Bill Overview
Title: DRILL Now Act
Description: This bill bars the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any regulation relating to hydraulic fracturing unless it is issued by the state in which the regulation is to be implemented or enforced.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in and relying on the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill specifically targets regulatory commissions overseeing major river basins, which are significant sources of water for residents and are involved in hydraulic fracturing activities.
- Hydraulic fracturing impacts landowners, as it often occurs on privately-owned land and requires agreements with landowners.
- The energy industry, particularly companies involved in hydraulic fracturing, will be impacted as the bill affects where regulations can come from.
- Environmental groups focused on the health of river basins and water quality may be impacted by changes in who regulates fracking activities.
- Individuals living in states within the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basin areas will be directly impacted in terms of environmental policy changes.
- The decision-making on hydraulic fracturing regulations shifts from river basin commissions to individual states, impacting how local communities engage with state regulators.
Reasoning
- The DRILL Now Act could significantly change the dynamic of hydraulic fracturing regulation along these river basins by shifting authority from specialized commissions to state governments. This means residents and landowners that fall within these river basins could see upstream impacts either from reduced regulatory oversight or an increased burden on state legislatures to manage fracking regulations alone.
- Given the scope of the regions involved, millions of residents could potentially be directly subjected to changes in environmental quality, economic opportunities related to energy production, and property use regulations. This will vary depending on each state's priorities regarding energy production and environmental protection.
- The budget mentioned suggests a moderate-to-significant government investment in accommodating shifts or prosecuting new regulations, which represents a substantial amount, but given the vastness of the population and regions involved, individual effects might vary.
- Landowners in counties where fracking is prevalent might experience immediate economic benefits or concerns surrounding safety and environmental degradation due to less regulatory scrutiny. Meanwhile, residents and local industries relying on the river basin for water may experience changes in water quality.
- The act does not rule out state-level regulation, meaning impacts would vary by state based on how aggressiveness in regulation is perceived post-policy.
Simulated Interviews
Retired teacher (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about what will happen to our water quality. Fracking hasn't expanded much here yet, but without the commission's oversight, I'm uncertain state regulators will protect us.
- It's important to keep the energy industry growing, but not at the expense of everything we've worked to preserve in our water resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Energy Policy Analyst (Wilmington, Delaware)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that without basin commissions, our regulatory focus will shift away from sustainable practices in favor of short-term gains from increased fracking. This could undermine broader environmental goals.
- States might compete, resulting in a race to the bottom, weakening environmental protection in the process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a huge setback for our efforts to protect the Potomac, which supplies drinking water to millions.
- State-level regulations can be strong, but they often lack the consistent monitoring and resources of multi-state commissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
Manager at Natural Gas Company (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could streamline operations and reduce redundant regulatory burdens, allowing us to increase production and hire more local workers.
- I believe state agencies are more in touch with the local economies and needs than the interstate commissions.
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 |
Public Health Officer (Newark, New Jersey)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about what will become of the coordinated pollution control efforts as they shift to state agencies that may prioritize differently.
- The unique threats from fracking to water sources require an inclusive approach beyond state lines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Real Estate Developer (Trenton, New Jersey)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Projects could be more profitable if state regulations allow more aggressive development and economic boosting from fracking.
- However, we are cognizant of maintaining sustainability, as that drives long-term property values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Farmer (Rochester, New York)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that state-level oversight will overlook smaller farmers while attempting to accommodate fracking interests.
- Keeping soil and water health intact is key for our produce and sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Public Utility Worker (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change concerns us as maintaining clean water standards might become harder, depending on how our state handles new responsibilities.
- Community trust relies on governmental transparency and accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Albany, New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing regulatory shifts can open up opportunities for tech solutions to bridge gaps left by state agencies.
- However, we must balance innovations with ensuring public trust and safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Environmental Legal Advocate (Scranton, Pennsylvania)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This poses a challenge to enforce the same level of environmental care without a multistate approach.
- Communities need consistent, reliable protections that aren't swayed by political or economic shifts. This restructuring could strain that continuity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- State-level agencies' ability to assume new regulatory responsibilities effectively will be crucial.
- Public and environmental group's reactions to shifting regulatory control could impact implementation and lead to litigation.
- Variability in state regulations may create disparities in environmental policy and economic outcomes.