Bill Overview
Title: Build More Pipelines Act
Description: The bill provides statutory authority for the rule published on July 13, 2020, by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule . Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters must also obtain a certification—or waiver of such certification—from a relevant state, intrastate agency, or Indian tribe that the proposed activity will not violate certain water quality requirements of the state or Indian tribe. The rule revised existing regulations, including by limiting the scope of the certification review process as well as the time frame for a state, interstate agency, or Indian tribe to issue a certification.
Sponsors: Rep. Budd, Ted [R-NC-13]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas affected by pipeline constructions and associated industries
Estimated Size: 25000000
- The bill impacts industries involved in pipeline construction and operation, as it involves regulatory processes related to water quality for federal licenses.
- Environmental protection agencies at the state and tribal levels are directly involved, as their role in certification review processes is affected.
- The bill's effects on water quality standards may impact communities located near the proposed pipeline constructions.
- Industries relying on pipeline infrastructure for transporting resources will be indirectly affected by any regulatory changes.
- Regulatory changes can affect legal and consultancy firms that specialize in environmental law and compliance.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects those directly involved in or impacted by pipeline construction, including industries, local communities, and environmental agencies.
- There are financial constraints due to the budget limitations, indicating that the number of new pipelines will be limited.
- Most impacted individuals are in states like Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania, where pipeline development is prevalent.
- Some people will not be impacted directly, especially those not living near pipeline routes or working indirectly with pipeline industries.
Simulated Interviews
Pipeline Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy could help streamline our projects, reducing delays caused by environmental reviews.
- However, I'm concerned about potential water quality issues that might arise if things are rushed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy weakens our ability to ensure projects don't harm our water resources.
- We need stronger, not weaker regulations to protect our environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Environmental Consultant (Albany, New York)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might help my consulting firm as industries will need more guidance under new regulations.
- However, I worry about the long-term impacts on water quality regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Corporate Lawyer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means more work for lawyers in helping companies navigate the reduced regulation timelines.
- While this might be good for our business, I'm concerned about the ethical implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Ranch Owner (Austin, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how these pipelines could affect my land and water supplies.
- I feel like my concerns aren't being heard in the policy-making process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Tribal Council Member (Rapid City, South Dakota)
Age: 59 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy limits tribal authority over our land and resources.
- I believe it represents a step backward in respecting tribal sovereignty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Renewable Energy Advocate (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More pipelines mean less focus on renewable energy.
- We need to reduce fossil fuel use, not increase infrastructure for it.
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 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Fargo, North Dakota)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy leads to more pipeline projects, it could mean more job opportunities for me.
- I'm happy about potential work, but I do worry about the environmental trade-offs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired School Teacher (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm anxious about the impact this policy might have on our local water quality.
- I plan to remain active in advocating for our community's rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Investment Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could stimulate the energy sector, leading to more investment opportunities.
- Though it might boost short-term gains, the long-term sustainability of such investments is uncertain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $105000000)
Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental groups may challenge the act due to potential risks to water quality and ecosystems.
- Pipeline constructions often intersect with land use concerns, particularly on tribal lands, requiring careful negotiation and adherence to laws.
- Economic benefits may vary regionally, with energy-rich states potentially benefiting more significantly.