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