Bill Overview
Title: STOP PUTIN Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the End-User Review Committee to review whether specified Russian energy entities should be added or removed from the Entity List. The Entity List identifies entities reasonably believed to be involved in, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The committee must conduct the review within 15 days of this bill's enactment and every 90 days thereafter. The bill specifies that an entity may be removed from the Entity List only by an act of Congress.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by Russian energy sanctions
Estimated Size: 5000000
- This bill primarily targets Russian energy firms possibly involved in activities against US national security interests.
- Individuals employed by the specified Russian energy entities might be directly impacted by any sanctions or restrictions resulting from being on the Entity List.
- Consumers of Russian energy globally may experience changes in energy availability or prices due to alterations in trade resulting from these decisions.
- Global energy markets could be affected, potentially leading to indirect impacts on consumers around the world, particularly in regions reliant on Russian energy imports.
- Businesses reliant on Russian energy or participating in trade with listed Russian entities could face operational disruptions.
- Governments and citizens of countries closely tied to Russian energy might face economic or geopolitical consequences as a result of altered relations resulting from the bill's enactment.
Reasoning
- The policy is aimed at sanctioning Russian energy companies that threaten US national security. Directly, this affects employees of these companies, US businesses trading with them, global energy consumers, and potentially US consumers if energy prices shift.
- Individuals living in areas heavily dependent on Russian energy, such as parts of Europe, may be the most directly impacted. In the US, the impact would be indirect, potentially through changes in energy prices or shifts in global trade and political relations.
- Considering the budget constraints, the efforts will involve diplomatic, legal, and enforcement activities rather than large-scale public or economic interventions. The budget indicates a moderate administrative and enforcement cost, possibly with some investments in energy alternatives or offsets.
- The estimated impact of the policy will primarily be observed through international trade effects, changes in energy pricing structures, and indirect geopolitical shifts resulting from the US-Russian relationships.
- Due to the complex nature of global energy markets, the effects will be diverse. Hence, I have chosen individuals across different sectors and demographics to reflect varying perspectives.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Industry Executive (Houston, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could disrupt some of our operations that depend on partnerships with Russian firms.
- In the long term, it might lower our reliance on geopolitically risky sources which isn't bad, but short-term impacts are concerning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Logistics Manager (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.5 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If energy prices increase due to sanctions, it will impact transportation costs significantly.
- While I support national security, any increase in operational costs affects our business competitiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Government Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may strengthen our national security measures against foreign threats.
- However, we need to ensure economic balances are maintained to prevent domestic inflation.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental Consultant (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy highlights the risks involved with reliance on fossil fuels.
- It's an opportunity to push for more sustainable energy alternatives which could be a long-term benefit.
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 |
Farmer (Rural Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If fuel prices rise, it may increase my operational costs which is concerning.
- Balancing security and economics is critical.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Graduate Student (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an academic perspective, this policy can offer critical insights into geopolitical dynamics.
- The uncertainty in energy markets, however, might impact consumer costs potentially affecting my living expenses.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Brooklyn, New York)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fluctuations in energy prices could increase delivery costs for products.
- Passing costs onto customers is risky, as it's competitive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Educator (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can be an interesting case study for economic impacts of geopolitical decisions.
- Students can learn about international dependencies and incentives.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We might see increased demands for software solutions to adapt to changing energy landscapes.
- Technological adaptations can thrive, though market volatility is a concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Logistics Coordinator (Miami, Florida)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- International sanctions are always a double-edged sword.
- Respect for US security strategies is key, but increased logistics costs can't be ignored.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the bill will largely depend on the coordination with international partners, especially in the EU which also imports Russian energy.
- Long-term impacts on energy markets and national security need to be monitored.
- The indirect effects on global energy supply chains should be considered.