Bill Overview
Title: START Act
Description: or the START Act This bill sets forth a variety of provisions to expedite the environmental review of energy projects.
Sponsors: Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]
Target Audience
Population: People living in close proximity to new or ongoing energy projects
Estimated Size: 7000000
- The bill intends to expedite environmental reviews for energy projects.
- Energy projects often involve large-scale infrastructure and investment.
- Environmental reviews currently ensure that such projects meet environmental safety and compliance measures.
- Expedited processes could lead to faster project start times, potentially changing environmental and public health conditions.
Reasoning
- This policy's impact is concentrated around areas with energy project sites, meaning those living close to such sites are directly affected.
- Given the high budget and large population estimate, a range of effects from none to high on wellbeing is anticipated, depending on proximity and the nature of the project.
- Changes in exposure to environmental factors and economic opportunities could affect wellbeing, both positively and negatively.
- Some individuals will experience no change, especially if they do not live near any new or existing project sites.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can see both benefits and drawbacks to expediting reviews.
- If done carefully, it could bring forward economic benefits while still addressing environmental concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Local Business Owner (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that speeding up the process might overlook environmental protections.
- However, new projects could bring more business to my store.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expedited reviews could be beneficial if they apply to clean and renewable energy projects.
- Priority should be on reducing environmental impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Farmer (Fargo, North Dakota)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The speed of these projects can be concerning due to potential risks to my land and water.
- Increased focus on fossil fuel projects worries me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Coal Miner (Charleston, West Virginia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt the local area will change much.
- Jobs might come but it's unclear how this affects retired folks like me.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Real Estate Agent (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential for increased real estate prices is both exciting and concerning.
- Expediting renewable projects could be beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could sideline necessary environmental checks in favor of economic gain.
- I'd like to see more accountability and transparency.
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 | 8 | 7 |
Chemical Plant Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Quicker review processes could be good for job security.
- I'm concerned about possible environmental shortcuts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tour Guide (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious because speed might mean less focus on environmental protection.
- Tourism depends on natural beauty and pristine wilderness.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Student (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'd like to see policies that make energy projects more sustainable.
- Faster doesn't always mean better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $72000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $74000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $78000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $85000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- Balancing expedited reviews with maintaining rigorous environmental standards is critical.
- Potential legal challenges could impact the pace and success of implementation.
- Collaboration with states and local entities will be important to address site-specific concerns.