Fascinating, isn't it?
Here's the text of the bill before the Senate:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3172/text
A few notes:
(a) it doesn't actually
appropriate any "hard" money, it only "establishes a fund".
(b) the money expected to "fill" the fund is 50% of future (what's called) "new money" from energy revenues: oil, coal, alternative and renewables on federal land, which isn't already designated to go elsewhere.
(c) the fund is capped at 1.3 billion a year.
So the Park service doesn't know how much they'll get in any given year (at the moment, there'd be zilch in the fund). That may fuzz long-term planning.
As a hint about the magnitude of (b), the
total current federal income from oil and gas is about $11 billion per year. Coal provides about 880 million. Roughly half of that is distributed to the States holding the land. The income fluctuates with price of the commodity (the $11 billion was 2014).
So "new income" would have to hit 40% above those numbers to approach the Park fund's cap. (since the Park's only getting half of it, and half goes to the states).
..at least by my back-of-envelope calculations.
So, yes it's good that another funding source is being contemplated (it hasn't passed yet), and the Park service will get *something* out of it
--dick
(gee, the Monuments could use some, too...)
refs: the Dept of Interior's report on revenues, including energy :
https://revenuedata.doi.gov/how-it-works/revenues/
the CBO's suggestion on how to increase revenues, which lists recent revenues:
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...eports/51421-oil_and_gas_options-OneCol-3.pdf