Bill Overview
Title: REFUSE PUTIN Act
Description: This bill addresses U.S. energy security and independence, the importation and exportation of fossil fuels, and drawdowns from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Specifically, the bill directs the President to prohibit the importation of fossil fuels from Russia. While the prohibition is in effect, the President may not ban the export of crude oil. The President must also rescind certain orders, including specified environmental executive orders relating to climate change. Further, agencies must repeal any regulations that have the intent or effect of substantially reducing U.S. energy independence. In addition, the bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the exclusive authority to approve or deny applications for facilities, such as liquefied natural gas terminals, to export natural gas from the United States to foreign countries or import natural gas from foreign countries. Additionally, the Department of Energy may not drawdown petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until it develops a plan to increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas production. Finally, the bill also approves the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline in Phillips County, Montana for the import of oil from Canada to the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. McKinley, David B. [R-WV-1]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by changes in energy policy related to the REFUSE PUTIN Act
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The global energy markets will be impacted, particularly those countries dependent on Russian fossil fuels.
- Countries dependent on the U.S. for energy exports, especially of liquefied natural gas, will be directly impacted by the regulatory changes in U.S. energy export facilities.
- Individuals and industries related to environmental protection and advocacy may be impacted negatively due to the rescission of climate change orders.
- The regulation change might globally impact fossil fuel prices owing to shifts in energy supply dynamics.
Reasoning
- The policy is aimed at reducing dependency on Russian fossil fuels while boosting domestic energy production, which will affect energy markets globally. It may benefit U.S.-based fossil fuel workers by potentially increasing job opportunities and energy exports. However, it could negatively impact environmental policies and renewable energy sectors.
- The target population includes individuals working in the fossil fuel industry, communities near energy extraction sites, consumers who may experience changes in energy costs, and environmental professionals affected by policy rollbacks.
- We assume a strong focus is on those directly engaged in domestic energy production, particularly in regions with oil and gas reserves or related infrastructure projects like pipelines.
- Considering budget and target population constraints, we focus on individuals experiencing diverse effects from job market shifts and energy price changes to environmental concerns.
- U.S. consumers, especially in less economically robust regions, could potentially face increased costs without policy mitigation strategies, affecting their wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Supervisor (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Working in the oil industry, I see potential job growth; however, I worry about longer shifts and safety with increased production mandates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Environmental Scientist (Bismarck, ND)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work is directly challenged by the policy. Environmental setbacks could have long-term negative impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 8 |
Pipeline Technician (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about environmental risks, but this policy could mean job security and more work opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this policy could setback progress in renewable adoption and increase reliance on fossil fuels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 9 |
Retired Oil Executive (Tulsa, OK)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might return us to energy independence, which I believe is crucial for economic stability and investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Homemaker (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried my family will face higher costs due to energy policy changes, and the environment might suffer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Professor of Environmental Science (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes could be a major setback for environmental progress and sustainable energy education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 9 |
Gas Station Manager (Dallas, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm uncertain how supply changes will affect business, but I hope for stable fuel prices and availability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Tech Company CEO (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear this policy will divert focus from innovation in clean energy, which is crucial for sustainable growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Community Organizer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will impact vulnerable communities hard, especially if fossil fuel use increases without sustainable alternatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $180000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $220000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $140000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- Global geopolitical impacts due to changing energy policy could influence international relations.
- Possible environmental impacts and public health concerns from rescinded climate regulations.
- Effects on local communities due to new and expanded energy facility sites, including social and environmental factors.