Bill Overview
Title: RISE UP Act
Description: This bill directs the President to submit to Congress a report that (1) summarizes the existing authorities of the federal government to respond to a severe energy supply interruption, (2) assesses whether the existing authorities provide for an adequate response to such an interruption, and (3) identifies any additional statutory authority needed to allow the government to better respond to such an interruption.
Sponsors: Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by energy supply interruptions
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill is focused on energy supply interruptions, which affect national energy security.
- In the event of severe energy supply interruptions, citizens reliant on consistent energy supplies, such as electricity, heating, and transportation fuels, will be impacted.
- Industries and businesses that depend on energy for production, transportation, and services could face operational challenges during supply interruptions.
- The bill indirectly targets oil and gas markets, as disruptions likely pertain to these resources, which are significant in global markets.
- National security may be impacted due to reliance on stable energy supplies for defense and civilian operations.
Reasoning
- The policy is focused on addressing severe energy supply interruptions, which could have widespread effects on both individuals and industries.
- The U.S. population largely depends on stable energy supplies for heating, electricity, and transportation, which directly impacts daily life and economic stability.
- Even though the policy is primarily an assessment and identification task, its potential outcomes could lead to policy changes that directly influence energy supply strategies, thus impacting wellbeing.
- With a limited budget, the direct impact of the policy in its first phase might be low, focusing primarily on assessment rather than immediate tangible changes in supply infrastructure.
Simulated Interviews
School Teacher (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that the policy can identify solutions to prevent energy crises, especially in the winter months.
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 |
Oil Field Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for the government to have a plan. Any disruption hits our industry hard.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Energy prices are already high, any disruption makes it worse. This policy could help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stability in energy supply is crucial for my work-life. Hopefully, this policy will ensure that.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My retirement income doesn't stretch when energy prices rise; this bill's impact is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Automobile Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A stable energy supply is vital for my job security. This policy could help safeguard that.
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 | 7 | 5 |
PhD Student (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should assess sustainable solutions as well, ensuring long-term energy availability.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Restaurant Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could prevent energy supply problems which would be a financial headache.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Stay-at-Home Parent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Energy costs dictate our family budget, so disruptions are a big deal.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Logistics Manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring energy supply stability is crucial for logistics. This policy might help avert costly problems.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary action required is the preparation of a comprehensive report.
- Federal agency coordination is required to assess existing authorities and identify gaps.
- The bill does not include direct changes to energy policy or infrastructure.
- Long-term economic impacts would depend on recommendations and subsequent actions following the report's findings.