Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6772

Bill Overview

Title: Expediting Natural Gas Exports to Allies Act

Description: This bill revises the approval process for applications to export natural gas. Specifically, the bill expedites the approval process for certain U.S. allies, such as Taiwan and Ukraine. However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may not grant expedited approval for applications to export natural gas to any nation that is (1) subject to sanctions or trade restrictions imposed by the United States, or (2) designated by acts of Congress from such expedited approval for reasons of national security.

Sponsors: Rep. Gonzales, Tony [R-TX-23]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in or dependent on natural gas markets globally

Estimated Size: 5000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Natural Gas Export Manager (Houston, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe expediting the approval process will open up new markets faster, boosting our business.
  • This change should lead to more job security for our team.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 7

Energy Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with strategic interests to support allies, but we should monitor its environmental impacts.
  • The regulatory oversight needs to ensure no breaches occur in safety protocols.

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 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Expediting natural gas exports could harm the environment if not managed properly.
  • I worry that increased gas exports divert focus from renewable energy goals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Pipeline Engineer (Dallas, TX)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I expect job opportunities to grow with increased exports, which secures my career.
  • Pipeline safety must continue to be a top priority despite expedited processes.

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 9 7
Year 10 10 7
Year 20 9 7

Financial Investment Analyst (New York, NY)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy provides lucrative investment opportunities in U.S. natural gas companies.
  • It offers a chance to strengthen economic ties with allied nations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Small Business Owner (Boston, MA)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Higher exports could spike natural gas prices, affecting my operating costs.
  • I fear smaller companies like mine might not absorb potential price hikes.

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 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 26 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy change could stimulate demand for better energy management solutions.
  • It presents opportunities but also challenges for the industry to balance tech with energy needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Union Leader (Cleveland, OH)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our members stand to gain from more stable job prospects as export markets expand.
  • We must ensure these changes don't compromise worker safety standards.

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 7
Year 20 9 7

Natural Gas Trader (Chicago, IL)

Age: 54 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could create new market dynamics and trading opportunities.
  • However, volatility could also increase due to shifts in global supply and demand.

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 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is a good case study for students to understand international energy trade.
  • I'm concerned about potential long-term impacts on domestic market stability.

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 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)

Year 3: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)

Year 5: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $23000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations