Bill Overview
Title: Stop Flood Insurance Rate Hikes Act
Description: This bill allows National Flood Insurance Program policyholders to elect to pay premiums at the rate in effect prior to the implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 and to receive refunds for previously paid premiums. Risk Rating 2.0 bases premium rates on an individual property's specific flood risk instead of the flood risk of a general location and property type. Policyholders may elect to pay the previous rate until the Federal Emergency Management Agency performs several actions regarding Risk Rating 2.0, including publishing all data and methods used to calculate premium rates under Risk Rating 2.0, creating an online database where policyholders can see premium rates for their property using specified calculations, and publishing an assessment of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of Risk Rating 2.0.
Sponsors: Rep. Graves, Garret [R-LA-6]
Target Audience
Population: National Flood Insurance Program policyholders
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill affects National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholders who are subject to Risk Rating 2.0.
- Risk Rating 2.0 changes how flood insurance rates are determined, potentially increasing rates for some policyholders.
- Policyholders impacted are those who own properties in flood-prone areas across the United States and could be required to pay higher premiums under Risk Rating 2.0.
- NFIP has millions of policyholders, but the specific number affected would depend on how many are adversely impacted by Risk Rating 2.0.
Reasoning
- The Stop Flood Insurance Rate Hikes Act has a diverse impact on people depending on their current insurance premium rates and their financial situation.
- Property owners in high-risk flood areas are likely to benefit most from this policy, as their premiums tend to increase significantly under Risk Rating 2.0.
- Some property owners might find that their premiums are lower under Risk Rating 2.0, and thus are not impacted or prefer the new rates.
- There is a significant population of approximately 5 million policyholders, but the budget constraints require careful allocation focused on those most adversely affected.
- Various factors like income level, location, and insurance dependency play a role in the variation of the policy's impact across individuals.
Simulated Interviews
teacher (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was getting really worried about the increase in premiums each year. It's becoming unaffordable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
retiree (Miami, Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new risk rating almost doubled my premium. Moving back to the old rates would really help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
software engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't seen much change in my premiums, so I'm neutral about this policy.
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 | 7 |
owner of a small business (Galveston, Texas)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Going back to the older rates would give me some breathing room financially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
student (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't affect me directly since I don't own property.
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 | 7 |
marine biologist (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's required transparency could lead to better decision-making and planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
financial analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think policy changes are necessary, but this particular change doesn't impact me significantly.
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 |
construction worker (Gulfport, Mississippi)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could definitely ease some of the burdens for those of us in flood-prone areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
musician (Nashville, Tennessee)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome transparency in flood risk ratings, even if my insurance costs are low.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
engineer (St. Louis, Missouri)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act provides relief, but addressing long-term climate change impacts is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 2: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 3: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 5: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 10: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 100: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy halts revenue increases but does not address long-term financial sustainability of the NFIP.
- Balancing financial stability of the NFIP with policyholder affordability is a core challenge.
- Public transparency and data accessibility are integral parts of the bill.