Bill Overview
Title: Preserving the Gulf Test Range to Ensure Military Readiness Act
Description: This bill establishes a moratorium on energy development (e.g., offshore wind development) in specified areas of the Gulf of Mexico until June 30, 2032. Until that date, the Department of the Interior may not conduct certain energy development activities in any area east of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico. The moratorium also applies to other areas of the Outer Continental Shelf—the South Atlantic Planning Area, the Straits of Florida Planning Area, or any area west of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico—if energy exploration, leasing, or development in that area has been identified as having any adverse effect on national security, military readiness, or the Department of Defense's testing capabilities. However, Interior may issue leases in those areas for environmental conservation purposes, including the purposes of shore protection, beach nourishment and restoration, wetlands restoration, and habitat protection.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People living or working in areas affected by Gulf of Mexico energy development policies
Estimated Size: 200000
- The bill affects areas designated for military testing and energy development, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent planning areas.
- The moratorium on energy development will impact industries involved in offshore wind and other energy resources, preventing them from exploiting certain areas.
- Communities and workers dependent on energy projects in these regions might be directly affected economically by the suspension of development projects.
- Environmental and conservation interests may be positively impacted due to potential projects for conservation, beach nourishment, and habitat protection.
- Stakeholders in national security and military readiness will be impacted, as the act aims to ensure their operations are not hindered by energy development.
Reasoning
- The budget constraint limits the extent of conservation projects that can be initiated, potentially focusing on specific areas only.
- The military and defense sector will benefit from undisturbed test ranges, but there may be minimal direct financial benefit to the general populace.
- Local economies dependent on energy exploration may face downturns, affecting jobs and community wellbeing.
- Long-term environmental benefits might enhance community wellbeing over decades, particularly for coastal protection and biodiversity.
- Job loss and reduced economic prospects in the energy sector can reduce current wellbeing, but conservation and restored habitats can boost future tourism and quality of life.
Simulated Interviews
Offshore drilling engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this moratorium might cost jobs in the energy sector, including my own.
- I understand the need for military readiness, but we need solutions that also protect jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental scientist (Tampa, Florida)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm encouraged by the emphasis on environmental conservation and habitat protection.
- This policy could lead to long-term benefits for local ecosystems.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Military officer (Mobile, Alabama)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial to maintain our current training operations without disruptions.
- A secure and uninterrupted test range is vital for national defense.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Hotel Manager (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could boost eco-tourism in the region as conservation efforts take hold.
- Any disruption to the energy sector might temporarily impact local economy, but long-term benefits are possible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Fishing charter business owner (Miami, Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting the Gulf is critical for maintaining fish stocks and my business.
- I hope conservation measures will enhance fish habitats.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental policy advocate (Pensacola, Florida)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased to see concerted efforts towards conservation in vital areas.
- The policy aligns with our advocacy goals.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Energy company executive (Biloxi, Mississippi)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This moratorium threatens future projects and potential revenue for the company.
- While I support national security, balanced solutions are needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Marine biologist (Key West, Florida)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Moratorium might lead to improved marine habitats over time.
- We need careful management of these conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Oil rig worker (Corpus Christi, Texas)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Job security is already uncertain, and this makes it worse.
- Energy sector workers need more support if projects are halted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired U.S. Navy officer (Port St. Joe, Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting military operational areas is of utmost priority for national security.
- I support the move to maintain our defense capabilities.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $30500000 (Low: $20500000, High: $50500000)
Year 3: $31000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $51000000)
Year 5: $31500000 (Low: $21500000, High: $51500000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill's impact on energy industries must be balanced with military readiness priorities, carefully considering opportunity costs and benefits.
- The prohibition on energy development might benefit long-term environmental conservation goals, although short-term economic impacts could be significant.
- Revenue implications are complex and depend on the scale of foregone potential projects, which are uncertain.
- Overall military readiness is assumed to be preserved or improved by avoiding conflicts of interest and resource allocation with energy projects.