Bill Overview
Title: American Energy is Global Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes a state ineligible for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants if the state prohibits hydraulic fracturing (a type of process used to extract underground energy resources).
Sponsors: Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-22]
Target Audience
Population: Global population dependent on energy pricing and policies
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The bill affects states' eligibility for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants based on their stance on hydraulic fracturing.
- Hydraulic fracturing is a process primarily used in the extraction of oil and natural gas, impacting the energy sector significantly.
- States that prohibit hydraulic fracturing may lose access to federal funds intended for energy efficiency and conservation projects.
- The oil and gas industry employs millions of people worldwide, including workers in extraction, processing, and distribution of energy resources.
- Environmental and energy policy effects can have a significant impact on global energy markets and prices.
- Many countries worldwide either use hydraulic fracturing or are invested in the global market for oil and natural gas.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects states with existing or potential hydraulic fracturing activities by making them eligible or ineligible for grants. This influences local economies and jobs depending on the industry's presence.
- Many workers in the hydraulic fracturing industry and affiliated sectors (e.g., transportation, manufacturing) in states supporting the industry might see potential economic benefits if their state remains eligible for grants.
- In states prohibiting hydraulic fracturing, potential loss of federal grants might lead to less investment in local energy efficiency and conservation projects, potentially affecting jobs and infrastructure development.
- The general public might experience indirect effects through changes in energy policies impacting energy prices, availability, and jobs, thus affecting their overall wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Worker (Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like it would stabilize my job since Texas supports hydraulic fracturing.
- I feel secure in my role knowing that our state will continue to receive support if the policy passes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Environmental Activist (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that supporting states that allow fracking could harm the environment further.
- California will lose funding, which might affect our renewable energy projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 9 |
Energy Policy Analyst (New York)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is limiting because it penalizes states striving for greener energy solutions.
- We must find a balance between energy production and environmental conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Truck Driver (North Dakota)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The aid for states that support fracking keeps me busy with work and provides for my family.
- It might mean more consistent work with stable routes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
College Student (Colorado)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to continue pushing for sustainable energy policy—this bill doesn't help that.
- I'm worried grants will be cut for important conservation initiatives if fracking is penalized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (Oklahoma)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies supporting drilling directly help my business because workers have money to spend.
- However, I also worry about environmental impacts in the long term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
State Legislator (Pennsylvania)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about the implications for our state's environmental health.
- This policy may be a step backwards for developing sustainable energy policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Coal Miner (West Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds favorable for states backing traditional energy industries, which could stabilize my job.
- However, I wish there was more focus on transitioning miners to new energy jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Solar Panel Installer (Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this bill will reduce incentives for states to innovate in renewable energy.
- Florida's solar industry has a lot of potential; we need more, not less, support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Retired School Teacher (Illinois)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this shift in policy will affect educational programs focusing on green technologies.
- It feels regressive, pushing us away from necessary renewable energy developments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Political and environmental ramifications of incentivizing or prohibiting hydraulic fracturing.
- Impact on state economies that heavily rely on energy extraction industries.
- Potential shifts in political support based on regional energy policies.
- Environmental impacts versus economic benefits associated with hydraulic fracturing.