Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7298

Bill Overview

Title: Promoting Energy Independence and Transparency Act

Description: This bill requires the Department of the Interior to take certain actions related to parcels of land that have been nominated for future sales of onshore oil and gas leases and related drilling permits. Specifically, Interior must (1) report to Congress about the status of the parcels, (2) publish on its website information concerning expressions of interest in nominated parcels and drilling permits, and (3) issue certain pending applications for drilling permits within 30 days.

Sponsors: Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Target Audience

Population: People potentially impacted by changes in onshore oil and gas leasing policies

Estimated Size: 330000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Oil Rig Worker (Midland, TX)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the policy is good because it speeds up the permit process, which means more job security for me.
  • The reporting to Congress ensures there's less of a chance for oversight issues to cause shutdowns.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 5
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Environmental Scientist (Denver, CO)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any move towards more transparency is a step in the right direction, but we need much stricter environmental controls.
  • There's a concern that the expedited permits might lead to insufficient evaluation of environmental risks.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Energy Market Analyst (New York, NY)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More transparency in leasing could stabilize the market with clearer information on potential US production.
  • If permit processing is faster, we might see increased supply that could lower prices, benefiting consumers.

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 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Rancher (Casper, WY)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about the impact on my water and livestock.
  • Having more information and quicker permit decisions is good, but environmental impacts need to be more thoroughly considered.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (Santa Barbara, CA)

Age: 70 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could be harmful if it leads to more drilling without adequate environmental considerations.
  • Transparency is beneficial, but not if it comes at the cost of our beaches and wildlife.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Government Policy Advisor (Washington, DC)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This might speed up domestic production, which is good for energy independence and national security.
  • Transparency and quick processing can decrease bureaucratic delays, but the environmental assessments should not be compromised.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Graduate Student (Bismarck, ND)

Age: 23 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned that expedited permits might lead to oversight failures.
  • It's positive that there's increased focus on transparency, which could help in identifying potential issues early.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Land Rights Attorney (Shreveport, LA)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might drive more interest and work within my field, ensuring landowner rights are protected amidst increasing drill activities.
  • Transparency measures are welcome, but much more needs to be done on environmental protection.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Oil Company Executive (Houston, TX)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is great for business; speeding up the permit process enables us to explore opportunities faster.
  • The transparency aspect helps in gaining stakeholder confidence.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 5

Tech Entrepreneur (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill encourages much-needed transparency, which is beneficial for tech-enabled monitoring solutions.
  • However, rapid permitting might overlook some critical environmental assessments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 5 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $14000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $18000000)

Year 2: $14000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $18000000)

Year 3: $13500000 (Low: $9500000, High: $17500000)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

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

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

Key Considerations