Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8224

Bill Overview

Title: Fueling American Prosperity Act

Description: This bill requires the Department of the Interior to carry out sales of onshore and offshore oil and gas leases. If the sales are not carried out, the bill limits Interior from hiring, transferring, or reassigning duties among officers and employees. In addition, the bill (1) requires Interior to finalize its next offshore oil and gas leasing program by June 30, 2022; and (2) sets deadlines by which certain environmental assessments and environmental impact statements must be completed if the national average price of gasoline exceeds a specified threshold.

Sponsors: Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals reliant or concerned with global oil and gas markets

Estimated Size: 331000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Oil Rig Engineer (Houston, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could increase job security in the sector.
  • Concerned about long-term environmental impact.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental Scientist (Miami, FL)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Very concerned about increased drilling hurting marine life.
  • Believes economic benefits do not justify environmental costs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Gas Station Owner (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If supply increases, costs might lower, boosting sales.
  • Worries about regulatory compliance for gas quality.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Department of the Interior Employee (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Stressful knowing job might be impacted by policy deadlines.
  • Concerned about rushing environmental assessments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

University Professor in Energy Economics (Pittsburgh, PA)

Age: 50 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy is good for stimulating economic research topics.
  • Mixed feelings about balance between economic and environmental effects.

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 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 6 9

Independent Contractor in Infrastructure (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy could lead to more contracts, increasing income.
  • Worries about community's environmental wellbeing.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 4
Year 3 8 4
Year 5 9 3
Year 10 8 2
Year 20 6 1

Environmental Activist (Salt Lake City, UT)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is a step backward for environmental sustainability.
  • Expect increased activism efforts to combat the bill.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 3 5
Year 2 3 6
Year 3 4 6
Year 5 4 7
Year 10 5 8
Year 20 5 9

Logistics Manager for a Fuel Distribution Company (Omaha, NE)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A stable supply due to the policy could help manage logistics better.
  • Potential for long-term issues if environmental damage occurs.

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 7 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 2

Climate Scientist (Chicago, IL)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy directly opposes efforts to mitigate climate change.
  • Expects to undertake more research on policy impact in affected areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 4 7
Year 5 4 8
Year 10 5 8
Year 20 5 9

CEO of Mid-size Oil Corporation (Dallas, TX)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy facilitates growth opportunities in the oil sector.
  • Potential for backlash from environmental groups poses risks.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 9 6
Year 3 9 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)

Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)

Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)

Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)

Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)

Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)

Key Considerations