As discussed in our June 2010 report, both the Propane and Oilheat Acts specify three areas as mandatory functions and priorities for PERC’s and NORA’s programs and projects.follows: The three mandatory areas are as Research and development: The Propane Act requires PERC to develop programs that provide for research and development of clean and efficient propane utilization equipment. The Oilheat Act directs similar oilheat-related research and development and directs NORA to fund projects in the demonstration stage of development. According to our analysis of PERC’s audited financial statements, annual reports, and other financial information that they provided to us for our June 2010 report, of the about $350.6 million collected from assessments for 1998 to 2008, PERC and its affiliated state propane associations spent $28.1 million for research and development (8 percent). According to our analysis of NORA’s audited financial statements, annual reports, and other financial information, of the more than $107.4 million NORA collected from assessments for 2001 to 2008, NORA and the affiliated state associations spent $6.2 million (5.8 percent) on research and development. Safety and training/education and training: Both the Propane Act and the Oilheat Act require development of programs to enhance consumer and employee safety and training. PERC refers to this program area as “safety and training,” and NORA refers to it as “education and training.” Projects that fall into this spending category include developing employee training materials and conducting training courses for industry personnel. According to our analysis of PERC’s and NORA’s audited financial statements, annual reports, and other financial information that they provided to us for our June 2010 report, from 1998 to 2008, PERC and its affiliated state propane associations spent $50.7 million for safety and training (14.5 percent), and from 2001 to 2008, NORA and the affiliated state associations spent $17.8 million (16.5 percent) on education and training. Public/consumer education: The Propane Act directs PERC to develop projects to inform and educate the public about safety and other issues associated with the use of propane. Similarly, the Oilheat Act directs NORA to develop programs that provide information to assist consumers and other persons in making evaluations and decisions regarding oilheat. Such activities have included the development of radio, television, and print advertising directed at consumers and industry professionals. According to our analysis of PERC’s and NORA’s audited financial statements, annual reports, and other financial information that they provided to us for our June 2010 report, from 1998 through 2008, PERC spent about $178.6 million for consumer education (50.9 percent), and from 2001 through 2008, NORA spent $68.4 million for consumer education (63.7 percent). To fund their operations, PERC and NORA assess each gallon of propane or heating oil, respectively. Specifically, to fund PERC operations, each gallon of odorized propane gas sold is assessed $0.004. To fund NORA operations, each gallon of heating oil sold is assessed $0.002. While the Propane and Oilheat Acts contain certain restrictions on the types of activities PERC and NORA can undertake, the acts generally do not prohibit PERC and NORA from conducting programs or projects beyond these mandatory areas identified above, and both organizations have carried out additional activities. PERC, for example, has spent funds on agriculture and engine fuel programs. In addition, to coordinate its activities with other parties, as required by the Propane Act, PERC has established an industry programs area to provide support, data, and other services to the propane industry and maximize its impact. Likewise, in 2004 and 2005, NORA funded an oil tank training and education program for tank installers, inspectors, and insurers to address concerns about storage tanks, which NORA officials stated spanned all three mandatory areas in the statute. In our June 2010 report, we found that some PERC and NORA activities appeared to meet the requirements of the acts, but certain other activities, such as some activities involving Congress or politically affiliated entities, raised issues as to whether they were covered by the Propane and Oilheat Acts’ specific lobbying restrictions. Even when we assumed that these activities were permitted, issues remained about whether Congress anticipated that assessment funds would be used for these types of activities. We also found issues concerning PERC’s funding of consumer education activities after spending restrictions were triggered and NORA’s monitoring of the expenditures of its funds by state associations. The Propane Act prohibits the use of PERC assessment funds for certain “lobbying” activities, specifically for “influencing legislation or elections,” except for recommending to the Secretary of Energy any changes in the act or other statutes that would further the act’s purposes. At the time of our June 2010 review, the Oilheat Act contained similar provisions, some of which were amended in 2014.NORA’s activities––particularly communications and expenditures related to Congress or to politically affiliated entities––raised issues as to whether they were covered under the acts’ lobbying restrictions. However, some of PERC’s and In our June 2010 report, we found, for example, that PERC paid for a grantee to attend activities associated with the Republican and Democratic national conventions, for a grantee to contribute thousands of dollars to several politically active organizations, and for a grantee to spend thousands of dollars to host Senate and House receptions. We also found that minutes of an August 2008 NORA executive committee meeting indicated that the NORA President said he was seeking state senators’ support for NORA reauthorization and that a December 2008 NORA-qualified Massachusetts state association newsletter indicated that the NORA President traveled to Washington to urge both Massachusetts senators to support NORA reauthorization. We found that neither the Propane Act nor the Oilheat Act provided guidance on what constitutes “influencing legislation or elections;” there was little pertinent legislative history; no court had addressed what this language means as used in these statutes; and other federal laws containing similar language had been interpreted in different ways. As such, it was not clear whether or not the Propane Act’s or the Oilheat Act’s prohibitions covered those types of activities. Even when we assumed PERC’s and NORA’s activities were permitted, issues remained about whether Congress anticipated that the assessment funds would be used for these activities, particularly when PERC and NORA had classified this spending as “consumer education,” one of the functions that the acts require PERC and NORA to carry out. Specifically, issues remained about whether they qualified as “consumer education” under the acts. Issues also remained about whether Congress anticipated that such a high proportion of the groups’ funding would go to consumer education activities (i.e., more than half), in comparison to the relatively little support given to research and development (i.e., 8 percent for PERC and less than 6 percent for NORA), which had been a key area of congressional interest as the laws were debated prior to enactment. Because PERC’s and NORA’s authorizing statutes did not provide for a particular funding level for specific activities or indicate a ranking among the activities designated as priorities, they afforded PERC and NORA wide latitude in deciding how and in what amounts they spent assessments collected. Since the legislative history of both statutes indicated that a need for research and development funding was a key factor driving the legislation, PERC’s and NORA’s decisions to spend over half of their funding on consumer education raised issues about whether these funds were being used as Congress anticipated. Furthermore, while some PERC and NORA activities appeared to meet statutory requirements, the lack of specificity in the language of the statutes raised issues about what activities were covered under certain we suggested that as provisions of the acts. In our June 2010 report,Congress considers whether to reauthorize NORA or amend PERC’s authorizing statute, it consider imposing greater specificity on the requirements it has established and to establish mechanisms to enhance compliance with those requirements. Specifically, we suggested that Congress should consider specifying any prioritization of activities it wants to be undertaken and detailing more specifically which activities are prohibited (such as some of those involving lobbying) and subjecting PERC’s and NORA’s activities to review, interpretation and approval by an independent, designated entity and specifying a federal oversight role by requiring DOE to monitor and oversee the expenditure of PERC and NORA funds. In our June 2010 report, we also found that PERC initially designated certain activities as “consumer education” but, when price-based restrictions on consumer education programs were triggered in 2009, it redesignated and continued the activities as “residential and commercial” matters. The Propane Act specified that if the 5-year average rolling price index of consumer grade propane exceeds a particular price threshold, PERC’s activities must be restricted to research and development, training, and safety. Commerce notified PERC in August 2009 that this price composite index threshold had been exceeded. We found that, after the August notification, PERC approved three grants, including a no-cost change order to a previously approved grant. These grants initially had been proposed and approved as consumer education grants, which would be prohibited under the restriction, and PERC amended their designation to a new program area called “residential and commercial” matters. The Propane Act did not specifically define the scope of activities permitted under the price restriction or the activities that must cease. We concluded that the resulting lack of a precise statutory line between permitted and prohibited activities created difficulty in assessing compliance with the restriction. In our June 2010 report, we also found issues concerning NORA’s monitoring of state oilheat associations. It was unclear during our review whether NORA’s monitoring procedures were adequate to detect noncompliance among its state grantees if it occurred.