Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a Natural Disaster Grid Mitigation Map that identifies critical electric grid infrastructure that is vulnerable to natural disasters, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop and maintain a map of critical electric grid infrastructure that is vulnerable to natural disasters. DOE must also annually report on grid vulnerabilities and risks of energy disruptions due to natural disasters.
Sponsors: Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on electric grid infrastructure who are at risk from natural disasters
Estimated Size: 331000000
- Natural disasters can disrupt electricity supply, which impacts households, businesses, and services relying on electricity.
- Critical infrastructure includes power plants, transmission lines, and substations vital for electricity supply.
- Mapping vulnerability helps in creating strategies for disaster preparedness and mitigation, thus affecting national and local governments, utility companies, and emergency services.
- People in disaster-prone areas are more likely to feel direct impact, as efficient grid mitigation can reduce power outages.
- Grid enhancements can benefit a wide range of populations by providing stable energy during events.
Reasoning
- The policy's impact will be most directly felt by those living in areas prone to natural disasters, such as coastal regions vulnerable to hurricanes, regions susceptible to tornadoes, and areas affected by wildfires. We need to include individuals from these regions to accurately simulate the impact.
- Given the financial constraints and the broad target population of around 331 million, the policy will affect only a subset directly. Hence, we should simulate different levels of impact: high for those living in disaster-prone areas, medium/low for others.
- We should include people from various socioeconomic backgrounds as the power outages affect everyone but recovery and mitigation efforts differ based on resources.
- The policy budget indicates that substantial resources will go into mapping and reporting, which will likely take time to translate into tangible grid improvements. Therefore, we should consider impacts over a long period.
- Overall, there is an expected increase in self-reported wellbeing due to anticipated reductions in power outages during disasters, but this may not be immediate.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry every hurricane season about losing power for days.
- Having a plan to protect the grid from hurricanes is a relief.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
IT Support (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Grid security is crucial for work and personal life.
- I feel the policy is necessary for emergency preparedness.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Power outages are a big concern for my business.
- The policy might help in reducing economic loss.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Software Developer (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm aware of the importance of infrastructure resilience.
- The policy seems important but won't affect me directly.
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 |
Retired (Jackson, MS)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Power reliability is crucial for my medical needs.
- I am hopeful this policy will mean fewer outages.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable electricity is critical for patient care.
- Steps to improve grid reliability are overdue.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Boulder, CO)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy will help many, though I won't feel much impact.
- It's good for the country to be prepared.
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 |
Factory Worker (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing power disruptions means fewer lost wages.
- The policy is important for workers like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Hotel Manager (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hurricanes affect business tremendously each year.
- Better grid management could reduce economic losses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Engineer (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grid's resilience is essential for technology and security.
- It's crucial to invest in disaster prevention measures.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The establishment and maintenance of the map will require inter-agency cooperation and integration with state and local data.
- Funding and resource allocation need to be secured to support the DOE's efforts in data collection and analysis.
- Lack of accurate and comprehensive data on existing infrastructure resilience could delay or inflate the implementation costs.
- Ensuring data security and privacy will be critical given the sensitivity of infrastructure information.