Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8488

Bill Overview

Title: Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act

Description: This bill prohibits the sale and export of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to China. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Department of Energy (DOE) from selling petroleum products (e.g., crude oil) from the SPR to any entity that is under the ownership, control, or influence of the Chinese Communist Party. Further, DOE must require as a condition of any sale of crude oil from the SPR that the oil not be exported to China.

Sponsors: Rep. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA-5]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals potentially affected by changes in global oil market dynamics due to U.S. legislation on SPR

Estimated Size: 330000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Oil Industry Executive (Houston, Texas)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could stabilize domestic markets which is generally positive for the industry I work in.
  • The direct effect on China may lead to new trade routes or partnerships, impacting our operations.

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 7
Year 20 7 7

Environmental Scientist (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could lead to reduced drilling and more focus on renewable energy, which aligns with my work.
  • However, the impact might be too indirect to measure in the short term.

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 9 8

Logistics Manager (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Fuel costs are a significant part of our expenditure, any price alterations due to the policy could affect us.
  • It's hard to predict whether prices will rise or fall in the medium term.

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 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Financial Analyst (New York, New York)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is likely to create an interesting market scenario with China potentially having to buy from different sources.
  • This can create research opportunities and might change investment strategies.

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 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 8

Retiree (Detroit, Michigan)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any instability could affect my retirement funds, but the policy might stabilize the sector.
  • Long-term predictions are difficult in oil markets, I'd appreciate more predictable outputs.

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 7
Year 20 8 7

Small Business Owner (Miami, Florida)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Fuel costs dominate expenses, and any price stability is welcome.
  • I worry about short-term price spikes before stabilization occurs.

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 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 6

Graduate Student (Boston, Massachusetts)

Age: 25 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It provides a real-world case study for my research.
  • Changes in trade policies can have broad implications, exciting for academic work but uncertain how it influences daily life.

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 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Energy Consultant (Dallas, Texas)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this could directly affect supply chains I advise on.
  • Changes in U.S.-China oil trade might create more work in advising clients.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Software Developer (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Fuel costs matter little except in larger economic contexts.
  • Tech industry often buffers employees from direct market changes, but investments can be impacted.

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

Freight Truck Driver (Portland, Oregon)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Diesel prices have direct effects on my income.
  • Hoping for price stability, but worried about immediate market reactions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Key Considerations