Bill Overview
Title: Protecting the Permian Basin Act of 2022
Description: This bill eliminates a program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that provides incentives for petroleum and natural gas systems to reduce their emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases. It also repeals a charge on methane emissions from specific types of facilities that are required to report their greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program.
Sponsors: Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]
Target Audience
Population: People globally affected by changes in methane regulations
Estimated Size: 15000000
- The Permian Basin is a large area in the United States rich in oil and natural gas resources, located in western Texas and southeastern New Mexico.
- The oil and natural gas industries are significant employers in this region, contributing to local and state economies.
- Globally, hundreds of millions of people are affected by climate change, which is exacerbated by methane emissions due to their high global warming potential.
- Methane emissions have a significant impact on global warming and thus affect global populations by exacerbating climate change, leading to extreme weather, sea level rise, and other environmental stresses.
Reasoning
- The Permian Basin and surrounding areas are heavily reliant on the oil and gas industry for economic stability, while a segment of the American population is concerned about environmental impacts.
- The policy adjustment affects both workers in the industry and environmentalists concerned about methane emissions.
- Local populations are likely to be directly impacted through employment changes or shifts in industry strategy, while broader environmental effects might be less immediately noticeable.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Operator (Odessa, Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m worried the elimination of incentives might make it harder for us to reduce emissions, but it might be good for keeping jobs intact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Carlsbad, New Mexico)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing these programs is a step backwards for environmental protection efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Policy (Austin, Texas)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to sideline environmental concerns, potentially increasing greenhouse gases.
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 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
CEO of a Small Drilling Company (Midland, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The repeal makes running the business easier in terms of costs, could lead to more stable employment for my workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Health Care Worker (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Air quality is crucial, and cutting back on these protections could worsen health outcomes.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Petroleum Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While regulation rollback can make some processes more lenient, there could be long-term challenges in sustainability measures.
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 | 5 | 6 |
Homemaker (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that repealing these programs might worsen air quality, affecting my children.
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 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Climate Activist (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rolling back these regulations doesn't align with achieving lower emissions and better climate outcomes.
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 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the implications for clean energy transitions and climate efforts.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
College Student (Lubbock, Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Repealing these incentives might stabilize job prospects in oil and gas, but not sure about the environmental trade-offs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $80000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy removes existing environmental charges and incentives related to methane, with potentially significant effects on emission levels.
- Considerations regarding the long-term environmental impacts due to increased methane emissions are crucial.
- The local economy in the Permian Basin region could benefit from reduced regulatory pressures.
- There could be indirect costs associated with climate change resulting from increased emissions.