Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6467

Bill Overview

Title: To amend title 46, United States Code, to make certain improvements to the project selection criteria for grants under the port and intermodal improvement program, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill makes emission mitigation projects that support the use of land-based power sources to supply energy to passenger vessels at berth (i.e., shore power) eligible for grants through the Port Infrastructure Development Program. (This program provides competitive grants for projects to improve the safety, efficiency, or reliability of the movement of goods into, out of, around, or within a port.)

Sponsors: Rep. Gimenez, Carlos A. [R-FL-26]

Target Audience

Population: People living near ports and working in the maritime industry worldwide

Estimated Size: 123000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Port Worker (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's about time the port did something about the emissions. It's been tough with my health issues.
  • Cleaner air means better health for my kids and me. I support anything that'll reduce pollution here.

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 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 4

School Teacher (Newark, NJ)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We have to protect our children's futures, cleaner air can lead to healthier kids.
  • I'm hopeful that this policy could be a step towards tangible improvements in our community's air quality.

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 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Maritime Logistics Coordinator (Houston, TX)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this policy supports the future of shipping which must include sustainability.
  • If executed well, shore power could reduce our environmental footprint significantly.

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 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 6

Retired (Savannah, GA)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I've seen the port expand over the years, but the environmental issues have risen too.
  • This initiative might help preserve our local environment and quality of life.

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 7 6

Cruise Ship Engineer (Miami, FL)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Shore power represents a modernization step for ports like Miami that is crucial.
  • If grants cover more ports, this is definitely going to improve operational efficiency.

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 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 6

Environmental Scientist (Oakland, CA)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Shore power in ports can significantly reduce harmful emissions, which I fully support.
  • This policy aligns with the changes we've been advocating for decades.

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 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 6

Retired Longshoreman (Portland, OR)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I've been living next to the smells and sounds of the port for years; any reduction in pollution is welcome.
  • Supporting shore power at our ports is a forward-thinking move that benefits us all.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Environmental Activist (Jacksonville, FL)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this are critical to addressing systemic environmental issues.
  • The long-term benefits of emission reductions are worth the investment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 10 6
Year 20 10 5

Financial Analyst (Chicago, IL)

Age: 34 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see renewable projects as smart investments, even if I'm not directly affected.
  • Policy changes like this can shift markets and open new financial opportunities.

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

Dockside Restaurant Owner (Seattle, WA)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Port emissions affect my business as they do my health; cleaner air would be good for both.
  • Anything that encourages port modernization is beneficial in the long run.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)

Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $240000000)

Year 3: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)

Year 5: $350000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $420000000)

Year 10: $400000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $480000000)

Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Key Considerations