Bill Overview
Title: Midland Over Moscow Act
Description: This bill imposes sanctions related to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and revises the expedited approval process for natural gas imports and exports in or out of the United States. (Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline constructed to increase the export of natural gas from Russia to Europe.) Within 10 days of this bill's enactment, the President must impose sanctions on any entity responsible for the planning, construction, maintenance, financing, or operation of Nord Stream 2, as well as any corporate officer or principal shareholder with a controlling interest in such an entity. The bill also revokes the President's authority to waive certain sanctions related to Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream, another Russian natural gas pipeline project. The bill also allows any nation, with specified exclusions, to use an expedited process to receive approval to import or export natural gas in or out of the United States (currently only a nation with a free trade agreement with the United States may use the expedited process). Specifically, the bill excludes any nation (1) subject to U.S.-imposed sanctions or trade restrictions, or (2) excluded by the President or Congress for national security reasons.
Sponsors: Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by changes in Nord Stream 2 operations and global natural gas trade
Estimated Size: 50000000
- Sanctions on Nord Stream 2 primarily target Russian entities and individuals involved in the pipeline's operation, with potential impacts on European companies and countries reliant on this gas supply.
- Natural gas importers and exporters globally could benefit from or be disadvantaged by the new expedited approval process criteria, depending on their geopolitical alignment and economic interests.
- European consumers may face energy supply changes or increased costs as sanctions affect the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, potentially leading them to seek alternative energy sources.
- The energy market dynamics might shift, affecting global natural gas prices and impacting countries and companies involved in natural gas trade.
Reasoning
- The $50,000,000 budget in year 1 limits extensive direct impact analysis across all potentially affected populations, focusing instead on key stakeholders like U.S. natural gas exporters and consumers.
- With the policy affecting international business, fluctuations in global natural gas prices could indirectly impact American consumers' wellbeing through changes in energy costs.
- The global estimate of 1,000,000,000 is broad, suggesting far-reaching impacts; however, within the U.S., the number directly impacted is much smaller, aligning with the $50,000,000 budget constraint.
- Policy impacts will vary, being more pronounced among those directly involved in natural gas industries than average consumers.
- U.S. energy companies could see increases in business due to expedited export processes, potentially bringing more job security and satisfaction to employees.
- The lengthy timeline over 20 years suggests the need to observe long-term economic adjustments, especially in terms of energy market dynamics.
Simulated Interviews
Natural Gas Export Manager (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the policy's ability to open up new markets for exports.
- There's potential for business growth, though much depends on global market responses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Manufacturing Plant Manager (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to monitor gas prices closely as any increases could impact factory costs.
- It's uncertain, but any reduction in gas supply from international markets might affect our operating expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Energy Market Analyst (New York)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might drive more volatility in the natural gas markets.
- Long-term benefits include fostering competition and potentially stabilizing prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Homemaker (Pennsylvania)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about potential increases in energy bills impacting household finances.
- Uncertain if policy changes will have direct effects, but keeping a watch on energy news.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could introduce fluctuations affecting stock valuations.
- Depends on how the industry adjusts to new trade dynamics; watchful of investment portfolio.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Environmental Policy Advocate (Ohio)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about prioritized fossil fuel trade over renewable investments.
- Hopes the policy can eventually lead to increased investment in renewables.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (Alaska)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Global gas price changes have trickled effects even here.
- Keeping an eye on supply consistency and pricing rigidity post-policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Energy Company Executive (Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a major boon for our company, leading to increased exports.
- Strategically planning to expand operations globally with the expedited process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Coal Miner (Wyoming)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My job might be indirectly affected if natural gas markets become more competitive.
- Worried that global shifts could affect the coal demand and, indirectly, jobs here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Data Scientist (Colorado)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested to see if this might affect energy innovation and data trends.
- Monitoring potential changes in consumer energy demand and supply analytics.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $104000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32680000, High: $108160000)
Year 5: $58320000 (Low: $35210000, High: $116640000)
Year 10: $67482400 (Low: $40726200, High: $134964800)
Year 100: $144674765 (Low: $87248659, High: $289349530)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring compliance with the new sanctions will require international cooperation and robust enforcement mechanisms.
- Changes in global energy supply patterns could have broad geopolitical implications for U.S.-Europe relations.
- U.S. energy market participants may react differently to these changes based on their position in the export supply chain.