Bill Overview
Title: PROTECT Our Great Lakes Act
Description: PROTECT Our Great Lakes Act This bill addresses pipeline safety and oil spill preparedness and response in the Great Lakes Basin and elsewhere. For example, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) must revise its regulations to ensure that oil spill response plans it receives adequately anticipate and ensure an adequate response to spills of diluted bitumen. Additionally, the PHMSA must promulgate regulations requiring each operator of a pipeline located in a high consequence area to implement the best available technology for (1) real-time monitoring of the pipeline through pressure monitoring at shutoff valves, product flow monitoring, or product wave flow monitoring; (2) shutting off the pipeline; and (3) isolating product flow through the installation of shutoff valves. The bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to establish higher minimum rates of basic pay for employees of the PHMSA. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may receive and utilize gifts and bequests of property to aid or facilitate its work or the work of the Center of Expertise for Great Lakes Oil Spill Preparedness and Response, including by carrying out research related to the center and the impacts of oil spills in freshwater environments such as the Great Lakes Basin.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People living in the Great Lakes Basin
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The Great Lakes Basin is a vital fresh water resource, providing water for over 40 million people.
- Pipeline safety and oil spill preparedness and response are critical to prevent environmental disasters that would impact both wildlife and human populations around the lakes.
- Spills of diluted bitumen are particularly hazardous due to their unique clean-up challenges and potential for long-term environmental damage.
- Pipeline operators and their employees will be directly impacted by this legislation due to new regulatory requirements.
- Inhabitants of the Great Lakes region depend on the lakes for drinking water, agriculture, industry, and recreation.
Reasoning
- To simulate the impact of the PROTECT Our Great Lakes Act, we need to consider different segments of the population living in the Great Lakes Basin, including those directly affected by pipeline operations and those dependent on the Lakes for water, recreation, and livelihood.
- The policy might have a more pronounced effect on people in direct proximity to pipeline structures or those employed within the oil and gas industry due to regulatory changes and potential job opportunities more geared towards safety and technology.
- Others indirectly impacted, such as residents relying on the lakes for water or those engaged in tourism, may have a milder but positive sentiment due to increased environmental safety and protection of natural resources.
- The policy is costly and has a significant target population (40 million globally), so its direct impact might be diluted when spread across the entire basin, but it remains crucial for high-risk and high-impact areas.
- Given the financial constraint of $150,000,000 USD in the first year, the policy focuses on high-priority risk areas and regulatory changes rather than widespread direct financial benefits to individuals.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Detroit, MI)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is critical for preventing catastrophic spills that could devastate the Great Lakes ecosystem.
- I'm concerned about the long-term monitoring and funding sustainability.
- The increase in technological requirements is a necessary step towards safeguarding our resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Pipeline Safety Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill means stricter oversight and potentially more job security for me.
- It's essential for preventing accidents, but could increase operational costs for my company.
- Improving safety standards is good for everyone in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting the Great Lakes is important for my livelihood and the local economy.
- I'm optimistic these regulations will prevent spills that could harm tourism.
- In the short term, there might be some commercial disruption, but it's worthwhile.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Retired (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been advocating for this kind of protection for years.
- This policy will help ensure my grandchildren enjoy a cleaner Lake Erie.
- I'm concerned about how effectively the policy will be enforced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Pipeline Operator (Toledo, OH)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the costs my company might incur due to new regulations.
- These changes are challenging but necessary to prevent environmental damage.
- My job will become more technologically focused, which is exciting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Milwaukee, WI)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for environmental protection.
- As a future professional in the field, I'm thrilled about the long-term benefits.
- The potential for research funding is an exciting prospect for students like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Tourism Board Officer (Erie, PA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this safeguard our main attraction—the lake itself.
- I'm hopeful this will lead to an uptick in tourism and eco-tourism.
- Funding enforcement and follow-through is crucial for success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Water Quality Analyst (Duluth, MN)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation could drastically improve our water quality monitoring capabilities.
- Change is necessary to prevent future spills and contamination.
- It aligns closely with my work, so I'm personally invested in its success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental Lawyer (Green Bay, WI)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The introduction of this act is critical toward improved legal frameworks for environmental response.
- New regulations may increase the demand for legal expertise, which is positive for my practice.
- Successful implementation will be key in preventing ecological damage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Retired Engineer (Rochester, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This new legislation would improve the technologies used to prevent pipeline failures.
- I'm glad innovations and safety will progress even after my time in the field.
- I hope the measures set become industry standards across the board.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $130000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The scope of PHMSA's regulatory revisions and their efficiency will be crucial in defining the real impact of the policy.
- The adoption and maintenance of best available safety technology by pipeline operators is pivotal for minimizing spill risks.
- Coordination between federal agencies and state regulations will need to be flawless to maximize policy effectiveness and coherence.
- Potential pushback from pipeline operators on the cost of implementing new safety technologies, which could influence adherence and enforcement costs.