Bill Overview
Title: Energy Consumer Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill expands enforcement provisions under the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act, including by allowing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to temporarily or permanently ban any person from trading in energy markets if the person (1) violates those acts by manipulating the electricity or natural gas markets, or (2) files false information regarding those markets.
Sponsors: Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
Target Audience
Population: Global energy consumers
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill targets individuals trading in energy markets, specifically those manipulating electricity or natural gas markets or providing false information.
- Energy markets impact both the suppliers and the consumers of energy.
- Manipulation or misinformation in energy markets can lead to higher energy prices or unstable energy supplies for consumers.
- The bill aims to prevent market manipulation, thus protecting consumers indirectly by promoting fair trading practices.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets individuals or entities involved in energy trading and manipulation. Therefore, direct impacts are expected on people working within these sectors, such as traders, analysts, and corporate executives within energy companies.
- Indirect impacts are anticipated on the broader public due to potential changes in energy pricing and market stability. Consumers may notice changes in utility costs over time, influencing their overall well-being.
- People outside the direct scope of trading, such as ordinary consumers, may experience 'low' impact due to potential alterations in their energy bills or perceived fairness in market practices.
- Budget constraints suggest a prioritization in focusing enforcement on major players or obvious cases of market manipulation to initially demonstrate effectiveness without overspending.
- The evaluation includes diversity in age, occupation, location, and differing opinions on the policy for a comprehensive view of its social impact.
Simulated Interviews
Energy Trader (New York, NY)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy is necessary to ensure fair trading, but it should be implemented carefully to avoid stifling legitimate market activities.
- Increased oversight might make my job more challenging due to additional compliance requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Corporate Executive - Energy Firm (California)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might increase operational costs due to compliance but could level the playing field by curbing unfair practices.
- Long term, it could stabilize the energy market, benefiting both my company and consumers.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Market Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's impact on market dynamics is uncertain; it could lead to more transparent information sharing, benefiting all.
- Increased regulation can be beneficial but also adds pressure to perform more thorough analyses daily.
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 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner - Retail (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Indirectly, the policy could impact my operations if energy costs stabilize, which would be beneficial.
- Immediate effects may be minimal, but long term market fairness is crucial for cost management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Rural Alabama)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy helps stabilize or reduce energy costs, it would greatly improve my financial situation.
- I hope there are checks in place to prevent added bureaucracy from negating these benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Energy Consultant (Dallas, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may lead to increased demand for consulting services as companies adjust to new regulations.
- Market transparency could benefit my clients, making long-term strategies more reliable.
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 | 7 |
College Student (Portland, OR)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns well with my studies on fairness and sustainability in energy policies.
- It could serve as a case study, showing the intersection of policy and market economics.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A policy that might contribute to cleaner and fairer energy markets is positive.
- Prudent regulation that dampens manipulative practices while stabilizing prices is ideal.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help eliminate bad actors in our industry, leading to better practices overall.
- Necessary to ensure stability and trust in markets, which ultimately impacts job security.
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 | 9 | 8 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased regulation might drive demand for more sophisticated software solutions in the energy sector.
- This could lead to more business opportunities for companies needing to comply with new regulations.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Year 3: $58000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $90000000)
Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $110000000)
Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $130000000)
Key Considerations
- The need for enhanced staffing and resource capability at FERC.
- Potential legal challenges from individuals or firms affected by trading bans.
- The dynamic response of energy markets to regulatory action, impacting prices and stability.
- Cost savings depend on the effectiveness of enforcement measures to curb market manipulation.