Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to improve provisions relating to the development of hydropower at Corps of Engineers facilities, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to (1) assess opportunities to increase hydroelectric power at its projects (e.g, dams and locks), and (2) create a new program manager position for nonfederal hydroelectric power development.
Sponsors: Rep. Kuster, Ann M. [D-NH-2]
Target Audience
Population: People who may be impacted by changes in hydroelectric power production at Corps of Engineers facilities
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates hundreds of dams and other facilities that have the potential for hydroelectric power development.
- Hydroelectric power is a significant source of renewable energy, and the bill could boost renewable energy production.
- Improving hydropower development could lead to job creation in regions where Corps of Engineers facilities are located.
- Communities near these facilities might experience changes in energy prices or availability, depending on how new hydropower developments are managed.
- The bill could also impact companies involved in nonfederal hydroelectric power development, potentially expanding their market and opportunities.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts are primarily regional, affecting communities near U.S. Army Corps of Engineers facilities where hydropower development can take place.
- Given the current budget limits, the direct impact is likely constrained to evaluating feasibility and initiating some pilot projects.
- Dividing the budget across multiple facilities indicates that the first year will focus on small-scale developments or assessments.
- The wider energy consumers and job market impacts will take time to manifest, possibly limited to areas directly benefiting from early program implementation.
- People working in the hydropower industry or living near potential sites are most likely to experience a direct impact, either through job opportunities or changes in energy supply.
Simulated Interviews
Engineer at a renewable energy company (Washington State)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a good step towards cleaner energy.
- It might create more job opportunities for engineers like me in the hydropower sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Local energy consultant (Kentucky)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could have mixed results, depending on execution and funding allocation.
- There's potential for both benefit and disruption to local power dynamics.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental policy analyst (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may help the U.S. move towards more sustainable energy use.
- I'd expect slow but positive impacts on the ecosystem and energy markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Manager at a non-federal power company (Nevada)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our company could definitely benefit from this policy.
- New projects might bring investments and jobs to our region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Farmer (Tennessee)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this will lower our energy bills eventually.
- I worry about construction disruptions if they happen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Graduate student studying renewable energy (California)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an exciting time for students in the renewable energy field.
- The policy may open up new research opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community organizer (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While clean energy is important, we need to ensure community voices are heard in project planning.
- There's always a concern about environmental impacts.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired hydropower engineer (Illinois)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see the Corps finally looking at hydropower more seriously.
- I hope they consider the technologies I worked with.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Colorado)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a great example for students to learn from.
- I'd like more educational resources about how local energy systems work.
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 |
Hydropower enthusiast (Missouri)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited to see more focus on hydropower development!
- This policy might stir more community discussions which I enjoy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 3: $4500000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $4750000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6300000)
Year 10: $5200000 (Low: $4600000, High: $6800000)
Year 100: $5300000 (Low: $4700000, High: $6900000)
Key Considerations
- The policy relies on the ability of the Corps to coordinate effectively with nonfederal entities and manage interagency collaboration.
- Environmental impact assessments are crucial, as hydropower projects can have significant ecological effects.
- Long-term maintenance and adaptation of infrastructure for increased hydropower capacity may introduce additional costs not captured in initial assessments.