Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3661

Bill Overview

Title: Expediting Natural Gas Exports to Allies Act

Description: This bill revises the approval process for applications to export natural gas. Specifically, the bill expedites the approval process for certain U.S. allies, such as Taiwan and Ukraine. However, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may not grant expedited approval for applications to export natural gas to any nation that is (1) subject to sanctions or trade restrictions imposed by the United States, or (2) designated by acts of Congress from such expedited approval for reasons of national security.

Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]

Target Audience

Population: People who rely on natural gas exports and imports

Estimated Size: 20000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Natural Gas Extraction Worker (Houston, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy will enhance job stability and create more opportunities for workers like me.
  • Increased exports to allies could lead to wage growth as demand rises.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Environmental Scientist (Scranton, PA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Concerned about increased pollution and environmental degradation from expanding exports.
  • Worried about lack of investment in renewable energy alternatives.

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 5
Year 10 4 5
Year 20 4 4

Owner of a Natural Gas Distribution Company (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will support economic growth and competitiveness on a global scale.
  • My business will benefit significantly due to reduced bureaucracy and increased market access.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 10 6
Year 20 10 5

Tech Entrepreneur (Miami, FL)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy does not affect me directly, but I prefer seeing investments in clean energy.
  • Natural gas should be a transitional solution, not a long-term plan.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Real Estate Developer (Dallas, TX)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 12.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Natural gas developments could increase property values in some areas.
  • The policy accelerates regional economic development, which works in my favor.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The geopolitical benefits of supporting our allies with energy resources are significant.
  • However, we must balance this with commitments to reducing fossil fuel dependency.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Retired (Boston, MA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Worried that increased exports could raise domestic gas prices.
  • Fixed income makes me sensitive to rising energy costs.

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 5
Year 10 4 5
Year 20 4 5

School Teacher (Albuquerque, NM)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think focusing on fossil fuel exports is a step back in addressing climate change.
  • Investments should prioritize renewable energy education and technology.

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 5 6
Year 10 5 6
Year 20 5 6

Union Leader, Natural Gas Workers (Philadelphia, PA)

Age: 50 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy would likely lead to more jobs and better wages for our members.
  • Concerns about job safety and long-term job sustainability remain.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Financial Analyst (Chicago, IL)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could stabilize market prices and reduce risks for investors.
  • Expedited approvals might increase volatility initially but offer long-term gains.

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 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)

Year 2: $10500000 (Low: $5250000, High: $15750000)

Year 3: $11000000 (Low: $5500000, High: $16500000)

Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $18000000)

Year 10: $14000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $21000000)

Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)

Key Considerations