Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8980

Bill Overview

Title: Preserving the Gulf Test Range to Ensure Military Readiness Act

Description: This bill establishes a moratorium on energy development (e.g., offshore wind development) in specified areas of the Gulf of Mexico until June 30, 2032. Until that date, the Department of the Interior may not conduct certain energy development activities in any area east of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico. The moratorium also applies to other areas of the Outer Continental Shelf—the South Atlantic Planning Area, the Straits of Florida Planning Area, or any area west of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico—if energy exploration, leasing, or development in that area has been identified as having any adverse effect on national security, military readiness, or the Department of Defense's testing capabilities. However, Interior may issue leases in those areas for environmental conservation purposes, including the purposes of shore protection, beach nourishment and restoration, wetlands restoration, and habitat protection.

Sponsors: Rep. Waltz, Michael [R-FL-6]

Target Audience

Population: Global individuals affected by Gulf Test Range policy

Estimated Size: 1000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Offshore engineer (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am concerned about job stability with decreased energy development.
  • This could affect our entire community's economy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Marine biologist (Pensacola, FL)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a win for marine ecosystems in the Gulf.
  • Ecosystem restoration is key to combating climate change effects.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Military contractor (Houston, TX)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Maintaining the Gulf Range is critical for national security.
  • Personally beneficial as my contracts rely on these operations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental lawyer (Mobile, AL)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Positive step towards sustainable offshore policies.
  • We need to prioritize long-term environmental health over temporary economic gain.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmentalist (Jacksonville, FL)

Age: 32 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This moratorium is essential for protecting our beaches and marine life.
  • Local communities should be more involved in these decisions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

US Navy officer (Gulfport, MS)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This ensures we maintain our training capabilities which is vital for our mission success.
  • Important balance between energy and defense needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Wind energy consultant (Corpus Christi, TX)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might slow down renewable energy progress.
  • Uncertain about future work opportunities due to restrictions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Local business owner (Biloxi, MS)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Maintenance of military presence supports local economy.
  • Concerned about future energy projects for local jobs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Graduate student (Tallahassee, FL)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm optimistic as this supports my field of study and career prospects.
  • Vital for education and research opportunities on coastal ecology.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired military veteran (Naples, FL)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Preservation of these areas is vital for ongoing training and readiness.
  • I support policies that bolster national security.

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 8 7
Year 20 9 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)

Year 2: $41000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $51000000)

Year 3: $42000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $52000000)

Year 5: $44000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $54000000)

Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)

Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $90000000)

Key Considerations