Bill Overview
Title: American Energy Independence from Russia Act
Description: This bill addresses U.S. energy security, the production of oil and gas, and the importation and exportation of oil and gas. Specifically, the President must submit an energy security plan that (1) evaluates U.S. crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas imports and exports; (2) assesses the energy security risks of such imports; and (3) includes strategies to encourage increased domestic production of crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas to offset Russian imports. The bill also approves the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline in Phillips County, Montana for the import of oil from Canada to the United States. In addition, the bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to approve or deny applications for facilities to export natural gas from the United States to foreign countries or import natural gas from foreign countries. The President and federal agencies must obtain congressional approval before (1) prohibiting or substantially delaying certain new energy mineral leases or permits on federal lands, or (2) withdrawing certain federal lands from mineral and geothermal leasing activities. The Department of the Interior must resume issuing oil and gas leases on federal lands and offshore submerged lands in the Outer Continental Shelf as specified under the bill. Finally, the bill limits the drawdown of petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the Department of Energy develops a plan to increase the percentage of federal lands leased for oil and gas production.
Sponsors: Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the American Energy Independence from Russia Act
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill's focus is on U.S. energy security and reducing dependence on Russian oil imports by encouraging domestic production, which impacts consumers of energy domestically.
- Increasing oil and gas production domestically influences the job market in energy sectors, potentially affecting workers in the oil and gas industries.
- Reducing reliance on Russian oil imports could impact geopolitical relations, indirectly affecting the U.S. population due to foreign policy implications.
- The policy affects environmental considerations and potential climatic impacts due to increased fossil fuel production, impacting environmental groups and communities advocating for renewable energy.
- Changes to federal lands can affect communities in those areas, especially if based on or near federal lands being considered for new energy leases.
- Approving the Keystone Pipeline affects traffic, safety, and environmental policies pertaining to areas along the pipeline route.
- Global energy markets may be impacted by shifts in the supply dynamics originating from the U.S., influencing global consumers and industry stakeholders.
Reasoning
- A significant portion of the population affected includes U.S. energy consumers due to changes in domestic energy prices, a common occurrence for most residents.
- Workers in the oil and gas industry will experience direct impact in terms of job availability and industry growth, which affects employment rates significantly, especially in states with oil reserves.
- The potential environmental impacts of the policy might generate resistance from environmental groups; these groups can influence public opinion and political support from these areas.
- The Keystone Pipeline may affect individuals along its route, bringing changes in local economies and safety regulations.
- Federal land usage shifts will influence communities and industries related to natural resources and tourism.
- We aim to select interview candidates representing a range of demographic backgrounds to understand differing perspectives and reactions to the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Oil and Gas Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean more job security for me.
- I am worried about potential backlash from environmental groups.
- Energy independence is important for national security.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Rancher (Billings, Montana)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The pipeline could disrupt my land and livestock.
- I see potential for economic growth but at a personal cost.
- Regulations must ensure safe pipeline construction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Advocate (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step backward for our climate goals.
- Increased fossil fuel production is not sustainable.
- We need to consider renewables and alternatives instead.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could stabilize energy prices in the long term.
- There are risks associated with over-dependence on fossil fuels.
- Industry diversification might be overshadowed by short-term gains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
State Legislator (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy supports our state's economy and job market.
- We must balance economic growth with environmental responsibility.
- Local governments should have more input in resource management.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Transport Worker (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Domestic energy production could mean cheaper gas prices.
- Long-term impacts on the environment concern me.
- Affordable energy is crucial, especially for low-income earners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Oil Rig Worker (Tulsa, Oklahoma)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More job opportunities are possible with this policy.
- Safety standards must not be compromised in expansion.
- I've seen industries swing from boom to bust, affecting livelihoods.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Geologist (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal land leases for energy change landscape use.
- Increased fossil fuel use impacts climate negatively.
- There is potential for positive job growth in geology.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Energy costs are a major factor in our expenses.
- Stable energy pricing is essential for planning.
- There might be indirect economic benefits, such as increased local spending.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retiree (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I value natural spaces and am concerned about their preservation.
- The policy seems focused on industries that ignore long-term environmental health.
- Future generations may bear the cost of short-term gains.
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 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Year 2: $850000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $950000000)
Year 3: $900000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 5: $950000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1050000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The geopolitical landscape and potential impacts on U.S.-Russia relations.
- Environmental impacts due to increased fossil fuel production needs to be balanced against renewable energy goals.
- Economic benefits from energy independence might shift over time as technology and market conditions change.
- Regulatory and legal challenges particularly related to environmental and land-use issues must be considered.