Bill Overview
Title: Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish an Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Program. Under the program, DOE must provide financial assistance to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers pursuing a course of study that integrates cybersecurity competencies within disciplines associated with energy infrastructure needs. In addition, DOE must provide the students and researches supported under the program with research and training experiences at its National Laboratories and utilities.
Sponsors: Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2]
Target Audience
Population: Graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in energy cybersecurity
Estimated Size: 12000
- The bill aims to support graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, which generally include individuals who have completed an undergraduate degree and are pursuing advanced study or research.
- The bill pertains specifically to those whose research or study fields intersect with cybersecurity and energy infrastructure, which are specialized fields within engineering, computer science, and related disciplines.
- The initiative is specifically designed to provide financial assistance, which implies potential financial impact, such as scholarships or grants, for those eligible candidates involved in the program.
- The collaboration with National Laboratories and utilities means that these entities, though not direct beneficiaries, will also incorporate these students into their research and training environments, impacting the workforce and research output.
Reasoning
- The policy is targeted at a specific academic and research audience, so only individuals directly involved in these fields are likely to experience tangible impacts on their financial situation and career opportunities.
- The effects will be pronounced in the first few years as students begin their studies and receive immediate financial support, with potential long-term benefits involving strengthened career prospects and contributions to cybersecurity and energy sectors.
- The policy budget is significant, but the target population is specialized and relatively small, meaning the financial impact per individual could be substantial.
- By focusing on cybersecurity within energy sectors, the policy aligns with national security interests, possibly enhancing motivation and prestige for participants, though it might not influence their wellbeing scores significantly at first.
- Impacts are predicted to be medium for those eligible, primarily financial in nature, with additional benefits from training and networking opportunities.
- Long-term wellbeing depends on career outcomes, which can be uncertain, but the policy sets a strong foundation by providing initial financial relief and professional exposure.
Simulated Interviews
Graduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The financial support will be a huge help; it will allow me to focus on my studies without having to work part-time.
- Access to National Labs is an amazing opportunity to network and gain practical experience.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Postdoctoral Researcher (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Support from the DOE could open up more comprehensive research avenues.
- The collaborative environment among top researchers is perhaps as valuable as the funding itself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
University Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a fantastic initiative, but how students leverage these opportunities will determine its success.
- I hope increased funding leads to more collaboration and innovation in our projects.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial aid could really lessen my student loan burden.
- Getting into the labs sounds amazing for my job prospects in the energy sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much impact on my current work or future plans.
- If these students end up in private industry, it could enrich the talent pool.
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 |
Graduate Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being unsure about a career in energy, this funding incentivizes me to consider it seriously.
- The connections and experiences could be pivotal for my decision-making and future role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Energy Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might bolster the future workforce, but direct impacts on my career are minimal.
- If effective, it could enhance diversity in energy and cybersecurity sectors.
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 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This support aligns perfectly with my career goals in academia and research.
- Exposure to real-world lab conditions is a huge bonus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Senior Engineer (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will indirectly benefit my work by enhancing collaboration.
- More trained graduates could mean better partnerships and innovations.
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 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This has the potential to mitigate my financial risks during the startup phase.
- There might be strategic advantages of having government-aligned experience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 2: $122000000 (Low: $102000000, High: $142000000)
Year 3: $124000000 (Low: $104000000, High: $144000000)
Year 5: $128000000 (Low: $108000000, High: $148000000)
Year 10: $140000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $160000000)
Year 100: $180000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- The program targets a highly specialized field, potentially limiting the number of universities that can fully participate.
- Costs include direct financial support and indirect support, such as integration with National Laboratories.
- The collaboration with research facilities will require ongoing coordination and potentially involve additional overhead costs not accounted for initially.