Bill Overview
Title: Ports Not Windmills Act
Description: This bill prohibits the use of certain Department of Transportation grant funds from being used to finance or refinance projects that support the development, manufacturing, staging, maintenance, or deployment of offshore wind energy infrastructure.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals employed or reliant on offshore wind energy and associated industries
Estimated Size: 150000
- The bill directly affects industries involved in offshore wind energy, including manufacturing, deployment, and maintenance companies.
- Developers and businesses in the renewable energy sector focusing on offshore wind projects would be impacted.
- Local communities and workers near ports that might benefit from offshore wind projects are stakeholders.
- Environmental groups advocating for renewable energy sources like wind power might express concern.
- Overall impact could spread to broader renewable energy initiatives that rely on infrastructure financing.
Reasoning
- The target population is relatively small, approximately 150,000 people, impacted either directly through employment in offshore wind energy or indirectly through the economic benefits provided by industry projects.
- The policy restricts the use of DOT funds for offshore wind projects, which could negatively impact new jobs and advancements in the renewable energy sector.
- Some local economies near coastal areas planning for or currently involved in wind energy projects might face setbacks in expected economic growth.
- Individuals not directly involved with or benefiting from these projects are unlikely to be impacted significantly by the policy.
- Environmental concerns are a significant factor, as the policy could be seen as a hindrance to the adoption of renewable energy sources.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could slow down crucial wind energy projects, impacting our future growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 9 |
Port Operator (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We have seen growth in port activities due to wind projects, which this policy might cut down.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (San Diego, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill seems like a step back for sustainable development in coastal communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 9 |
Dock Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure if this policy will directly affect me, but I've heard concerns about job opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Government Official (Charleston, SC)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill might impact our infrastructure plans connected to renewable energy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Providence, RI)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support renewable projects and this policy seems counterproductive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Wind Energy Technician (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a setback; I'm worried about job security and our future projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 9 |
University Student (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a roadblock to advancing sustainable energy solutions for future generations.
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 |
Investment Advisor (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might dissuade some investments in US offshore projects, but opportunities elsewhere remain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Engineer (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this can have long-term implications on renewable energy infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
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: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Reallocation of Department of Transportation funds away from innovative and future-focused projects may have long-term opportunity costs.
- Potential deterrence of investment in the offshore wind sector could delay renewable energy advancements and employment growth in this industry.
- The overall direct cost of this policy is relatively low, but indirect economic implications could be larger, particularly in technology and industry advancement.