Bill Overview
Title: REFINE Act
Description: This bill sets forth provisions to limit the sale and export of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), increase energy production from energy producers in the United States, and make related requirements. Specifically, the bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue regulations prohibiting the export of petroleum products (e.g., crude oil) sold from the SPR to (1) any country that is subject to a U.S. arms embargo as specified by the bill, (2) any country that is a state sponsor of terrorism, and (3) any entity that is owned by China. Before DOE may sell, exchange, or loan crude oil from the SPR, DOE must first develop a plan to increase the percentage of federal land (including submerged land of the Outer Continental Shelf) leased for oil and gas production by the same percentage as the percentage of petroleum in the SPR that is to be drawn down. In addition, the President must rescind the Executive Order titled Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis . The President must also direct federal agencies to (1) identify and repeal any of their regulations that have the intent or effect of substantially reducing the energy independence of the United States, and (2) issue regulations and guidance to reduce the regulatory burden for energy producers in the United States and to increase the energy output by those producers.
Sponsors: Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH-1]
Target Audience
Population: People globally reliant on energy markets and impacted by energy policy changes
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill affects global oil markets as it changes the rules around U.S. petroleum exports, impacting global supply.
- Domestic energy producers in the United States will benefit from increased leasing and reduced regulatory burdens, likely leading to increased activity in these sectors.
- U.S. energy consumers could be affected by the domestic focus on energy production and potential changes in energy prices.
- Countries subject to U.S. arms embargos, state sponsors of terrorism, or entities owned by China will be directly impacted by their limited access to petroleum from the U.S.
- Environmental impacts are global; increased U.S. energy production could have international environmental implications.
Reasoning
- The bill directly impacts global oil markets through restrictions on U.S. petroleum exports, disrupting supply-demand dynamics.
- Domestic energy producers are likely to benefit from reduced regulatory burden and increased leasing opportunities, potentially increasing employment and economic outputs in those sectors.
- U.S. consumers might experience varying energy prices due to these changes, affecting their cost of living and overall satisfaction.
- Communities dependent on energy production may see economic growth; however, increased energy production can also lead to environmental concerns which may negatively affect local populations.
- The policy has geopolitical implications, affecting international relations, particularly with countries under embargo and those with state-owned entities related to China.
Simulated Interviews
Energy Sector Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could secure my job by increasing domestic energy production.
- I'm worried about what this means for environmental regulations, but my livelihood depends on this sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step backward for environmental protection.
- I'm worried about increased drilling on federal lands and its impact on ecosystems.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Rancher (Rural Wyoming)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Oil extraction has brought both opportunity and environmental challenges to our community.
- We need to balance economic benefits with environmental health.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Software Developer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry energy prices could become volatile affecting data center costs and the tech industry’s margins.
- Greater energy independence is important, but we need stability in energy markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy ignores scientific consensus on climate change.
- It's disheartening to see increased focus on fossil fuels when renewable energy is the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Small Oil Rig Operator (Midland, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would ease some regulatory challenges, theoretically boosting operations.
- Access to more federal lands for drilling could sustain my business longer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Economist (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could exacerbate market volatility in the short term with possible long-term economic impacts.
- Increased domestic energy production needs to match consumption demand to stabilize prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Logistics Manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that influences petroleum export could affect our logistics and distribution networks.
- Stable energy prices are critical for our operations and client satisfaction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a setback for the renewable energy movement, more should be done to support cleaner energy.
- While it's about energy independence, the focus should shift to renewables to future-proof the energy sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanding energy production from federally leased lands is concerning for ecological impacts.
- We need careful regulation to balance energy needs and environmental protection.
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 | 3 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $95000000)
Year 2: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $95000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $105000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $110000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $95000000, High: $135000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between achieving energy independence and adhering to environmental standards needs careful evaluation.
- The impact on global petroleum markets, especially in connection with geopolitical risks and oil price stability, should be considered.
- Potential state and local economic impacts as federal energy lands are often connected to specific regional economies.
- The response from China and countries impacted by U.S. arms embargos could affect international relations.