Bill Overview
Title: BREEZE Act
Description: This bill makes various changes to the allocation of revenues from offshore oil, gas, and wind projects on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, including to increase the share of revenues paid to states. It also exempts the payments to states from sequestration (a process of automatic, usually across-the-board spending reductions under which budgetary resources are permanently cancelled to enforce specific budget policy goals.)
Sponsors: Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1]
Target Audience
Population: People in states bordering the Gulf of Mexico
Estimated Size: 32000000
- The BREEZE Act impacts revenues from offshore oil, gas, and wind energy projects.
- People in states bordering the Gulf of Mexico will be impacted, as these states will receive a larger share of revenues.
- States receiving increased revenue may see enhanced funding for state programs, benefiting their residents.
- Legislation regarding energy affects policymakers, environmental advocates, and energy sector employees significantly.
- Since this concerns offshore energy projects, the marine environment and related ecological zones will also be impacted indirectly, primarily affecting conservationists and related professions.
Reasoning
- The BREEZE Act focuses on revenue allocation from offshore projects, which primarily affects Gulf States such as Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
- Residents in these states may experience changes in public services or economic development funded by increased revenues, affecting their well-being.
- Impacts will differ based on proximity to affected industries, personal involvement in sectors like energy or environment, and individual socio-economic factors.
- Budget constraints imply benefits would be moderate but widespread, potentially boosting state-funded programs incrementally.
- Opinions on the policy's effectiveness will depend on personal and regional perspectives on environmental impacts and economic dependency on offshore projects.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Advocate (Houston, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The BREEZE Act offers mixed feelings—financial benefits to Texas could improve some local green projects, but increased focus on offshore drilling may harm marine ecosystems.
- I'm hopeful some revenue will increase funding for conservation, but concerned about potential policy emphasis on fossil fuels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Oil and Gas Worker (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased revenue to Louisiana is good news—might secure more jobs and maybe better infrastructure.
- Hope state invests in community programs and worker retraining; job security is still a bit worrisome but overall, optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Marine Scientist (Biloxi, Mississippi)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased state revenues could support more scientific research, but expanded drilling is worrisome for ecosystems.
- Mixed feelings—scientific advances come with environmental costs; policy nuances matter.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
State Government Employee (Mobile, Alabama)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More revenue means potentially more funding for state projects—good opportunity for Alabama to advance infrastructure.
- Concerned about overdrawing from fossil resources but benefits to local economy are appealing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Austin, Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential economic benefits must be weighed against environmental sustainability.
- Policy improvement lies in finding a balance between renewable incentives and traditional energy revenues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Local Business Owner (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Economic growth could boost tourism, benefiting local businesses like mine.
- However, concerns linger over environmental degradation impacting seafood quality and supply.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired (Pensacola, Florida)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased state revenue may improve local services and schools, a positive for community quality of life.
- Retirement comfort remains stable, so policy feels like a distant influence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Fisher (Corpus Christi, Texas)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional state funds might help coastal conservation—an essential for sustainable fishing.
- Worry increased drilling impacts fish populations adversely, pacing up livelihood threats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Community Organizer (Jackson, Mississippi)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hope state revenue boosts education, health services in underserved areas.
- Policy feels like a double-edged sword with economic gains but community displacement fears.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Wildlife Photographer (Galveston, Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State funds for conservation will help protect habitats, balancing economic interests with necessities of nature.
- Worry global warming exacerbated by fossil reliance might undermine broader environmental efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The redistribution of revenue to states may bring localized economic benefits but alters federal budget allocations.
- Environmental considerations concerning offshore projects remain crucial given the policy's focus on fossil and renewable energy sources.
- States might adjust their budget planning based on the predictability of these revenue allocations.