Bill Overview
Title: American LNG First Act of 2022
Description: This bill exempts certain vessels transporting methane or refrigerated liquid (commonly known as liquefied natural gas or LNG) from vessel documentation requirements as well as coastwise endorsement requirements. Specifically, the bill authorizes a vessel certificate of documentation (i.e., registration) to be issued for a vessel transporting methane or LNG, unless the vessel is (1) owned by a Russian national or Russia, (2) a Russian-flagged vessel, or (3) a vessel with any Russian crew member. The bill also authorizes a coastwise endorsement to be issued for a vessel that is transporting methane or LNG. Such an endorsement allows a vessel to engage in certain trade.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in or reliant on LNG transportation or consumption globally
Estimated Size: 5000000
- LNG transportation is crucial for energy markets and international trade.
- Vessel operators or shipping companies involved in LNG transport will be directly impacted as it pertains to documentation and endorsement requirements.
- The LNG shipping industry globally, including those involved in LNG export and import, will be impacted by the change in operating requirements.
- Consumers and industries reliant on natural gas in the US may indirectly be impacted due to potential changes in LNG supply and prices.
- Global energy markets might see changes due to altered LNG transport dynamics, but specific numerical estimates are difficult to ascertain without knowing the trade volumes affected.
- This is a global issue because LNG is traded and transported across continents
Reasoning
- The LNG transportation industry is specialized and relatively small compared to the total population, so while the impacts on industry individuals might be high, for the average American, it is low or none.
- The policy might lower operating costs for US-based companies involved in LNG shipping, potentially leading to lower prices or supply stability in natural gas supplies, affecting industries and consumers indirectly.
- The US's role as a major exporter of LNG means the policy could stimulate the shipping and export markets.
- Workers in the LNG transport sector and ancillary services like port operations may see increased demand and benefits if the policy reduces bottlenecks or costs.
- Given the targeted nature of the policy, direct high-impact effects are expected to focus on fewer than 10,000 households, many of which would be employees or businesses directly related to LNG transport and trade.
Simulated Interviews
LNG Shipping Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy simplifies a lot of red tape for us.
- I'm excited about the potential increase in shipments due to lower operational costs.
- It might lead to more job opportunities and better compensation over time.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about potential environmental impacts from increased shipping activity.
- We need to balance economic benefits with environmental stewardship.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Investment Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase the US's competitiveness in the global LNG market.
- It's a positive signal to investors about future growth potential.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Port Operations Manager (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might increase the number of ships we handle, which is good for my job.
- Better regulation means smoother operations and potentially higher wages.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Natural Gas Trader (Dallas, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Allows for more opportunities in US natural gas trading due to flexible shipping regulations.
- Could result in more competitive pricing and larger volumes.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired School Teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the environmental implications of more ships and LNG transport.
- There needs to be more public discussion on these impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Industrial Engineer (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this leads to stable natural gas prices, it helps our manufacturing costs.
- Less uncertainty is beneficial to our operational planning.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Natural Gas Consumer (Pennsylvania)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy stabilizes or lowers our energy costs, it would greatly help.
- We already spend a significant part of our budget on heating during winters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Economics Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an interesting case of targeted deregulation to stimulate a specific sector.
- There will be long-term data worth analyzing about its effectiveness.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need stricter environmental regulations, not looser ones.
- There could be unintended consequences on marine life and coastal ecosystems.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy's impact on global shipping practices could lead to shifts in LNG transport routes.
- Excluding Russian vessels may alter direct trade relations, potentially affecting global LNG availability and costs.
- Changes in documentation processes could impact how quickly new shipping entrants access the US market.
- Indirect impacts on the energy markets should be considered, although difficult to quantify.