Bill Overview
Title: American Energy Independence from Russia Act
Description: This bill addresses U.S. energy security, the production of oil and gas, and the importation and exportation of oil and gas. Specifically, the President must submit an energy security plan that (1) evaluates U.S. crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas imports and exports; (2) assesses the energy security risks of such imports; and (3) includes strategies to encourage increased domestic production of crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas to offset Russian imports. The bill also approves the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline in Phillips County, Montana for the import of oil from Canada to the United States. In addition, the bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to approve or deny applications for facilities to export natural gas from the United States to foreign countries or import natural gas from foreign countries. The President and federal agencies must obtain congressional approval before (1) prohibiting or substantially delaying certain new energy mineral leases or permits on federal lands, or (2) withdrawing certain federal lands from mineral and geothermal leasing activities. The Department of the Interior must resume issuing oil and gas leases on federal lands and offshore submerged lands in the Outer Continental Shelf as specified under the bill. Finally, the bill limits the drawdown of petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the Department of Energy develops a plan to increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas production.
Sponsors: Rep. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals engaged in global energy markets, U.S. consumers, and American energy industry workers
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The bill aims to increase domestic energy production, which would initially impact oil and gas industry workers and companies in the U.S.
- Consumers in the U.S. could be affected by potentially lower energy prices due to increased domestic supply as well as reduced dependency on foreign imports.
- The pipeline approval and changes in leasing policies could impact environmental groups and local communities concerned with environmental effects.
- U.S. national security could be influenced by reducing dependency on Russian energy imports.
- Global energy markets and geopolitical relations may be affected due to shifts in U.S. energy policies and import-export dynamics.
- Areas with oil and gas reserves, such as certain regions in U.S. states like Texas, North Dakota, and in the Gulf of Mexico can experience changes in economic activity.
Reasoning
- The policy targets various segments of the American population involved in the energy sector, from oil and gas industry workers to environmental groups.
- Areas rich in natural resources might see an economic boost, potentially increasing overall wellbeing. However, there may be environmental trade-offs that lead to differing opinions.
- The expected budget constraints limit the scope and scale of infrastructure projects and regulatory changes within the first year, addressing only a fraction of the potential workload.
- Both oil and gas companies and American consumers might see economic changes, with companies potentially growing and consumers benefiting from lower prices.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could mean more job security for me and my family. Our company might do better if they can get more drilling approvals quicker.
- It's good that the U.S. is trying to make changes to rely less on foreign oil—could make our economy stronger.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the environmental impacts of more oil drilling, especially on public lands.
- We should be moving towards renewable energy, not doubling down on fossil fuels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (North Dakota)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More drilling would bring more workers to town, which is good for my business.
- I am concerned about environmental impacts, but we depend on the oil industry for our livelihoods here.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Energy Market Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might shift global energy dynamics, but how it affects the market long-term is uncertain.
- Reducing dependency on Russian imports could strengthen U.S. strategic interests.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the potential accidents and environmental impact of more pipelines through our lands. Safety is a big concern.
- Could bring some economic growth, but what's the trade-off?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe we should focus on tech advancements and renewable energies rather than more oil and gas.
- It seems short-sighted and potentially harmful to long-term sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
School Teacher (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased local production might mean more funds for local schools, which is a good thing.
- However, I worry about what this move means for the health of our environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Freelance Writer (Orlando, Florida)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy moves us away from sustainable energy goals, which concerns me greatly.
- It seems focused on short-term gains over long-term progress.
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 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Oil Company Executive (Midland, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We see this as a positive direction. It opens more opportunities for our projects.
- It's crucial for strengthening the energy sector within our borders and reducing dependency on imports.
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 |
College Professor (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like a step backward in energy strategy, focusing on fossil fuels rather than innovative solutions.
- We should be leveraging our resources towards clean energy and sustainability initiatives.
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 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $75000000)
Year 3: $53000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $47800000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $45000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- Continued political and public scrutiny over environmental impacts could influence future cost estimates.
- Global energy market dynamics may affect policy efficacy.
- Regulatory and legal challenges against projects like the Keystone Pipeline could delay benefits and increase costs.