Bill Overview
Title: Energy Freedom Act
Description: This bill establishes requirements to provide for domestic energy production, including by limiting delays on oil, gas, or coal development; requiring a minimum number of annual sales of leases on federal lands and waters for oil and gas development; requiring sales of leases of federal land for wind, solar, and geothermal development; allowing the Department of the Interior to grant licenses for the exploration and mining of hardrock minerals on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Sponsors: Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]
Target Audience
Population: People potentially impacted by domestic energy production policies
Estimated Size: 328200000
- The bill affects those involved in the fossil fuel industry, including oil, gas, and coal producers due to the limitation of delays on related developments.
- Renewable energy companies and labor forces will be impacted due to the required sales of leases for wind, solar, and geothermal developments.
- Communities near federal lands may be impacted by increased energy development projects.
- Environmental advocacy groups may be indirectly affected due to potential changes in land use and environmental policies.
- The global energy market could be influenced by increased energy production in the U.S. as it may affect international energy prices and trade dynamics.
Reasoning
- The policy will directly affect individuals in the fossil fuel industry as it aims to reduce delays in development projects, potentially leading to job stability or growth in that sector.
- Renewable energy sectors will also see impacts due to new leases for wind, solar, and geothermal projects, potentially increasing employment opportunities in these industries.
- Residents near federal lands may experience environmental changes and potentially new economic opportunities due to increased energy activities, but there could also be concerns about environmental degradation.
- The policy is likely to cause mixed reactions among environmentalists, as it promotes renewable energy but also increases fossil fuel extraction.
- The budget constraints mean that funds are limited, potentially prioritizing projects with higher immediate economic returns, which might favor fossil fuels initially.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Manager (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might bring more job opportunities my way by reducing delays in projects.
- I'm worried about the environmental impacts, though. Balancing development and conservation is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Solar Panel Installer (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This sounds great for my line of work. More leases mean more installations and projects.
- It could be a turn for the energy sector towards more sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Pennsylvania)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the increased fossil fuel activities.
- While renewables are good, the focus should be on reducing carbon emissions globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Coal Miner (West Virginia)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing delays in coal development ensures my job is more secure.
- My community heavily relies on mining; this act should help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Ranch Owner (Colorado)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious about how this will affect land use and water in the area.
- There could be job benefits, but I worry about long-term land impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Wind Farm Technician (New Mexico)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expansion of wind energy is likely; that's good for my job and potentially provides cleaner energy.
- It's important that these efforts don't afford too much to fossil fuels.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Tourism Entrepreneur (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tourism might suffer if there's too much industrial development in natural areas.
- We need to balance energy needs and tourism interests carefully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Student, Studying Environmental Policy (Wyoming)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a mixed bag; it aids renewables but also pushes fossil fuels.
- I hope we have strong regulations to protect ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Fisherman (Alaska)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Offshore mining could threaten marine life, hurting the fishing industry.
- However, there may be economic boosts if managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Retired, former Geologist (Arizona)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interesting mix of policies; the focus on different energy sources is impressive.
- It will be a challenge to balance economic growth and ecological protections.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 3: $1080000000 (Low: $880000000, High: $1280000000)
Year 5: $1150000000 (Low: $950000000, High: $1350000000)
Year 10: $1300000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Key Considerations
- The environmental implications and public response to increased fossil fuel versus renewable energy projects.
- Potential legal challenges or delays around new mining and leasing activities.
- International market reactions impacting oil and gas prices.