Bill Overview
Title: SAVE Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to prohibit the sale of petroleum products (e.g., crude oil) from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to certain entities. Specifically, DOE must prohibit the sale of petroleum products from the SPR to entities headquartered in Russia. Further, DOE must prohibit the sale of petroleum products from the SPR to entities headquartered in countries (Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela) that are subject to certain prohibitions concerning exports of defense articles and services under the Department of State's International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
Sponsors: Rep. Bice, Stephanie I. [R-OK-5]
Target Audience
Population: People living in countries prohibited from purchasing petroleum from the SPR (Russia, Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela)
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The bill targets the sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
- The countries mentioned in the bill (Russia, Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela) are directly affected as their entities are prohibited from purchasing petroleum from the SPR.
- American individuals working in or with the energy export sectors could be impacted due to changes in business regulations and available markets.
- Countries such as Russia, China, and Iran have significant global economic interactions, and restriction in petroleum access can have wider economic impacts.
Reasoning
- The SAVE Act primarily impacts international trade relations concerning oil, with secondary effects on energy prices in the US.
- While the policy directly targets foreign entities, domestic individuals working in energy-related sectors may experience indirect changes.
- The policy might affect oil prices minimally due to reduced buyers from specific countries, impacting American consumers and businesses.
- The budget constraints may limit the scope and direct impact of the policy initially.
Simulated Interviews
Oil and Gas Executive (Midland, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will limit our market but aligns with national interests.
- Our company will have to diversify our client base.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Financial Analyst specializing in Energy Sector (New York City, New York)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds uncertainty in international trades; we must adjust our risk models.
- However, it's an opportunity for US producers as potential price hikes might benefit them.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Petroleum Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this policy will significantly impact our domestic operations.
- It's more about geopolitical maneuvers than market disruptions.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Environmental Policy Student (San Francisco, California)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step towards reducing dependency on unstable regions.
- The environmental impact is negligible compared to potential geopolitical benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Automobile Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If oil prices rise, EV demand might increase which could be beneficial for our jobs.
- I don't foresee drastic impacts on the petrol-driven car market immediately.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Economics Professor (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy reflects a broader strategy of energy independence and security.
- Short-term impacts are minor, but limiting options could negatively affect trade flexibility.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Small Business Owner (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Slight increase in fuel prices could deter some customers, but it's manageable.
- Policy doesn't directly target local stations, so effects are indirect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Electrician (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy prompts higher oil prices, there might be a shift to renewable energy investments, which could benefit my line of work.
- Long term, such shifts could be positive for the environment and renewables sector.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Government Policy Advisor (Washington D.C.)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strategically, it's to disengage economically from adversarial nations.
- The long-term political gains might outweigh the short-term economic drawbacks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
College Student studying International Relations (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like the SAVE Act can push us towards a better standing by not supporting tenuous governments.
- It's an academically interesting case of economics affecting geopolitics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The enforcement process primarily involves DOE administrative adjustments rather than large-scale operational changes.
- Legal and compliance requirements may require temporary increases in DOE staffing focused on international trade law.
- Long-term international relations benefit from compliance with international sanctions which align with U.S. foreign policy.