LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE 74th Regular Session March 21, 1995 TO: Honorable Robert Junell, Chair IN RE: House Bill No. 843 Committee on Appropriations By: Alexander House of Representatives Austin, Texas FROM: John Keel, Director In response to your request for a Fiscal Note on House Bill No. 843 (Relating to the regulation of petroleum storage tanks.) this office has determined the following: The bill would require that claims for reimbursement from the Petroleum Storage Tank Remediation (PSTR) Fund for cleanup of leaking storage tanks be paid in the order that they were received. The bill would authorize the transfer of up to $120 million from General Revenue to the PSTR Fund to pay reimbursement claims against the PSTR Fund that are filed before August 31, 1995. The transfer would be required to be made on September 1, 1995, or as soon as practicable thereafter. The bill would double the current revenue to the PSTR Fund by increasing, to approximately $0.12 per gallon from $.006 per gallon, the wholesale distributor fee on bulk delivery of petroleum products until the unobligated balance in the PSTR Fund equals or exceeds $50 million at which time the fee would not be collected. When the fund balance falls below $25 million, the fee would be collected at the current rate, or one-half the increased rate authorized by the bill. One half of these fees collected would be deposited to the General Revenue Fund until August 31, 1997 or until the temporary cash transfer is paid. The Comptroller's cost estimate for the bill assumes that the unobligated balance in the PSTR Fund would rise above $50 million on September 1, 1995 and that the doubled delivery fees in effect for one month would not have a significant effect on the number of withdrawals from bulk petroleum facilities. Further, it is assumed that the unobligated balance in the PSTR Fund would fall below $25 million on December 1, 1995. The bulk delivery fee increased authorized by the bill may result in increased costs of petroleum fuels for all consumers, including local units of government. However, local units of government will benefit from the bill to the same extent as all tank owners due to the availability of additional funds to pay reimbursement claims. The probable fiscal implication of implementing the provisions of the bill during each of the first five years following passage is estimated as follows: Fiscal Probable Revenue Probable Revenue Change in Year Gain/(Loss) from Gain/(Loss) to Number of State General Revenue Petroleum Storage Employees from Fund 001 Tank Remediation FY 1995 Account 655 1996 ($92,011,000) $86,138,000 .0 1997 33,864,000 (33,864,000) .0 1998 33,864,000 (33,864,000) .0 1999 24,053,000 (24,053,000) .0 2000 0 0 .0 Similar annual fiscal implications would continue as long as the provisions of the bill are in effect. The fiscal implication to units of local government cannot be determined. Source: Comptroller of Public Accounts, Natural Resource Conservation Commission LBB Staff: JK, JB, DF