Bill Overview
Title: Great Lakes Authority Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes the Great Lakes Authority to promote economic development and job creation; restore and protect fresh water; foster innovation to strengthen and expand manufacturing; promote cleaner and more sustainable power production; establish and administer funding mechanisms to finance clean energy, green infrastructure, water infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure, and broadband infrastructure projects in the region; create a regional development plan; promote affordable access to energy and broadband services in the region; provide technical assistance to entities receiving financial assistance from the authority; and select a location for the National Energy Recycling and Conservation Laboratory established by this bill. The authority must be composed of (1) a chairperson appointed by the President; and (2) one member from each of the following states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Sponsors: Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]
Target Audience
Population: Residents of the Great Lakes region
Estimated Size: 35000000
- The Great Lakes Authority aims to impact multiple sectors: economic development, job creation, environmental restoration, sustainable energy, and infrastructure.
- The bill targets infrastructure improvements, which can be essential for improving quality of life for residents in associated regions.
- The Great Lakes region includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, so residents of these states will directly experience the effects of implemented programs.
- Improving access to broadband and affordable energy suggests a focus on under-served and rural areas, which could mean potential positive impacts on low-income populations.
- The cleaner energy initiatives could shift employment towards sustainable industries, affecting workers in traditional energy sectors.
Reasoning
- The policy will primarily affect residents in the Great Lakes region, which includes both urban and rural populations.
- Budget constraints mean the policy won't transform everything overnight, but it sets the stage for long-term gains in targeted areas like green energy and infrastructure.
- Under-served communities, especially in rural areas, may see notable improvements in broadband access and energy costs.
- Those employed in traditional energy sectors might face job displacement, while new opportunities may arise in clean energy.
- With the population of the Great Lakes states being approximately 60 million, targeting an estimated impactful reach of 35 million aligns with urban and rural development strategies.
- This policy will mostly impact urban planners, construction workers, environmental graduates, tech and energy sectors, and low-income residents.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Planner (Cleveland, Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the Great Lakes Authority is a promising initiative.
- Environmental protection and job creation are top priorities for our region.
- I expect to see more green spaces and environmentally-friendly projects.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Wisconsin)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water quality is vital for my farm, so any policy supporting that is welcome.
- I worry how broadband access improvements might play out, but hopeful it brings better connectivity.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Renewable Energy Engineer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited to see funding for clean energy.
- This could drive employment in the renewable sector.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Factory Worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about losing my job if our factory doesn't modernize.
- Hopefully, the policy will support transitioning workers.
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 |
Small Business Owner (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Energy costs are killing us, and broadband is too slow.
- If the policy helps with these, it'd be great for businesses like mine.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Tech Consultant (Rochester, New York)
Age: 49 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a lot of potential in upgrading broadband infrastructure.
- This policy sounds like a major step forward for digital equity.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
High School Teacher (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I plan to incorporate more about renewable energy and sustainability in my curriculum.
- It's crucial for young people to learn about these changes.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Coal Miner (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies should focus on not just the future, but also on people like us who are impacted by the changes.
- I hope there's financial support in place for older workers.
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 |
PhD Student in Environmental Studies (Madison, Wisconsin)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly impact water safety measures in the Great Lakes region.
- I'm optimistic about the potential research and educational opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Indianapolis, Indiana)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill suggests infrastructure improvements, which could be great for families.
- Affordable energy and broadband would help us significantly.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $175000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $225000000)
Year 3: $185000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $235000000)
Year 5: $195000000 (Low: $145000000, High: $245000000)
Year 10: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 100: $245000000 (Low: $195000000, High: $295000000)
Key Considerations
- The success of the Great Lakes Authority will heavily depend on effective coordination between federal, state, and local governments.
- The long-term sustainability of investments will require ongoing maintenance and potential future upgrades to infrastructure systems.
- Environmental considerations and regulatory compliance are critical to avoid unintended ecological impacts during development projects.
- Broad stakeholder engagement and participation in planning and implementation phases are crucial for the success of regional development plans.