Bill Overview
Title: Transparency in Energy Production Act of 2021
Description: This bill requires certain disclosures by entities seeking a lease or holding a lease to develop renewable energy operations or fossil fuel operations on public lands or Indian lands or any operation using any right-of-way or special use permit that would cross public lands, Indian lands, or national forests that would facilitate fossil fuel development. The disclosures are those described in the Sustainability Accounting Standard for the Renewable Resources and Alternative Energy Sector or the Extractives and Mineral Processing Sector. Every two years, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture must report to Congress on such operations, including greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, water management, biodiversity impacts, production, and the number of sites. For renewable energy operations on public lands or Indian lands, the report must include greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the production of the same amount of energy using fossil fuels.
Sponsors: Rep. Lowenthal, Alan S. [D-CA-47]
Target Audience
Population: People globally who are impacted by energy policy, the fossil fuel industry, or environmental changes
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill will impact people interested in or reliant on clean energy initiatives as it demands transparency in renewable energy production.
- Companies involved in developing renewable energy or fossil fuels on public and Indian lands will be subject to new reporting requirements.
- Energy consumers may be impacted indirectly as the bill's requirements could influence energy market dynamics and availability.
- This act has implications for environmental stakeholders concerned with emissions, air and water quality, and biodiversity.
- Local communities, particularly those near public, Indian, and national forest lands, may be affected by changes in operations due to the increased scrutiny.
- Policymakers and lawmakers need detailed reports to make better legislative decisions relating to energy and environmental policy.
- Stakeholders of the fossil fuel industry may need to adjust to mandatory transparency and related impacts on their operations.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects companies involved in energy production on public lands by requiring transparency in their operations, which may increase operational costs and alter practices, indirectly affecting individuals working in these industries.
- Native communities living near public and Indian lands are among the most direct stakeholders because of possible changes in land use, the environment, and local economies.
- Consumers of energy could experience changes in energy prices or availability based on shifts in how energy is produced and accounted for under new transparency measures.
- Environmental organizations will likely support the bill as it aims for greater accountability, possibly enhancing their advocacy efforts and ability to gather data.
- The policy could affect local employment and economic conditions in areas close to energy operations if companies adjust their operations to comply with transparency standards.
- Policymakers will gain more comprehensive data that can inform future energy and environmental legislation, indirectly impacting all citizens.
- The policy's financial cap implies focusing on transparency measures that yield the most informative disclosures efficiently.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Field Technician (Houston, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for transparency, but I worry it might complicate operations and cost jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for clearer renewable energy progress and environmental protections.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Native American Tribal Leader (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater transparency could protect our land and resources, but it needs to be properly enforced to truly benefit us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Student (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems crucial for ensuring responsible energy development and stewardship of our lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Rancher (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about additional bureaucratic requirements but hope it helps in preserving land for the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to better data through transparency will significantly aid in crafting more effective energy policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Renewable Energy Developer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency in reporting aligns with our mission and helps build consumer trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired Coal Miner (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might put extra strain on fossil industries which could affect benefits I rely on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Energy Consumer Advocate (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring transparency in energy production is essential, more information helps consumers make informed choices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental Lawyer (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy holds energy companies accountable and protects both citizens and ecosystems.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $76000000 (Low: $56000000, High: $101000000)
Year 5: $78000000 (Low: $57000000, High: $104000000)
Year 10: $82000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $110000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- The precise impact on federal revenues depends on how industries choose to comply with transparency standards.
- Estimated costs include indirect costs like potential delays or disruptions during compliance adjustments.
- Environmental benefits realized over time could reduce externality costs borne by the government and society.