Bill Overview
Title: Protecting American Energy Act
Description: This bill prohibits the withdrawal of land from mining, mineral leasing, or geothermal leasing laws if the withdrawal is projected to have a negative impact on domestic energy independence. The bill also requires annual reports on domestic energy capacity, production, and consumption.
Sponsors: Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on domestic energy resources worldwide
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill aims to ensure continued access to lands for mining, mineral leasing, or geothermal leasing to support domestic energy production.
- Individuals working in the mining, mineral leasing, and geothermal industries are directly impacted.
- The entire US population relies on energy production for electricity, heating, transportation, and many other daily activities.
- Communities near the lands open to these activities could experience economic and environmental changes.
- Consumers may be indirectly affected by changes in energy prices or supply resulting from resource availability.
Reasoning
- The target population includes individuals directly involved in the energy sector, but also the general US population indirectly, due to the implications on energy prices, supply, and environmental considerations.
- The budget constraints suggest that direct financial impacts or subsidies will be limited, so the main effects are expected to be regulatory and market-driven.
- Consumers benefit if energy prices stabilize due to increased supply, while environmental concerns might offset these gains in areas where mining is increased.
Simulated Interviews
Geologist (Wyoming)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy will help secure jobs in the mining industry.
- There are concerns about environmental impacts, but regulatory checks should help manage them.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could harm local ecosystems and wildlife.
- Better land management practices are needed to protect the environment.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeping energy costs down is crucial for my business.
- I support anything that can help stabilize the local economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Coal Miner (West Virginia)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mining is part of our community, but we need to balance it with sustainable jobs.
- My pension and community depend on this industry, so I'm torn.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Urban Planner (Colorado)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Shifting focus from mining to renewables is more sustainable long-term.
- The policy could delay necessary transitions to clean energy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Oil and Gas Engineer (North Dakota)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could stabilize my job for the foreseeable future.
- We need energy independence, but not at the cost of ignoring cleaner technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Energy Market Analyst (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies should be geared towards renewables, not just sustaining fossil fuels.
- Long-term risks with this policy could outweigh benefits. Better to invest in clean tech.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Rancher (New Mexico)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our land is at risk of degradation, which could affect our livelihood.
- There need to be safeguards for property owners and the environment before committing to such policies.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Environmental Activist (Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a step backward in the fight against climate change.
- The policy could disrupt local ecosystems and communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 9 |
Tourism Manager (Nevada)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If managed well, energy projects can coexist with tourism.
- Increased land use for energy should consider visual and environmental impacts on tourism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $102000000 (Low: $82000000, High: $122000000)
Year 3: $104000000 (Low: $84000000, High: $124000000)
Year 5: $108000000 (Low: $88000000, High: $128000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- The balancing of economic growth with environmental sustainability.
- Impact on US energy independence and security.
- Local economic and social effects in areas with increased mining activities.