Bill Overview
Title: Gasoline Export Ban Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the exportation of gasoline produced in the United States during certain periods of high gasoline prices. Specifically, the bill directs the President to prohibit the exportation of gasoline produced in the United States during periods when the average price for gasoline in the United States has been equal to or higher than $3.12 per gallon for each of the preceding seven days. The President may exempt from the prohibition exports of gasoline as the President determines to be consistent with the national interest and the purposes of the bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Target Audience
Population: Consumers of gasoline worldwide
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill targets gasoline produced in the United States, so it directly impacts those involved in its production - refinery workers, oil companies, etc.
- Prohibiting exports may affect international buyers who rely on US gasoline, reducing their supply.
- The primary intent of the bill is to manage domestic gasoline prices, hence US consumers driving vehicles would be impacted by potential price changes.
- Countries like Mexico and Canada that import significant amounts of US gasoline could experience shortages or price fluctuations.
- The global oil market might see shifts due to potential oversupply in the US and undersupply elsewhere during the ban periods.
Reasoning
- The policy would primarily impact individuals and businesses involved in the production and consumption of gasoline in the US.
- Those directly involved in gasoline production, such as refinery workers, might be affected by changes in production volumes due to the export ban.
- Consumers may see a change in gasoline prices, potentially lowering costs during periods of high prices, which can impact their self-reported wellbeing.
- Those using gasoline for regular commuting or travel may experience relief during high market prices but could also be affected by changes in supply.
- The biographical distribution of the population should include a mix of urban and rural consumers, various income levels, and those who are engaged in the fuel production industry.
Simulated Interviews
Refinery worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the stability of our jobs if we have to reduce exports.
- In the long run, this might lead to job cuts or reduced hours during high price periods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy helps keep gasoline prices reasonable, that's good for my budget.
- However, if it disrupts my commute due to shortages, that could be problematic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public transit planner (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could stabilize transit operation costs if gasoline prices are more predictable.
- As gasoline demand shifts, we might see changes in public transit ridership patterns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Farmer (Omaha, NE)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Gasoline is essential for my operations, and high prices hurt.
- If exporting less means lower prices here, that's a positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeping gas prices low would help my budget.
- I worry about accessibility to travel if gasoline isn't reliably available.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Truck driver (Dallas, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stabilizing gas prices is crucial as it's a major cost factor.
- I support measures that could lower these expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Auto mechanic (Detroit, MI)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable fuel prices help predict business costs.
- If fewer exports mean higher competition here, that could be beneficial for my business.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A predictable and lower gasoline price would ease my fixed budget.
- Any disruption causing price spikes would be 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 | 4 | 5 |
Ride-share driver (Miami, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill might help reduce operational costs when prices are high.
- I'm still concerned about potential volatility and shortages.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Environmental consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While lowering gasoline costs is good short-term, we should push for renewable alternatives.
- Export bans shift market dynamics but don't solve underlying environmental issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential legal challenges from international trade partners affected by the ban.
- Impact on domestic gasoline producers' revenue and investment plans.
- Influence on US energy independence and security, with possible shifts in domestic fuel policies.
- Potential price fluctuations in the global gasoline market due to shifts in the supply.