Bill Overview
Title: Methane Waste Prevention Act of 2021
Description: This bill establishes requirements to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must issue regulations that require the sector to reduce methane emissions over time. By 2025, methane emissions must be at least 65% below 2012 emissions. By 2030, the emissions must be at least 90% below 2012 emissions. The Department of the Interior must also establish regulations to reduce and prevent the waste of natural gas on federal land and Indian lands, including waste from venting, flaring, and fugitive releases. The regulations must include consistent enforcement mechanisms for any oil or gas operations that are not in compliance.
Sponsors: Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by changes in global methane emission levels
Estimated Size: 331000000
- Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a much higher heat-trapping capability than carbon dioxide, meaning any reduction in methane will help combat climate change and associated extreme weather.
- Reducing methane emissions will contribute to better air quality, as methane is often released with other harmful volatile organic compounds.
- The oil and natural gas industries are significant sources of employment and contribute substantially to the economy, so changes in their operations to comply with the Act may impact employment and regional economies.
- Communities located near oil and gas extraction sites, which often include low-income and marginalized groups, are more likely to experience improved health outcomes due to lower emissions.
- Improved health from reduced air pollution will benefit entire populations, particularly those with chronic respiratory conditions.
Reasoning
- The Methane Waste Prevention Act of 2021 targets a reduction in methane emissions, which will improve air quality and public health, especially for those near oil and gas operations.
- The Act also has economic implications, potentially resulting in shifts in employment due to operational changes in the oil and natural gas sectors.
- Some communities might see positive health outcomes due to decreased pollution, whereas others might face economic challenges due to energy sector shifts.
- The population impacted includes workers in the oil and gas industry, residents in proximity to extraction sites, and generally, people who value environmental health improvements.
- The policy has a significant budget, indicating serious federal commitment, which will directly impact regulatory compliance capabilities and enforcement efforts.
- The policy may yield long-term environmental benefits amidst potential short-term economic challenges.
- The budget constraints are essential for maintaining a balance between environmental goals and economic sustainability.
Simulated Interviews
Oil rig worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might threaten my job security since it requires companies to invest in new technologies.
- I understand the need for environmental protection, but it shouldn't come at the cost of workers' livelihoods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental researcher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act is a critical step forward in addressing climate change.
- It may lead to significant improvements in air quality and public health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Local business owner (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried about a drop in business if oil and gas production slows down.
- Environmental benefits are great, but I am concerned about maintaining my customer base.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Healthcare professional (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cleaner air could mean less respiratory illness for my patients.
- I'm hopeful about the potential reduction in healthcare costs and improved health outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Student (Fargo, North Dakota)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act aligns with my career goals to work in environmental protection.
- I see this as a strong commitment to sustainable practices in the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Natural gas company executive (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Meeting the 2025 and 2030 targets will be challenging but achievable with the right technology investments.
- Corporate responsibility towards the environment is increasingly important for our reputation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Climate policy analyst (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is essential for meeting climate targets and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
- Enforcement mechanisms will need consistent application to be effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Technology innovator (San Francisco, California)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Methane Waste Prevention Act opens up opportunities for technological development and innovation.
- It provides a business opportunity to develop cutting-edge solutions for emission reduction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
College student (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect improved public health outcomes as a result of this policy.
- It represents a significant step toward sustainable energy practices and could influence my future career path.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Retired (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the Act might seem disruptive, it's crucial for future generations to have a healthier environment.
- My personal concern is the impact on retirement benefits tied to the industry's fortunes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $850000000)
Year 2: $775000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $880000000)
Year 3: $800000000 (Low: $720000000, High: $900000000)
Year 5: $850000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $950000000)
Year 10: $950000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1050000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $1600000000)
Key Considerations
- The need for balancing environmental benefits with potential economic impacts on regions heavily dependent on oil and gas production.
- The industry's readiness and ability to implement necessary technology upgrades and operational changes.
- Potential legal and political challenges from industry stakeholders.