Bill Overview
Title: To prohibit States, local governments, or State regulatory authorities from prohibiting a natural gas consumer from connecting or reconnecting to a gas utility for natural gas service, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill bars states, localities, or state regulatory authorities from prohibiting a natural gas consumer from connecting or reconnecting to a gas utility for natural gas service.
Sponsors: Rep. Jacobs, Chris [R-NY-27]
Target Audience
Population: Natural gas consumers
Estimated Size: 187000000
- Natural gas consumers are directly impacted by the bill as it protects their ability to connect or reconnect to natural gas service.
- States and local governments are indirectly impacted as it limits their regulatory authority over natural gas connections.
- Natural gas utility companies are also impacted, as it affects their operations and customer base.
- In the U.S., nearly half of households use natural gas as their main heating fuel, indicating the potential scale of direct consumer impact.
Reasoning
- Natural gas consumers will value the ability to connect or reconnect without local prohibitions, possibly improving their household utility access and affordability, leading to an increase in their wellbeing scores.
- Local and state governments might resist due to a perceived loss of regulatory power, but this bill could ensure more consistent utility service across regions.
- Those involved in sustainable or alternative energy initiatives may feel hindered by this policy, which might seek to limit fossil fuel dependency.
- Widely available natural gas services could enhance household comfort and reduce energy expenses, affecting widescale net household savings and improved living conditions over time.
- Considering the scale of natural gas use, the impact on individual consumers could range from none to high, depending on their reliance on gas for daily needs.
Simulated Interviews
Electrician (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy because it ensures I can always access gas for my home, especially during winter.
- This policy gives me peace of mind about my home energy source.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not fond of this policy because it seems to make fossil fuel use more appealing.
- I think we should focus on renewable energy instead.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law might save me money on heating, which is always good.
- I'm glad the government is making sure people can connect to gas services easily.
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 | 6 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business depends heavily on natural gas, so this law helps secure our operations.
- It's important to have stable energy policies like this to plan for the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
City Planner (Portland, OR)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is concerning because it might increase reliance on fossil fuels.
- We should be moving towards greener energy solutions as a priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Retired Medical Professional (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 73 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is good for people like me who may face accessibility issues with connecting to services.
- It gives me a better sense of security about my living conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Graduate Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't agree with incentivizing more natural gas use.
- We should be focusing more on sustainable energy sources at this time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Gas Utility Worker (Memphis, TN)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy ensures job stability for people in my line of work.
- It's a practical move considering the number of households relying on gas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
State Legislator (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy limits state powers too much and doesn't consider local regional planning.
- The federal government shouldn't interfere too much with state decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's not beneficial long-term to keep tying ourselves to fossil fuel utilities.
- I worry about the environmental impacts of this expanded access.
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 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $74000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $31930000, High: $76880000)
Year 5: $58320000 (Low: $34430000, High: $82960000)
Year 10: $67390000 (Low: $39790000, High: $95930000)
Year 100: $135490000 (Low: $79900000, High: $192000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill primarily removes regulatory barriers related to natural gas connections, affecting state and local policymaking autonomy.
- Implementation may involve legal challenges and require significant administrative oversight.
- Environmental implications could arise due to increased natural gas usage, potentially affecting related policies.
- Infrastructure readiness and capacity to meet potential increases in demand remain uncertain.