prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: Oil and petroleum products markets have changed substantially in the years since the establishment of the SPR  Specifically, U S  domestic crude oil production has generally been increasing, consumption has been relatively stable, and crude oil and petroleum products markets have become increasingly global  Additionally, U S  crude oil production is projected to rise further in the future, according to EIA and IEA projections, further reversing a decades-long decline  Recent technological improvements have made onshore production from shale formations economically viable, and domestic crude oil production began to rise in about 2008  The combination of increasing production and relatively stable consumption has resulted in declining net crude oil and petroleum products imports, from a high of about 12 million barrels per day in 2005 to fewer than 4 million barrels per day in 2017  Since these trends are expected to continue, the IEA and EIA both project net U S  crude oil and petroleum products imports will decline to zero sometime in the late 2020s and the United States will become a net exporter shortly thereafter  Since the IEA 90-day reserve obligation is based on a country’s net imports, there is no such obligation for net exporters; therefore, the United States would have no 90-day reserve obligation as long as it is a net exporter, though it would still be obligated to release reserves in response to supply disruptions  Over the longer term, EIA’s projections show U S  net exports peaking in 2037 and the United States again becoming a net importer between 2040 and 2050  At the time of the Arab oil embargo, price controls in the United States prevented the prices of oil and petroleum products from increasing as much as they otherwise might have, contributing to a physical oil shortage that caused long lines at gasoline stations throughout the United States  In addition, in the 1970s, oil prices were often set in long-term contracts, which meant that prices would not automatically rise in the face of greater scarcity  This generally reduced incentives for producers to expand production and sales as well as for consumers to reduce consumption in the face of greater scarcity caused by a supply disruption  Now that crude oil and petroleum product markets are global, the prices of these commodities are determined in the world market, primarily on the basis of supply and demand  In the absence of long-term contracted prices or price controls, scarcity from a supply disruption is generally expressed in the form of higher prices, as purchasers are free to bid as high as they are willing to pay to secure oil supply  In a global market, a large enough supply disruption anywhere in the world raises prices everywhere  This creates incentives for producers unaffected by the disruption to increase their production and release existing inventories and for consumers everywhere to reduce consumption in the ways they find most efficient and least disruptive  While it can take time for some of these actions to affect crude oil and petroleum product markets—according to DOE officials, it can take approximately 6 months from when a producer drills an oil well until oil production comes on line—all these actions tend to mitigate the effects of supply disruptions  The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 authorized the creation of the SPR, partly in response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974 that caused a shortfall in the international oil market  The purposes of the SPR are, among other things, to reduce the impact of disruptions in supplies of petroleum products and to carry out obligations of the United States under the international energy program  Specifically, the 1974 International Energy Program Agreement, a joint strategy and treaty, established the IEA to address oil security issues on an international scale  The SPR is owned by the federal government, managed by DOE’s Office of Petroleum Reserves, and maintained by Fluor Federal Petroleum Operations LLC  The SPR stores crude oil in underground salt caverns along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and Texas  The SPR currently maintains four storage sites—Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, Bryan Mound, and West Hackberry—with a design capacity of 713 5 million barrels  Under conditions prescribed by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, the President has discretion to authorize the release of petroleum products from the SPR to minimize significant supply disruptions  When oil is released from the SPR, it is distributed through commercial pipelines or on waterborne vessels to refineries, where it is converted into gasoline and other petroleum products, and then transported to distribution centers for sale to the public  According to DOE documents, well-functioning infrastructure is fundamental to the SPR’s ability to maintain operational readiness and meet mission requirements  However, most of the critical infrastructure for moving SPR oil has exceeded its serviceable life, which has led to increasing maintenance costs and decreasing system reliability  Specifically, the reserve relies on a complex system of salt caverns, pipelines, wells, and pumps, with other infrastructure and equipment  Any failures, such as ruptured pipelines, could affect the readiness of a site for an oil release  According to DOE officials, a growing backlog of major maintenance needs raises concerns about the ability of the system to operate as designed  In addition, there have been equipment failures that have rendered parts of the system temporarily inoperable  For example, the SPR has experienced at least five major equipment failures since fiscal year 2013, including the Big Hill site pipe failure shown in figure 1  The United States has two regional petroleum product reserves—the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve and the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve  The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which is not part of the SPR, holds 1 million barrels of ultra low sulfur distillate, a petroleum product essentially equivalent to diesel fuel but that is also used for heating oil  The Northeast United States is heavily dependent on the use of heating oil in winter months  The distillate is stored in leased commercial tank storage in terminals in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey  In 2000, the President directed the creation of the reserve to hold approximately 10 days of inventory, the time required for ships to carry additional heating oil from the Gulf of Mexico to New York Harbor  The Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, a part of the SPR, holds 1 million barrels of gasoline for consumers in the northeastern United States  According to DOE’s website, this region is particularly vulnerable to gasoline disruptions as a result of hurricanes and other natural events  For example, Hurricane Sandy caused widespread gasoline shortages in the region in 2012  DOE conducted a test sale of the SPR in 2014 and used a portion of the proceeds from the sale to create the reserve  The gasoline is stored in leased commercial tank storage in terminals in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey  The SPR helps the United States meet its IEA obligation to hold the equivalent of 90 days of net imports of crude oil and petroleum products  In order to meet the IEA 90-day reserve obligation, countries, including the United States, can count existing private reserves of crude oil and petroleum products in addition to public reserves (in the United States, the SPR)  In most years, the United States has met its 90-day reserve obligation with a combination of SPR and private reserves  The days of import protection may vary based on actual net U S  crude oil and petroleum products imports as well as the inventory levels of the SPR and private reserves  As discussed previously, because the IEA 90-day reserve obligation is based on a country’s net imports, there is no such reserve obligation for countries that are net exporters of crude oil and petroleum products  The United States also relies on the SPR to meet its IEA obligation to release reserves in the event of a collective action to respond to a supply disruption  Countries contribute to an IEA collective action based on their share of IEA oil consumption, and they can meet their obligation by whatever measure they choose, including release of public or private reserves, or demand restraint  IEA collective actions are designed to mitigate the negative effects of sudden supply shortages by making additional crude oil and petroleum products available to the global market through a combination of emergency response measures, which include increasing supply and reducing demand  In the event of a global market disruption, IEA member countries can call for a collective action after reaching consensus on whether a response is needed  DOE stated that the collective action IEA obligation is more relevant to the SPR’s mission of protecting the U S  economy from severe petroleum supply interruptions than the 90-day reserve obligation  The United States has participated in each of the three IEA collective actions  In 1991, with the commencement of Operation Desert Storm, DOE released 17 3 million barrels of SPR crude oil  After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, DOE released 11 million barrels of SPR crude oil  Most recently, in June 2011, in response to crude oil supply disruptions driven by hostilities in Libya, DOE released 30 6 million barrels of crude oil from the SPR  The Libya collective action is an example of how, in practice, member countries participate according to national circumstances  After consultations with IEA member countries, all IEA member countries agreed to the Libya collective action, under which 12 of the 28 members at that time contributed to the action  In addition to the three IEA collective actions, the SPR has been used 10 times in response to U S  domestic supply disturbances that were not IEA collective actions, most notably in response to severe weather events  In terms of how they meet their IEA obligations, most other IEA members differ from the United States in two basic ways  Specifically, as of December 2017, most IEA members rely at least in part on private rather than public reserves to meet their obligations, and most hold significant proportions of these reserves as petroleum products rather than as crude oil  In December 2017, before Mexico joined the IEA in early 2018, there were 29 member countries  Of these 29 countries, 25 IEA members had two common attributes: (1) as net importers, they had a 90-day reserve obligation and met that obligation, and (2) they had formal processes for holding and releasing these reserves  As of December 2017, 18 of these 25 members relied entirely or in part on private reserves to meet their reserve obligations  Specifically, based on IEA data as of December 2017, these 18 countries met their 90-day reserve obligation through private reserves and either had no public reserves or had public reserves of less than 90 days  According to a 2014 IEA report, some of these countries require industry to hold reserves and, when needed, release them  For example, according to a 2014 IEA report and documentation provided by government officials, the United Kingdom meets its entire obligation by requiring private industry to hold reserves  In contrast, New Zealand had publicly held reserves amounting to 26 days of net imports, according to IEA data as of December 2017  According to a 2014 IEA report, New Zealand relied on industry reserves held for commercial purposes to meet the rest of its 90-day reserve obligation, although New Zealand does not formally require industry to hold reserves specifically for this purpose  Unlike the 18 countries that rely at least in part on private reserves, as of December 2017, the United States and 6 other IEA members met the 90- day reserve obligation exclusively through public reserves  Specifically, according to IEA data on member reserves, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, and the United States held public reserves equal to 90 days or more of net imports  Although the United States currently meets its IEA 90-day reserve obligation solely with public reserves, for most of the SPR’s existence, public reserves were insufficient to meet this obligation, so the United States also had to rely on private reserves  Specifically, according to EIA data, the United States has relied, at least in part, on private reserves together with the SPR to meet the 90-day reserve obligation with the exception of two time periods (1984-1987 and 2012-present), when the United States has relied solely on the SPR  The United States does not require industry to hold reserves for the purposes of meeting IEA obligations  Figure 2 compares the United States’ reserves in days of net imports to the IEA’s 90-day reserve obligation  According to a 2014 IEA report, most IEA members hold at least a third of their reserves as petroleum products, such as gasoline and diesel fuel, rather than as crude oil  Holding petroleum products can be advantageous during certain disruptions because such reserves can be directly distributed to consumers, whereas crude oil must first be refined and turned into products, adding response time  According to the IEA’s 2014 report, Germany’s stockholding agency holds 55 percent of its reserve as petroleum products  Similarly, France holds only petroleum products that are distributed geographically across the country so that the reserves can be used quickly in the event of a supply disruption  In contrast, more than 99 percent of the SPR (665 5 million barrels as of March 2018) is held as crude oil, all of which is stored at the four storage sites in Louisiana and Texas  The exception is the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, which, as mentioned previously, is a 1 million barrel gasoline reserve in terminals in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey that was established in 2014 after Hurricane Sandy and that is considered part of the SPR  According to DOE officials, there are several reasons the SPR holds predominantly crude oil, including that it is more costly to store petroleum products than crude oil and that the United States has the largest refining capacity of any IEA member country  Because of the large U S  refining sector, crude oil from the SPR can be domestically refined into petroleum products to meet demand  Some IEA member countries store some of their reserves abroad, though the United States does not  According to a 2014 IEA report, some IEA member countries allow part of their reserves to be stored abroad to leverage spare storage capacity or more cost-effective storage by utilizing available storage space or excess private reserves in other countries  For example, approximately 30 percent of Ireland’s reserves are held in other European Union countries  In some of these cases, countries use short-term contracts, also known as tickets, instead of directly acquiring and storing oil and petroleum products  For example, according to documents provided by government officials, since 1995 the United Kingdom has increased its reserves held under ticket agreements outside of the country from around 10 percent of its total reserves to more than 25 percent  In addition, unlike the United States, some IEA countries specify the size of their public or private reserves in terms of net imports or consumption, rather than a specific volume  In the United States, the total volume of crude oil and petroleum products held in the SPR is the result of amounts historically purchased to fill the reserve and subsequent sales as mandated by Congress or released in response to a supply disruption  According to DOE, it cannot otherwise reduce or increase volumes held in reserve without congressional action—either through requirements to purchase additional oil or laws authorizing or mandating sales  On the other hand, some IEA countries have tied their reserves’ volumes of crude oil and petroleum products to a metric such as days of net imports or a percent of consumption  For example, according to documentation provided by government officials, in 2015 Japan changed how it specifies its target reserves from a specified amount to days of net imports  In specifying the size of reserves in this way, the amount held is adjusted as market conditions change—for example, if net imports change and require more or fewer reserves to meet the IEA 90-day reserve obligation, or when other underlying factors affecting a nation’s energy security needs change  While DOE has examined a range of sizes for the SPR, it has not identified the optimal size for the SPR to meet U S  energy security needs and IEA obligations, and DOE’s analysis of SPR sizes was limited in three ways  DOE also has not identified whether additional regional petroleum product reserves should be part of the SPR in U S  regions identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions  DOE has not identified the optimal size for the SPR and though the agency examined a range of SPR sizes, its analysis was limited in at least three ways  In response to direction from Congress and recommendations from GAO and the DOE Inspector General, DOE developed and published a long-term strategic review of the SPR in August 2016  In DOE’s 2016 review, the agency examined the expected economic benefits of SPR sizes ranging from 430 million to 695 million barrels of oil over a 25-year time horizon (2016 through 2040), but it did not recommend an optimal size for the reserve  DOE’s review did not identify the optimal size for the SPR because of three limitations: DOE did not fully evaluate implications of market fluctuations and estimate needs  DOE did not fully evaluate the implications of falling net imports of crude oil and petroleum products with respect to meeting IEA obligations to hold the equivalent of 90 days of net imports and to respond to collective actions  As mentioned previously, the United States is expected to become a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products by the late 2020s  Since the IEA 90-day reserve obligation is based on a country’s net imports, this means that at that point the United States would not have a 90-day reserve obligation  However, even as a net exporter, the United States would still have to meet the IEA obligation to respond to a collective action  Yet, DOE’s analysis did not evaluate the SPR’s configuration as it relates to projected fluctuations in net imports or estimate the minimal amount of reserves needed to meet potential future collective actions  Without considering projected fluctuations in net imports or providing an analysis of how much oil is estimated to be needed to meet IEA collective actions, DOE cannot fully advise Congress on the optimal size of the SPR  DOE did not consider private-sector response  DOE’s analyses in its 2016 review focused on the publicly held reserves in the SPR as the only means to respond to oil supply disruptions and did not consider a response from the private sector or through consumers reducing demand  According to DOE’s 2016 review, the underlying analysis for the benefits of the SPR did not consider a response from the private sector for three reasons: (1) while U S  commercial stocks could conceivably address part of a supply disruption, private industry could also hold oil inventories in a crisis instead of releasing them; (2) unlike most other IEA member countries, the United States does not require private-sector response; and (3) research on the exact nature of private-sector response during a disruption is needed  DOE officials told us the agency has not studied the extent to which SPR releases of crude oil displace what would otherwise have been private releases of inventories  As we reported in September 2014, changing market conditions— most importantly the significant increase in domestic production of oil—have implications for the SPR’s size because increased production has led to increasing private reserves  According to IEA data as of December 2017, U S  private reserves held the equivalent of 194 days of net import protection coverage, up from about 59 days in 2006  Further, private reserves in the United States consist of both crude oil and petroleum products with more than half in the latter category  For example, as of January 2018, total private reserves of crude oil and petroleum products were about 1 215 billion barrels, of which about 420 million barrels were in the form of crude oil and 795 million barrels were petroleum products, according to the EIA  As of 2013, these private reserves were distributed across the entire country in more than 1,400 terminals, according to the EIA  As we reported in December 2007, international trade in oil and petroleum products has expanded significantly over the past 2 decades, making markets for gasoline and other petroleum products increasingly global in nature  In such a global oil market, higher levels of private reserves can benefit the United States and the rest of the world by helping mitigate a supply disruption  Most experts and stakeholders we interviewed generally agreed that the private sector is in a better position to respond to supply disruptions than they were when the SPR was created  With regard to demand response, DOE officials told us they do not consider this because there is no mechanism to require industry to respond to supply disruptions or consumers to reduce demand in response to a supply disruption  However, DOE has not studied how voluntary response to changes in petroleum product prices affects the need for or efficacy of strategic releases  Without conducting an analysis of how private parties respond to supply disruptions, DOE cannot advise Congress on the optimal size of the SPR because it cannot know how effective such private responses could be in mitigating supply disruptions  DOE did not fully examine costs of differently sized reserves  DOE’s review of the expected economic benefits of differently sized reserves did not fully examine the corresponding costs of those sizes  According to DOE officials, there was no requirement or need to conduct a formal cost benefit analysis of the SPR because the SPR’s oil acquisition and initial capital costs to create the reserve are sunk costs and the ongoing operational costs to maintain the reserve are minimal in comparison  However, this does not take into account the opportunity cost to the government that holding reserves represents; as Congress has mandated several times recently, crude oil from the reserve can be sold to fund other federal priorities  Without additional analysis, such as of the costs and benefits of SPR’s size, DOE cannot fully advise Congress on the optimal size of the SPR  When we reviewed the SPR in 2006 and 2014, we found that DOE had not periodically re-examined the strategic reserves  In 2006, we recommended that the Secretary of Energy reexamine the appropriate size of the SPR  In its response to our recommendation, DOE stated that its reexamination had taken the form of more “actionable items,” including not requesting expansion funding in its 2011 budget and canceling and redirecting the prior year’s expansion funding to general operations of the SPR, based on the Administration’s decision that the SPR’s current size at the time was adequate  Similarly, as previously mentioned, in 2014 we found that changing market conditions have implications for the size, location, and composition of the SPR, but DOE had not reexamined the SPR’s size since 2005  Accordingly, we recommended that the Secretary of Energy undertake a comprehensive reexamination of the appropriate size of the SPR  In response to our recommendation, the 2014 DOE Inspector General recommendation mentioned previously, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, DOE published its 2016 review  As previously mentioned and reported, crude oil and petroleum markets are constantly changing, but DOE conducted its full evaluations of the SPR more than a decade apart  According to DOE officials, there is no formal policy to periodically reevaluate the SPR  We previously found that federal programs should be reexamined if there have been significant changes in the country or the world that relate to the reason for initiating the program  In that report, we found that many federal programs and policies were designed decades ago to respond to trends and challenges that existed at the time of their creation  Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs includes guidelines that apply to any analysis used to support government decisions to initiate, renew, or expand programs or projects that would result in a series of measurable benefits or costs extending for 3 or more years into the future  Given changing market conditions and future projections, without conducting additional analysis to supplement its 2016 review and thereafter periodically reexamining the SPR to take into account changes in market conditions and include a thorough consideration of the costs and benefits of a wide range of SPR sizes, DOE cannot provide information to Congress to inform decisions about the appropriate size of the SPR and risks holding too much or too little in the SPR to meet the United States’ evolving energy security needs and IEA obligations  DOE has also not fully identified whether additional regional petroleum product reserves should be part of the SPR  Because the SPR stores oil nearly exclusively along the Gulf Coast, the SPR is configured primarily to respond to global oil supply disruptions  However, as we reported in November 2017, the SPR has primarily been used in response to domestic disruptions  The SPR is limited in its ability to respond to domestic disruptions because reserves are almost entirely composed of crude oil and not refined petroleum products, which may not be effective in responding to disruptions that affect the refining sector  For example, as we reported in November 2017, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria damaged infrastructure and property, caused the loss of life, and disrupted the operations of refineries representing at least 15 percent of the nation’s refining capacity  DOE has identified regions subject to product supply vulnerabilities as shown in Figure 3  The Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015 recommended that the agency analyze the need for additional or expanded regional product reserves by undertaking updated cost-benefit analyses for all of the regions of the United States that have been identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions  In response to this recommendation, DOE studied the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves in the West Coast and Southeast Coast  According to DOE officials, weather events in the Southeast Coast are of higher probability but lower consequence, and events in the West Coast are of lower probability but higher consequence  DOE did not finalize its 2015 studies on regional petroleum product reserves and make them publicly available  However, the draft 2015 studies concluded that a product reserve in the Southeast would provide significant net economic benefits to the region and the United States, particularly in the event of a major hurricane, while further analyses are needed to determine the potential benefits of a reserve on the West Coast  A prior DOE study also suggests that petroleum product reserves merit consideration—in 2011, DOE carried out a cost-benefit study of the establishment of a refined product reserve in the Southeast and estimated that such a reserve would reduce the average gasoline price rise by 50 percent to 70 percent in the weeks immediately after a hurricane landfall, resulting in consumer cost savings, according to the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015  According to DOE officials, the agency has no plans to conduct additional studies  DOE’s 2016 review of the SPR did not fully assess whether there is a need for additional regional product reserves in other U S  regions identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, as recommended by DOE’s studies and the 2015 Quadrennial Energy Review  Without completing studies on the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves for all the vulnerable U S  regions and publicly releasing the results, DOE cannot ensure that it and Congress have the information they need to make decisions about whether additional regional product reserves are needed  DOE has taken steps to take into account the effects of congressionally mandated oil sales in its plans for modernizing the SPR, though DOE’s current plans are based on information largely developed prior to the most recent congressionally mandated oil sales  According to DOE, the SPR modernization program is focused on a life extension project to modernize aging infrastructure to ensure the SPR will be able to meet its mission requirements for the next several decades  The project’s scope of work has undergone several revisions since its inception in response to changing conditions and requirements, according to the agency  DOE has estimated the total cost for the SPR’s modernization at up to $1 4 billion  DOE raised about $323 million for modernization through the sale of SPR oil in fiscal year 2017, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 provided that DOE is to draw down and sell an amount of crude oil not to exceed $350 million for modernization in fiscal year 2018  As of the end of February 2018, DOE has spent $22 million on modernization efforts and the additional funds will allow DOE to continue moving forward with the project, according to agency officials  According to DOE’s modernization plans, the first major construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2019  However, these plans are largely based on information DOE analyzed before recent congressionally mandated sales of an additional 117 million barrels of oil  Since the most recent mandated sales, DOE has taken steps to update its modernization plans and has changed its assumptions for SPR’s modernization  For example, DOE now assumes that the reserve will hold about 405 million barrels of oil and that one of the four SPR sites may close after congressionally mandated sales are completed at the end of fiscal year 2027, according to agency officials  However, DOE has not fully updated the SPR’s modernization plans based on these assumptions  According to DOE officials, in March 2018, DOE commenced a study—the SPR post-sale configuration study—to examine potential future reserve configurations  This study is to take into account the effects of congressionally mandated sales on the reserve and its modernization, and is targeted for completion in October 2018, according to agency officials  Information from the study will inform DOE’s updates to the SPR’s modernization plans, according to DOE officials  As part of its post-sale configuration study, DOE plans to examine how the agency may handle the potentially excess SPR facilities created by the mandated sales  In January 2017, the SPR had a design capacity to hold 713 5 million barrels of oil and actually held 695 million barrels  As shown in figure 4, without action by DOE to reduce the SPR’s design capacity or otherwise use SPR facilities, congressionally mandated sales will cause excess storage capacity to grow to 308 million barrels or more by the end of fiscal year 2027—meaning that about 43 percent of the SPR’s total design capacity to store oil would be unused  DOE plans to explore some options to use these potentially excess SPR assets in its ongoing post-sale configuration study  In withdrawing oil to meet congressionally mandated oil sales currently in place (290 million barrels through fiscal year 2027), DOE could close at least one SPR site based on our analysis of projected excess storage capacity  For example, if DOE were to close the smallest SPR site, Bayou Choctaw, the agency could also explore selling the connected pipeline and marine terminal, which are currently being leased to a private company  DOE could also consider leasing excess storage capacity to other countries so that they could store oil at the SPR  DOE has not entered into any such leases with other countries and has not considered such leases because, according to DOE, the SPR has historically lacked capacity to store additional oil  DOE has not proposed any of these options or explored the revenue the agency could generate by selling or leasing these assets  According to DOE officials, the agency will examine the feasibility of such options in the ongoing SPR post-sale configuration study  As DOE takes steps to plan for the SPR’s modernization, ongoing uncertainty regarding the SPR’s long-term size and configuration have complicated DOE’s efforts  According to DOE officials, this uncertainty makes it extremely difficult to effectively perform any mid-to long-range planning efforts for the SPR’s modernization project, including the execution of major maintenance projects  Congress has generally set the SPR’s size by mandating purchases or sales of oil, and has established and amended the minimum size of the SPR as it pertains to the release of oil for emergency protection  Since 2015, Congress has, across six pieces of legislation, mandated 290 million barrels in additional oil sales  However, DOE developed its modernization plans in 2016  DOE officials told us they do not know whether additional sales will be mandated over the next 10 years or whether other changes may be required to the configuration of the reserve  Any additional congressionally mandated sales or direction to pursue additional petroleum product reserves would require DOE to again revisit its modernization plans and assessments of the potential uses of any excess SPR assets  Oil market projections also have implications for the future of the SPR  Under current projections, the United States may fluctuate between being a net importer and net exporter over the next several decades  Specifically, the United States is projected to become a net exporter by the late 2020s and would then no longer have a 90-day reserve obligation, but it is projected to return to being a net importer between 2040 and 2050  These projected fluctuations could affect the desired size of the SPR in the future  This uncertainty creates risks for DOE’s modernization plans, as DOE may end up spending funds on facilities that later turn out to be unnecessary should Congress ultimately decide on a larger- or smaller-sized SPR than DOE anticipates  Having a long-term target for the size and configuration of reserves helps other IEA member countries manage their reserves  For example, as previously discussed, unlike the United States, some other IEA members have specified in dynamic terms the amount of reserves to be held, such as days of net import protection or days of consumption, rather than specifying a specific static volume amount  Under such approaches, the amount held varies over time as entities managing the reserve acquire or sell reserves in order to meet the target  Setting a long-term target for the size and configuration of the SPR—taking into account projections for oil production, consumption, and IEA obligations—could better position DOE to ensure that funds spent on the SPR’s modernization do not modernize a system that is no longer needed and that DOE is able to adequately plan for potentially excess SPR assets  In the course of our work, we also identified other options for handling potentially excess SPR assets that DOE is not planning on examining, largely because DOE does not currently have the authority to pursue them, according to agency officials  First, DOE could explore leasing storage capacity to private industry  U S  oil production has generally increased over the last decade  As a result, the private sector may want to lease excess SPR capacity, which may be cheaper than above-ground storage, according to a representative of a private company we spoke with  Fees for doing so could help defray public reserve storage costs  However, officials told us that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act gives DOE authority to lease underutilized storage to other countries, but not to the private sector  Second, if Congress determines that the SPR holds oil in excess of that needed domestically, DOE could explore selling contracts or tickets for the excess oil rather than selling the oil outright  Australian and New Zealand officials told us that if DOE were to sell tickets for SPR oil, tickets would help these countries meet their IEA 90- day reserve obligations  Australian officials told us they have discussed this option with DOE  Currently the United States and Australia have agreed, through an arrangement, to allow Australia to contract for petroleum stocks located in the United States and controlled by commercial entities  According to DOE officials, the arrangement would permit Australia to receive credit from the IEA for tickets it purchases from the U S  private sector  While the arrangement does not cover government-owned oil in the SPR, if it did, based on our analysis, DOE could generate up to approximately $15 million annually if Australia purchased the maximum allowable amount of oil specified in an arrangement through tickets for excess SPR oil  However, although the Energy Policy and Conservation Act allows DOE to lease underutilized storage to other countries, DOE lacks the authority to sell tickets and does not plan to seek this authority, according to DOE officials  DOE officials told us that they do not plan to examine these options  According to DOE’s real property asset management order, the agency is to identify real property assets that are no longer needed to meet the program’s mission needs and that may be candidates for reuse or disposal  Once identified, the agency is to undertake certain actions, including determining whether to dispose of these assets by sale or lease  As part of its SPR post-sale configuration study, DOE plans to determine whether it is appropriate to close SPR facilities, and the relative benefit of any closures would be informed by potential lease revenues from maintaining sites so they could be leased, according to officials  However, without examining a full range of options in the post-sale configuration study, DOE risks missing beneficial ways to modernize the SPR while saving taxpayer resources  Given changing crude oil and petroleum product market conditions and the constrained budget environment, it is important that DOE ensures the SPR is effective at meeting U S  energy security needs and IEA obligations while being managed and maintained in an efficient manner  In response to congressional direction and recommendations from GAO and DOE Inspector General, DOE conducted a long-term strategic review of the SPR in 2016 after its last comprehensive examination in 2005  In its review, DOE did not determine an optimal size for the SPR, and its analysis was limited in several ways  In particular, DOE did not fully consider recent and expected future changes in crude oil and petroleum market conditions such as the implications of projected fluctuations in U S  net imports or the role that increased levels of private reserves could play in responding to supply disruptions  DOE also did not perform a full cost-benefit analysis of holding different volumes of reserves  Without supplementing its 2016 strategic review by conducting additional analysis, and periodically conducting such analyses going forward, DOE cannot provide information to Congress to inform decisions about the appropriate amounts of crude oil and petroleum products to hold in the SPR and risks holding too much or too little in the SPR to meet the United States’ energy security needs and international obligations  Such information is needed on a timely basis, to reflect the pace of change in oil and petroleum markets and other relevant factors that affect the optimal size of the SPR  Though the SPR has primarily been used in response to domestic supply disruptions, such as hurricanes, the reserve is limited in this role because it is almost entirely composed of crude oil, and not petroleum products  In this regard, the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015 recommended that DOE analyze the need for additional regional product reserves for U S  regions that have been identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions  DOE has not identified whether additional regional product reserves should be part of the SPR or completed studies of all vulnerable U S  regions, and it has no plans to do so, according to DOE officials  Without conducting or completing studies for all the vulnerable U S  regions and releasing the results, DOE cannot ensure it and Congress have the information they need to make decisions about potential additional regional product reserves  In the face of declining net U S  imports, Congress has taken repeated steps to reduce the size of the reserve  Given that net imports are projected to continue to decline through the late 2020s and fluctuate in the future, there may be additional congressionally mandated SPR oil sales  This has created long-term uncertainty regarding the future size and configuration of the SPR  Congress could address this uncertainty by identifying a long-term target for the size of the SPR—either by volume or in terms tied to factors, such as consumption or net import protection, that affect the country’s energy security needs and IEA obligations  Setting such a long-term target could better position DOE to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of federal funds spent on the reserve  DOE has recently begun to study the potential effects of congressionally mandated sales on its modernization plans  As part of its SPR post-sale configuration study, DOE plans to determine whether it is appropriate to close SPR facilities, and the relative benefit of any closures would be informed by potential lease revenues from maintaining sites so they could be leased, according to officials  However, we identified other options for handling potentially excess SPR assets that DOE is not planning to examine in its study, inconsistent with the agency’s order on real property asset management  Although DOE does not currently have the authority to implement these options, according to officials, examining their potential use, including possible revenue enhancement, could inform Congress as it examines whether it should grant such authority  Without examining a full range of options in the post-sale configuration study for handling potentially excess SPR assets, DOE risks missing beneficial ways to modernize the SPR while saving taxpayer resources  We are making the following matter for congressional consideration: Congress may wish to consider setting a long-range target for the size and configuration of the SPR that takes into account projections for future oil production, oil consumption, the efficacy of the existing SPR to respond to domestic supply disruptions, and U S  IEA obligations  (Matter 1) We are making four recommendations to DOE: The Secretary of Energy should supplement the agency’s 2016 long-term strategic review by conducting an additional analysis that takes into account private-sector response, oil market projections, and costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Energy should take actions to ensure that the agency periodically conducts and provides to Congress a strategic review of the SPR that, among other things, takes into account changes in crude oil and petroleum product market conditions and contains additional analysis, such as the costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Energy should conduct or complete studies on the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves for all U S  regions that have been identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, and the Secretary should report the results to Congress  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Energy, in completing DOE’s ongoing study on the effects of congressionally mandated sales, should consider a full range of options for handling potentially excess assets and, if needed, request congressional authority for the disposition of these assets  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment  DOE provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix I  Of the four recommendations, DOE agreed with two, partially agreed with one, and disagreed with one  Regarding our recommendation that DOE supplement its 2016 long- term strategic review with an additional analysis that takes into account private sector response, oil market projections, and costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes, the agency partially agreed with the recommendation  DOE agreed to conduct an additional analysis to assess the purpose, goals, and objectives of the SPR, taking into account private sector response, oil market projections, and any other relevant factors, that will lead to an evaluation of possible optimal sizes of the SPR in the future  In response to taking into account the costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes, DOE stated that the agency determined the projected benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes ranging from 430 million barrels of oil to 695 million barrels of oil in its 2016 review  However, the minimum SPR size considered by DOE is greater than the projected SPR size after congressionally mandated sales have occurred  Further, the SPR size after congressionally mandated sales is projected to be far in excess of the IEA obligation to hold a minimum of 90 days of net imports  DOE must also consider the minimum size needed to meet its IEA obligations in the event of a collective action  In conducting additional analysis, DOE should consider a smaller lower bound, in line with congressionally mandated sales, for the size of the SPR, and more fully consider the size needed to meet the IEA 90-day net import and collective action obligations  Regarding our recommendation that DOE conduct periodic reviews of the SPR, the agency agreed with the recommendation  DOE stated that a 5-year time interval between reviews would strike an appropriate balance between the need to periodically conduct a strategic assessment and evaluation of the SPR and the limitations on resources to plan and conduct such a review  Regarding our recommendation that DOE conduct or complete studies on the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves, the agency disagreed  DOE stated that it is the agency's position that government owned and operated regional petroleum product reserves are an inefficient and expensive solution to respond to regional fuel supply disruptions  DOE further stated, based on studies done in 2015 that DOE officials told us were pre-decisional and therefore could not be reported, that there are additional concerns associated with government-owned and operated regional refined petroleum product reserves, including little to no storage capacity for lease in commercial terminals and high costs for government owned and operated regional product reserves  However, these same studies took these concerns into account, and concluded that a product reserve in the Southeast would provide significant net economic benefits (benefits minus costs) to the region and the United States in the event of a major hurricane  These studies also concluded that additional analyses are required to inform decisions regarding the potential benefits of a similar reserve on the West Coast  Further, the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015 recommended that similar analyses be completed for other areas deemed by DOE to be vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions  Therefore, we continue to believe that conducting these analyses, as recommended in the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015, will provide Congress with information needed to make decisions about regional product reserves  Regarding our recommendation that DOE consider a full range of options for handling potentially excess assets, DOE agreed with the recommendation  DOE stated that in its ongoing study, the agency will include an assessment of disposition options for any potential excess or underutilized SPR assets, to include the need for new legislative authority, as necessary, for the disposition of assets  DOE expects this study to be completed in October 2018  DOE also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Energy, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II  In addition to the individual named above, Quindi Franco (Assistant Director), Nkenge Gibson (Analyst-in-Charge), Philip Farah, Ellen Fried, Cindy Gilbert, Greg Marchand, Celia Mendive, Patricia Moye, Camille Pease, Oliver Richard, Dan Royer, Rachel Stoiko, and Marie Suding made key contributions to this report 
Report 2:  This longer time frame is required because the estimated contribution rate increases as the projection horizon increases and eventually converges to a steady state  If the projection period is of insufficient length, the steady-state level of contribution is not attained, and the necessary contribution rate is understated  We simulated variables used to estimate the pension contribution rate using the approach summarized in table 3  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Future growth in the number of state and local government retirees— many of whom will be entitled to pension and health care benefits—is largely driven by the size of the workforce in earlier years  We simulated the number of state and local government retirees by assuming that the growth rate in the number of retirees is a weighted average of the growth rates in lagged general government and government enterprise employment  We estimated the weights using a regression of the percent change in the number of retirees on the percent change in employment 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36, and 41 years in the past  The coefficients on the past percentage changes in employment were constrained to be non- negative and to sum to 1  For this regression, we removed cyclical swings in employment using the Hodrick-Prescott filter  Similarly, future changes in the real amount of pension benefits will be a function of past changes in real wages and salaries  As indicated in table 3, we used a weighted average of past values of the state and local government employment cost index to simulate the employment cost index for state and local government retirees  We chose the weights to reflect changes in the share and average real benefit level of three subsets of the retiree population over time: (1) new retirees entering the beneficiary pool, (2) deceased retirees leaving the pool, and (3) continuing retirees from the previous year  We simulated the weight for new retirees in a year as the number of retirees less the number of continuing retirees divided by the number of retirees  We simulated the weight for deceased retirees as the mortality rate multiplied by last year’s retirees divided by this year’s retirees  We simulated the weight for continuing retirees as last year’s retirees divided by this year’s retirees  Finally, we simulated the employment cost index for state and local government retirees as the sum of the weight on new retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index and the weight on continuing retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index 8 years prior, less the weight on deceased retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index 21 years prior  As discussed above, we started with historical data for 2017, or the most recent year available, simulated all of the variables in table 3 over the long run, and then used the consumer price index (CPI) and the real return on pension assets to calculate the total present value of wages and salaries for state and local government general government and government enterprise employees, the total present value of real pension benefits paid to state and local government retirees, and the total present value of state and local government employees’ pension contributions  Then, we calculated the total present value of state and local governments’ pension liabilities as the total present value of real pension benefits paid to state and local government retirees less the total present value of state and local government employees’ pension contributions, and the value of assets in state and local government defined benefit pension funds in 2017  Finally, we estimated state and local governments’ pension contribution rate as the ratio of the total present value of their pension liabilities to the total present value of wages and salaries for state and local government employees  Table 4 summarizes the approach we used to simulate interest rates on state and local government financial assets and liabilities  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Table 5 summarizes our approach to simulating state and local government receipts  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  These variables track state and local government receipts in table 1 above as follows: State and local government personal income tax revenue is the sum of state personal income tax revenue and local personal income tax revenue; State and local government personal tax revenue is the sum of personal income tax revenue and other personal tax revenue; State and local government revenue from taxes on production and imports is the sum of general sales tax revenue, excise tax revenue, property tax revenue, and revenue from other taxes on production and imports; State and local government current tax revenue is the sum of personal tax revenue, revenue from taxes on production and imports, and corporate income tax revenue; State and local government current transfer receipts are equal to federal Medicaid grants minus Medicare Part D payments to the federal government, plus other federal grants (excluding investment grants), transfer receipts from businesses, and transfer receipts from persons; State and local government current receipts are the sum of current tax revenue, current transfer receipts, income on assets, social insurance contributions, and government enterprise surplus; State and local government capital transfer receipts are the sum of federal investment grants and estate and gift tax revenue; and State and local government total receipts are the sum of current receipts and capital transfer receipts  Our general approach to simulating state and local government expenditures is to assume that state and local governments maintain the current level of public goods and services provision per capita (see table 6)  Thus, we generally assume that expenditures keep up with U S  population growth and some measure of inflation, where the relevant rate of inflation varies depending on the specific type of expenditure  However, we use alternative approaches—described below—to simulate depreciation, interest payments, and social benefits for health care  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  These variables correspond to state and local government expenditures in table 1 as follows: Employee compensation is the sum of wages and salaries, pension contributions, health benefits for current employees, health benefits for retirees, and other compensation, for state and local government general government employees  Consumption expenditures are the sum of employee compensation, general government fixed capital consumption, and other general government consumption expenditures  Social benefit payments are the sum of Medicaid benefits, non- Medicaid health benefits, and non-health social benefits  Current expenditures are the sum of consumption expenditures, social benefit payments, interest payments, and subsidy payments  Total expenditures are the sum of current expenditures, gross investment, capital transfer payments, and purchases of nonproduced assets, minus general government and government enterprise fixed capital consumption  Table 7 summarizes our approach for simulating state and local government financial assets and liabilities  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Our method for simulating the sectors’ short-term debt outstanding leverages the fact that for any entity, there is a direct relationship between budget outcomes and changes in financial position  Specifically, if expenditures exceed receipts, the gap needs to be financed by some combination of changes in financial assets and changes in financial liabilities  If governments spend more than they take in, they must pay for it by issuing debt, cashing in assets, or some combination of the two  Conversely, if receipts exceed expenditures and the sector is a net lender, its net financial investment (the net change in financial assets minus the net change in financial liabilities) must equal the budget surplus  The relationship between budget outcomes and the sector’s financial position is shown in the following accounting identity: total receipts – total expenditures = change in financial assets – change in financial liabilities  The sector’s financial liabilities include short-, medium-, and long-term debt; trade payables; and loans from the federal government, so the accounting identity can be rewritten as follows: total receipts – total expenditures = change in financial assets – change in medium- and long-term debt – change in trade payables – change in federal government loans – change in short term debt  For a given difference between total receipts and total expenditures, various combinations of changes in financial assets and changes in financial liabilities can satisfy this identity  However, we assumed that financial assets grow at the same rate as U S  GDP, that medium- and long-term debt outstanding is determined using the historical relationship described in table 7, that federal government loans to state and local governments are determined using the historical relationship described in table 7, and that trade payables grow at the same rate as other state and local government consumption spending  If the first four terms on the right hand side of the identity are already determined, then only the fifth term— the change in short-term debt—is free to satisfy this identity  As discussed above, our indicators of fiscal balance are operating balance, net saving, and net lending or borrowing  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Recall that we defined operating balance as follows: operating balance = total receipts – (gross investment + capital transfer payments + net purchases of nonproduced assets – medium- and long-term debt issuance) – (current expenditures – consumption of general government fixed assets) – current surplus of state and local government enterprises – net social insurance fund balance  By substituting for total receipts and current expenditures using the relationships described above and rearranging terms, we can also calculate operating balance using a formula that more easily identifies its revenue components—the items in the first set of parentheses—and expenditure components—the items in the second set of parentheses: operating balance = (current tax revenues + estate and gift tax revenues + social insurance fund contributions + income receipts from assets + current transfers + federal investment grants + medium- and long-term debt issuance) – (compensation of general government employees + social benefit payments + interest payments + gross investment + capital transfer payments + net purchases of nonproduced assets + other general government consumption expenditures + subsidy payments + net social insurance fund balance)  Some of our simulations are based on estimated historical relationships between pairs of variables: Elasticity of real personal consumption expenditures less food and services with respect to real wages and salaries; Elasticity of the real U S  market value of real estate with respect to Relationship between effective interest rates on financial assets and Relationship between state and local government bond yields and 10- year Treasury rates; Relationship between effective interest rates on long-term state and local government debt and federal government loans and state and local government bond yields; Elasticity of real state personal income tax revenue with respect to Elasticity of real state and local government excise tax revenue with respect to real wages and salaries; Relationship between long-term debt issuance as a fraction of gross investment and nonproduced asset purchases in excess of federal investment grants and the change in state and local government bond yields; and Relationship between real federal government lending to state and local governments and real U S  GDP  To estimate each of these historical relationships, we used the following approach: first, we assessed the order of integration of both variables using unit root tests of the levels and the first differences, where a variable is integrated of order 0 (I(0) or stationary) if we rejected the null hypothesis of a unit root in the levels at standard significance levels, and is integrated of order 1 (I(1) or first-order nonstationary) if we could not reject the null hypothesis of a unit root in the levels but we could do so for the first differences  For relationships between variables that were both stationary, we estimated an autoregressive distributed lag model, where y is the dependent variable, x is the independent variable, and ε is an independent, identically distributed error term  The long-run impact on y of a one unit change in x is given by ∑   We initially chose the number of lags based on the Bayesian Information Criteria and then added additional lags of the dependent variable, if needed, until the residuals were consistent with a white noise process at standard significance levels  For relationships between variables that were both first-order nonstationary, we used the same approach but also used the Pesaran, Shin, and Smith bounds test for the existence of a cointegrating (long-run equilibrium) relationship  We concluded that the variables were cointegrated if we rejected the null hypothesis of no relationship at standard significance levels  Tables 8 and 9 summarize the estimated regression models as well as the results of the unit root, white noise, and cointegration tests  We simulated the model for the 75-year period from 2018 through 2092, and we used the results to calculate the operating balance for the state and local government sector as a percentage of U S  GDP  Our results suggest that if the sector maintains current policy and continues to provide current per capita levels of public goods and services, then its operating balance will decline from about -1 percent of U S  GDP to about -3 percent of U S  GDP over the next 50 years  To shed light on how maintaining the operating balance at or above zero would affect the state and local government sector, we used the model to simulate the level of total expenditures that would keep the operating balance greater than or equal to zero  We then calculated the difference between the present value of total expenditures simulated assuming the sector maintains balance, and the present value of total expenditures simulated assuming the sector maintains current policies, both as a percentage of the present value of total expenditures assuming the sector maintains current policies, and as a percentage of the present value of U S  GDP  We calculated all of the present values for the 50-year period from 2018 through 2067, and we used a discount rate equal to the average of the 3-month Treasury rate and the 10-year Treasury rate for each year  Our results suggest that the difference between the present value of total expenditures that maintain balance and the present value of total expenditures that maintain current policies is about -14 7 percent of the present value of total expenditures that maintain current policies, or about -2 4 percent of the present value of U S  GDP  That is, our simulations suggest that maintaining balance would require the sector to spend about 14 7 percent less than it would spend each year to maintain current policies  We note that a similar exercise based on simulating total revenues required to maintain the operating balance at or above zero would generate a similar result  Our approach has a number of limitations and the results should be interpreted with caution: The state and local government fiscal model is not designed for certain types of analyses  The simulations are not intended to provide precise predictions  Even though we know that these governments regularly make changes to tax laws and expenditures, the model essentially holds current policy in place and analyzes the fiscal future for the sector as if those policies were maintained because it would be highly speculative to make any assumptions about future policy adjustments  Fiscal outcomes, as related to the state and local government sector’s financial position and solvency, may not reflect all aspects of the sector’s fiscal health  Other indicators include economic indicators that go beyond the sector’s financial position to include economic growth, income, or distributional equity, as well as indicators of the quality of services provided by the sector, including education, health care, infrastructure, and other public goods and services  Our unit of analysis is the state and local government sector as a whole, so our results provide an assessment of the sector’s fiscal outlook  However, individual state and local governments likely exhibit significant heterogeneity in their expenditure and revenue patterns, so their fiscal outlooks will likely differ from that for the sector  Nevertheless, it is informative to assess the overall fiscal outlook of the sector because doing so reveals the outlook for the average state or local government  In addition, aggregate data on the sector are available on a more timely basis than data for individual state and local governments  This allows for a better assessment of the sector’s current fiscal outlook  Our results for the sector also provide a baseline from which to view the experiences of individual state and local governments  Finally, assessing the fiscal outlook of the sector as a whole can help mitigate the tendency to extrapolate from the most visible, but potentially not representative, experiences of individual states or localities  Our baseline approach to simulating the fiscal outlook for the state and local government sector is described in appendix I  As part of our simulation approach, we used five variables with values for the simulation period—the period from 2018 through 2092—that are projected outside the model and that do not rely on maintaining historical relationships: U S  population, real U S  gross domestic product (GDP) growth, national health care excess cost growth, Medicaid excess cost growth, and the real rate of return on pension assets  U S  population  For our baseline simulations, we used the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds’ (OASDI Trustees) intermediate population projections  Real U S  GDP  For our baseline simulations, we projected real U S  GDP to grow at the same rate as Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections for the period from 2018 through 2028 and to grow at the same rate as the OASDI Trustees’ intermediate projections of real U S  GDP growth for the period from 2029 through 2092  National health expenditures excess cost growth  For our baseline simulations, we used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) baseline projection of national health expenditures excess cost growth  Medicaid excess cost growth  For our baseline simulations, for the period from 2029 through 2092, we used Medicaid excess cost growth derived from CMS’s baseline projections  Real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  For our baseline simulations, we assumed a 5 percent real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  To assess the sensitivity of our results to changes in these baseline projections, we selected two alternative projections of each of these variables, one associated with a faster growth rate or rate of return and one associated with a slower growth rate or rate of return  U S  population  For our alternative simulations, we used the OASDI Trustees’ high cost and low cost population projections  Real U S  GDP  For our alternative simulations, we used the OASDI Trustees’ high cost and low cost projections of real U S  GDP growth  National health expenditures excess cost growth  For our alternative simulations, we used CMS’s alternative projection of national health expenditures excess cost growth  As another alternative, we simulated the model assuming excess cost growth for national health expenditures is zero  Medicaid excess cost growth  For our alternative simulations, for the period from 2029 through 2092, we used Medicaid excess cost growth derived from CMS’s alternative projections for the period from 2029 through 2092  As another alternative, we simulated the model assuming Medicaid excess cost growth is zero for the period from 2029 through 2092  Real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  For our sensitivity analysis, we used real rates of return of 2 5 percent and 7 5 percent  Table 10 shows the average annual growth rate or rate of return associated with the baseline and alternative projections of each variable for the simulation period  For our simulations based on alternative assumptions about U S  population growth and real U S  GDP growth, as well as simulations based on alternative assumptions about real pension asset returns, we simulated the model changing one variable at a time and leaving the others fixed at their baseline values  For example, for one simulation we used the slower assumption for real U S  GDP growth and the baseline assumptions for all other variables  For our simulations based on alternative assumptions about excess cost growth for national health expenditures and for Medicaid, we changed both variables in the same direction and left the others fixed at their baseline values  For example, for one simulation we used zero excess cost growth for both national health expenditures and for Medicaid, and made the baseline assumption for the other variables  Thus, our sensitivity analysis is in the spirit of a partial equilibrium comparative statics analysis that sheds light on how each of the individual variables may affect the state and local government sector’s fiscal outlook  However, these variables are likely to be correlated so future changes in one would likely be associated with changes in others  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2016 Update, GAO-17-213SP  Washington, D C : Dec  8, 2016  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2015 Update, GAO-16-260SP  Washington, D C : Dec  16, 2015  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2014 Update, GAO-15-224SP  Washington, D C : Dec  17, 2014  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2013 Update, GAO-13-546SP  Washington, D C : Apr  29, 2013  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2012 Update, GAO-12-523SP  Washington, D C : Apr  5, 2012  State and Local Government Pension Plans: Economic Downturn Spurs Efforts to Address Costs and Sustainability, GAO-12-322  Washington, D C : Mar  2, 2012  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2011 Update, GAO-11-495SP  Washington, D C : Apr  6, 2011  State and Local Governments: Knowledge of Past Recessions Can Inform Future Federal Fiscal Assistance, GAO-11-401  Washington, D C : Mar  31, 2011  State and Local Governments: Fiscal Pressures Could Have Implications for Future Delivery of Intergovernmental Programs, GAO-10-899  Washington, D C : July 30, 2010  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: March 2010 Update, GAO-10-358  Washington, D C : Mar  2, 2010  Update of State and Local Government Fiscal Pressures, GAO-09-320R  Washington, D C : Jan  26, 2009  State and Local Fiscal Challenges: Rising Health Care Costs Drive Long- term and Immediate Pressures, GAO-09-210T  Washington, D C : Nov  19, 2008  State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will Emerge during the Next 10 Years, GAO-08-317  Washington, D C : Jan  22, 2008  Our Nation’s Long-Term Fiscal Challenge: State and Local Governments Will Likely Face Persistent Fiscal Challenges in the Next Decade, GAO-07-1113CG  Washington, D C : July 18, 2007  State and Local Governments: Persistent Fiscal Challenges Will Likely Emerge within the Next Decade, GAO-07-1080SP  Washington, D C : July 18, 2007  In addition to the contacts listed above, Brenda Rabinowitz and Courtney LaFountain (Assistant Directors), David Aja, Brett Caloia, Ann Czapiewski, Joe Silvestri, Stewart Small, Andrew J  Stephens, Frank Todisco, Walter Vance, and Chris Woika made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The "child nutrition programs" refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in school or institutional settings. The best known programs, which serve the largest number of children, are the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). The child nutrition programs also include the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals and snacks in day care and after school settings; the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), which provides food during the summer months; the Special Milk Program (SMP), which supports milk for schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP; and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), which funds fruit and vegetable snacks in select elementary schools. Funding: The vast majority of the child nutrition programs account is considered mandatory spending, with trace amounts of discretionary funding for certain related activities. Referred to as open-ended, "appropriated entitlements," funding is provided through the annual appropriations process; however, the level of spending is controlled by benefit and eligibility criteria in federal law and dependent on the resulting levels of participation. Federal cash funding (in the form of per-meal reimbursements) and USDA commodity food support is guaranteed to schools and other providers based on the number of meals or snacks served and participant category (e.g., free meals for poor children get higher subsidies). Participation: The child nutrition programs serve children of varying ages and in different institutional settings. The NSLP and SBP have the broadest reach, serving qualifying children of all ages in school settings. Other child nutrition programs serve more-narrow populations. CACFP, for example, provides meals and snacks to children in early childhood and after-school settings among other venues. Programs generally provide some subsidy for all food served but a larger federal reimbursement for food served to children from low-income households. Administration: Responsibility for child nutrition programs is divided between the federal government, states, and localities. The state agency and type of local provider differs by program. In the NSLP and SBP, schools and school districts ("school food authorities") administer the program. Meanwhile, SFSP (and sometimes CACFP) uses a model in which sponsor organizations handle administrative responsibilities for a number of sites that serve meals. Reauthorization: The underlying laws covering the child nutrition programs were last reauthorized in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296, enacted December 13, 2010). This law made significant changes to child nutrition programs, including increasing federal financing for school lunches, expanding access to community eligibility and direct certification options for schools, and expanding eligibility options for home child care providers. The law also required an update to school meal nutrition guidelines as well as new guidelines for food served outside the meal programs (e.g., snacks sold in vending machines and cafeteria a la carte lines). Current Issues: The 114th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization, and there was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115th Congress. However, the vast majority of operations and activities continue with funding provided by appropriations laws. Current issues in the child nutrition programs are discussed in CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: The federal child nutrition programs provide assistance to schools and other institutions in the form of cash, commodity food, and administrative support (such as technical assistance and administrative funding) based on the provision of meals and snacks to children  In general, these programs were created (and amended over time) to both improve children's nutrition and provide support to the agriculture economy  Today, the child nutrition programs refer primarily to the following meal, snack, and milk reimbursement programs (these and other acronyms are listed in Appendix A ): National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U S C  1751 et seq )); School Breakfast Program (SBP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 4 (42 U S C  1773)); Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 17 (42 U S C  1766)); Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 13 (42 U S C  1761)); and Special Milk Program (SMP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 3 (42 U S C  1772))  The programs provide financial support and/or foods to the institutions that prepare meals and snacks served outside of the home (unlike other food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) where benefits are used to purchase food for home consumption)  Though exact eligibility rules and pricing vary by program, in general the amount of federal reimbursement is greater for meals served to qualifying low-income individuals or at qualifying institutions, although most programs provide some subsidy for all food served  Participating children receive subsidized meals and snacks, which may be free or at reduced price  Forthcoming sections discuss how program-specific eligibility rules and funding operate  This report describes how each program operates under current law, focusing on eligibility rules, participation, and funding  This introductory section describes some of the background and principles that generally apply to all of the programs; subsequent sections go into further detail on the workings of each  Unless stated otherwise, participation and funding data come from USDA-FNS's "Keydata Reports " The child nutrition programs are most often dated back to the 1946 enactment of the National School Lunch Act, which created the National School Lunch Program, albeit in a different form than it operates today  Most of the child nutrition programs do not date back to 1946; they were added and amended in the decades to follow as policymakers expanded child nutrition programs' institutional settings and meals provided: The Special Milk Program was created in 1954, regularly extended, and made permanent in 1970  The School Breakfast Program was piloted in 1966, regularly extended, and eventually made permanent in 1975  A program for child care settings and summer programs was piloted in 1968, with separate programs authorized in 1975 and then made permanent in 1978  These are now the Child and Adult Care Food Program and Summer Food Service Program  The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program began as a pilot in 2002, was made permanent in 2004, and was expanded nationwide in 2008  The programs are now authorized under three major federal statutes: the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act (originally enacted as the National School Lunch Act in 1946), the Child Nutrition Act (originally enacted in 1966), and Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (7 U S C  612c)  Congressional jurisdiction over the underlying three laws has typically been exercised by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee; the House Education and the Workforce Committee; and, to a limited extent (relating to commodity food assistance and Section 32 issues), the House Agriculture Committee  Congress periodically reviews and reauthorizes expiring authorities under these laws  The child nutrition programs were most recently reauthorized in 2010 through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P L  111-296 ); some of the authorities created or extended in that law expired on September 30, 2015  WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) is also typically reauthorized with the child nutrition programs  WIC is not one of the child nutrition programs and is not discussed in this report  The 114 th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization (see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview )  There was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115 th Congress  The U S  Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) administers the programs at the federal level  The programs are operated by a wide variety of local public and private providers and the degree of direct state involvement differs by program and state  At the state level, education, health, social services, and agriculture departments all have roles; at a minimum, they are responsible for approving and overseeing local providers such as schools, summer program sponsors, and child care centers and day care homes, as well as making sure they receive the federal support they are due  At the local level, program benefits are provided to millions of children (e g , there were 30 0 million in the National School Lunch Program, the largest of the programs, in FY2017), through some 100,000 public and private schools and residential child care institutions, nearly 170,000 child care centers and family day care homes, and just over 50,000 summer program sites  All programs are available in the 50 states and the District of Columbia  Virtually all operate in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands (and, in differing versions, in the Northern Marianas and American Samoa)  This section summarizes the nature and extent to which the programs' funding is mandatory and discretionary, including a discussion of appropriated entitlement status  Table 3 lists child nutrition program and related expenditures  Most spending for child nutrition programs is provided in annual appropriations acts to fulfill the legal financial obligation established by the authorizing laws  That is, the level of spending for such programs, referred to as appropriated mandatory spending, is not controlled through the annual appropriations process, but instead is derived from the benefit and eligibility criteria specified in the authorizing laws  The appropriated mandatory funding is treated as mandatory spending  Further, if Congress does not appropriate the funds necessary to fund the program, eligible entities may have legal recourse  Congress typically considers the Administration's forecast for program needs in its appropriations decisions  For the majority of funding discussed in this report, the formula that controls the funding is not capped and fluctuates based on the reimbursement rates and the number of meals/snacks served in the programs  In the meal service programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, summer programs, and assistance for child care centers and day care homes, federal aid is provided in the form of statutorily set subsidies (reimbursements) paid for each meal/snack served that meets federal nutrition guidelines  Although all (including full-price) meals/snacks served by participating providers are subsidized, those served free or at a reduced price to lower-income children are supported at higher rates  All federal meal/snack subsidy rates are indexed annually (each July) for inflation, as are the income eligibility thresholds for free and reduced-price meals/snacks  Subsequent sections discuss how a specific program's eligibility and reimbursements work  Most subsidies are cash payments to schools or other providers, but a smaller portion of aid is provided in the form of USDA-purchased commodity foods   Laws for three child nutrition programs (NSLP, CACFP, and SFSP) require the provision of commodity foods (or in some cases allow cash in lieu of commodity foods)  Meal and snack service entails nonfood costs  Federal child nutrition per-meal/snack subsidies may be used to cover local providers' administrative and operating costs  However, the separate direct federal payments for administrative/operating costs ("State Administrative Expenses," discussed in the " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities " section) are limited  In addition to the open-ended, appropriated entitlement funds summarized above, the child nutrition programs' funding also includes certain other mandatory funding and a limited amount of discretionary funding  Some of the activities discussed in " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities ," such as Team Nutrition, are provided for with discretionary funding  Aside from the annually appropriated funding, the child nutrition programs are also supported by certain permanent appropriations and transfers  Notably, funding for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program is funded by a transfer from USDA's Section 32 program, a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts  Federal subsidies do not necessarily cover the full cost of the meals and snacks offered by providers  States and localities help cover program costs, as do children's families by paying charges for nonfree or reduced-price meals/snacks  There is a nonfederal cost-sharing requirement for the school meals programs (discussed below), and some states supplement school funding through additional state per-meal reimbursements or other prescribed financing arrangements  Subsequent sections of this report delve into the details of how each of the child nutrition programs support the service of meals and snacks in institutional settings; first, it is useful to take a broader perspective of primary program elements  Table 1 is a top-level look at the different programs that displays distinguishing characteristics (what meals are provided, in what settings, to what ages) and recent program spending  Other relevant CRS reports in this area include CRS In Focus IF10266, An Introduction to Child Nutrition Reauthorization CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P L  111-296 (summarizes the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010) CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program Other relevant resources include USDA-FNS's website, https://www fns usda gov/school-meals/child-nutrition-programs USDA-FNS's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act page, http://www fns usda gov/school-meals/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act The FNS page of the Federal Register , https://www federalregister gov/agencies/food-and-nutrition-service This section discusses the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP)  Principles and concepts common to both programs are discussed first; subsections then discuss features and data unique to the NSLP and SBP, respectively  The federal school meals programs provide federal support in the form of cash assistance and USDA commodity foods; both are provided according to statutory formulas based on the number of reimbursable meals served in schools  The subsidized meals are served by both public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools and residential child care institutions (RCCIs) that opt to enroll and guarantee to offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible low-income children  Both cash and commodity support to participating schools are calculated based on the number and price of meals served (e g , lunch or breakfast, free or full price), but once the aid is received by the school it is used to support the overall school meal service budget, as determined by the school  This report focuses on the federal reimbursements and funding, but it should be noted that some states have provided state financing through additional state-specific funding  Federal law does not require schools to participate in the school meals programs  However, some states have mandated that schools provide lunch and/or breakfast, and some of these states require that their schools do so through NSLP and/or SBP  The program is open to public and private schools  A reimbursable meal requires compliance with federal school nutrition standards, which have changed throughout the history of the program based on nutritional science and children's nutritional needs  Food items not served as a complete meal meeting nutrition standards (e g , a la carte offerings) are not reimbursable meals, and therefore are not eligible for federal per-meal, per-snack reimbursements  Following rulemaking to implement provisions in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( P L  111-296 ), USDA updated the nutrition standards for reimbursable meals in January 2012 (see " Nutrition Standards " for more information)  Schools serving meals that meet the updated nutrition standards are eligible for an increased reimbursement of 6 cents per lunch  USDA-FNS administers the school meals programs federally, and state agencies (typically state departments of education) oversee and transmit reimbursements through agreements with school food authorities (SFAs) (typically local educational agencies (LEAs); usually these are school districts)  Figure 1 provides an overview of the roles and relationships between these levels of government  There is a cost-sharing requirement for the programs, which amounts to a contribution of approximately $200 million from the states  There also are states that choose to supplement federal reimbursements with their own state reimbursements  The school meals programs and related funding do not serve only low-income children  All students can receive a meal at a NSLP- or SBP-participating school, but how much the child pays for the meal and/or how much of a federal reimbursement the state receives will depend largely on whether the child qualifies for a "free," "reduced-price," or "paid" (i e , advertised price) meal  Both NSLP and SBP use the same household income eligibility criteria and categorical eligibility rules  States and schools receive the largest reimbursements for free meals, smaller reimbursements for reduced-price meals, and the smallest (but still some federal financial support) for the full-price meals  There are three pathways through which a child can become certified to receive a free or reduced-price meal: 1  Household income eligibility for free and reduced-price meals (information typically collected via household application), 2  Categorical (or automatic) eligibility for free meals (information collected via household application or a direct certification process), and 3  School-wide free meals under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) , an option for eligible schools that is based on the share of students identified as eligible for free meals  Each of these pathways is discussed in more detail below  The income eligibility thresholds (shown in Table 2 ) are based on multipliers of the federal poverty guidelines  As the poverty guidelines are updated every year, so are the eligibility thresholds for NSLP and SBP  Free Meals: Children receive free meals if they have household income at or below 130% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive the highest subsidy rate  (Reimbursements are approximately $3 30 per lunch served, less for breakfast ) Reduced-Price Meals: Children may receive reduced-price meals (charges of no more than 40 cents for a lunch or 30 cents for a breakfast) if their household income is above 130% and less than or equal to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive a subsidy rate that is 40 cents (NSLP) or 30 cents (SBP) below the free meal rate  (Reimbursements are approximately $2 90 per lunch served ) Paid Meals: A comparatively small per-meal reimbursement is provided for full-price or paid meals served to children whose families do not apply for assistance or whose family income does not qualify them for free or reduced-price meals  The paid meal price is set by the school but must comply with federal regulations  (Reimbursements are approximately 30 cents per lunch served ) The above reimbursement rates are approximate; exact current-year federal reimbursement rates for NSLP and SBP are listed in Table B -1 and Table B -3 , respectively  Households complete paper or online applications that collect relevant income and household size data, so that the school district can determine if children in the household are eligible for free meals, reduced-price meals, or neither  Though these income guidelines primarily influence funding and administration of NSLP and SBP, they also affect the eligibility rules for the SFSP, CACFP, and SMP (described further in subsequent sections)  In addition to the eligibility thresholds listed above, the school meals programs also convey eligibility for free meals based on household participation in certain other need-tested programs or children's specified vulnerabilities (e g , foster children)  Per Section 12 of the National School Lunch Act, "a child shall be considered automatically eligible for a free lunch and breakfast     without further application or eligibility determination, if the child is" in a household receiving benefits through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program); FDPIR (Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, a program that operates in lieu of SNAP on some Indian reservations) benefits; or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) cash assistance; enrolled in Head Start; in foster care; a migrant; a runaway; or homeless  For meals served to students certified in the above categories, the state/school receive a reimbursement at the free meal amount and children receive a free meal  (See Table B -1 and Table B -3 for school year 2018-2019 rates ) Some school districts collect information for these categorical eligibility rules via paper application  Others conduct a process called direct certification —a proactive process where government agencies typically cross-check their program rolls and certify a household's children for free school meals without the household having to complete a school meals application  Prior to 2004, states had the option to conduct direct certification of SNAP (then, the Food Stamp Program), TANF, and FDPIR participants  In the 2004 child nutrition reauthorization ( P L  108-265 ), states were required under federal law to conduct direct certification for SNAP participants, with nationwide implementation taking effect in school year 2008-2009  Conducting direct certification for TANF and FDPIR remains at the state's discretion  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P L  111-296 ) made further policy changes to expand direct certification (discussed further in the next section)  One of those changes was the initiation of a demonstration project to look at expanding categorical eligibility and direct certification to some Medicaid households  The law also funded performance incentive grants for high-performing states and authorized correcting action planning for low-performing states in direct certification activities  Under SNAP direct certification rules generally, schools enter into agreements with SNAP agencies to certify children in SNAP households as eligible for free school meals without requiring a separate application from the family  Direct certification systems match student enrollment lists against SNAP agency records, eliminating the need for action by the child's parents or guardians  Direct certification allows schools to make use of SNAP's more in-depth eligibility certification process; this can reduce errors that may occur in school lunch application eligibility procedures that are otherwise used  From a program access perspective, direct certification also reduces the number of applications a household must complete  Figure 2 , created by GAO and published in a May 2014 report, provides an overview of how school districts certify students for free and reduced-price meals under the income-based and category-based rules, via applications and direct certification  A USDA-FNS study of school year 2014-2015 estimates that 11 1 million students receiving free meals were directly certified—68% of all categorically eligible students receiving free meals  HHFKA also authorized the school meals Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option in NSLP and SBP law that allows eligible schools and school districts to offer free meals to all enrolled students based on the percentage of their students who are identified as automatically eligible from nonhousehold application sources (primarily direct certification through other programs)  Based on the statutory parameters, USDA-FNS piloted CEP in various states over three school years and it expanded nationwide in school year 2014-2015  Eligible LEAs have until June 30 of each year to notify USDA-FNS if they will participate in CEP  According to a database maintained by the Food Research and Action Center, just over 20,700 schools in more than 3,500 school districts (LEAs) participated in CEP in SY2016-2017, an increase of approximately 2,500 schools compared to SY2015-2016  For a school (or school district, or group of schools within a district) to provide free meals to all children the school(s) must be eligible for CEP based on the share (40% or greater) of enrolled children that can be identified as categorically (or automatically) eligible for free meals, and the school must opt-in to CEP  Though CEP schools serve free meals to all students, they are not reimbursed at the "free meal" rate for every meal  Instead, the law provides a funding formula: the percentage of students identified as automatically eligible (the "identified student percentage" or ISP) is multiplied by a factor of 1 6 to estimate the proportion of students who would be eligible for free or reduced-price meals had they been certified via application  The result is the percentage of meals served that will be reimbursed at the free meal rate, with the remainder reimbursed at the far lower paid meal rate  For example, if a CEP school identifies that 40% of students are eligible for free meals, then 64% of the meals served will be reimbursed at the free meal rate and 36% at the paid meal rate  Schools that identify 62 5% or more students as eligible for free meals receive the free meal reimbursement for all meals served  Some of the considerations that may impact a school's decision to participate in CEP include whether the new funding formula would be beneficial for their school meal budget; an interest in reducing paperwork for families and schools; and an interest in providing more free meals, including meals to students who have not participated in the program before  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P L  111-296 ) set in motion changes to the nutrition standards for school meals, requiring USDA to update the standards within a certain timeframe  The law required that the revised standards be based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (now the Health and Medicine Division) at the National Academy of Sciences  The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance related to implementation  USDA published the final regulations in January 2012  The final rule sought to align school meal patterns with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and, generally consistent with IOM's recommendations, increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat-free milk in school meals  The regulations also included calorie maximums and sodium limits to phase in over time, among other requirements  The nutrition standards largely took effect in SY2012-2013 for lunches and in SY2013-2014 for breakfasts  A few other requirements were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years  Some schools experienced difficulty implementing the new guidelines, and Congress and USDA have made changes to the 2012 final rule's whole grain, sodium, and milk requirements  For SY2019-2020 and onwards, schools are operating under a final rule published December 12, 2018  The HHFKA also gave USDA the authority to regulate other foods in the school nutrition environment  Sometimes called "competitive foods," these include foods and drinks sold in a la carte lines, vending machines, snack bars and concession stands, and fundraisers  Relying on recommendations made by a 2007 IOM report, USDA-FNS promulgated a proposed rule and then an interim final rule in June 2013, which went into effect for SY2014-2015  The interim final rule created nutrition guidelines for all non-meal foods and beverages that are sold during the school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal)  The final rule, published on July 29, 2016, maintained the interim final rules with minor modifications  Under the final standards, these foods must meet whole-grain requirements; have certain primary ingredients; and meet calorie, sodium, and fat limits, among other requirements  Schools are limited to a list of no- and low-calorie beverages they may sell (with larger portion sizes and caffeine allowed in high schools)  There are no limits on fundraisers selling foods that meet the interim final rule's guidelines  Fundraisers outside of the school day are not subject to the guidelines  HHFKA and the interim final rule provide states with discretion to exempt infrequent fundraisers selling foods or beverages that do not meet the nutrition standards  The rule does not limit foods brought from home, only foods sold at school during the school day  The federal standards are minimum standards; states and school districts are permitted to issue more stringent policies  In FY2017, NSLP subsidized 4 9 billion lunches to children in close to 96,000 schools and 3,200 residential child care institutions (RCCIs)  Average daily participation was 30 0 million students (58% of children enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs)  Of the participating students, 66 7% (20 0 million) received free lunches and 6 5% (2 0 million) received reduced-price lunches  The remainder were served full-price meals, though schools still receive a reimbursement for these meals  Figure 3 shows FY2017 participation data  FY2017 federal school lunch costs totaled approximately $13 6 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total)  The vast majority of this funding is for per-meal reimbursements for free and reduced-price lunches  The HHFKA also provided an additional 6-cent per-lunch reimbursement to schools that provide meals that meet the updated nutritional guidelines requirements  This bonus is not provided for breakfast, but funds may be used to support schools' breakfast programs  NSLP lunch reimbursement rates are listed in Table B -1   In addition to federal cash subsidies, schools participating in NSLP receive USDA-acquired commodity food s   Schools are entitled to a specific, inflation-indexed value of USDA commodity foods for each lunch they serve  Also, schools may receive donations of bonus commodities acquired by USDA in support of the farm economy  In FY2017, the value of federal commodity food aid to schools totaled nearly $1 4 billion  The per-meal rate for commodity food assistance is included in Table B-4   While the vast majority of NSLP funding is for lunches served during the school day, NSLP may also be used to support snack service during the school year and to serve meals during the summer  These features are discussed in subsequent sections, " Summer Meals " and " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options  " Reimbursement rates for snacks are listed in Table B -2   The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides per-meal cash subsidies for breakfasts served in schools  Participating schools receive subsidies based on their status as a severe need or nonsevere need institution  Schools can qualify as a severe need school if 40% or more of their lunches are served free or at reduced prices  See Table B -3 for SBP reimbursement rates  Figure 4 displays SBP participation data for FY2017  In that year, SBP subsidized over 2 4 billion breakfasts in over 88,000 schools and nearly 3,200 RCCIs  Average daily participation was 14 7 million children (30 1% of the students enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs)  The majority of meals served through SBP are free or reduced-price  Of the participating students, 79 1% (11 6 million) received free meals and 5 7% (835,000) purchased reduced-price meals  Federal school breakfast costs for the fiscal year totaled approximately $4 3 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total)  Significantly fewer schools and students participate in SBP than in NSLP  Participation in SBP tends to be lower for several reasons, including the traditionally required early arrival by students in order to receive a meal and eat before school starts  Some schools offer (and anti-hunger groups have encouraged) models of breakfast service that can result in greater SBP participation, such as Breakfast in the Classroom, where meals are delivered in the classroom; "grab and go" carts, where students receive a bagged breakfast that they bring to class, or serving breakfast later in the day in middle and high schools  Unlike NSLP, commodity food assistance is not a formal part of SBP funding; however, commodities provided through NSLP may be used for school breakfasts as well  In addition to the school meals programs discussed above, other federal child nutrition programs provide federal subsidies and commodity food assistance for schools and other institutions that offer meals and snacks to children in early childhood, summer, and after-school settings  This assistance is provided to (1) schools and other governmental institutions, (2) private for-profit and nonprofit child care centers, (3) family/group day care homes, and (4) nongovernmental institutions/organizations that offer outside-of-school programs for children  (Although this report focuses on the programs that serve children, one child nutrition program (CACFP) also serves day care centers for chronically impaired adults and elderly persons under the same general per-meal/snack subsidy terms ) The programs in the sections to follow serve comparatively fewer children and spend comparatively fewer federal funds than the school meal programs  CACFP subsidizes meals and snacks served in early childhood, day care, and after-school settings  CACFP provides subsidies for meals and snacks served at participating nonresidential child care centers, family day care homes, and (to a lesser extent) adult day care centers  The program also provides assistance for meals served at after-school programs  CACFP reimbursements are available for meals and snacks served to children age 12 or under, migrant children age 15 or under, children with disabilities of any age, and, in the case of adult care centers, chronically impaired and elderly adults  Children in early childhood settings are the overwhelming majority of those served by the program  CACFP provides federal reimbursements for breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks served in participating centers (facilities or institutions) or day care homes (private homes)  The eligibility and funding rules for CACFP meals and snacks depend first on whether the participating institution is a center or a day care home (the next two sections discuss the rules specific to centers and day care homes)  According to FY2017 CACFP data, child care centers have an average daily attendance of about 56 children per center, day care homes have an average daily attendance of approximately 7 children per home, and adult day care centers typically care for an average of 48 chronically ill or elderly adults per center  Providers must demonstrate that they comply with government-established standards for other child care programs  Like in school meals, federal assistance is made up overwhelmingly of cash reimbursements calculated based on the number of meals/snacks served and federal per-meal/snack reimbursements rates, but a far smaller share of federal aid (4 3% in FY2017) is in the form of federal USDA commodity foods (or cash in lieu of foods)  Federal CACFP reimbursements flow to individual providers either directly from the administering state agency (this is the case with many child/adult care centers able to handle their own CACFP administrative functions) or through "sponsors" who oversee and provide administrative support for a number of local providers (this is the case with some child/adult care centers and with all day care homes)  In FY2017, total CACFP spending was over $3 5 billion, including cash reimbursement, commodity food assistance, and costs for sponsor audits  (See Table 3 for a further breakdown of CACFP costs ) This total also includes the after-school meals and snacks provided through CACFP's "at-risk after-school" pathway; this aspect of the program is discussed later in " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options  " As with school foods, the HHFKA required USDA to update CACFP's meal patterns  USDA's final rule revised the meal patterns for both meals served in child care centers and day care homes, as well as preschool meals served through the NSLP and SBP, effective October 1, 2017  For infants (under 12 months of age), the new meal patterns eliminated juice, supported breastfeeding, and set guidelines for the introduction of solid foods, among other changes  For children ages one and older, the new meal patterns increased whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and low-fat and fat-free milk; limited sugar in cereals and yogurts; and prohibited frying, among other requirements  Child care centers in CACFP can be (1) public or private nonprofit centers, (2) Head Start centers, (3) for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet certain requirements as to the proportion of low-income children they enroll), and (4) shelters for homeless families  Adult day care centers include public or private nonprofit centers and for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet minimum requirements related to serving low-income disabled and elderly adults)  In FY2017, over 65,000 child care centers with an average daily attendance of over 3 6 million children participated in CACFP  Over 2,700 adult care centers served nearly 132,000 adults through CACFP  Participating centers may receive daily reimbursements for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks for each participant, so long as the meals and snacks meet federal nutrition standards  The eligibility rules for CACFP centers largely track those of NSLP: children in households at or below 130% of the current poverty line qualify for free meals/snacks while those between 130% and 185% of poverty qualify for reduced-price meals/snacks (see Table 2 )  In addition, participation in the same categorical eligibility programs as NSLP as well as foster child status convey eligibility for free meals in CACFP  Like school meals, eligibility is determined through paper applications or direct certification processes  Like school meals, all meals and snacks served in the centers are federally subsidized to some degree, even those that are paid  Different reimbursement amounts are provided for breakfasts, lunches/suppers, and snacks, and reimbursement rates are set in law and indexed for inflation annually  The largest subsidies are paid for meals and snacks served to participants with family income below 130% of the federal poverty income guidelines (the income limit for free school meals), and the smallest to those who have not met a means test  See Table B -5 for current CACFP center reimbursement rates  Unlike school meals, CACFP institutions are less likely to collect per-meal payments  Although federal assistance for day care centers differentiates by household income, centers have discretion on their pricing of meals  Centers may adjust their regular fees (tuition) to account for federal payments, but CACFP itself does not regulate these fees  In addition, centers can charge families separately for meals/snacks, so long as there are no charges for children meeting free-meal/snack income tests and limited charges for those meeting reduced-price income tests  Independent centers are those without sponsors handling administrative responsibilities  These centers must pay for administrative costs associated with CACFP out of nonfederal funds or a portion of their meal subsidy payments  For centers with sponsors, the sponsors may retain a proportion of the meal reimbursement payments they receive on behalf of their centers to cover such costs  CACFP-supported day care homes serve a smaller number of children than CACFP-supported centers , both in terms of the total number of children served and the average number of children per facility  Roughly 17% of children in CACFP (approximately 757,000 in FY2017 average daily attendance) are served through day care homes  In FY2017, approximately 103,000 homes (with just over 700 sponsors) received CACFP support  As with centers, payments to day care homes are provided for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks a day for each child  Unlike centers, day care homes must participate under the auspices of a public or, more often, private nonprofit sponsor that typically has 100 or more homes under its supervision  CACFP day care home sponsors receive monthly administrative payments based on the number of homes for which they are responsible  Federal reimbursements for family day care homes differ by the home's status as "Tier I" or "Tier II " Unlike centers, day care homes receive cash reimbursements (but not commodity foods) that generally are not based on the child participants' household income  Instead, there are two distinct, annually indexed reimbursement rates that are based on area or operator eligibility criteria Tier I homes are located in low-income areas (defined as areas in which at least 50% of school-age and enrolled children qualify for free or reduced-price meals) or operated by low-income providers whose household income meets the free or reduced-price income standards  They receive higher subsidies for each meal/snack they serve  Tier II (lower) rates are by default those for homes that do not qualify for Tier I rates; however, Tier II providers may seek the higher Tier I subsidy rates for individual low-income children for whom financial information is collected and verified  (See Table B-6 for current Tier I and Tier II reimbursement rates ) Additionally, HHFKA introduced a number of additional ways (as compared to prior law) by which family day care homes can qualify as low-income and get Tier I rates for the entire home or for individual children  As with centers, there is no requirement that meals/snacks specifically identified as free or reduced-price be offered; however, unlike centers, federal rules prohibit any separate meal charges  Current law SFSP and the NSLP/SBP Seamless Summer Option provide meals in congregate settings nationwide; the related Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (SEBTC or Summer EBT) demonstration project is an alternative to congregate settings  SFSP supports meals for children during the summer months  The program provides assistance to local public institutions and private nonprofit service institutions running summer youth/recreation programs, summer feeding projects, and camps  Assistance is primarily in the form of cash reimbursements for each meal or snack served; however, federally donated commodity foods are also offered  Participating service institutions are often entities that provide ongoing year-round service to the community including schools, local governments, camps, colleges and universities in the National Youth Sports program, and private nonprofit organizations like churches  Similar to the CACFP model, sponsors are institutions that manage the food preparation, financial, and administrative responsibilities of SFSP  Sites are the places where food is served and eaten  At times, a sponsor may also be a site  State agencies authorize sponsors, monitor and inspect sponsors and sites, and implement USDA policy  Unlike CACFP, sponsors are required for an institution's participation in SFSP as a site  In FY2017, nearly 5,500 sponsors with 50,000 food service sites participated in the SFSP and served an average of approximately 2 7 million children daily (according to July data)  Participation of sites and children in SFSP has increased in recent years  Program costs for FY2017 totaled over $485 million, including cash assistance, commodity foods, administrative cost assistance, and health inspection costs  There are several options for eligibility and meal/snack service for SFSP sponsors (and their sites) Open sites provide summer food to all children in the community  These sites are certified based on area eligibility measures, where 50% or more of area children have family income that would make them eligible for free or reduced-price school meals (see Table 2 )  Closed or Enrolled sites provide summer meals/snacks free to all children enrolled at the site  The eligibility test for these sites is that 50% or more of the children enrolled in the sponsor's program must be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals based on household income  Closed/enrolled sites may also become eligible based on area eligibility measures noted above  Summer camps (that are not enrolled sites) receive subsidies only for those children with household eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals  Other programs specified in law , such as the National Youth Sports Program and centers for homeless or migrant children  Summer sponsors get operating cost (food, storage, labor) subsidies for all meals/snacks they serve—up to one meal and one snack, or two meals per child per day  In addition, sponsors receive payments for administrative costs, and states are provided with subsidies for administrative costs and health and meal-quality inspections  See Table B -7 for current SFSP reimbursement rates  Actual payments vary slightly (e g , by about 5 cents for lunches) depending on the location of the site (e g , rural vs  urban) and whether meals are prepared on-site or by a vendor  Although SFSP is the child nutrition program most associated with providing meals during summer months, it is not the only program option for providing these meals and snacks  The Seamless Summer Option, run through NSLP or SBP programs, is also a means through which food can be provided to students during summer months  Much like SFSP, Seamless Summer operates in summer sites (summer camps, sports programs, churches, private nonprofit organizations, etc ) and for a similar duration of time  Unlike SFSP, schools are the only eligible sponsors , although schools may operate the program at other sites  Reimbursement rates for Seamless Summer meals are the same as current NSLP/SBP rates  Beginning in summer 2011 and (as of the date of this report) each summer since, USDA-FNS has operated Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or "Summer EBT") demonstration projects in a limited number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs)  These Summer EBT projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals  Depending on the site and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided, through a WIC or SNAP EBT card model  In the demonstration projects, these benefits were provided as a supplement to the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) meals available in congregate settings  Summer EBT and other alternatives to congregate meals through SFSP were first authorized and funded by the FY2010 appropriations law ( P L  111-80 )  Although a number of alternatives were tested and evaluated, findings from Summer EBT were among the most promising, and Congress provided subsequent funding  Summer EBT evaluations showed significant impacts on reducing child food insecurity and improving nutritional intake   Summer EBT was funded by P L  111-80 in the summers from 2011 to 2014  Projects have continued to operate and were annually funded by FY2015-FY2018 appropriations; most recently, the FY2018 appropriations law ( P L  115-141 ) provided $28 million  According to USDA-FNS, in summer 2016 Summer EBT served over 209,000 children in nine states and two tribal nations—an increase from the 11,400 children served when the demonstration began in summer 2011  Schools (and institutions like summer camps and child care facilities) that are not already participating in the other child nutrition programs can participate in the Special Milk Program  Schools may also administer SMP for their part-day sessions for kindergartners or pre-kindergartners  Under SMP, participating institutions provide milk to children for free and/or at a subsidized paid price, depending on how the enrolled institution opts to administer the program (see Table B -8 for current Special Milk reimbursement rates for each of these options) An institution that only sells milk will receive the same per-half pint federal reimbursement for each milk sold (approximately 20 cents)  An institution that sells milk and provides free milk to eligible children (income eligibility is the same as free school meals, see Table 2 ), receives a reimbursement for the milk sold (approximately 20 cents) and a higher reimbursement for the free milks  An institution that does not sell milk provides milk free to all children and receives the same reimbursement for all milk (approximately 20 cents)  This option is sometimes called nonpricing  In FY2017, over 41 million half-pints were subsidized, 9 5% of which were served free  Federal expenditures for this program were approximately $8 3 million in FY2017  States receive formula grants through the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, under which state-selected schools receive funds to purchase and distribute fresh fruit and vegetable snacks to all children in attendance (regardless of family income)  Money is distributed by a formula under which about half the funding is distributed equally to each state and the remainder is allocated by state population  States select participating schools (with an emphasis on those with a higher proportion of low-income children) and set annual per-student grant amounts (between $50 and $75)  Funding is set by law at $150 million for school year 2011-2012 and inflation-indexed for every year after  In FY2017, states used approximately $184 million in FFVP funds  FFVP is funded by a mandatory transfer of funds from USDA's Section 32 program—a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts  This transfer is required by FFVP's authorizing laws (Section 19 of the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act and Section 4304 of P L  110-246 )  Up until FY2018's law, annual appropriations laws delayed a portion of the funds to the next fiscal year  After a pilot period, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( P L  108-265 ) permanently authorized and funded FFVP for a limited number of states and Indian reservations  In recent years, FFVP has been amended by omnibus farm bill laws rather than through child nutrition reauthorizations  The 2008 farm bill ( P L  110-246 ) expanded FFVP's mandatory funding, specifically providing funds through Section 32, and enabled all states to participate in the program  The 2014 farm bill ( P L  113-79 ) essentially made no changes to this program but did include, and fund at $5 million in FY2014, a pilot project that requires USDA to test offering frozen, dried, and canned fruits and vegetables and publish an evaluation of the pilot  Four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) participated in the pilot in SY2014-2015 and the evaluation was published in 2017  Other proposals to expand fruits and vegetables offered in FFVP have been introduced in both the 114 th and 115 th Congress  Two of the child nutrition programs discussed in previous sections, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), provide federal support for snacks and meals served during after-school programs  NSLP provides reimbursements for after-school snacks; however, this option is open only to schools that already participate in NSLP  These schools may operate after-school snack-only programs during the school year, and can do so in two ways: (1) if low-income area eligibility criteria are met, provide free snacks in lower-income areas; or (2) if area eligibility criteria are not met, offer free, reduced-price, or fully paid-for snacks, based on household income eligibility (like lunches in NSLP)  The vast majority of snacks provided through this program are through the first option  Through this program, approximately 206 million snacks were served in FY2017 (a daily average of nearly 1 3 million)  This compares with nearly 4 9 billion lunches served (a daily average of 27 8 million)  CACFP provides assistance for after-school food in two ways  First, centers and homes that participate in CACFP and provide after-school care may participate in traditional CACFP (the eligibility and administration described earlier)  Second, centers in areas where at least half the children in the community are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals can opt to participate in the CACFP At-Risk Afterschool program, which provides free snacks and suppers  Expansion of the At-Risk After-School meals program was a major policy change included in HHFKA  Prior to the law, 13 states were permitted to offer CACFP At-Risk After-School meals (instead of just a snack); the law allowed all CACFP state agencies to offer such meals  In FY2017, the At-Risk Afterschool program served a total of approximately 242 6 million free meals and snacks to a daily average of more than 1 7 million children  Federal child nutrition laws authorize and program funding supports a range of additional programs, initiatives, and activities  Through State Administrative Expenses funding, states are entitled to federal grants to help cover administrative and oversight/monitoring costs associated with child nutrition programs  The national amount each year is equal to about 2% of child nutrition reimbursements  The majority of this money is allocated to states based on their share of spending on the covered programs; about 15% is allocated under a discretionary formula granting each state additional amounts for CACFP, commodity distribution, and Administrative Review efforts  In addition, states receive payments for their role in overseeing summer programs (about 2 5% of their summer program aid)  States are free to apportion their federal administrative expense payments among child nutrition initiatives (including commodity distribution activities) as they see fit, and appropriated funding is available to states for two years  State Administrative Expense spending in FY2017 totaled approximately $279 million  Team Nutrition is a USDA-FNS program that includes a variety of school meals initiatives around nutrition education and the nutritional content of the foods children eat in schools  This includes Team Nutrition Training Grants, which provide funding to state agencies for training and technical assistance, such as help implementing USDA's nutrition requirements and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans  From 2004 to 2018, Team Nutrition also included the HealthierUS Schools Challenge (HUSSC), which originated in the 2004 reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act  HUSSC was a voluntary certification initiative designed to recognize schools that have created a healthy school environment through the promotion of nutrition and physical activity  Farm-to-school programs broadly refer to "efforts that bring regionally and locally produced foods into school cafeterias," with a focus on enhancing child nutrition  The goals of these efforts include increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among students, supporting local farmers and rural communities, and providing nutrition and agriculture education to school districts and farmers  HHFKA amended existing child nutrition programs to establish mandatory funding of $5 million per year for competitive farm-to-school grants that support schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs that improve a school's access to locally produced foods  The FY2018 appropriations law provided an additional $5 million in discretionary funding to remain available until expended  Grants may be used for training, supporting operations, planning, purchasing equipment, developing school gardens, developing partnerships, and implementing farm-to-school programs  USDA's Office of Community Food Systems provides additional resources on farm-to-school issues  Through an Administrative Review process (formerly referred to as Coordinated Review Effort (CRE)), USDA-FNS, in cooperation with state agencies, conducts periodic on-site NSLP school compliance and accountability evaluations to improve management and identify administrative, subsidy claim, and meal quality problems  State agencies are required to conduct administrative reviews of all school food authorities (SFAs) that operate the NSLP under their jurisdiction at least once during a three-year review cycle  Federal Administrative Review expenditures were approximately $9 9 million in FY2017  USDA-FNS and state agencies conduct many other child nutrition program support activities for which dedicated funding is provided  Among other examples, there is the Institute of Child Nutrition (ICN), which provides technical assistance, instruction, and materials related to nutrition and food service management; it receives $5 million a year in mandatory funding appropriated in statute  ICN is located at the University of Mississippi  USDA-FNS provides training on food safety education  Funding is also provided for USDA-FNS to conduct studies, provide training and technical assistance, and oversee payment accuracy  Appendix A  Acronyms Used in This Report Appendix B  Per-meal or Per-snack Reimbursement Rates for Child Nutrition Programs This appendix lists the specific reimbursement rates discussed in the earlier sections of the report  Reimbursement rates are adjusted for inflation for each school or calendar year according to terms laid out in the programs' authorizing laws  Each year, the new rates are announced in the Federal Register   


Report 2:  This longer time frame is required because the estimated contribution rate increases as the projection horizon increases and eventually converges to a steady state  If the projection period is of insufficient length, the steady-state level of contribution is not attained, and the necessary contribution rate is understated  We simulated variables used to estimate the pension contribution rate using the approach summarized in table 3  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Future growth in the number of state and local government retirees— many of whom will be entitled to pension and health care benefits—is largely driven by the size of the workforce in earlier years  We simulated the number of state and local government retirees by assuming that the growth rate in the number of retirees is a weighted average of the growth rates in lagged general government and government enterprise employment  We estimated the weights using a regression of the percent change in the number of retirees on the percent change in employment 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36, and 41 years in the past  The coefficients on the past percentage changes in employment were constrained to be non- negative and to sum to 1  For this regression, we removed cyclical swings in employment using the Hodrick-Prescott filter  Similarly, future changes in the real amount of pension benefits will be a function of past changes in real wages and salaries  As indicated in table 3, we used a weighted average of past values of the state and local government employment cost index to simulate the employment cost index for state and local government retirees  We chose the weights to reflect changes in the share and average real benefit level of three subsets of the retiree population over time: (1) new retirees entering the beneficiary pool, (2) deceased retirees leaving the pool, and (3) continuing retirees from the previous year  We simulated the weight for new retirees in a year as the number of retirees less the number of continuing retirees divided by the number of retirees  We simulated the weight for deceased retirees as the mortality rate multiplied by last year’s retirees divided by this year’s retirees  We simulated the weight for continuing retirees as last year’s retirees divided by this year’s retirees  Finally, we simulated the employment cost index for state and local government retirees as the sum of the weight on new retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index and the weight on continuing retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index 8 years prior, less the weight on deceased retirees multiplied by the state and local government employment cost index 21 years prior  As discussed above, we started with historical data for 2017, or the most recent year available, simulated all of the variables in table 3 over the long run, and then used the consumer price index (CPI) and the real return on pension assets to calculate the total present value of wages and salaries for state and local government general government and government enterprise employees, the total present value of real pension benefits paid to state and local government retirees, and the total present value of state and local government employees’ pension contributions  Then, we calculated the total present value of state and local governments’ pension liabilities as the total present value of real pension benefits paid to state and local government retirees less the total present value of state and local government employees’ pension contributions, and the value of assets in state and local government defined benefit pension funds in 2017  Finally, we estimated state and local governments’ pension contribution rate as the ratio of the total present value of their pension liabilities to the total present value of wages and salaries for state and local government employees  Table 4 summarizes the approach we used to simulate interest rates on state and local government financial assets and liabilities  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Table 5 summarizes our approach to simulating state and local government receipts  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  These variables track state and local government receipts in table 1 above as follows: State and local government personal income tax revenue is the sum of state personal income tax revenue and local personal income tax revenue; State and local government personal tax revenue is the sum of personal income tax revenue and other personal tax revenue; State and local government revenue from taxes on production and imports is the sum of general sales tax revenue, excise tax revenue, property tax revenue, and revenue from other taxes on production and imports; State and local government current tax revenue is the sum of personal tax revenue, revenue from taxes on production and imports, and corporate income tax revenue; State and local government current transfer receipts are equal to federal Medicaid grants minus Medicare Part D payments to the federal government, plus other federal grants (excluding investment grants), transfer receipts from businesses, and transfer receipts from persons; State and local government current receipts are the sum of current tax revenue, current transfer receipts, income on assets, social insurance contributions, and government enterprise surplus; State and local government capital transfer receipts are the sum of federal investment grants and estate and gift tax revenue; and State and local government total receipts are the sum of current receipts and capital transfer receipts  Our general approach to simulating state and local government expenditures is to assume that state and local governments maintain the current level of public goods and services provision per capita (see table 6)  Thus, we generally assume that expenditures keep up with U S  population growth and some measure of inflation, where the relevant rate of inflation varies depending on the specific type of expenditure  However, we use alternative approaches—described below—to simulate depreciation, interest payments, and social benefits for health care  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  These variables correspond to state and local government expenditures in table 1 as follows: Employee compensation is the sum of wages and salaries, pension contributions, health benefits for current employees, health benefits for retirees, and other compensation, for state and local government general government employees  Consumption expenditures are the sum of employee compensation, general government fixed capital consumption, and other general government consumption expenditures  Social benefit payments are the sum of Medicaid benefits, non- Medicaid health benefits, and non-health social benefits  Current expenditures are the sum of consumption expenditures, social benefit payments, interest payments, and subsidy payments  Total expenditures are the sum of current expenditures, gross investment, capital transfer payments, and purchases of nonproduced assets, minus general government and government enterprise fixed capital consumption  Table 7 summarizes our approach for simulating state and local government financial assets and liabilities  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Our method for simulating the sectors’ short-term debt outstanding leverages the fact that for any entity, there is a direct relationship between budget outcomes and changes in financial position  Specifically, if expenditures exceed receipts, the gap needs to be financed by some combination of changes in financial assets and changes in financial liabilities  If governments spend more than they take in, they must pay for it by issuing debt, cashing in assets, or some combination of the two  Conversely, if receipts exceed expenditures and the sector is a net lender, its net financial investment (the net change in financial assets minus the net change in financial liabilities) must equal the budget surplus  The relationship between budget outcomes and the sector’s financial position is shown in the following accounting identity: total receipts – total expenditures = change in financial assets – change in financial liabilities  The sector’s financial liabilities include short-, medium-, and long-term debt; trade payables; and loans from the federal government, so the accounting identity can be rewritten as follows: total receipts – total expenditures = change in financial assets – change in medium- and long-term debt – change in trade payables – change in federal government loans – change in short term debt  For a given difference between total receipts and total expenditures, various combinations of changes in financial assets and changes in financial liabilities can satisfy this identity  However, we assumed that financial assets grow at the same rate as U S  GDP, that medium- and long-term debt outstanding is determined using the historical relationship described in table 7, that federal government loans to state and local governments are determined using the historical relationship described in table 7, and that trade payables grow at the same rate as other state and local government consumption spending  If the first four terms on the right hand side of the identity are already determined, then only the fifth term— the change in short-term debt—is free to satisfy this identity  As discussed above, our indicators of fiscal balance are operating balance, net saving, and net lending or borrowing  This approach is similar to the approach we have used in prior model updates  Recall that we defined operating balance as follows: operating balance = total receipts – (gross investment + capital transfer payments + net purchases of nonproduced assets – medium- and long-term debt issuance) – (current expenditures – consumption of general government fixed assets) – current surplus of state and local government enterprises – net social insurance fund balance  By substituting for total receipts and current expenditures using the relationships described above and rearranging terms, we can also calculate operating balance using a formula that more easily identifies its revenue components—the items in the first set of parentheses—and expenditure components—the items in the second set of parentheses: operating balance = (current tax revenues + estate and gift tax revenues + social insurance fund contributions + income receipts from assets + current transfers + federal investment grants + medium- and long-term debt issuance) – (compensation of general government employees + social benefit payments + interest payments + gross investment + capital transfer payments + net purchases of nonproduced assets + other general government consumption expenditures + subsidy payments + net social insurance fund balance)  Some of our simulations are based on estimated historical relationships between pairs of variables: Elasticity of real personal consumption expenditures less food and services with respect to real wages and salaries; Elasticity of the real U S  market value of real estate with respect to Relationship between effective interest rates on financial assets and Relationship between state and local government bond yields and 10- year Treasury rates; Relationship between effective interest rates on long-term state and local government debt and federal government loans and state and local government bond yields; Elasticity of real state personal income tax revenue with respect to Elasticity of real state and local government excise tax revenue with respect to real wages and salaries; Relationship between long-term debt issuance as a fraction of gross investment and nonproduced asset purchases in excess of federal investment grants and the change in state and local government bond yields; and Relationship between real federal government lending to state and local governments and real U S  GDP  To estimate each of these historical relationships, we used the following approach: first, we assessed the order of integration of both variables using unit root tests of the levels and the first differences, where a variable is integrated of order 0 (I(0) or stationary) if we rejected the null hypothesis of a unit root in the levels at standard significance levels, and is integrated of order 1 (I(1) or first-order nonstationary) if we could not reject the null hypothesis of a unit root in the levels but we could do so for the first differences  For relationships between variables that were both stationary, we estimated an autoregressive distributed lag model, where y is the dependent variable, x is the independent variable, and ε is an independent, identically distributed error term  The long-run impact on y of a one unit change in x is given by ∑   We initially chose the number of lags based on the Bayesian Information Criteria and then added additional lags of the dependent variable, if needed, until the residuals were consistent with a white noise process at standard significance levels  For relationships between variables that were both first-order nonstationary, we used the same approach but also used the Pesaran, Shin, and Smith bounds test for the existence of a cointegrating (long-run equilibrium) relationship  We concluded that the variables were cointegrated if we rejected the null hypothesis of no relationship at standard significance levels  Tables 8 and 9 summarize the estimated regression models as well as the results of the unit root, white noise, and cointegration tests  We simulated the model for the 75-year period from 2018 through 2092, and we used the results to calculate the operating balance for the state and local government sector as a percentage of U S  GDP  Our results suggest that if the sector maintains current policy and continues to provide current per capita levels of public goods and services, then its operating balance will decline from about -1 percent of U S  GDP to about -3 percent of U S  GDP over the next 50 years  To shed light on how maintaining the operating balance at or above zero would affect the state and local government sector, we used the model to simulate the level of total expenditures that would keep the operating balance greater than or equal to zero  We then calculated the difference between the present value of total expenditures simulated assuming the sector maintains balance, and the present value of total expenditures simulated assuming the sector maintains current policies, both as a percentage of the present value of total expenditures assuming the sector maintains current policies, and as a percentage of the present value of U S  GDP  We calculated all of the present values for the 50-year period from 2018 through 2067, and we used a discount rate equal to the average of the 3-month Treasury rate and the 10-year Treasury rate for each year  Our results suggest that the difference between the present value of total expenditures that maintain balance and the present value of total expenditures that maintain current policies is about -14 7 percent of the present value of total expenditures that maintain current policies, or about -2 4 percent of the present value of U S  GDP  That is, our simulations suggest that maintaining balance would require the sector to spend about 14 7 percent less than it would spend each year to maintain current policies  We note that a similar exercise based on simulating total revenues required to maintain the operating balance at or above zero would generate a similar result  Our approach has a number of limitations and the results should be interpreted with caution: The state and local government fiscal model is not designed for certain types of analyses  The simulations are not intended to provide precise predictions  Even though we know that these governments regularly make changes to tax laws and expenditures, the model essentially holds current policy in place and analyzes the fiscal future for the sector as if those policies were maintained because it would be highly speculative to make any assumptions about future policy adjustments  Fiscal outcomes, as related to the state and local government sector’s financial position and solvency, may not reflect all aspects of the sector’s fiscal health  Other indicators include economic indicators that go beyond the sector’s financial position to include economic growth, income, or distributional equity, as well as indicators of the quality of services provided by the sector, including education, health care, infrastructure, and other public goods and services  Our unit of analysis is the state and local government sector as a whole, so our results provide an assessment of the sector’s fiscal outlook  However, individual state and local governments likely exhibit significant heterogeneity in their expenditure and revenue patterns, so their fiscal outlooks will likely differ from that for the sector  Nevertheless, it is informative to assess the overall fiscal outlook of the sector because doing so reveals the outlook for the average state or local government  In addition, aggregate data on the sector are available on a more timely basis than data for individual state and local governments  This allows for a better assessment of the sector’s current fiscal outlook  Our results for the sector also provide a baseline from which to view the experiences of individual state and local governments  Finally, assessing the fiscal outlook of the sector as a whole can help mitigate the tendency to extrapolate from the most visible, but potentially not representative, experiences of individual states or localities  Our baseline approach to simulating the fiscal outlook for the state and local government sector is described in appendix I  As part of our simulation approach, we used five variables with values for the simulation period—the period from 2018 through 2092—that are projected outside the model and that do not rely on maintaining historical relationships: U S  population, real U S  gross domestic product (GDP) growth, national health care excess cost growth, Medicaid excess cost growth, and the real rate of return on pension assets  U S  population  For our baseline simulations, we used the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds’ (OASDI Trustees) intermediate population projections  Real U S  GDP  For our baseline simulations, we projected real U S  GDP to grow at the same rate as Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections for the period from 2018 through 2028 and to grow at the same rate as the OASDI Trustees’ intermediate projections of real U S  GDP growth for the period from 2029 through 2092  National health expenditures excess cost growth  For our baseline simulations, we used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) baseline projection of national health expenditures excess cost growth  Medicaid excess cost growth  For our baseline simulations, for the period from 2029 through 2092, we used Medicaid excess cost growth derived from CMS’s baseline projections  Real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  For our baseline simulations, we assumed a 5 percent real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  To assess the sensitivity of our results to changes in these baseline projections, we selected two alternative projections of each of these variables, one associated with a faster growth rate or rate of return and one associated with a slower growth rate or rate of return  U S  population  For our alternative simulations, we used the OASDI Trustees’ high cost and low cost population projections  Real U S  GDP  For our alternative simulations, we used the OASDI Trustees’ high cost and low cost projections of real U S  GDP growth  National health expenditures excess cost growth  For our alternative simulations, we used CMS’s alternative projection of national health expenditures excess cost growth  As another alternative, we simulated the model assuming excess cost growth for national health expenditures is zero  Medicaid excess cost growth  For our alternative simulations, for the period from 2029 through 2092, we used Medicaid excess cost growth derived from CMS’s alternative projections for the period from 2029 through 2092  As another alternative, we simulated the model assuming Medicaid excess cost growth is zero for the period from 2029 through 2092  Real rate of return on state and local government pension assets  For our sensitivity analysis, we used real rates of return of 2 5 percent and 7 5 percent  Table 10 shows the average annual growth rate or rate of return associated with the baseline and alternative projections of each variable for the simulation period  For our simulations based on alternative assumptions about U S  population growth and real U S  GDP growth, as well as simulations based on alternative assumptions about real pension asset returns, we simulated the model changing one variable at a time and leaving the others fixed at their baseline values  For example, for one simulation we used the slower assumption for real U S  GDP growth and the baseline assumptions for all other variables  For our simulations based on alternative assumptions about excess cost growth for national health expenditures and for Medicaid, we changed both variables in the same direction and left the others fixed at their baseline values  For example, for one simulation we used zero excess cost growth for both national health expenditures and for Medicaid, and made the baseline assumption for the other variables  Thus, our sensitivity analysis is in the spirit of a partial equilibrium comparative statics analysis that sheds light on how each of the individual variables may affect the state and local government sector’s fiscal outlook  However, these variables are likely to be correlated so future changes in one would likely be associated with changes in others  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2016 Update, GAO-17-213SP  Washington, D C : Dec  8, 2016  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2015 Update, GAO-16-260SP  Washington, D C : Dec  16, 2015  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: December 2014 Update, GAO-15-224SP  Washington, D C : Dec  17, 2014  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2013 Update, GAO-13-546SP  Washington, D C : Apr  29, 2013  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2012 Update, GAO-12-523SP  Washington, D C : Apr  5, 2012  State and Local Government Pension Plans: Economic Downturn Spurs Efforts to Address Costs and Sustainability, GAO-12-322  Washington, D C : Mar  2, 2012  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: April 2011 Update, GAO-11-495SP  Washington, D C : Apr  6, 2011  State and Local Governments: Knowledge of Past Recessions Can Inform Future Federal Fiscal Assistance, GAO-11-401  Washington, D C : Mar  31, 2011  State and Local Governments: Fiscal Pressures Could Have Implications for Future Delivery of Intergovernmental Programs, GAO-10-899  Washington, D C : July 30, 2010  State and Local Governments’ Fiscal Outlook: March 2010 Update, GAO-10-358  Washington, D C : Mar  2, 2010  Update of State and Local Government Fiscal Pressures, GAO-09-320R  Washington, D C : Jan  26, 2009  State and Local Fiscal Challenges: Rising Health Care Costs Drive Long- term and Immediate Pressures, GAO-09-210T  Washington, D C : Nov  19, 2008  State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will Emerge during the Next 10 Years, GAO-08-317  Washington, D C : Jan  22, 2008  Our Nation’s Long-Term Fiscal Challenge: State and Local Governments Will Likely Face Persistent Fiscal Challenges in the Next Decade, GAO-07-1113CG  Washington, D C : July 18, 2007  State and Local Governments: Persistent Fiscal Challenges Will Likely Emerge within the Next Decade, GAO-07-1080SP  Washington, D C : July 18, 2007  In addition to the contacts listed above, Brenda Rabinowitz and Courtney LaFountain (Assistant Directors), David Aja, Brett Caloia, Ann Czapiewski, Joe Silvestri, Stewart Small, Andrew J  Stephens, Frank Todisco, Walter Vance, and Chris Woika made significant contributions to this report 

ground_truth: More than 4 decades ago, Congress authorized the creation of the SPR to reduce the impact of disruptions in supplies of petroleum products. DOE manages the SPR. As a member of the International Energy Agency, the United States is obligated to maintain reserves equivalent to at least 90 days of the previous year's net imports (imports minus exports). The SPR's storage and related infrastructure is aging, and DOE has plans to modernize these facilities. Since 2015, Congress has mandated crude oil sales. As of March 2018, the SPR held about 665 million barrels of crude oil. GAO was asked to examine the SPR's ability to meet U.S. energy security needs. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which (1) DOE has identified the optimal size of the SPR, and (2) DOE's plans for modernizing the SPR take into account the effects of congressionally mandated crude oil sales. GAO reviewed DOE's plans and studies, and interviewed agency officials and nine experts selected based on prior work, referrals, and a literature review. The Department of Energy (DOE) has not identified the optimal size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In 2016, DOE completed a long-term strategic review of the SPR after its last comprehensive examination conducted in 2005. The 2016 review examined the benefits of several SPR sizes, but it did not identify an optimal size and its review was limited in several ways. In particular, DOE did not fully consider recent and expected future changes in market conditions, such as the implications of falling net imports, or the role that increased levels of private reserves (reserves held by private companies for their own purposes) may play in responding to supply disruptions. These changes have contributed to SPR and private reserves reaching historically high levels on a net imports basis (see figure). These changes are expected to continue to evolve—according to government projections, the United States will become a net exporter in the late 2020s before again becoming a net importer between 2040 and 2050. GAO has found that agencies should reexamine their programs if conditions change. Without addressing the limitations of its 2016 review and periodically performing reexaminations in the future, DOE cannot be assured that the SPR will be sized appropriately into the future. DOE has taken steps to take into account congressionally mandated sales of SPR crude oil in its $1.4 billion modernization plans for SPR's infrastructure and facilities. The SPR is projected to hold 405 million barrels of oil by the end of fiscal year 2027. However, DOE's current plans are based on information analyzed prior to recently mandated sales. According to DOE officials, the agency began a study in March 2018 to assess the effects of these sales on the SPR's modernization. However, this study is not examining all options for handling any excess SPR assets that may be created by currently mandated sales or any additional sales that may be mandated in the future, inconsistent with an agency order on real property asset management that calls for identifying excess assets. For example, DOE does not plan to examine the potential to lease unused SPR storage capacity to the private sector because DOE is not currently authorized to enter into such leases, according to agency officials. If authorized, leasing capacity could generate revenues that could help offset the costs of modernization. By not examining a full range of options, DOE risks missing beneficial ways to modernize the SPR while saving taxpayer resources. GAO is making four recommendations, including that DOE (1) supplement the 2016 review by conducting an additional analysis, (2) ensure that the agency periodically reexamines the size of the SPR, and (3) consider a full range of options for handling potentially excess assets as it conducts its study, among other things. DOE agreed with two, partially agreed with one, and disagreed with another recommendation on refined product reserve studies. GAO maintains that the recommendations are valid.