Bill Overview
Title: TAP American Energy Act
Description: This bill modifies requirements related to the exploration and development of energy resources (e.g., oil, gas, and renewable energy projects). For example, it sets forth provisions to (1) resume sales of onshore and offshore oil and gas leases and restrict the President from imposing bans on or otherwise limiting energy leasing and mineral withdrawals without congressional approval, (2) set timeframes for and makes other changes to certain environmental requirements that apply to energy projects, and (3) address various aspects of permitting and regulating pipelines and energy infrastructure projects.
Sponsors: Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally who rely on, are employed by, or are affected by changes in the energy sector, including oil, gas, and renewable energies
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill focuses on the energy sector, specifically onshore and offshore oil and gas leases, which indicates that stakeholders in these industries will be directly impacted.
- Other affected groups include renewable energy sectors and infrastructure projects related to energy, such as pipeline construction and maintenance companies.
- Consumers of energy, particularly in the U.S., will be affected as changes in energy policies can influence energy prices and availability.
- There are also secondary impacts on environmental NGOs and advocacy groups since changes in leasing and environmental regulations can alter ecosystem management and conservation efforts.
- The labor market, particularly jobs related to energy exploration, extraction, and infrastructure, will feel direct impacts, influencing employment rates and economic stability for those in the industry.
Reasoning
- The TAP American Energy Act is likely to have varying impacts across different demographic groups depending on their relation to the energy sector.
- Those directly employed in the oil, gas, and energy infrastructure industries may experience increased job stability and opportunities, leading to improved wellbeing.
- Consumers may benefit or experience drawbacks depending on energy prices and how these are affected by increased domestic production.
- Environmental groups and individuals concerned with conservation may view the policy negatively if it reduces environmental regulation.
- Given the $5.47 billion over 10 years, the policy can potentially influence key sectors without massively altering the economy on a macro scale due to funding limitations.
- The population most directly targeted/opportunities are those within jobs in the energy sector, while broader public benefits/impacts through energy pricing may be more modest due to a limited spread of financial resources.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides job security for me and my colleagues.
- I think it's important for the U.S. to maintain energy independence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how quicker permitting might compromise environmental safety.
- This policy might hamper conservation efforts in sensitive areas.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Energy Policy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act could lead to more predictable energy prices if managed well.
- Risk of short-term environmental upheaval must be weighed carefully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Renewable Energy Entrepreneur (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There might be less focus on renewables with increased oil and gas leases.
- I hope there are still incentives for clean energy in the future.
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 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Ranch Owner (Cheyenne, WY)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If drilling disrupts the land too much, it hurts ranching efforts.
- I'd appreciate some guarantees on environmental checks.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Electricity Grid Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Easier permitting might stabilize grid supply through diversified sources.
- I am wary of potential disruptions from policy changes.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping for lower energy bills as a result of more domestic production.
- Environmental concerns worry me, but cost is more pressing.
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 | 5 |
Construction Foreman (Bismarck, ND)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved infrastructure policies might mean more consistent work.
- Job market stability is really crucial for my growing family.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Climate Change Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy runs counter to climate goals and pushes back progress.
- I'm worried about the long-term environmental impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Truck Driver (Louisville, KY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More energy production could lead to steady fuel costs, which helps my bottom line.
- Long-term effects on the environment are a bit concerning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 3: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $620000000)
Year 5: $540000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $640000000)
Year 10: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between economic benefits from increased energy production and environmental concerns due to relaxed regulations.
- The long-term sustainability of enhanced fossil fuel extraction versus renewable energy investment.
- Potential geopolitical impacts stemming from changes in U.S. energy policy on global oil markets.