Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6933

Bill Overview

Title: Cost-Share Accountability Act of 2022

Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to report on the use of its authority to reduce or eliminate the cost-sharing requirements for its research, development, demonstration, and commercial application program or activities under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Sponsors: Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-8]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals involved in energy research, development, and commercialization

Estimated Size: 1000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Renewable Energy Researcher (Austin, TX)

Age: 58 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy has the potential to boost my research capabilities significantly by alleviating some financial burdens.
  • If successful, it could enhance our ability to innovate and contribute meaningfully to the energy sector.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Energy Startup CEO (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This initiative would help us allocate more funds towards development rather than cost-sharing.
  • It may nurture more robust partnerships and innovation within the sector.

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 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Energy Consultant (Houston, TX)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Unlikely to experience direct effects from this policy, as my work focuses on consulting rather than development.
  • However, broader improvements in energy technologies could eventually benefit my clients.

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 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 6

University Professor (Raleigh, NC)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could potentially make energy research more accessible to smaller institutions.
  • Its impact might be limited by the budget, but any support can help foster innovation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Independent Renewable Energy Inventor (Portland, OR)

Age: 39 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Greater access to cost-free or reduced-cost sharing could dramatically improve project feasibility.
  • However, competition for funding under this policy will be fierce, leading to uncertainty.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 7 3
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 2

Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I expect indirect benefits through advancements in energy tech that this policy could promote.
  • The actual impact on my work might take years to materialize.

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

Energy Sector Project Manager (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy's long-term benefits could facilitate collaborative projects that reduce overall cost.
  • Real impacts might not be immediately observable due to funding scope limitations.

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 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Graduate Student in Energy Sciences (Chicago, IL)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy might help my transition from academia to commercialization by reducing initial costs.
  • Increased funding opportunities could lead to more innovation-friendly environments.

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 8 5
Year 20 7 5

Environmental NGO Worker (Boston, MA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our organization might advocate for more comprehensive implementations of similar policies.
  • The medium to long-term promise could align with our mission, fostering public support.

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 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 6

Energy Policy Analyst (Denver, CO)

Age: 53 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's a step in the right direction for promoting energy development, but requires larger funding commitments to realize its full potential.
  • Will be interesting to analyze the longer-term outcomes of such policies on innovation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)

Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)

Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)

Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations