Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/1517

Bill Overview

Title: Ending Taxpayer Welfare for Oil and Gas Companies Act of 2021

Description: This bill addresses royalties related to the development of federal energy resources. Among other requirements, the bill increases the onshore royalty rates for new oil, gas, and coal leases; increases onshore rental rates for oil and gas leasing; modifies the current onshore oil and gas minimum bid from $2 to $10 and requires it to be adjusted every four years for inflation; and increases inspection fees and penalties on oil and gas operators.

Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]

Target Audience

Population: General global population affected by energy market changes

Estimated Size: 331000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Oil Rig Operator (Houston, Texas)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about job security if costs go up for my company.
  • We could see more layoffs, which would impact my family's financial stability.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 4 6
Year 3 4 6
Year 5 3 6
Year 10 2 5
Year 20 2 5

Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a step in the right direction for reducing fossil fuel dependency.
  • We need more incentives like this to push for cleaner energy solutions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Small Business Owner (Bismarck, North Dakota)

Age: 50 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If oil prices go up, so does my cost. This could hurt my sales.
  • I hope there is government support for small businesses like mine if this policy passes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 4 5
Year 3 4 5
Year 5 3 5
Year 10 3 5
Year 20 3 5

Middle School Teacher (New York, New York)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Energy prices might spike, which would strain my already tight budget.
  • It's crucial that changes also support clean alternatives to benefit future generations.

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 4 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Software Developer (San Francisco, California)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support any move towards reducing fossil fuels—even if I have to pay a bit more initially.
  • This policy could hasten the shift towards cleaner energy sources, which is necessary.

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 8
Year 20 9 8

Retired (Marietta, Ohio)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about my heating costs going up. Every dollar counts when you're on a fixed income.
  • I hope there's some assistance if prices rise too high because of this policy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 4 6
Year 3 4 6
Year 5 3 6
Year 10 3 6
Year 20 3 6

Oilfield Service Technician (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)

Age: 23 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Job security is a big concern if costs go up for the oil companies employing me.
  • I hope the policy comes with retraining programs for sectors in decline.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 4 7
Year 20 3 6

Stay-at-home Parent (Rural Pennsylvania)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm anxious about potential layoffs impacting our family income.
  • Hope there are alternative opportunities if this policy shifts the job market.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 3 5
Year 3 3 5
Year 5 2 5
Year 10 2 5
Year 20 2 5

Renewable Energy Consultant (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is great as it can boost interest and investment in renewables.
  • Higher fossil fuel costs make our services more attractive to businesses.

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 9
Year 20 10 9

Finance Analyst (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Uncertain policies can lead to market volatility, impacting my portfolio.
  • Need for clear guidelines to manage energy sector investments effectively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 2: $7000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $12000000)

Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $8000000)

Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)

Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)

Year 100: $500000 (Low: $100000, High: $1000000)

Key Considerations