Bill Overview
Title: ACE Act
Description: ACE Act This bill addresses structures interfering with air commerce or national security near military installations. Specifically, the bill requires the Department of Defense to elicit written testimony from the base commander of each military installation within a certain radius of a structure or sanitary landfill when making a determination of whether the construction, alteration, establishment, or expansion of such a facility will result in an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security; and any person that submits an application for an energy project near a military installation to disclose if they have a relationship with a foreign principal or an agent of a foreign principal.
Sponsors: Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]
Target Audience
Population: People living and working near military installations potentially affected by construction projects
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill specifically addresses structures near military installations that may interfere with air commerce or pose a national security risk.
- Construction companies planning projects near military installations will need to acquire testimony from base commanders concerning potential security risks.
- Energy companies planning to develop projects near military bases will be required to disclose any foreign affiliations or links.
- Military personnel and base commanders will be involved in assessing projects near their installations for security concerns.
Reasoning
- The target population includes individuals living and working near military installations in the United States, potentially impacted by the construction and energy projects regulated by this new policy.
- Considering the proximity to military bases, areas with significant military presence may see varied effects on wellbeing depending on the nature and number of projects undertaken or restricted.
- The budget limitations imply that not all projects may be assessed due to resource constraints, affecting mainly high-risk or significant projects.
- There will likely be negligible to moderate impact on most residents unless their livelihood depends directly on sorted projects affected by the act.
- The policy could generate positive perceptions amongst people valuing national security, but may simultaneously lead to opposition from those affected economically by project constraints.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Project Manager (San Diego, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a project manager, I worry that the additional bureaucratic processes could delay timelines and increase project costs.
- While I understand the need for security, it seems that these regulations could make it more difficult for companies like ours to work efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Civil Engineer (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The need to disclose foreign associations is understandable but may complicate our partnerships.
- I worry it will affect project approvals and could detract from our usual progress timelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Navy Officer (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see more stringent measures for evaluating risks near crucial installations.
- Security should always be a priority, and precautions like these protect our men and women in uniform.
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 |
Real Estate Developer (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With new regulations, there might be more hoops to jump through for development projects near bases.
- It will certainly affect project planning and execution timelines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Consultant (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional assessment criteria are necessary to ensure national security is maintained.
- It may lengthen our fieldwork requirements but could lead to more thorough evaluations.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Local Business Owner (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If construction is restricted, it might affect the influx of people we rely on for business.
- I fear for reduced foot traffic and potentially dropping sales as a result.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
City Planner (Dayton, OH)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Urban development around the base needs careful planning, and this policy adds another layer of necessary consideration.
- Balancing development with national security is crucial, even if it complicates municipal affairs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Military Contractor (Biloxi, MS)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy may extend our project approval timelines, it's important to adhere to security standards.
- Ultimately, the benefits may outweigh the initial hassle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Personal Trainer (Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The construction projects don't affect me directly as much as others, but security is a valid concern for everyone here.
- It might mean less personnel movements if they're off base working on projects, affecting my work indirectly.
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 |
Defense Analyst (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns well with national security strategies.
- Any change that heightens security protocols is wise, considering global tensions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The coordination between military and civilian sectors is pivotal for successful implementation.
- Disruption to construction and energy projects could affect local economies near military bases.
- Legal challenges may arise regarding the disclosure of foreign affiliations.