Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7584

Bill Overview

Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end the investment tax credit for offshore wind facilities in the inland navigable waters of the United States.

Description: This bill eliminates the energy-related tax credit for investment in certain offshore wind facilities after 2021.

Sponsors: Rep. Jacobs, Chris [R-NY-27]

Target Audience

Population: People associated with offshore wind facilities in inland navigable waters

Estimated Size: 50000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Renewable Energy Developer (Houston, TX)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is short-sighted and risks undermining the renewable energy objectives by making it less attractive to invest in offshore wind.
  • Our company will need to reassess planned projects, and there's potential for layoffs if the financial models don't remain viable.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 5 8
Year 5 5 8
Year 10 4 9
Year 20 3 9

Project Manager at Offshore Wind Facility (Norfolk, VA)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While current operations remain viable, this policy threatens future expansion plans and could hinder job security for many.
  • We were counting on these credits to secure additional funding for facility upgrades.

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 6 9
Year 20 6 9

Offshore Wind Engineer (Boston, MA)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This change feels like a step back in clean energy initiatives.
  • There might be a slow-down in new projects, impacting my career as fewer opportunities arise.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 5 8
Year 5 5 9
Year 10 5 9
Year 20 5 9

Local Business Owner (Baton Rouge, LA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I rely on contracts from these wind projects, and any reduction in future projects will directly hit my revenue.
  • This policy could lead to less business or even having to scale back operations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 4 7
Year 5 3 8
Year 10 3 8
Year 20 4 8

Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The removal of tax credits may slow down the growth of the industry, posing barriers to the U.S. achieving its renewable energy goals.
  • The policy seems contrary to national interests in reducing carbon emissions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 9 9

Investor (Portland, OR)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I will need to reassess the viability of my investments in offshore wind with these credits removed.
  • It may push investments towards other types of renewable energy that offer better incentives.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 5 8
Year 5 4 9
Year 10 4 9
Year 20 4 9

Energy Consultant (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clients are worried about the change in policy affecting their strategic plans.
  • There might be a shift in preferred energy sources, affecting my consulting focus.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 9
Year 2 8 9
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Graduate Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 24 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy change worries me about job prospects in renewable energy post-graduation.
  • I'm concerned about the commitment to sustainable energy solutions in the U.S.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 6 8
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 7 9
Year 20 8 9

Construction Worker (Aberdeen, WA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • My job relies on new projects coming in. Less investment might mean fewer jobs in the future.
  • This threatens not just potential projects but also current employment stability.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 5 7
Year 5 4 7
Year 10 5 8
Year 20 6 8

Retired Navy Officer (Miami, FL)

Age: 56 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Thought the incentive would support more renewable energy in coastal areas, which could benefit property values and community development.
  • This policy could mean less growth in renewable projects, affecting local economy and environment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 6 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)

Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)

Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)

Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)

Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)

Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)

Key Considerations