Bill Overview
Title: START Act
Description: or the START Act This bill sets forth a variety of provisions to expedite the environmental review of energy projects, such as the Mountain Valley Pipeline project.
Sponsors: Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
Target Audience
Population: People living near or working on energy project sites affected by expedited environmental reviews
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill aims to expedite environmental reviews, which may affect communities near proposed energy project sites.
- Energy projects often have environmental impacts, affecting local ecosystems and populations reliant on those ecosystems.
- Residents living near projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline may experience direct effects, both positive (like job creation) and negative (like environmental risks).
- There is a global audience concerned with environmental regulations due to the transboundary nature of some environmental effects, such as air and water pollution.
- The energy industry, including companies and workers involved in energy project development and environmental compliance, will be directly impacted.
- Global environmental advocates and organizations monitoring climate change and regulatory policies would be interested in this legislation.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects people living near energy project sites by altering the regulatory timelines which can speed up or slow down project implementation. The immediate impacts are both environmental and economic.
- There is a political and economic balance to be considered - speeding up regulations can lead to faster job creation but also potentially compromises on environmental safeguards.
- The budget constraints mean the policy is selective, potentially benefiting larger or more contentious projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline while excluding smaller projects due to cost limitations.
- With specific reference to the Mountain Valley Pipeline, the policy will likely be more relevant to residents of West Virginia and Virginia, specifically those near the pipeline's planned construction.
- The long-term wellbeing impacts might include changes in local economy dynamics (e.g., employment) versus any long-term environmental degradation that could counteract these benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Charleston, WV)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hoping for more work opportunities with the pipeline.
- I worry about the environmental impact on our land and water.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Roanoke, VA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expedited reviews worry me. They rarely address long-term environmental impacts.
- We need sustainable development, not just fast development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Lewisburg, WV)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the pipeline's review goes smoothly, it might increase local job availability.
- I am skeptical of political promises about environmental safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Policy (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a short-sighted policy prioritizing speed over environmental carefulness.
- Young people like me will deal with the long-term damage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Energy Sector Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will streamline the process, leading to clearer timelines.
- The current system is overly bureaucratic and stifles progress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Elementary School Teacher (Blacksburg, VA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fast-tracking could mean jobs for our community but at what cost to nature?
- I fear for my grandkids and the world they will inherit.
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 | 6 | 7 |
Engineer (Richmond, VA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient reviews are necessary for progress and economic growth.
- Public concerns must still be addressed adequately.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Local Council Member (Montgomery, WV)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations ensure our community’s future—constant tweaking worries me.
- I’m pressured to balance economic benefits against environmental losses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Agricultural Farmer (Fayetteville, WV)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expedited projects might disrupt farming operations.
- I depend on the land, any impact on it is personal and direct.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Federal Environmental Policy Analyst (Alexandria, VA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The balance between expedited reviews and thoroughness is hard to maintain.
- I’m involved in ensuring we don’t lower standards just to save time.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental risks associated with expedited reviews need to be managed to avoid long-term costs.
- Potential legal challenges from environmental groups may offset some of the expedited benefits.
- Coordination with state and local agencies will be vital to effectively implement changes.