Bill Overview
Title: Energy Regulations Certainty Act
Description: This bill restricts implementation of specified executive orders, air quality and emission standards, and other actions that affect costs and other aspects of energy development until Russian troops are withdrawn from Ukraine. The bill also authorizes construction of the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline for importing oil from Canada to the United States.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: people worldwide affected by changes in energy prices or regulations
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The Keystone Pipeline's authorization impacts communities along its route, especially indigenous populations and local landowners.
- The pipeline's authorization might lower fuel prices by increasing oil supply, impacting consumers positively.
- Construction jobs will be created or sustained by the pipeline authorization, impacting workers positively.
- Environmental changes due to potential spills could impact populations negatively along the pipeline route.
- Energy sector workers and companies in the U.S. might see changes in regulation-related job security.
- Broader economic impacts of energy cost changes could affect most U.S. citizens.
Reasoning
- The Keystone Pipeline is likely to have a larger impact on communities directly located near its route, such as indigenous populations and local landowners. These groups have specific environmental and cultural concerns.
- The broader U.S. population could benefit from potentially lower fuel prices through increased oil supply, although the volatility of global markets may buffer such effects.
- Job creation can have positive economic impacts, particularly for workers in construction and related industries, albeit these might be short-term roles.
- Conversely, the risk of environmental spills poses a persistent concern, potentially incurring long-term costs for remediation and health impacts on local communities.
- People associated with the energy sector may also experience shifts due to policy stability around regulation, affecting long-term planning for businesses.
- The economic ripple effects due to energy cost adjustments might subtly affect many consumers, but some in energy-intensive regions may see more pronounced impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the environmental risks the pipeline poses to our land and water sources.
- If the pipeline leads to cheaper energy, that could help with my monthly bills, but I'm worried about the long-term impacts.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Energy Sector Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the policy as stabilizing for my job since it means fewer regulatory shifts.
- It may also strengthen the local economy with more demand for oil extraction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Omaha, Nebraska)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Energy cost savings could really help with my limited budget.
- However, the environmental risks of spills are concerning.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the job opportunities from the pipeline construction.
- This kind of work could help me support my family better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy delays necessary action towards renewable energies.
- It's going to increase carbon footprint and hurt our environmental progress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Farmer (Lincoln, Nebraska)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Land around here needs to stay healthy for farming; I'm not sure what happens if there's a leakage.
- The economic gains are unclear compared to the farming risks.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Tech Company Employee (San Francisco, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lower energy prices could be good for the economy overall.
- However, I'm skeptical about prioritizing fossil fuels over renewables.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The energy focus should shift towards sustainability, and this seems like a step backward.
- I am worried about what this means for climate initiatives.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Logistics Manager (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lowering fuel prices could directly reduce our operational costs.
- However, I don't want my business contributing to environmental damage.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lower energy prices and stable policy might help my business.
- I'm worried about potential costs if the pipeline causes environmental issues.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 3: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The geopolitical status quo, including the cessation of Russian military presence in Ukraine, is a major determinant of the policy's impact duration.
- Environmental risks from the pipeline, such as potential leaks and spills, are crucial in assessing the long-term costs.
- Public sentiment, international relations, and domestic opposition or support for pipeline construction and regulation changes could significantly shape the policy's trajectory.