Bill Overview
Title: Military Energy Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to set a goal to eliminate the use of Russian energy on each main operating base in the area of responsibility of the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) not later than five years after the implementation of an installation energy plan for each base. Under the bill, DOD must submit to Congress (1) a list of main operating bases within the area of responsibility of USEUCOM ranked according to mission criticality and vulnerability to energy disruption, (2) an installation energy plan for each base on the list, and (3) an assessment of the feasibility of reaching the goal for the elimination of the use of Russian energy on each base. DOD must begin implementing plans not later than 30 days after submitting the plans to Congress. Additionally, DOD must establish a policy to ensure that any new military base in the area of responsibility of USEUCOM is established to include the consideration of energy security, energy resilience, and mitigation of risk due to energy disruption. DOD must annually brief Congress on the installation energy plans.
Sponsors: Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Target Audience
Population: U.S. military personnel in Europe
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill targets military operations within the USEUCOM area, which includes U.S. military personnel stationed in Europe.
- The primary focus is on reducing dependency on Russian energy sources, impacting energy contractors, suppliers, and trade agreements related to military operations in this region.
- Military energy security impacts operational efficiency, mission readiness, and overall safety, thus directly affecting all United States military personnel based in Europe.
Reasoning
- The population directly impacted by this policy is primarily U.S. military personnel stationed in Europe, estimated to be around 50,000. However, this policy may not directly affect civilians in the U.S. since it focuses on military energy security in Europe.
- The budget must be distributed efficiently across these bases to ensure operational capability is maintained while transitioning to more resilient energy sources.
- Given the relatively limited number of affected persons globally compared to the massive scope of U.S. populations, most interviews will show no direct impact.
Simulated Interviews
Military Contractor (Virginia)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will drive innovation in the field of military energy technology, which might create new job opportunities. However, it does feel a bit abrupt.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Military Spouse (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how this will affect my husband's work hours and leave schedule. Energy changes might disrupt base operations, impacting family life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Active Duty - Europe (California)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might really enhance our base's readiness and ensure safer conditions. Long-term, it seems beneficial.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Military Analyst (New York)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an analytical standpoint, this policy promises long-term savings and security. Short-term, there might be some logistical challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired Military (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While retired, I think this is a necessary step forward. The future of base security relies on adaptability to energy independence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Logistics Officer (Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might strain logistics initially but should optimize supply lines in the long run when Russian energy isn't part of the equation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Senior Policy Advisor (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This aligns well with long-term U.S. goals to reduce foreign energy dependence. It's a strategic move though challenging initially.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Finance Analyst in Military Sector (Nevada)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Budget management is crucial here. The upfront cost might seem high, but the long-term benefits should be worth it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Private Sector - Energy Supplier (Texas)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the potential contracts and projects this could generate, but it comes with competition and challenges in the energy sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Student - International Relations (Colorado)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, I find this policy fascinating. It seems to reflect broader geopolitical shifts and adds to our energy independence.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 3: $600000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $650000000)
Year 5: $650000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $700000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Volatility in global energy markets could amplify the urgency and importance of reducing dependence on Russian energy sources.
- The rapid implementation of infrastructure could face logistical challenges, potentially extending timelines and increasing costs.
- Technological advancements in energy efficiency and alternative energy sources could offer additional savings and sustainability benefits.