Bill Overview
Title: Next Generation Pipelines Research and Development Act
Description: This bill establishes programs for research on and deployment of advanced materials and technologies applicable to pipelines and associated infrastructure (e.g., liquified natural gas facilities and liquid fuel storage facilities).
Sponsors: Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX-14]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in the pipeline industry and affected communities worldwide
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill focuses on pipelines which are a key element of the global energy infrastructure.
- There are approximately 13,000,000 km of pipelines worldwide, indicating a substantial number of workers and industries are involved.
- Many countries, especially those reliant on natural gas and oil, have significant pipeline networks.
- Pipeline workers, engineers, environmentalists, regulatory bodies, and residents near pipelines may be directly affected.
- If successful, the bill could improve safety and efficiency, potentially affecting global energy prices.
Reasoning
- Pipeline infrastructure is crucial for maintaining stable energy supplies, but has associated risks such as leaks and accidents.
- A diverse group of individuals from different regions and professional backgrounds are involved or impacted by pipeline operations.
- Not all U.S. residents are directly impacted, as the pipeline industry primarily affects those employed in it or living near the infrastructure.
- Technological advances in pipeline infrastructure can potentially improve safety, reduce costs, and have economic benefits.
- People with environmental concerns may have a negative opinion about increased pipeline development despite safety improvements.
- Budget allocation over 10 years means benefits might not be immediate or uniformly distributed. Some may see delayed impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Pipeline Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is long overdue, as current technologies are outdated and pose risks.
- Advancements in materials could reduce accident risks and improve efficiency.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (Bismarck, ND)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I oppose any expansion of pipeline projects, even with promised safety improvements.
- I'd rather see investment in renewable energies rather than fossil fuels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Pipeline Construction Worker (Cheyenne, WY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Pipeline upgrades mean more job security and increased safety in my work.
- I welcome any initiative that keeps our industry relevant and workers safe.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Energy Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides a forward-looking investment in the critical energy infrastructure.
- Its implementation could set a precedent for integrating advanced technologies into the sector.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Santa Fe, NM)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy will increase demand for safety equipment and lead to business growth.
- Advanced pipeline technologies could benefit local businesses that support the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Urban Planner (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving pipeline infrastructure is important but must be balanced with environmental considerations.
- Urban areas must be adequately protected from potential pipeline risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Industrial Safety Inspector (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These technological improvements are necessary and should have been implemented sooner.
- Expecting enhanced safety measures that reduce workplace accidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Pipeline Worker (Oklahoma City, OK)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that makes the industry safer for current workers is a positive change.
- Mixed feelings because I won't directly benefit, but I'm optimistic for those still working.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Lawyer specializing in environmental law (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulatory frameworks accompanying advanced pipelines could strike a balance between progress and environmental protection.
- The law may create new opportunities within the legal realm focused on oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Graduate Student studying environmental science (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Critical of increased pipeline development regardless of technological improvements.
- Hopes that research leads to minimizing negative impacts on ecosystems.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $64000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $68000000)
Year 10: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $80000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $170000000)
Key Considerations
- The need to balance immediate R&D costs with long-term benefits in safety, efficiency, and reduced environmental risks.
- Ensuring that research does not solely focus on fossil fuels, but also explores pipelines' potential in supporting energy transition (e.g., hydrogen).
- Cooperation among federal, state, and municipal entities, considering their varying regulatory frameworks.
- Potential geopolitical implications of advancing U.S. pipeline technology.
- Unexpected acceleration or deceleration in global or domestic energy demand trends representing a vulnerability.