Bill Overview
Title: Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits specified federal entities (e.g., the Department of Energy) from considering the social cost of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, or greenhouse gas as part of any cost-benefit analysis required under any law or specified Executive Orders. In addition, such social costs must not be considered by such entities (1) in rulemaking, (2) in the issuance of guidance, (3) in taking other agency action, (4) or as a justification for any rulemaking, guidance document, or agency action.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions.
Estimated Size: 100000000
- Greenhouse gases such as carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide are major contributors to climate change.
- Limiting the ability of federal entities to consider the social cost of greenhouse gases could slow down the implementation of environmentally friendly regulations.
- This could lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions globally, impacting air quality and climate change worldwide.
- Globally, climate change affects populations through rising temperatures, sea levels, and increased frequency of extreme weather, all of which can impair well-being, health, and safety.
- The number most directly impacted could include those in vulnerable environmental areas, such as low-lying coastal regions and regions prone to extreme weather.
Reasoning
- This policy mainly impacts individuals in regions vulnerable to climate change, such as coastal or agricultural areas, as well as communities with existing pollution problems. Hence, a significant portion of the interviews should represent these demographics.
- The economic and health impacts of increased emissions due to this policy need to be considered, especially in terms of long-term well-being.
- The policy might not have immediate effects but could lead to long-term detriments due to slower implementation of environmental regulations.
- Costs and budgets are significant, but since this is more about regulatory change than direct financial expenditure, it's important to understand implications over time more than immediate costs.
- A cross-section of the population will give insight into direct, indirect, and perceived impacts, ranging from significant negative effects to those who might barely notice the policy changes.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about the long-term impact of climate change on coastal regions.
- Concerned about hurricane frequency and severity increasing due to less oversight on emissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Frustrated by the setbacks this policy creates for tackling emissions.
- Feels it undermines efforts to improve air quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Energy Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes the policy could slow regulations potentially benefiting the industry.
- Sees it as beneficial for job security in the short term.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Fisherman (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about ocean health and fish stocks.
- Worries about long-term sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Health Researcher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees the policy as an obstacle to improving public health.
- Believes long-term effects of climate change will cost more in healthcare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about grandchildren's future with climate change.
- Hopes for more robust action against emissions, feels this is a backward step.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about implications for climate policy studies.
- Feels policy dismisses scientific understanding of climate change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Farm Owner (Fargo, ND)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Climate change impacts growing seasons, concerns policy might make things worse.
- Feels future of farming is uncertain with climate shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Tech Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees potential setbacks for green tech innovations due to slowed regulations.
- Optimistic about long-term adaptation but concerned with immediate delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Petrochemical Engineer (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Thinks this might simplify regulatory processes in the short-term.
- Unsure about long-term environmental cost versus economic benefit.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 2: $5200000000 (Low: $4200000000, High: $6300000000)
Year 3: $5408000000 (Low: $4416000000, High: $6552000000)
Year 5: $5820000000 (Low: $4740000000, High: $7014000000)
Year 10: $6730000000 (Low: $5478400000, High: $8107200000)
Year 100: $22560400000 (Low: $18343200000, High: $27072480000)
Key Considerations
- The policy could lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, contributing further to global climate change impacts.
- Short-term savings for industries might be outweighed by long-term public expenditure on health and infrastructure due to environmental degradation.
- Potential reduction in enforced environmental regulations affects disaster response needs, exacerbating public and government costs.
- Increased public awareness and international pressure on greenhouse gas emissions may influence federal policies beyond the scope of this act.