Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4392

Bill Overview

Title: Reduce Our Military’s Reliance on Foreign Fuel Act

Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to implement a pilot program on the use of sustainable aviation fuel by DOD. Under the bill, sustainable aviation fuel means liquid fuel that (1) consists of synthesized hydrocarbon; (2) meets the requirements of ASTM International Standard D7566; (3) is derived from biomass, waste streams, renewable energy sources, or gaseous carbon oxides; and (4) is not derived from palm fatty acid distillates.

Sponsors: Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]

Target Audience

Population: People reliant on global fossil fuel industry economy

Estimated Size: 350000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Biofuel Engineer (Seattle, WA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy directly supports my work, increasing demand for sustainable fuels.
  • I feel more job security knowing the military is involved.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 5

Oil Refinery Worker (Houston, TX)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about job stability as demand for traditional fuels might decrease.
  • I hope there are training programs for transitioning to renewable energy jobs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 7 4

Military Pilot (San Diego, CA)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Transitioning to sustainable fuels might affect performance initially but should improve reliability later.
  • It’s a positive step for national security.

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 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 6

Retired Navy Officer (Tampa, FL)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a strategic and necessary move.
  • The budget seems suitable for gradual transition, minimizing shocks.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Economist (Boston, MA)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could stabilize energy markets in the long run by reducing dependency.
  • Economic shifts will be essential, but manageable with this budget.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 9 5

Renewable Energy Student (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 23 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm optimistic about job prospects in sustainable aviation fuel.
  • It's encouraging to see government commitment to sustainable practices.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Environmental Policy Analyst (New York, NY)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns well with broader climate goals.
  • Budget allocation seems appropriate for initial and ongoing impacts.

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 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 6

Airline Operations Manager (Dallas, TX)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If successful, the policy could lower fuel costs in the long run.
  • Short-term logistics might be tricky during the transition.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Truck Driver (Grand Forks, ND)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Unsure how this will impact my work and fuel prices.
  • Hoping for efficient integration of new fuels.

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 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

Defense Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a pivotal policy for energy security.
  • The allocated funds should cover research and implementation efficiently.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $650000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $800000000)

Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $640000000)

Year 3: $390000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $480000000)

Year 5: $320000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $390000000)

Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)

Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $240000000)

Key Considerations