Bill Overview
Title: CLEAR Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to submit a plan to Congress outlining opportunities for research, development, and commercialization projects that are capable of making significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions and/or carbon intensity of qualified fuel production facilities.
Sponsors: Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7]
Target Audience
Population: Global population affected by greenhouse gas emissions
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The CLEAR Act focuses on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, which impact the global population by contributing to climate change.
- Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions affect everyone who is impacted by environmental changes such as extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and changes in agriculture.
- By targeting refineries, the Act focuses on significant industrial sources of carbon emissions, influencing industries related to fuel production worldwide.
- The transition to lower carbon intensity in fuel production affects stakeholders in the energy sector, including workers, companies, and supply chains.
- Improved global air quality as a result of reduced emissions benefits global public health.
Reasoning
- The CLEAR Act is a significant legislative move aimed at reducing the carbon intensity of fuel production. Given the budget constraints, it impacts a relatively small portion of the population directly but has broader indirect effects due to its environmental goals.
- Different stakeholders, such as workers at refineries, environmental activists, and everyday consumers, will experience the policy's impacts differently. The intentions behind planting these refinements are to pivot towards cleaner energy sources, which extends potential benefits and challenges to various groups.
- Considering financial limitations, the Act targets specific technological and industrial shifts, potentially creating jobs in the clean energy sector while threatening existing jobs tied to traditional refineries.
- The diversity of opinions and wellbeing impacts varies depending on one's proximity to the industries affected, involvement in environmental movements, or potential economic shifts (e.g., fuel price changes).
- There is a significant focus on long-term environmental benefits; however, the short-term economic and social impacts are much more variable and depend on multiple factors including geographic location and the specific industry they are involved in.
Simulated Interviews
Refinery Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the potential loss of my job if the refinery can't meet the new standards.
- If this policy helps the environment, it's worth considering, but not without job alternatives.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The CLEAR Act is a necessary step towards reducing emissions.
- I'm optimistic that this policy will lead to positive changes in energy production and environmental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Retired Engineer (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While reducing emissions is important, we must also ensure energy reliability and cost-effectiveness.
- We should focus on innovation that preserves jobs and livelihood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Climate Activist (New York City, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is an exciting development and a sign that we are taking climate change seriously.
- I hope it catalyzes more action in other sectors too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in how this might affect weather patterns and agriculture in the long term.
- Short-term impacts on fossil fuel prices are worrying, as they influence farming costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fuel price fluctuations could hurt my business, but cleaner air would be a great benefit for the city.
- I’m in favor if options are provided to offset increased operation costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (Miami, Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing emissions can improve public health, which we desperately need.
- I feel this policy addresses a critical environmental health issue.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired Fisherman (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's critical to reduce emissions; they've already strained marine environments.
- This bill needs to prioritize protecting natural resources like waters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The CLEAR Act aligns well with ongoing industry transitions towards electric vehicles.
- Supportive of policies that push for innovation in energy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could drive demand for more sustainable technology offerings, which is great for my field.
- This could be a catalyst for more environmentally friendly innovations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $550000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $650000000)
Year 3: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $700000000)
Year 5: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)
Year 10: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Key Considerations
- The scale of implementation across refineries will impact costs heavily, depending on refinery size and current emission levels.
- Coordination with multiple stakeholders, including federal and state agencies, is crucial to align goals and responsibilities.
- Technological readiness and scalability of identified projects will determine the pace and success of commercialization efforts.