Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6916

Bill Overview

Title: Ending Dependence on Russian Energy Act

Description: This bill addresses the production of oil and gas, the importation of oil or natural gas from Russia, and the exportation of oil or natural gas to other countries. Specifically, the bill approves the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline in Phillips County, Montana for the import of oil from Canada to the United States. In addition, the bill requires the President to (1) prohibit the importation of oil or natural gas originating from Russia, and (2) seek to reduce restrictions on the exportation of oil or natural gas originating from the United States.

Sponsors: Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]

Target Audience

Population: Global energy consumers and industries

Estimated Size: 330000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Oil and Gas Engineer (Houston, Texas)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This new bill potentially opens up more job opportunities for us in the oil industry.
  • We are anticipating a busier schedule as U.S. output may increase to replace Russian imports.

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 9 5

Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Pushing further into fossil fuels with the Keystone pipeline contradicts our climate goals.
  • I'd prefer to see investment in renewable energy over expanding pipeline infrastructure.

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 4 6
Year 20 5 7

Construction Worker (Farmington, New Mexico)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The Keystone pipeline approval means steady work for us in the immediate future.
  • It's projects like these that ensure my livelihood over the years.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Small Business Owner - Restaurant (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Higher energy exports might lead to increased domestic energy prices, which is bad for my operating costs.
  • I try to stay sustainable, but energy prices factor into everything.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired Financial Analyst (New York, New York)

Age: 63 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Diversifying away from Russian imports is a good market stabilization strategy.
  • Long term, these moves could improve U.S. standing in energy and global economics.

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 9 8

High School Teacher (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 54 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The push for more domestic energy production should be accompanied by more investment in renewables.
  • I'm concerned about environmental consequences of new pipelines.

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 6 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 7 8

Energy Consultant (Raleigh, North Carolina)

Age: 41 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • With increased U.S. oil outputs, there might be new consultancy opportunities.
  • I am concerned about potential dependency shifts and energy price volatility.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Auto Industry Worker (Detroit, Michigan)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If oil prices stabilize, it might sway some customers away from electric vehicles.
  • Still, our focus on advanced technologies secures my job in the long run.

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 6 6

Natural Gas Distributor (Louisville, Kentucky)

Age: 57 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The expansion of exports is a business opportunity for us, expanding into more markets.
  • It aligns with our growth strategy and could lead to higher revenues.

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

Tech Company HR Manager (San Francisco, California)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Even slight fluctuations in energy prices can affect our operational costs.
  • We are focused on mitigating any cost increases as much as possible.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)

Year 2: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)

Year 3: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)

Year 5: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)

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

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

Key Considerations