Bill Overview
Title: Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2021
Description: This bill sets forth provisions regarding development of geothermal, solar, or wind energy on public lands. The Department of the Interior shall establish priority areas on its land for geothermal, solar, and wind energy projects, consistent with the principles of multiple use and the renewable energy permitting goal. Among applications for a given renewable energy source, proposed projects located in priority areas for that renewable energy source shall be given the highest priority for incentivizing deployment, and be offered the opportunity to participate in any regional mitigation plan developed for the relevant priority areas. The bill provides for the disposition of revenues from the development of wind or solar energy. The bill establishes the Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund to make funds available to federal, state, and tribal agencies for distribution in regions in which renewable energy projects are located on federal land for (1) restoring and protecting natural water bodies and fish and wildlife habitat and corridors, and (2) preserving and improving recreational access to federal land and water in an affected region.
Sponsors: Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by renewable energy development and conservation efforts on public lands
Estimated Size: 45000000
- The bill affects renewable energy development, which is a fast-growing sector and involves significant populations in workforce and supply chains.
- The development of renewable energy on public land will impact individuals and businesses involved in energy production, transmission, and associated fields.
- Regulations and incentives targeting renewable energy on public lands will directly affect developers and investors in these projects.
- Environmental impacts and conservation efforts will affect surrounding communities and recreational users of public lands.
Reasoning
- Renewable energy development on public lands can directly affect businesses and employees within the renewable sector due to job creation and investment opportunities, impacting their wellbeing.
- People living near public lands might see changes in land use, affecting their community environment and access to natural resources, influencing their quality of life.
- Conservation efforts funded by the policy could benefit recreational users and potentially improve local ecosystems, thereby boosting wellbeing.
- Impact on state and tribal agencies can be significant since they might deal with implementation and distribution of resources, affecting employees within these entities.
- Not all individuals will be impacted equally—those in urban centers far from public lands may see little to no effect.
Simulated Interviews
Wind Turbine Technician (Rural Nevada)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will create more jobs like mine and bring more stability to our community.
- I am hopeful that the incentives will speed up project approvals, which have sometimes been too slow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Urban California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While renewable energy is crucial, I am concerned about their impact on local ecosystems without proper safeguards.
- The Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund sounds promising for funding necessary protections.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Rancher (Rural Colorado)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that expanding energy projects will limit our grazing lands and affect my livelihood.
- Hopefully, regional plans will account for existing land uses like ours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Investor (Urban Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy presents new opportunities for renewable investments, which could increase returns.
- The incentive structure would make it more attractive to invest in priority areas.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Federal Land Manager (Rural Montana)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Managing public lands means balancing various interests, and this policy gives clear guidance on renewable priorities.
- I just hope it doesn't sideline other important land uses or conservation.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Recreational Enthusiast (Suburban Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I love using public lands for recreation, and I worry about losing access due to new energy projects.
- I appreciate that the policy includes funds for improving access, which is encouraging.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Solar Energy Consultant (Urban Oregon)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this can drive significant growth in the solar industry, opening new markets.
- I expect an uptick in business inquiries once this bill is implemented.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Tribal Land Steward (Rural Utah)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tribal lands are often overlooked in federal plans, but this policy includes some measures for engagement.
- Proper collaboration can lead to better outcomes for our communities, sharing benefits from these projects.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
School Teacher (Suburban New Mexico)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's important to inform students about renewable energy, but I don't see this policy affecting my daily life.
- If it leads to local environmental improvements, those could benefit us indirectly.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Fisher (Rural Alaska)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Development on public lands could affect waterways I depend on for fishing.
- The conservation fund could help maintain necessary habitat, but we need clear assurances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)
Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 5: $24000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $29000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- The long-term environmental benefits of shifting to renewable energy on public lands will need to be weighed against initial setup and operational costs.
- There is a need for careful management to ensure the policy does not adversely impact local wildlife and communities reliant on these lands.
- Collaboration with federal, state, and tribal agencies is crucial to ensure efficient use of resources and avoid jurisdiction conflicts.
- Market dynamics in renewable energy and technological advancements may affect the efficacy and costs of policy implementation.