Emergency Energy “onservation Plan, developed pursuant to P.L. 96-102, was released on Feb. u, ,980.w §é§£§§.Q.Q!.12...1§.!.2..£’.QL.1£Q!..A§.é.LY3l.$. Gasoline shortages in various regions of the nation during the summer of 1973 and the Arab oil embargo later that 'year prompted discussions of the a possible necessity of rationing gasoline in peacetime. The Nixon Administration considered rationing too unppular to be implemented except under desperate circumstances, while other voices were supportive of rationing not just as a means of allocating gasoline during a temporary crisis, but also as a means of conserving resources and dampening further growth in energy demand, at least in the transportation sector. The Nixon Administration did, however, call for voluntary action to turn thermostats down during the winter season, and for Sunday closing of gasoline stations. A gasoline rationing plan was initially developed in late 1973 and early 1974 by the Federal Energy Administration (PEA) during the Arab oil embargo. The plan was not released for consideration or implemented at the time, but when the embargo was lifted PEA decided it would be worthwhile to undertake ” an "in-house‘ reassessment of the plan that had been developed. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163), passed ~in December 1975, required by statute the development of energy conservation contingency plans and a rationing contingency plan to be submitted to Congress for prior oproval as a standby measure against possible interruptions in supply. -nder EPCA, a contingency plan previously approved by Congress as a standby measure becomes effective (1) if the President finds that rationing is required by a “severe energy supply interruption,“ or in order to fulfill ‘ international obligations, and (2) if the President transmits this finding to Congress and orders implementation of the standby plan. However, CB:;—- 2 1379001 upon-3-02/14/so implementation of the gasoline rationing plan further requires that neither House of Congress disapproves the President's order. If neither House disapproves, the plan becomes effective 15 calendar days after transmittal of the “energy action," or later if so specified by the President. The plan can become effective within 15 days if each house passes a resolution stating no objection to the executive's action. Although EPCA called for submission of energy conservation and rationing authorities within 180 days of passage, a rationing plan was not transmitted to Congress until the last day of the Ford Administration. The plan was never docxeted as having been officially received by Congress, principally because the new Administration preferred to review and develop its own plan. In July 1977 President Carter ordered the preparation of a contingency plan that would reduce consumption by 25% under emergency conditions. newspaper reports during the summer of 1977 indicated the Administration's hopefulness that a rationing contingency plan would be developed by October 1977. However, development of the plan by the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA), a division of DOE, required more time than had been forecast, and release of the plan was subsequently delayed by an interagency review. The proposed standby plan was not released until June 22, 1978, withi hearings on the proposed plan scheduled and held around the nation during late July and August 1978. The final rule for a standby gasoline rationing plan was released on Feb. 26, 1979, and formally transmitted to Congress on narch 1. The Administration also submitted three additional conservation plans that would be implemented during a supply emergency as a means of managing a shortage without resorting to rationing. Under EPCA, each Housed of Congress will have 60 days to pass resolutions approving thew plan as a standby energy emergency measure.i T The shortages and embargo in 19731 and 197a, as noted, fostered some 1 discussion of rationing as a means of allocating “finite‘ rather than merely scarce resources. Given the reluctance of both Congress and the public to accept the picture of an imminent world fuel shortage described by the Carter Administration in April 1977 when the National Energy Plan was released, it would seem unlikely that debate over the proposed rationing plan will extend ibeyond evaluation of the plan as, at means of resource allocation to the potential of the plan or any rationing plan as a policy to control demand. THE PROPOSED STANDBY RATIOEING PLAN (HARCH 1979) The principal difference between the new plan submitted to congress on bar. 1, 1979, and the plan that was submitted by the Ford Administration is that the Carter plan would determine ration allocations to individuals and businesses on the basis of vehicle registrations rather than upon drivers‘ licenses or upon a percentage of fuel consumption during a base period. The Ford Administration had proposed issuing ration allocations on the basis of drivers‘ licenses. Drivers‘ license files are thought to be more current than ivehicle registration records, and it appeared that the registrations of vehicles that change hands during the year are not alway: promptly removed from the records. However, the Carter Administration‘ believes basing ration allocations on nvehicle registrations would be otherwise advantageous since it would Key distribution of ration rights to vehicles in use rather than to licensed drivers, some of whom probably drive infrequently. CRS- 3 IB79001 UPDATE—0&/14/80 The Ford plan had also proposed to base the allowance to commercial and nonprofit firms and government organizations on a variable percentage of their gasoline consumption during a base period. However, under the proposed plan, firms and organizations, like individuals, would receive an allotment on the basis of vehicle registrations. supplemental benefits would be allotted to "designated firms‘ for whom fuel supplies are essential to operations or services and where the allotment per vehicle during a given ration period would likely incur undue social or economic hardship. ERA contends that eliminating the cumbersome process of computing base-period consumption levels would facilitate implementation of the plan in the event of emergency. In fact, the administration claims that the newly proposed plan could be implemented in us days rather than the 90 days estimated as necessary to implement the plan proposed by the Ford Administration. Under the proposed plan, ration checks would be mailed or issued quarterly at designated points. Drivers would present ration coupons at service stations; the coupons would, in turn, be redeemed for fuel by service stations with their suppliers. The ration checks would pass up the supply line until the principal suppliers - refiners or importers -- would report the volume of gasoline sold to ERA and would submit a redemption check or ration rights in that amount. so as to reduce the need for administrative personnel to handle hardship appeals and supplemental benefits, individuals, firms, and organizations ‘would all be allowed to purchase or sell ration rights on the “open market“ 1 uncontrolled prices. In addition to the basic allotment to each registered vehicle, each State would be credited with a state Ration Reserve for issuing hardship allotments. A National Ration Reserve would be established by DOE to provide the Department of Defense with necessary allotments consistent with maintaining national security. The Department ,of Defense currently consumes between 2-3% of total domestic gasoline consumption. Off-highway vehicles, particularly those used in agricultural and construction operations which are normally not registered with State have, would receive allotments either as supplemental allotments to individuals or to "designated firms." Under the proposed plan, recreational vehicles would receive no ration allotment. The Department of Energy uhas tentatively concluded that a gasoline shortfall between 12-18% would be required to justify implementation -of gasoline rationing, noting that the nation would be able to withstand a greater percentage shortfall in available supplies of gasoline than in crude oil because a significant percentage of gasoline consumption is for inessential, discretionary driving. Qelsuleiien 9f the Basis.lll9in-nt.lnersl_1222L Calculation of the basic allotment for a given vehicle would depend nrincipally on three factors -- the total supply of gasoline estimated to be 'ailable during a ration period, the number of registered vehicles, and the type of vehicle. In day 1979 the plan was amended to provide that allocations to passenger cars would also reflect differences between states in average annual gasoline consumption per vehicle. The ERA would estimate the total available supply (T33) of gasoline for a CB5- fl 1 IB79001 UPDATE-OZ/1%/80 90-day period on the basis of reports from refiners and importers and other intelligence. The allocations to the National and State Ration Reserves would be subtracted from the TAS to yield a net available supply (HAS). Supplemental allotments (SA) to "priority class firms" (police, fire department, municipal services, and public transportation with the exception of taxicabs) and to "designated firms“ would be subtracted from the HAS to yield the basic allotment supply (BAS). The agency would then allow for differences in average fuel consumption between types of vehicles. The agency has assigned passenger cars, which travel an average of 10,100 miles per year at an average fuel efficiency of 13.5 mpg and consume an average 7nd gallons per year, an allotment index (AI) of 1.0. The allotment indices assigned other vehicle types are based upon the 1.0 reference measurement assigned to passenger cars. For instance, the agency found that current statistics show that trucxs between 26,000—33,000 gross vehicle*weight travel an average of 16,600 miles per year at an average ifuel efficiency of 5.3 mpg and consume an average 3,132 gallons per year. Dividing 3,132 by 7&8 yields an allotment index of u.2 for trucks for this weight category. hotorcycles, motor scooters, and mopeds have been assigned an A1 of 0.1, while all Federal, State, and local government vehicles regardless of gross vehicle weight or vehicle type have been assigned an AI of 1.0 becuase they are driven fewer vehicle miles than comparable vehicles in the private sector. The agency notes that the allotment indices will be recomputed as vehicle use and average fuel efficiency statistics are updated. The allotment index for each vehicle type will be multiplied by the number of registered vehicles of that type to yield a figure that the agency refer: to as a classification vehicle point (CVP). A CVP will be computed for each vehicle categdry and will be added to yield the total vehicle points (TVP). The basic allotment supply (BAS) will then be divided by the TV? to give the basic allotment (gallons divided by vehicles yields gallons per vehicle). The basic allotment would then be multiplied by the allotment index for each vehicle category to determine the ration allocation to specific vehicle types. The quarterly ration coupons would have to be distributed in advance of the commencement of the ration period; therefore, the quantity of ration rights issued would have to be based upon an advance estimate of the available gasoline supply during the ration period. In all likelihood, this estimate would differ from the supply estimates that would be calculated before commencement of the ration period. If the ration rights distributed exceeded the amount of gasoline available during the ration period, it would be necessary to lengthen the ration period. Conversely, if gasoline supply exceeded the value of the ration rights distributed, the ration period would be shortened. The agency would compute the adjustment and announce the last date on which the current run of ration coupons would be valid. 9sI.1s:-2£229§ed_§29.tingens2-99n§ei=zaii2n.£la2§-l.r2a1:.2h-J.222l The President submitted three additional proposed contingency conservation plans with the standby rationing plan. Unlike the rationing plan, once approved as standby measures by the Congress, these plans can be declare! effective by the President without the consent of Congress. Further, it is more or less intended that these plans would be implemented) to help the United States meet conservation obligations if the International Energy ‘v Agency (IEA) oil—sharing agreements were triggered. cns- 5 137900 1 UPuAT.E-02/14/80 (1) EQEEQEEEZ-E§§£§BQ.§é§9élE§_§§$§§. §§§E£l§El9B§= 5309? the Pf0P0S3l gasoline sales could be restricted for all or a portion of the period beginning Friday noon until midnight Sunday. To reduce the consumption of fuel for less-essential weekend driving, retail gasoline sales would be restricted to emergency vehicles, vehicles registered as common carriers, commercial passenger carriers and marine craft, and heavy construction and farm equipment. Diesel fuel could be sold top all trucks and gasoline to trucks with at least six wheels or gross vehicle weight of at least 10,000 pounds. DOB estimates that savings might average between 171,000-347,000 barrels per day with 206,000 b/d a "most probable” savings. offsetting the adverse impacts on industries affected by weekend driving and other recreation would be the availability of the conserved fuel for other industries. Assuming a 15% shortfall in crude availability, and a depressed economy at the time weekend sales would, be restricted, DOE estimates that the GNP impact of weekend curtailments for the maximum nine-month period would be a net improvement of $7 billion -- $9 billion lost by industries affected by weekend activities, but $16 billion gained by the utilization of the fuel in other settings. (2) §m§gggggy_§g;lg;gg_$g;pggatgre Restrictigns: This conservation plan would mandate maximum thermostat settings of 65 degrees for space heating, minimum settings of 80 degrees for space cooling in most nonresidential buildings, and maximum hot water settings or 105 degrees. Hotels and motels, hospitals and buildings where specific temperatures are required would be exempt. The Department of Energy estimates a total petroleum savings of 56u,000 b/d were the plan imposed -- 113,000 b/d in direct savings and 251,000 in indirect savings from reduced generation of electricity. Once again, because the fuel conserved would be available for. other purposes in a depressed economy, DOE predicts an improvement in GNP of $22 billion in 1977 dollars were the plan implemented for a nine-month period. (3) EEQEQEEEI-AQEQEEl§lQ9-L;Q2E$B9-§§§E£l§ElQE§3 5aVin9S fF°fl this Plan are fairly negligible -- an estimated 4,400 b/d; however, the Secretary of Energy was allegedly insistent that this measure be included as a symbolic indication that nonessential utilizations of energy, whether significant or not, should be discouraged in an emergency situation. The plan would restrict lighting of advertising signs beyond those necessary to identify an open business or to inform customers of products or services provided by the business. The economic impacts of the plan are considered minimal but insofar as the restrictions would increase public awareness of the energy emergency, DOE believes activation of the plan would enhance compliance with other emergency conservation measures. . §§.§£;l..I19§.2B.-._*?he-El-§§._.1?.£2EQ.§?.Q-.1!1...!§.1£E9..J.?.22 The Economic Regulatory Administration held public hearings on the rationing plan proposed in June 1978 throughout the country during late July and August 1978. The Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Regulation of the enate Energy Committee held hearings on the proposed rationing and standby 1 contingency plans on Feb. 28, Ear. 19 and 20, 1979. Some of the issues addressed at these hearings and likely to be raised at house hearings during the week of Mar. 26, 1979, include: (a)E£eth9F r§E1°D 31l2EE§£E§-§QQQlQ.2§-§QjE§E§Q.E9-§$i2!-§9£ !§£l§El2E§.in cns- 1: 11379001 UPDATE-02/14-l/80 azs£a9e_ennnal.2eaisle.inel_222§2222i2n_an9n9.§2§2e§; 13 the release Of tn‘ proposed plan in June 1978, DOE solicited comment as to whether allotments to States should vary to account for differences in average annual vehicle fuel consumption among the States. Generally, average vehicle fuel consumption is highest in agrarian states. In response to criticism that the final plan makes no allowance for any such variation, Deputy Secretary of Energy John F. 0'Leary testified before the senate Subcommittee on Regulation on Feb. 28, 1979, that the same variations which exist between States also exist within states, and that the interests of sharing any shortage equitably would not be served by varying the allotment to the different States. (b) !!§E2§£.£éE;QE_éllQE!§B£§-§£9E$Q.2e-2§§§Q.BRQE- §£;!§£§£ £lE§£§e§- QE vehiclg regigggatignsg Testimony and opinion are divided as to which basis for the allotments would be the fairest and the least susceptible to fraud. In part, EBA favors allotments based upon vehicle registrations because the number of employees licensed to drive would be no indicator of a firm's real need for fuel. Allotments could be made to firms and businesses more quicxly in a time of national emergency on the basis of vehicle registrations than upon drivers‘ licenses. Allocations would otherwise have to be based upon historic or base—period consumption, which could delay implementation in a time of national emergency. One objection raised to basing allocations on vehicle registrations has been that such a system could tend to favor wealthier families who may share more cars among fewer users. .Some have argued that allocations should be keyed to driver needs, which are not necessarily reflected in the number of vehicles registered to a household. T Some have also suggested that ration allotments to either vehicle owners or license holders unfairly penalize those who conserve gas by neither driving nor owning a vehicle, and that allotments should be based upon the ability to drive or own a car and not the fact of doing, so. If vehicle owners or license holders may derive supplemental income from selling ration coupons, it seems unfair to some that nonconsumers of gasoline should be denied the same opportunity. Some individuals, for example, may belong to carpools but not own vehicles themselves. These individuals, if given an allotment, could contribute their coupons to the carpool. ic) 2he:ns2.fi£n§-anQ.iaQiziQnal§_§h2nln. 22. treated- squall! 2292;. she p;9pg§gq_plgg; Roughly one-third of private driving is for social or recreational purposes and could theoretically be eliminated with less economic impact than a comparable reduction in the commercial sector. The plan proposed by the Ford Administration would have required businesses to cut back 10% from base—periodv consumption while individuals would have «received rights equivalent to 75% of base-period consumption. The new plan makes no such distinctions and implies no value judgment on different uses of motor fuel. The American Trucking Association testified that the plan, by failing to distinguish between discretionary and commerciall consumption of "gasoline, seexs simplicity while ignoring the vital role of commercial trucking operations. The Association argued that it would be inappropriate for ma freight—carrying mode to have its fuel allotment tied to an index based upo passenger car fuel use, and that the allotment to commercial trucking should be based upon historical usage. The Association further noted: (1) that gross vehicle weight - on which allotments would be based -- bear no relationship to annual vehicle miles traveled or fuel consumption; (2) that 15 states lack the capability of distinguishing between gasoline-powered and clas-- 7 1379001 UPDATE-oz/14/so ‘eisel-powered trucks; and (3) that nine states and the District of Columbia 40 not register trucxs by gross vehicle weight. (0) EQEEQEE- 39$- §éE§99£1£§l_ Qi§ElE§El°B§..9§E!§§2_ 3Q§§l92QE§Q= EBQ .'!2£i9.£i.‘§z2-.1:i-.I;I_§-e£s-s9._ui£n2ls..enQ.-e22£22£iniei The Proposed plan defines priority firms as emergency services (law enforcement, fire, emergency medical, and snow removal), sanitation services, and public transportation - whether public or private - including school buses but excluding taxicabs. BRA perceives designated firms eligible for supplemental allotments as ,those with significant off-highway vehicle gasoline consumption -- notably, agricultural, construction, and mining operations -- but additional firms could apply for designated status in instances where allotments differed radically from actual requirements. In response to concerns expressed at the hearings held during the summer, the narrative account of the plan assures that allotments for off-highway vehicles and equipment used in agricultural production ‘will be provided in a timely manner, and in amounts adequate to meet food and fiber production goals." Recreation vehicles were excluded from receiving any allotments under the plan proposed in June 1978, but have been granted an allotment on a par with .passenger automobiles in the final proposal. The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association had challenged the complete exclusion of recreation vehicles from any allotments whatsoever, arguing that recreation vehicles do not account wfor a disproportionate amount of allegedly "non-essential recreational. ‘riving,“ and that singling out this classification contravened the sense of smergency Petroleum Allocation Act, which requires that any allocation plans provide for “equitab1e“a distribution among all users. Given the comparatively low fuel efficiency of recreation vehicles and the allotment provided under the plan, recreation vehicle owners would lixely be compelled to rely upon the “white market“ to secure additional ration rights. The International Taxicab Association argued that the exclusion of taxicabs from "priority" status was inconsistent with the need to maintain alternative transportation services during a severe fuel shortage. The Association also argued that the sluggishness’ of the taxicab ratesetting process would make it infeasible for the industry to recoup the cost of purchasing additional coupons on the "white market,“ and that securing the quantity of coupons that would be required would be an overwhelming task. Several Federal and State witnesses have recommended that the State _be permitted to develop their own conservation initiatives as alternatives to federally imposed emergency conservation plans. Section 2021b) of BPCA provides, in fact, for the exemption of States or political subdivisions from nationwide emergency conservation plans if the President determines either that the State has a comparable program in effect or that special circumstances warrant the exemption of a State or subdivision from compliance. on Apr. 5, 1979, the President transmitted an amendment (Contingency Plan No. a) to the Energency Heexend Gasoline Sales Restrictions plan that would irther broaden the language defining the scope of‘ acceptable State substitutes to mandatory emergency conservation plans. Thea amendment would provide for possible State exemption if the State or locality were achieving icomparable savings regarding the same fuel type whether or not the state plan was of the same design as the Federal plan or plans that might be activated. cas- 3 1319001 upnama-oz/14/ao witnesses before the Senate Subcommittee commented on the other proposef standby conservation plans as well: i n Eeelsaelfileeie9§_2:.§e£!;§§- §£e£;92§= AS expected. several w1tnesses cited the certain damage to tourist-related economies were weekend closings implemented. a The national Oil Jobbers Council argued that if some restriction on sales were necessary, retailers should be.allowed to exercise discretion in choosing‘ the hours during which they maintain service. However, the Council noted the absurdity of maintaining special hours to serve exempted "emergency vehicles," arguing that it would be unprofitable for service stations to stay open for so narrow a class of vehicles, and that during a real shortage, all the available gasoline likely would have been sold anyway. The appearance of a story in §gg_ §a§g;gg§gn_ gggt on uar. 20,n 1979, reporting on a yet unreleased internal DOB study which discouraged curtailment of weekend sales, prompted subcommittee chairman J. Bennett Johnston to comment in his opening remarks that morning that he did not believe the subcommittee would be able to recommend approval of that standby proposal. gggQat9;y_ghg;m9§§gt_QQgtgQ;§: The National Retail merchants Association testified that commercial establishments should be asxed to achieve a percentage reduction in energy consumption in lieu of mandatory thermostat adjustments. contending that the thermostat settings in DOB's proposed contingency plan could, in hsome instances, actually increase net energy consumption. The Association pointed out that the physical characteristic: of commercial establishments vary substantially and that building operator/owners should have the option to use all possible means of reducing energy use, including varying consumption patterns. while mandatory thermostat settings cannot be effectively enforced, the success of ya percentage reduction contingency plan could be- evaluated by monitoring utility records. ‘-.P.1.1§.E9§£ of 22s £r02ese2.B.ati.e9.i29_2la2 Preliminary costs estimates for the plan included pre-implementation costs of $105.2 million, implementation costs of $119.1 million were the plan activated, and operating costs per period of $175.9 million. However, witnesses testified during the summer hearings that it would be impossible for the States to bear the costs of administering the plan at the State llevel. Revised cost estimates reflect the costs of administering state ration reserves and other activities at that level. The Department of Energy now estimates costs at $53.4 million for pre-implementation, $340.4 million in the implementation phase, and an operating cost per quarter of $u15.4 million. were the rationing plan in effect for the nine-month maximum permitted under EPCA, total costs might reach $1.65 billion. The Department has also indicated a category of "readiness-maintenance costs" of 56-? million annually to maintain the rationing plan in readiness after pre-implementation and before such a time as it may be needed. while the authorizing legislation precludes imposition of a tax as part c a rationing contingency plan, it does allow the imposition of a user fee to "the extent necessary to defray the cost of administering the rationing contingency plan“ or to provide for the initial distribution of ration rights. Pre-implementation and readiness—maintenance costs would be absorbed entirely by the Federal government. Implementation and operating costs would cn»s- 9 1379001 upnai-12-02/14/80 eguire Federal authorizations but would be offset by government sales of ration rights and/or imposition of a user fee on the sale of each gallon of gasoline. Since every penny increase in the cost of gasoline generates roughly $1.1 billion in additional revenues, a user fee in the vicinity of $0.015/gallon would likely cover operating costs. Ehe.§§t1Q2$EQ 22% §E§B0 Z C°2§§£!§El2B-§£9EQ§§L§ on Apr. 10, 1979, the Senate Commerce Committee reported favorably on S. Res. 139, a resolution iggppggyigg restrictions on weekend gasoline sales. The committee's concern over the lixely impact of the plan on the tourism‘ industry, and the conclusions of an independent study that reducing hours of operation would by "counterproductive" were largely responsible for the committee's disapproval of the plan. Testimony before the subcommittee on aerchant Marine and Tourism on Apr. 12, 1979, estimated that the plan would cost the tourist industry $17.34 billion in sales, 463,000. restaurant jobs, and a decrease in GNP of roughly $18 billion. Subsequently, on Apr. 25, 1979, the House Commerce Committee also voted disapproval of the plans for restricting weekend gasoline sales (26-15) and outdoor advertising lighting, but approved the mandatory thermostat settings dplan (23-9). The next day, the committee narrowly disapproved the rationing plan (3-19); however, reconsideration of the vote was anticipated. on Apr. 26, 1979, the Senate Energy Committee approved the rationing plan y one vote (9-8), partly on the strength of an assurance from the Administration that additional allotments would be provided to rural and agrarian states if a rationing plan had to be implemented. That same day, the House Commerce Committee, due to lack of a quorum, was unable to reconsider its vote of the previous day on the rationing plan. on April 30, the Senate Energy Committee, as anticipated, nvoted against (12-5) weekend gasoline station closings. on may 1, the House Commerce Committee failed by a tie vote (21-21) to reverse its earlier vote on the standby rationing plan; however, the Committee then voted (21-20) to report the plan to the full House without recommendation. on May 2, the Senate defeated the plan to restrict outdoor advertising lighting (24-70), reflecting a widespread sentiment that the savings would not justify the possible impact on. the outdoor advertising industry. However, the Senate approved the. building temperature restrictions plan (89-3) that same day. The President had indicated that he would use this authority once granted to him by Congress, and proposed regulations for the implementation of the emergency buildup temperature restrictions plan -were published in the §§gg§gl_§eg;§tgg on June 1, 1979. when prospects for approval of the standby rationing plan seemed remote and only a few days remained before the statutory deadline, the President proposed an amendment to the plan (Contingency Plan No. 5) on may 7 in espouse to major criticisms of the plan. Opponents of the plan had argued 9' that it favored the wealthy who could afford two or more cars and would receive additional allotments while households with one car would be entitled to a single allotment. The amendment proposed to restric allotments to a maximum of three cars per household. ~ cns-10 1379001 UPDATE-02/14/80 A second provision of the President's amendment to the plan responded ta the concerns of members from western and rural states that allocations should reflect variations between states in average annual passenger car fuel consumption. The amendment provided that half of the passenger car allocation would be based upon differences in "historical usage“ between states. . The next day, may 6, the senate Energy Committee was quite busy. first the Committee voted (10-8) to rescind its vote of April 26th approving the gasoline rationing proposal. Then the Committee voted to reject (15-3) the President's amendment (Contingency Plan No. 5), and voted after that to send the rationing proposal to the floor recommending its defeat (12-b). Several senators expressed opinions that the President's proposed amendment did not satisfactorily alleviate the inequities they perceived in the rationing plan. Late in the afternoon, the President transmitted another version of the amendment (Contingency Plan so. 6), which retained the provisions in the amendment of the previous day, but provided that the entire‘ allocation to drivers would be adjusted to reflect differences between states in average historical gasoline use. The Committee reconvened and voted 8-8, effectively defeating the amended plan in committee. However, Senator Church changed his vote to permit the i plan to be considered by the entire Senate; the plan was therefore reported from Committee (9-7). The following day, May 9, the Senate approved the -rationing plan (58-39). on May 10, the House rejected the plan |2ub—159) with most observors attributing the defeat to inept lobbying on the part of the white House, and parochialism on the part of the House. The amendment to base allocations on historical usage garnered new support for the plan from rural delegations, but alienated support in urban districts that would be disadvantagedl by the amendment. Many uembers felt that there had been insufficient time to review and evaluate the amended proposed. a A President Carter responded angrily to the House vote, accused the members a of "political timidity,“ and stated that the vote had not been a judgment on the merits of the plan but a reflection of local rather than national interests. Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163), the President had fulfilled his statutory obligation by submitting a plan and his not required by the legislation to submit another plan. the challenged the House to develop a plan of its own within 90 days. ' The President remarked after the House vote that it- left him with ‘no * authority at all to meet what could be a national crisis"; however, a large body of general and standby emergency regulations to allocate products at the wholesaler or jobber level promulgated pursuant to the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (P.L. 93-459, EPAA) could possibly provide the Administration with authorities to impose rationing or other strong allocation measures without congressional approval that would directly affect end-users. The Administration did not believe it necessary at the time to invoke these authorities or to risk a challenge to the extent of its authorities The Administration instead maintained that the shortage could bee absorbedi with a modest conservation effort on the part of consumers. The Congressional Initiative: The Emergency Energy Conservation Act (5. cns—11 IB‘79001 upnua-02/14/do woso) The few weeks that followed the defeat of the proposed rationing plan were more or less a “cooling off" period. As the gasoline shortages worsened during hay and June, however, the Congress expressed some desire to resolve its differences with the Administration over a rationing plan. It became faily clear that the states would now be expected to play a more significant role in managing, or preparing to manage, gasoline shortages. Provisions in EPCA encouraged the states to develop state energy conservation ~ plans that would reduce energy consumption by 5% in 1980, and provided for federal assistance for the development and implementation of programs establishing’ mandatory efficiency standards; incentives for vanpooling, carpooling, and public transportation; and right-turn-on-red. EPCA further encouraged the development of emergency standby conservation plans. while all the states have apparently developed overall conservation plans, only 31 states have developed emergency conservation contingency measures. on May 29, the President delegated limited authority (expiring Sept. 3, 1979) to State governors under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act |EPAA) permitting the governors to impose minimum gasoline purchase requirements, to institute an odd-even license plate system to help control lines at service — stations, and to regulate the hours of operation at retail service stations. The Department of Justice determined that governors in the 19 states who lacked express energy emergency authorities granted by the state legislatures , could legally exercise the authorities delegated to them by the President. ‘hese authorities were extended indefinitely in fall 1979 and the authority to impose minimum purchase requirements was subsequently enacted into public law in mid-November as a provision of S. 1030. 3 §§£QE§-A§§l99 the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (S. 1030), introduced Apr. 26, 1979, was developed by members of the Senate Energy Committee to provide for meeting national energency conservation needs during a shortage or emergency without necessarily imposing upon the states a federally implemented plan that night not be appropriate to all states. The legislation would require development of an emergency national conservation plan within 90 days of enactment and would direct the governors of each state to develop conservation measures that would meet the national energy conservation target while fully accounting for local economic, climatic, and geographic conditions. If the states did not develop a plan, or did not develop a plan acceptable to the Administration, the Federal plan could be implemented in that State. The legislation, as reported by the senate, specifically prohibits the federal government from restricting weekend sales of gasoline; however, individual states may restrict weekend sales if they choose. other amendments to S.” 1030 that passed in the Senate before final approval of the measure included provisions: (1) to prohibit individuals from stockpiling fuels in excess of reasonable need; (2) to require avelopment of a plan to conserve energy in the federal establishment; (3) to allow the states judicial recourse if they felt they were being asked’ to absorb unacceptable hardship under the Act; and (4) to terminate the authority of the Act as of Sept. 30, 1983. Amendments that were proposed but rejected included provisions that would have: (1) instituted a non-coupon rationing scheme identical to that proposed in H.B. #283 (see below); (2) \ cns-12 1379001 UPDATE-oz/14/so overturned school busing programs for the purposes of achieving racial A~ balance in schools (the amendment was tabled); and (3) provided for congressional review of actions taken by the President under the Act. The Senate passed 5. 1030 on June 5 (77-13) and the bill was referred to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on June 7. §9!§§-AEE;QE on May 31, 1979, the Emergency Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Conservation _Act of 1979 (H.B. H283), sponsored by Rep. uoffett, was introduced in the House. The Act would require the President. to designate emergency energy conservation targets for individual states and the nation as a whole. The states would be required to design conservation plans to meet the statewide conservation goal designated by the President. The state plans could utilize both voluntary and mandatory measures, and would be subject to DOB review vto ensure that the plans were not inconsistent with federal law, would not place an undue burden on commerce, and that the plans did not rely upon taxes, tariffs, or user fees. The proposed legislation also incorporated a mandatory conservation plan to restrict the use or passenger cars that was originally proposed by Rep. Hoffett as a simpler alternative to ‘the standby gasoline rationing plan developed by the Administration and defeated in the House. Failure to meet established conservation targets would trigger the plan whereby the use of a passenger automobile would be banned one day per week on a day chosen by the owner of the automobile and identified by a sticker vaffixed to the cari Emergency, agricultural, and defense vehicles would be exempt as would be taxicabs, rental automobiles, and cars used exclusively or predominantly for commercial purposes. The House proposal was referred to the House Coamittee on Interstate»and Foreign Commerce, however, the Committee focused its attention on S. 1030, which had been referred from the Senate. As amended by the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, ,the legislation changed the language in BPCA that provided for initial congressional review and disapproval of a proposed rationing plan, and requires only that a plan be transmitted at least 30 days before it would be implemented. The bill was further amended to provide that rationing could be implemented only in the event of, or anticipation of, a 20% shortfall in crude.supplies from year—earlier levels. The Committee also required that a report be transmitted to Congress within 90 days of enactment reporting on progress to develop and establish a contingency rationing system. The bill was approved by the Committee on July 17 and sent to the full House where it encountered nothing but trouble. on July, 25, the full House approved an amendment (232-187) which reinstated the congressional prerogative to reject~any proposed plan that the P President might transmit. The White House reacted angrily to the House amendment, accusing the House of an inability to place th national welfare before parochial concerns. ‘ An amendment to allow implementation of rationing if gasoline supplies fell 15% short of 1978 levels was defeated 1329-93) as well as an amehdmel that would require submission of a plan within 180 days of enactment with 60 sdays permitted for congressional approval (185—23u). The House leadership withdrew the bill from the hfloor before ythe intentions of the bill were violated by any further amendments and to try to CBS-13 IB79001 UPDATE-02/14/80 iersuade the membership to rescind its approval of the amendment to provide .or congressional review and veto of a proposed plan. on July 31, the House approved (234-J89) an anendment by ur. wright that restored the original committee language to the bill providing only for a congressional vote on implementation of the plan. Amendments that would have provided for implementation of gasoline rationing under less severe shortfall conditions were defeated. But the House seriously undermined the mandatory thermostat restriction rules which were implemented on ,July 16. The restrictions on building temperatures were the only onel of the standby conservation measures transmitted on .Harch 1 by the President that was approved by Congress. An amendment offered by Hr. Wylie (R-Ohio) to exempt a building that achieved comparable savings by another means was approved (267-152). The next day, the bill was amended further to drop the proposed one—day—a-week driving ban proposed by Rep. Hoffett (413-3), and to establish a 1% set-aside of middle distillate fuels to meet residential heating needs during a severe shortage (223-487). other amendments approved would provide for monthly monitoring of middle distillate inventories on a statewide basis, and would direct the President to establish and maintain a national set-aside program to provide middle distillate supply for agricultural production. A .motion to recommit the bill to committee with instructions to report it back with provision for a one-House vteo of any rationing plan submitted was defeated (177-246). The House approved the entire measure (263-159). §g§Q;;g§_§§§;Qg;gg: The conferees met during September to resolve their differences. Two issues appeared to constitute major impasses -- whether Congress would have any authority to disapprove a proposed rationing plan, and what severity of shortfall would justify its implementation. Recognizing that the provisions in SPCA which afforded a one-House veto of any proposed rationing plan appeared to make passage of any plan almost hopeless, therconferees agreed to a substitute which would provide Congress’ with authority to review a proposed plan, but would maxe it more cumbersome for Congress to disapprove a plan. The provisions in EPCA afforded Congress 60 days to review a plan; the conference language provides eacht chamber 30 days to review a plan submitted by the President. The plan would be deemed approved by Congress as a standby measure unless ggtg Houses passed a resolution of disapproval before the 30-day period had expired. If one House of Congress approved the plan and the other House disapproved, the plan would nonetheless be considered to have been approved. ’The conference bill provides specific language for the resolutions, which are inot amendable. Additional provisions provide for their prompt consideration in committee and on the floor. The President would then have the optionm to veto the resolutions of disapproval and return the plan to Congress, which could seek to override the veto by a two-thirds vote. If Congress failed to override the veto, the plan would stand as an approved contingency measure. Another important amendment 3"EPCh is that the President cannot amend the plan during the 30-day review period; a flurry of amendments to the plan proposed in Harch 1979 during the final hours of its consideration by the House caused confusion andn may have contributed to its defeat in Hay. A plan may be amended after its approval T as a standby measure. cns-‘nu 1379001 u1>DATn-o2/ 14/80 The conferece language retained the House-passed language requiring a 20% shortfall for a period in excess of 30 days before the President could order implementation of rationing. However, while the House bill calculated the extent of the shortage by comparing anticipated supply with supply during the 12-month period prior to the period of anticipated shortage, the conference, bill requires that normal growth in demand for gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel be factored into determining adequacy of supply. In addition, the President may choose any 12 consecutive months from the previous 36 months as a base period so that a base period may be chosen which will most closely approximate a normal supply situation. The conference report acknowledges that the data may be imprecise, and that the determination is likely to require a "high degree of judgment and . exercise of discretion.“ If it cannot be determined with certainty that the shortfall will be 20%, the-President may nonetheless request implementation of the plan, subject to approval by both Houses. No change was made to provisions in EPCA which provide that either House may veto a Presidential order to implement gasoline rationing. The conference bill also establishes guidelines and principles for development of a rationing plan, requiring that coupons be distributed to reflect differences between States in average per vehicle gasoline consumption. An amendment to the House bill requiring that distribution of coupons be based on need was retained, but the conferees acknowledged that this requirement was “general in nature“ and noted that State set—asides and local boards would provide more "individualized relief." The conferees noted that the next proposal will have to be more detailed than the plan transmitted in march 1979 if Congress is to be able to evaluate whether the new proposal satisfies the" statutory requirements concerning coupon distribution. QE2§£-§!§£9§§E1-§E§£Q!-§92§§£IéE12§.éEE2Q£l£1§§3 The 530033 title °f 3- 1030 largely embodies authorities and concepts passed by the Senate to provide for conservation at State and local levels. The President is authorized to establish "percentage reductions" in the consumption of specific fuels in short supply. Base period consumption of the fuel in short supply will be adjusted downwards on a State-by-State basis. Although the President is granted considerable latitude in determining the extent to which “ .each State is to reduce its consumption of the fuel in vshort supply, the conferees intend that the President would weigh priority uses (e.g., the maintenance of agricultural operations, safety, and welfare), conservation initiatives already undertaken by a State, seasonal variations, and other variables. ‘P The States are required to submit Statewide emergency energy conservation plan within 45 days after the publication of an energy conservation target for that State. The Secretary of Energy must approve or disapprove plans not ~more than 30 days after their submission. The President is also required to develop a Federal emergency energy conservation plan (within 90 days of enactment) which may be imposed upon a state if the State is unresponsive in developing a plan, if the State plan seems ineffective in meeting the State conservation goal, and if a ~shorgage of the fuel in insufficient supply is likely to be at least 8% for at leas 60 days in that State. Once the Federal plan is imposed, however, the legislation does provide for a State to design substitute measures which, upon approval of the Secretary of Energy, may be substituted for part or all of the Federal plan. The Federal plan may pg; require weekend closings of cas-15 1379091 UPDATE-OZ/1%/80 service stations, but it is an option which the States may adopt in their ylans if so desired. Otheg Provigiggg of the F;gal_1gg§;gg_Q§_§:_ gggg. The conference bill establishes into law authority (granted originally on an emergency basis in spring 1979 and extended indefinitely in October) for governors to establish minimum gasoline purchase requirements. . During its consideration of S. 1030, the House had passed an, amendment which would have provided for substitute conservation measures to be implemented for the emergency building temperature restrictions plan. The conference bill would pernit alternative measures on a building-by-building basis if the States or communities establish a satisfactory local mechanism for reviewing other conservation approaches. Political subdivisions may submit comparable plans directly to the Secretary of Energy without first seeking State approval. The conference bill also requires a study of industrial and commercial inventories of fuel, and periodic reports concerning secondary storage and supply and demand of middle distillates. House amendments to establish middle distillate set-asides for residential and agricultural uses were dropped because these utilizations of fuel are satisfactorily protected by « existing law (the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, P.L. 93-159). The bill was reported from conference on October 12 and passed ODY the Senate on October 17 (77-18). The House passed S. 1030 on October 23 (301-112), and the bill was signed into public law (P.L. 96-102) on uov. 5, 979. . A major principle of the legislation is that significant energy conservation is more likely to be achieved if administered by State and local bodies which can be most sensitive to local needs and conditions, and best able to minimize dislocation. However, it cannot be certain that the States will be able to accommodate local variables while devising more equitable O distribution schemes or conservation measures than those that have been proposed by the Administration. Indeed, it does not appear that the conferees or the Congress as a whole holds the expectation that the State plans would depart, in most instances, from initiatives that have been proposed at the Federal level. ’ The legislation, however, does provide latitude for the development of measures especially suited to regional characteristics which might otherwise be untapped. And while it is doubtful that there is a substantial repertoire of policy options that States could devise as substitutes for Federal conservation contingency plans, it is clearly hoped that emergency measures can be more effeciently designed, administered, and enforced on the local level than on the national level. THE SECOND VERSION OF A PROPOSED GASOLINE RATIONING PLAN §glga§g_9§_§_gggpg§gd Plan for Qggmgnt: On Dec. 7, 1973, the Economic Degulatory Administration (ERA) released a revised rationing plan for public omment. The revised plan differed from the plan released in narch 1979 in four important respects: (1) Allotments would reflect proportionate differences in average vehicle fuel consumption in each state; the basic allotment would be larger in States cns-16 1379001 UPDATE-02/14/80 with higher average per vehicle gasoline consumption. (2) The original plan would have based allotments to businesses strictly on the basis of vehicle registrations, compelling businesses to seek additional coupons on the opens market. The revised plan pwould provide supplemental allotments to businesses based upon historic use once such data could be gathered and organized. . (3) A broadened role would be given States and local municipalities in administering state Ration Reserves. (4) The definition of "emergency services" was broadened to include the 0.5. Postal Service, and taxicabs would be entitled to supplemental allotments as "priority" firms. Once again, EBA held regional hearings on the proposed plan throughout the pnation.g The proposed plan provides for maintaining the current system of allocation controls, providing that retail outlets would retain the same tsuppliers, and would redeem coupons for gasoline in quantities not to exceed its allocation entitlement from its suppliers. one witness from a major oil company testified at hearings held in Washington that continuing the allocation controls if rationing were implemented would add to the costs of the program and the disruption which would accompany rationing; however, witnesses representing independent marketers supported the proposed retention of the allocation system, arguing that terminating the allocation system would divert gasoline from areas of need and would endanger the competitive ability of independent marketers. The United States Catholic Conference urged priority allotments for the ministry in its conduct of their duties while Hertz argued that rental ~and leased vehicles should be classified as “public passenger transportation“ and therefore eligible for supplemental allotments. other witnesses continued to argue the relative merits of basing allocations on vehicle registrations or drivers license while one witness, the APL-CID, testified that a system relying on a combination of both should be devedoped. Hazel Rollins, administrator of the Economic Regulatory Administration (BRA), testified Jan. 28 before a Senate Energy subcommittee’ that ‘implementation of a rationing plan would take at least seven, and possibly as long as 21 months, commenting further that rationing would not beya practical response to a.sudden cutoff in oil supplies from the middle East. hs..» Rollins attempted to respond to objections raised by Senators "Talmadge and Helms that the revised plan did not guarantee adequate supplies for the eentire agricultural food chain, including the transportation of food products to the marketplace. She noted that BRA was giving consideration to identifying priority users and that while some segments of the food processing and distribution network should receive priority status, she did not believe that the entire chain should necessarily receive 10% of its needs. A revised proposed plan will likely be submitted to Congress during February 1930. Aside from the standby conservation programs submitted to Congress on bar. 1, 1979, the Administration has a number of authorities for managing the cas--17 137900 1 UPDA‘.l‘E-0A/ 144/so allocation of crude and refined products that have been promulgated pursuant ,o the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (P.L. 93-159) and amended by EPCA. In January 1979, the Economic Regulatory Administration published final standby rules amending regulations for the allocation and pricing of crude and refined products. The tprovisions of the rules are triggered automatically if the International Energy Agency oil-sharing agreement is invoked. ; . =Standby nandatory Crude Oil‘ Allocation and Refinery Yield Control Program=: Under existing regulations, “refiner-buyers‘ with inadequate access to supplies of domestic and foreign crude receive additional supply from larger refiners designated by DOE as "refiner-sellers." In a severe shortage, under the standby rules, all refiners could share any shortage equally. A "national utilization rate“ would be calculated based upon estimated crude supplies divided by the amount of crude refined during a base period. Befiners with crude supplies in excess of the national utilization rate would sell crude to refiners with less crude than that rate. The provisions do, however, permit DOE to scale the allocation program to vary with the degree of the overall shortage. §E§QQ2Z-Ql£.B£2Q2§E§.A£lQE§El92_§2Q.2£;§i29_££29£§!3 Under these 5teDeDY regulations, DOE could linit the use of petroleum by selected users to the extent that substitute fuels are available, and could require suppliers to Vbuild up inventories in the event that a shortage situation is anticipated. OTHER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS §§£§Qli§§!e!E- 92- XQLEEEQEZ. fieeeline- §9£§e£!§E;Q£. §QQ$§= In eeflY December, the DOE established a national goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 5% nationwide and set specific goals for each State. The targets are described as "voluntary" and are not a statutory requirement of the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-102); however, the consumption levels for each State were calculated using guidelines similar to those in wP.L. 96-402 for establishing State goals in the event of an energy emergency. one apparent intention of establishing these targets, aside from‘ reducing gasoline consumption, is to prompt development of State conservation plans in advance of a serious emergency and to identify any problems with the baseline data used to calculate the targets. The national objective is to cut gasoline consumption by 7% during 1980 to 7.0 million barrels daily; targets for the first quarter establish a daily average of 6.8 million barrels. I In some instances, actual gasoline consumption in some states is meeting the announced targets. 6 §ele§§e_2£_Iederel_§ner9I Bmergencz Q2n§er!ei;2n.£lan= On Febo 4:, 1980. DOB issued regulations outlining the shape of the Federal emergency conservation plan required by the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-102). The measures described briefly below could be inposed on States that failed to develop their own conservation plans after the President declared an energy emergency, or could be imposed if the State plans were unsuccessful in meeting conservation targets. The Federal plan would provide for: (1) a mandatory one-day reduction in the work week; (2) banning weekend use of pleasure boats; (3) banning use of all personal passenger vehicles for one to three days of the week; (4) requiring employers to adopt measuresi to _reduce work-related travel; (5) State-sponsored advertising campaigns to encourage conservation; (6) odd-even CBS-18 1379001 unmann-oz/14/ao gasoline sales restrictions; (7) minimum gasoline purchase requirements; (d) stricter enforcement of 55-mile-per-hour speed limit; and 19) making the mandatory thermostat controls on non-residential buildings, scheduled to 1expire in April 1980, permanent. gmgggggnt_g§_thg_;Q5_£$;igg§§fl: one of the sticking points during the debate over P.L. 9b-102 was the designation of ~a "trigger," or degree of anticipated shortfall at which the President might call for gasoline rationing. As is described at length elsewhere in this issue brief, the final bill established that the President could invoke the rationing plan if a 20% shortfall was anticipated, subject to a one-House veto. But the bill provides that rationing can be implemented with resolutions of approval by both Houses if the shortfall is anticipated to be less than 20%. on Jan. 3, in an appearance on a network television public affairs program, the President expressed intentions to request Congress to lower the "trigger' to 5%. Ho legislative initiative has been introduced. However, since the legislation does not provide for the implementation of rationing without some expression of congressional consensus - requiring the disapproval of at least one House in one circumstance and the approval of both Houses in another -wit would not appear that ,adjusting the “trigger” threshold would be all that critical. what would ultimately bear upon the implementation of rationing would be congressional feeling that a particular situation warranted the action. Designation of some percentage shortfall at which legislators are more comfortable with) a one-House veto instead of resolutions of approval by both Houses reflects an attempt to establish consensus in a vacuum, and would probably not lbe worth another protracted debate. , LEGISLATION P.L. 96-102 (5. 1030) The Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979. Requires President to develop emergency national conservation plan and directs state governors to develop statewide plans that would meet national targets while accounting for local and regional conditions. Provides that approved state plans could be implemented in lieu of federal measures subject to DOB approval. Forbids weekend closing of service stations as a federal initiative, but leaves states free to utilize this measure if they choose to do so. Introduced Apr. 26, 1979; referred to Committee on Energy. Reported may a.) 1979, with amendment (S.Hept. 96-J17). Passed Senate, June 5, 1979 (77-13). Referred to House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce may 7. Reported to the House July 23 (H.Rept. 96-373). iPassed by the House August )1 and sent to conference. conference report filed in House and Senate, Oct. 12, 1979 (H.Hept. 96-546 and S.Rept. 96-366). Senate agreed to conference report, Oct. 17, 1979, 77-18; House agreed to conference report, Oct. 25, 1979, 301-112. Enacted as P.L. 96-102 on Nov. 5, 1979. 93.3. uéas (Hoffett) Emergency Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Conservation Act of 1979. Similar 1' several respects to S. 1030. Provides that emergency plan would ,go int; effect restricting use of passenger cars to six days per week if state conservation plans failed to achieve conservation targets designated by federal government. Introduced Hay 31, 1979; referred to House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. CBS-J9 1379001 upnain-02/14/ao H.Res. 181 (Howard et al.) Resolution opposing approval of the proposed Emergency Weekend Gasoline sales Restrictions plan. Introduced aar. 27, 1979; referred to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H.Bes. 209, 210, 211, 212 (staggers) Resolutions for the approval, respectively, of the proposed standby gasoline conservation plan, contingency plans with respect to weekend closings of service stations, mandatory thermostat settings, and restrictions upon outdoor lighting. Introduced Apr. a, 1979; referred to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. S.Res. 98 (Bentsen et al.) Resolution expressing sense of the Senate that the standby rationing plan should be withdrawn and amended to remedy interstate inequities with regard to gasoline rationing coupon distribution. Introduced mar. 13, 1979; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S.Res. 120, 121, 122, 123 (Johnston) Resolutions, as above. Introduced mar. 29, 1979; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.v Markup on s.Res. 120, 121, and 122 on Apr. 10, 1979. S.Res. 122 reported favorably Apr. 26, 1979 (S.Bept. 96-97). S.Res. 139 (Cannon) Resolution.disapproving the conservation contingency plan restricting weekend sales of gasoline. Introduced Apr. 18, 1979; referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Reported favorably by that committee on Apr. 10, 1979 (S.Rept. 96-69). - §§A§£!§§ 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power. The President's standby Energy Emergency Contingency Plans. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. off., 596 p. (96th Congress, 1st session) , 6 Hearings held Bar. 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30, 1979. u.s. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Availability of gasoline. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 86 p. (95th Congress, 2d session) Hearing held Dec. 1a, 1978. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Rutrition, and Forestry. subcommittee on Rural Development. Administration's standby Gasoline Rationing Plan and its impact on rural development and agricultural production and marketing. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 82 p. (96th Congress, 1st session) U.S. cns-20 1379001 opnamn—o2/14/ao Bearing held Apr. 30, 1979. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization. Gasoline shortages. Hashington, U.S. Govt. Print. 0rf., (96th Congress, 1st session) Hearings held may 22 and June 6, 192 p. 1979. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subconmittee on Energy Regulation. Mandatory energy conservation and gasoline and diesel fuel rationing. Hashington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 894 p. (96th Congress, 1st session) ----- Shortages of gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel. GUS. ----- Report to accompany S. 1030. 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 289 p. Hearing held May 21, 1979. (96th Congress, 1st session) Congress. House. Amendment to standby conservation plan number 1 (contingency plan number 4). Presidential message. Apr. 5, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (96th Congress, 1st session. H.Doc. no. 96-90) Congress. House. Amendment to Standby Gasoline Rationing Plan (contingency plan no. 5). Presidential message. may 7, 1979. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (96th Congress, 1st session. H.Doc. no. 96-120) Congress. House. Amendment to Standby Gasoline Rationing Plan (contingency plan no. 6). Presidential nessage. day 8, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (96th Congress, 1st session. H.Doc. no. 96-122) Congress. House.. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Report to accompany S. 1030. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (96th Congress, 1st session. H.Rept. 96-373) Congress. senate. Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979. Conference report to accompany S. 1030. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Orf., 1979. 45 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Rept. no. 96-366) Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Report to accompany S.Res. 139. uashington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (96th Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. 96-69) Congress. Senate. committee on Energy and natural Resources. Standby emergency building temperature restrictions. 31 p. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (96th Congress, 1st session. s.Rept. 96-97) Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. (96th Congress, 1st session. S.Rept. C35-21 xa79oo1 UPDATE-02/14/80 96-117) EEBQEQLOGY °F_§V3!I§ 01/28/80 01/10/80 01/03/80 U2/OH/80 12/07/79 12/00/79 11/05/79 10/23/79 10/17/79 08/01/79 Ob/17/79 In testimony before the Senate Energy Subcommittee on Regulation, ERA Administrator-Hazel Rollins indicated that implementation of a rationing plan at that point in time might require between 7 and 21 months. She testified that DOE would have to use its current allocation authorities to address any sudden disruptions in supply. senators Talmadge and Helms charged that the revised rationing plan fails to guarantee adequate gasoline supplies to support the entire agricultural food chain. In an appearance on a television network public afrairs program, President Carter expressed intentions to request Congress to reduce the 20% rationing "trigger" in P.L. 9o-102 to 5%. DOE released as an “interim final rule‘ the federal emergency conservation plan required by P.L. 95-102 which would be imposed upon the States in a declared energy emergency it individual States failed to develop their own emergency conservation plans or if their plans were inadequate to meet Federally established conservation targets. The Economic fiegulatory Administration (ERA) within DOE released for public comment a revised proposed gasoline rationing plan. DOE established voluntary gasoline consumption targets for each State designed to achieve a consumption ceiling of b.8 million barrels daily during the first quarter of 1980 and 7.0 million barrels daily for all of 1980. The Emergency Energy Conservation Act (5. 1050) was enacted into public law (P.L. 96-102). The House agreed to the conference report on S. 1030 The Senate agreed to the conference report on S. 1030 The House passed its own version of S. 1030 (2b3‘159), amended to grant authority to the President to develop a standby rationing plan subject to congressional vote only if the President ordered its implementation. The iashington Post reported that the administration might submit another rationing plan to Congress 06/05/79 05/31/79 05/11/79 05/10/79 05/09/79 05/03/79 05]07/79 a pending discussions with congressional leaders. ens-22 1379001 u9bAmE—oz/14/so S. 1030 was passed by the Senate (77-13) and referred to the House two days later. i The Senate approved the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979, which would provide for the establishment of national and state energy conservation targets to be met by state initiatives and, if necessary, federally imposed conservation plans (77-13). H.R. #283, the Emergency Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Conservation Act of 1979, similar to S. 1030 in some respects and embodying Representative Hoffett's rationing plan, was introduced. An alternative rationing proposal was advanced by Representative uoffett |D—Conn.) that would require that a car not be driven one day each weex. Vehicle owners would select the day in the week on which the car would not be used, and a sticker affixed to the car would identify the day in which the car should be idle. The House defeated the gasoline rationing plan (2ab—4b9). The Senate approved the gasoline rationing plan (58-39). Governor Brown of California signed legislationhe authorizing state counties to institute an odd-even gasoline sales plan in hopes that it might reduce lines at service_stations. C The Senate Energy Committee rescinded its vote of April 26 approving the gasoline rationing plan (10-8), voted against the rationing plan as amended by the President on flay 7 (15-3), and then voted to send the rationing proposal to the Senate with the Committee's recommendation that it be disapproved (12-6). The President transmitted Contingency Plan No. 6, an amendment to the gasoline rationing plan which included all of the features of his day 7 amendment, but which provided that the entire passenger automobile allocation would reflect variations in average annual per vehicle consumption among the states. The Senate Energy Committee convened late in the afternoon A and voted 8-8 on the newly amended plan, effectively defeating it in committee. Senator Church changed his vote so that the plan could be sent from committee to the floor of the Senate for consideration (9-7). The President transmitted Contingency Plan No. 5, an amendment to the gasoline rationing plan that would restrict the number of cars in a single household eligible to receive a ration allotment, and which would base half the passenger automobile gasoline allocation on differences in historical gasoline usage between 05/02/79 05/01/79 Ufi/30/79 04/30/79 on/26/79 04/24/79 04/10/79 03/20/79 c3s—23 1379001 UPDATE-02/14/60 the states. The senate dereated the plan to restrict outdoor advertising lighting (24-70), but approved the emergency building temperature restrictions plan (8 9-.-:) . The House Commerce Committee failed by a tie vote (21-21) to reverse its April 20 vote against the rationing plan. The Committee held another vote, which passed, to recommend sending the rationing plan to the House floor without recommendation. The Senate Energy Committee voted against the plan to restrict weexend gasoline sales (12-5). During a nationally televised press conference, President Carter descrihed it as "imperative" that the House Commerce Committee reverse its earlier veto against recommending the rationing plan to the full House. Earlier in the day, the Senate Committee voted against recommending weekend service station closings to the full Senate. The Senate Energy Committee voted (9-8) to recommend approval of the proposed standby rationing plan. " The House Commerce Committee voted narrowly (22-20) against recommending the proposed standby rationing plan; however, a vote to reconsider was expected. S. was introduced. 1030, the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979, The bill would require the President a to develop a nationwide program that would permit the states to develop their own plans that could he implemented in lieu of federal conservation measures. The House Commerce Committee voted against recommending the plan for weekend closings, hut approved the plan for mandatory restrictions on thermostat settings. The senate Commerce Committee voted against recommending the plan for weekend closings, but approved the plan for mandatory restrictions on thermostat settings. A story in The Washington Post reported on a yet unreleased internal DOE study that concluded that weekend closings of service stations would not save any fuel and discouraged the implementation of any such measure. - 03/19/79 -03/20/79«——gThe Senate Suhcommittee on Energy and Regulation of the Senate Committee on Energy heard testimony from non-Administration witnesses on the o3/01./79 —-V 01/08/79 - CBS-Zn IB79001 UPDATB—02/1%/80 proposed rationing and standby contingency conservation plans. The final rule for a standby gasoline rationing plan was sent to Congress with additional standby contingency conservation measures that would restrict weekend sales of gasoline, set maximum and minimum thermostat and hot water settings in non-residential buildings, and prohibit nonessential commercial advertising lighting. The energy newsletter ;g§;gg_QQ§ reported that the Economic Regulatory Administration (Bah) of DOE plans to submit the final proposed rationing plan in late February or early march 1979. The newsletter reported that the final plan would not differ significantly from the original proposal, and would be supplemented by additional emergency mandatory conservation measures such as a prohibition on weekend retail sales of gasoline. 08/22/78 -08/24/78 -— The EBA held three days of public hearings in O6/28/78 - 05/15/78 -- 01/17/78 ‘10/10/77 - 07/05/77 - washington D.C. on the proposed rationing plan. other hearings were held throughout the United States in July and August. The proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearings on the contingency standby gasoline rationing plan appeared in the §ggg§g;_ggg;§tg;. The energy newsletter ;n§;gg_2Q§ reported that OHB "pressured* DOB to delay publishing the proposed plan in the §gggggl_§gg;§tg; until an interagency review could be conducted. The newsletter also reported subsequent objections by the Departnents of Agriculture and Defense to the absence of provisions in the plan that would accord agriculture and defense uses priority status. Additionally, it was reported that GAO had been critical of the delay while DOE kept searching for the "perfect plan,“ and took issue with DoE's rejection or an offer from the Postmaster General to help with distribution of the coupons. vAn article in the gQg;gg;_9g_Qggmgggg reported that DOE had drafted an emergency standby plan that was being “circulated.” Price, Waterhouse and Co. indicated that it had been awarded a Federal contract to assess the feasibility of designing a contingency rationing system utilizing ration credit cards rather than coupons. President Carter met with Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger and ordered preparation of a comprehensive standby rationing plan that would reduce consumption by roughly 25% in a supply 01/1 9/77 05/25/76 12/22/75 03/17/74 01/16/74 12/27/73 10/17/73 04/18/73 00/00/73 on or after Ear. CBS-25 IB79001 UPDATE—02/14/80 energency. however, the President and Mr. Schlesinger also apparently discussed rationing and other alternative policies as a means to reduce gasoline consumption in peacetime if the gasoline tax originally proposed in the National Energy Plan was not adopted by Congress. The Federal Energy Administration issued a proposed standby gasoline rationing plan which appeared in the §ed§;§l_§§g;§gg; on Jan. 26, 1977. The plan, developed by the Ford Administration, was withdrawn by the incoming Carter Administration for further study. The Federal Energy Administration (BEA) issued a notice or proposed rulenaking and public hearing concerning a standby rationig plan. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-1o3) was signed into law, requiring development of a standby gasoline rationing contingency plan subject to approval by both Houses of Congress. ‘The OAPEC oil embargo ended; gasoline supply shortages subsequently eased. A discussion and description of FEO's proposed contingency rationing plan appeared in the gggggal assistan- The Federal Energy Office (EEO) released a contingency rationing plan designed for implementation 1, 197%. The Organization of”Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries 10APEC) embargoed direct and indirect sales of petroleum to the United States. President Nixon suspended the limitations placed upon foreign oil imports under the uandatory 011 Import Program, passed in 1959, replacing the quota system with a fee-license system permitting unlimited oil imports. Greater nuabers of new car sales, fuel economy penalties associated with early emissions control technology and safety standards, milder weather, and the correlation between growth in energy demand and favorable social conditions led to gasoline supply shortages in several locations throughout the United States. e22£$£Q§§L-§§§§§§§E§_§QE§§§§ Gulick, Frances A. 0.5. experience with voluntary and mandatory rationing of gasoline and ruel oil during world Ear II. Congressional Research Service, Nov. 20, 1973. Hunderson, Carter. CRS‘26 IB79o01 UPDATE-Oz/14/30 us. Gulicx's paper is reprinted in the Congressional Record, Dec. 7, 1973, p. 522168-76. The inevitability of petroleum rationing in tne United States. 0ccasipnal¢paper.: Princeton Center for Alternative Futures, Inc;7April 1978. 77 p. Congress. House. Bnergylbonservation contingency plans. Hessage from tne Presrdént*transnitting tnree proposed conservation%contingency plans.... (96tn Congress, 1st session), H.Doc. 96-62. 210 p. Congress. House. Standby gasoline rationing plan. nessage from the President transmitting a proposed standny gasoline rationing p1an.... (96th Congress, 1st session) B.Doc. 96-63. 484 p. Department or Energy. Economic Regulatory Administration. Contingency gasoline rationing plan. Proposed rulenaking and public nearing. Federal Register, June 28, 1978, v. 4:, no. 125: 28133-28168. Department of Energy. Office of Conservation and Solar Energy. Standby Federal Emergency Conservation Plan. Interim final rulemaking and notice of proposed rulenaxing. Federal Register. Pen. 7, 1980, v. 45. no. 27, Part II: 8462-=7-8517. ‘ at ‘ federal Energy Adninistration.n mandatory gasoline and diesel fuel rationing regulations. Adoption of new part establishing contingency rationing plan for gasoline and diesel fuel. Federal Register, Jan. 26, 1977, v. 42, no. 17: 4813-4326. ---- Notice of proposed rulemaxing and public hearings. Standny gasoline rationing plan. Federal register, Dec. 10, 1979, UCSO v. 44, no. 238: 70799-70858. federal Energy Office. plan. Notice of inquiry. V I. 39' 0 =' o Gasoline rationing contingency Federal Register, Jan. 16, 1974, UBRARY Or“ r’ VVP£H%§KTW3N UiNIVEF‘i3iT\’ ~' Louzls - TWO.