Bill Overview
Title: Federal Land Freedom Act
Description: This bill sets forth a process that allows a state (including the District of Columbia) to seek to transfer the responsibility of energy development on federal land within its boundaries from the federal government to the state. Federal land does not include land that, as of May 31, 2013, is (1) held for the benefit of an Indian tribe, (2) in the National Park System, (3) in the National Wildlife Refuge System, or (4) in a congressionally designated wilderness area. To qualify for such a transfer of responsibility, a state must have a program that regulates the exploration and development of oil, natural gas, and other forms of energy on its land. The federal responsibility transfers to the state once the state submits to the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Energy a declaration that it has such a program and that it seeks to transfer the responsibility. Any action taken by a state to lease, permit, or regulate the exploration and development of energy on federal land in lieu of the federal government is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Sponsors: Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals associated with federal lands in U.S. states with potential energy development
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill allows states to take over energy development on federal land within their boundaries, excluding certain lands like tribal lands, national parks, and wildlife refuges.
- This can affect a variety of stakeholders including local communities, workers in the energy sector, environmental groups, and state governments.
- It may lead to increased energy development activities which could cause environmental changes that affect people residing near these federal lands.
- Changes in regulations might impact the quality and scope of environmental protections, influencing wider populations concerned with conservation.
- State governments might experience increased economic activity and job creation linked to energy projects.
- Communities might be affected either positively by economic opportunities or negatively by environmental impacts.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets states with significant federal land holdings that may proceed with energy developments if they opt-in under its provisions.
- States taking over the responsibility may modify regulations compared to those under federal oversight, impacting both economic and environmental factors.
- The budget constraints suggest initial efforts may focus on areas with high potential returns or demand for energy projects.
- Economic impacts may include job creation in energy sectors and ancillary services, but environmental groups may worry about reduced protective regulations.
- The policy might also impact local communities living near these lands with potential changes in environmental quality and local economies.
Simulated Interviews
Energy Consultant (Midland, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy could streamline processes, making operations quicker.
- However, I'm concerned about inconsistent regulations across states.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this policy reduces important scrutiny on environmental impacts.
- State control might mean less stringent regulations in some cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Rancher (Casper, Wyoming)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's potential for more local economic growth, but I'm cautious.
- I hope state control balances development with maintaining natural resources.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
State Government Official (Sacramento, California)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- California will need careful strategies to align state programs with environmental goals.
- The policy gives more autonomy, which could be positive or negative.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Advocate (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is troubling due to potential for weaker environmental protection.
- Concerns about long-term commitments to sustainable development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 4 |
Retired Park Ranger (Missoula, Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal oversight is crucial for maintaining the integrity of these lands.
- I am concerned states might not prioritize preservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Oil Rig Worker (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the state can run things more efficiently, it could be good for jobs.
- Worry about the balance between industry growth and the environment.
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 | 8 | 5 |
State Energy Regulator (Carson City, Nevada)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Large responsibility on the state to get this right.
- We need to ensure that the state has adequate resources for regulation.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Local Business Owner (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If energy development interferes with tourism, it could hurt my business.
- Hoping for regulations that balance economic interests.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Policy Student (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy raises lots of concerns about less federal oversight.
- I'm interested in how states will handle this responsibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $8000000)
Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- States' ability to efficiently set up and manage regulatory systems for energy development will be a crucial factor in determining the overall cost impact.
- Environmental implications and public reactions could affect project timelines and costs for states.
- Coordination challenges between federal and state governments might arise, impacting cost implementations.
- There may be legal challenges and compliance costs associated with superseding federal acts.