Bill Overview
Title: Pipeline Fairness, Transparency, and Responsible Development Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses provisions related to natural gas pipeline projects, including provisions related to the permitting process, eminent domain, environmental reviews, and the visual impacts of such projects on national scenic trails.
Sponsors: Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by natural gas pipeline projects
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill pertains to natural gas pipeline projects which often span large geographic areas and require large amounts of labor for construction and maintenance.
- The permitting process changes could affect companies in the natural gas sector globally, as they often operate across borders.
- Eminent domain changes could affect landowners whose property might be taken for pipeline construction.
- Environmental review process modifications could affect communities near potential pipeline projects, as well as environmental advocacy groups.
- Visual impact provisions could impact communities near national scenic trails, as well as tourists and businesses relying on scenic views.
Reasoning
- The impact assessment should include individuals directly impacted by natural gas pipelines, such as construction workers and landowners, as they are the most likely to experience tangible changes in their wellbeing scores.
- It is important to consider individuals indirectly affected, such as environmental advocates and community members in scenic areas, who might perceive changes more abstractly but can be vocal and influential in public opinion and policy outcomes.
- The geographic range of natural gas pipelines implies that we need to consider both urban and rural populations across different states.
- Cost implications should be considered; the policy's budget should not exceed specified limits, particularly in the initial years, meaning prioritizing high-impact cases will be crucial in assessing potential outcomes.
- To provide a diverse perspective, some of the individuals should represent groups that might not be significantly impacted, indicating a variability in policy reception within the population.
Simulated Interviews
Pipeline Construction Worker (West Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes my job more secure, more transparency means more projects get approved faster.
- Eminent domain changes don’t affect my job directly but might make projects less controversial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Landowner (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m worried about losing a part of my farm, but the compensation seems fair.
- The environmental reviews make me hopeful for preserving some natural areas on my land.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m glad the environmental reviews are being toughened up; it could lead to better conservation outcomes.
- The policy is a win in terms of transparency, but I worry it still won't prevent all environmental damages.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Tourism Business Owner (Ohio)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I depend on scenic views for my business, so these pipelines can be a threat, but the transparency in projects could help us plan better.
- If projects are done responsibly and visually pleasing, it might not hurt as much as feared.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
University Student (New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for maintaining visual integrity alongside pipelines.
- It's reassuring for the future of environmental efforts despite being far from perfect.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Ranch Owner (North Dakota)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m still concerned about eminent domain rights, but increased transparency is better for negotiations.
- I need assurance that my ranch operations won't be disrupted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Government Employee (New Mexico)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency helps my work align more with regulatory goals.
- More stringent environmental reviews are a positive, but we need resources to support these activities.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Maine)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the act will protect our scenic views from any ugly infrastructure projects.
- Transparency is good, but I wish there was a stronger voice for retired residents.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Natural Gas Company Executive (Louisiana)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like it will streamline approval processes.
- We're prepared to adapt to transparency requirements to maintain project timelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Local Government Official (Pennsylvania)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy improvements in permitting help us prepare communities better.
- It's crucial to balance local interests with energy needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 10: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Balancing regulatory burden with economic efficiency is crucial.
- Long-term environmental impacts versus immediate economic gains must be evaluated.
- Stakeholder engagement including landowners, environmental groups, and industry participants will be pivotal.