Bill Overview
Title: Energy Freedom Act
Description: This bill establishes requirements to provide for domestic energy production, including by limiting delays on oil, gas, or coal development; requiring a minimum number of annual sales of leases on federal lands and waters for oil and gas development; requiring sales of leases of federal land for wind, solar, and geothermal development; allowing the Department of the Interior to grant licenses for the exploration and mining of hardrock minerals on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Sponsors: Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on global energy sectors and industries
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The bill affects domestic energy production, which could impact those involved in the energy sector including oil, gas, coal, and renewable energy industries.
- The requirement for a minimum number of annual sales of leases for oil and gas development on federal lands and waters means those living near these areas, and those employed in these sectors, will be directly affected.
- Including renewable energy development (wind, solar, geothermal) means industries related to these sectors will also see changes.
- Communities and workers in the mining sector, particularly those involved in hardrock mineral exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, are directly impacted.
Reasoning
- The Energy Freedom Act would have varying impacts on individuals depending on their occupation, location, and how directly they are involved in the energy sectors.
- Areas rich in fossil and renewable energy reserves are likely to be more directly affected by changes in federal leasing policies.
- The act's focus on both fossil fuels and renewables means a diverse range of workers and communities could be impacted, positively or negatively.
- Economic benefits may be felt by those directly employed as a result of increased energy production activities, but there may be environmental and social concerns among communities close to these operations.
- The budget limits for the policy mean the scale and speed of impact may be gradual and limited in the first year but broader over ten years.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Supervisor (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could secure my job for years to come, as it pushes for more oil development.
- I do worry about the environmental impacts, but these leases are my livelihood.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Solar Panel Installer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a mixed bag—it supports renewables, but also fossil fuels.
- I'm hopeful the increase in wind, solar, and geothermal leases will create more job opportunities for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Rancher (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could mean more drilling near my property, potentially impacting my ranching business.
- I am concerned about the possible contamination of water sources.
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 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Environmental Engineer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm disappointed this policy supports fossil fuels alongside renewables.
- I see an opportunity to influence this through advocacy and consulting on sustainable practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Fisherman (Biloxi, Mississippi)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Offshore drilling poses a threat to my livelihood—one spill and my business is in jeopardy.
- This policy feels like a step backward for protecting our marine environment.
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 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could boost our business significantly if leasing for renewables is well-managed.
- It's a chance to partner with larger energy players and expand our clean energy initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Coal Miner (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved this policy still supports coal, even if new opportunities are limited.
- The future feels uncertain, but this at least gives us more time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Environmental Activist (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems double-edged, mixing fossil fuel with renewable energy support.
- I'll continue to advocate for more focus on the sustainable aspects of this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Geothermal Engineer (Tallahassee, Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely increase demand for geothermal projects, which is great for us.
- It's a chance to prove and expand the viability of geothermal energy in the market.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Alaska Native Corporation Manager (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could mean new economic opportunities for our corporation.
- However, we must be cautious about the environmental impacts on our lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $310000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $360000000)
Year 3: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $370000000)
Year 5: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 10: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Balancing environmental protection with increased domestic energy production.
- Ensuring that sales of leases and mineral exploration are conducted with adequate regulatory oversight and safety standards.
- Assessing long-term environmental impacts, especially concerning the Outer Continental Shelf.