Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require the Secretary of Energy to stipulate, as a condition on the sale at auction of any petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that the petroleum products not be exported to certain countries, to prohibit such sales to certain state-owned entities, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill limits the sale and exportation of petroleum products (e.g., crude oil) from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Specifically, the bill directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to require, as a condition of auction sales, that the petroleum products not be exported to countries that are designated as countries of particular concern for religious freedom under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. In addition, the bill establishes limits on auction sales of petroleum products from the SPR to state-owned entities if DOE determines that, as of the dates of the auctions, there are bans on, or the imposition of sanctions by the United States with respect to, the purchase of crude oil from countries. Under such circumstances, state-owned entities must certify that they have not purchased petroleum products from countries subject to such bans or sanctions while the bans or sanctions were in effect in order to be able to bid in auctions. If DOE determines state-owned entities participating in the auctions have purchased crude oil from such countries while the bans or sanctions were in effect, then DOE may not sell petroleum products from the SPR to such entities.
Sponsors: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by limitations on exports and sales from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill directly impacts countries of particular concern for religious freedom, as designated under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. These countries will no longer have access to petroleum products from the US SPR.
- Countries that face US bans or sanctions for crude oil purchases will also be directly affected because state-owned entities within these countries will have restricted access to US petroleum products from the SPR.
- The global oil market may be impacted indirectly as restrictions on the SPR can influence crude oil supply and pricing dynamics globally.
- US-based oil companies and state-owned entities involved in bidding for SPR petroleum products will be impacted as they must comply with new requirements, such as not purchasing from countries under a ban or sanctions.
- US consumers and businesses reliant on oil may experience effects depending on how the bill influences domestic supply, prices, and availability.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects those directly involved in the oil industry, including companies that buy and sell petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Within the US, this includes state-owned entities and private companies involved in these transactions.
- Indirect effects on US consumers and businesses that rely heavily on oil might occur due to potential fluctuations in oil supply and prices resulting from this policy.
- The policy budget will be spent to manage and enforce the export and sales restrictions, influencing how the DOE oversees auction sales to foreign and state-owned entities.
- Due to the restriction based on religious freedom and economic sanctions, it indirectly impacts political relations and global market dynamics, which could trickle down to affect domestic market conditions.
- A small segment of the population, mainly those involved directly in oil trade, could be significantly affected by changes in their business operations and potential legal commitments made under this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Oil industry executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy might complicate international business deals and oil trade dynamics.
- It might present opportunities but also risks for companies involved in domestic oil sales.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small business owner, trucking industry (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fluctuations in fuel prices could significantly impact my business operations and profitability.
- I'm worried this policy could restrict fuel supply or increase costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired, former energy analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm intrigued to see how the policy impacts the global oil market.
- Even if not directly impactful, it could shift market dynamics.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Tech startup founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm more focused on potential indirect effects this policy might have on operating costs.
- If energy prices rise, it could strain our startup's budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Economist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restriction on exports might provide interesting data on economic elasticity.
- There's potential for a better understanding of oil dependency dynamics.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental activist (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any measure that could potentially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
- Though I doubt its long-term significance without further environmental policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Government policy advisor (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could serve as a leverage tool in geopolitical contexts.
- Interesting to see its effect on local and international levels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Logistics manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any significant change in oil supply chain can disrupt logistics planning.
- Important to understand policy and logistical implications.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Oil rig operator (Midland, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned that new restrictions might eventually impact job security.
- Aim for policies that ensure both sustainability and economic benefits.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public policy analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could open discussions on balancing energy policies and consumer interests.
- Curious to evaluate any shifts in domestic market equilibration.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $19000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $24000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative cost of monitoring and enforcing new sales conditions will be continuous as long as the regulation is in effect.
- Potential geopolitical reactions may influence global oil markets, affecting costs beyond immediate fiscal considerations.
- The bill may lead to indirect economic effects due to shifts in international oil trade patterns.
- Oil dependency of certain US industries may cause varying levels of economic ripple effects on national and local markets.