Bill Overview
Title: Industrial Efficiency Incentive Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish the Sustainable Industry Rebate Program to issue rebates to owners or operators of nonpower industrial facilities for purchases of qualified technology (i.e., certain energy efficient technology). Additionally, DOE must identify the 3,000 nonpower industrial facilities that emit the most greenhouse gases and offer to assess the facilities and provide assistance and recommendations.
Sponsors: Rep. Doyle, Michael F. [D-PA-18]
Target Audience
Population: People working at or living near nonpower industrial facilities worldwide
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill targets nonpower industrial facilities that purchase energy efficient technology.
- There are approximately 20,000 nonpower industrial facilities in the U.S.
- By targeting the 3,000 highest emitters, the bill aims to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the industry.
- The staff and stakeholders of these facilities will be directly involved and affected.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to encourage energy efficiency in high-emission nonpower industrial facilities. These facilities are often large employers and their operations may impact the environment and local communities.
- Not all employees or local residents will be affected equally; some may work more directly with the new technologies or be more sensitive to environmental changes.
- The policy's budget constraints mean that not all facilities in need will receive immediate benefits. This can lead to varying levels of impact across the population.
Simulated Interviews
Plant Manager at a Chemical Manufacturing Facility (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about the policy. Our facility has been struggling with energy costs and emissions regulations.
- Getting a rebate would help us invest in technology we couldn't afford otherwise.
- There might be some operational disruptions initially, but the long-term benefits seem worth it.
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 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could open up more job opportunities for consultants like me.
- The emphasis on efficiency is great, but it might not cover smaller plants which also need to upgrade.
- Overall, it's a step in the right direction for sustainable industry.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Maintenance Technician in Steel Manufacturing (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I heard about the rebate program from our management. It's a chance for us to update old equipment.
- There's always a worry about job security when new technology comes in.
- If we're going green, that's good for the community and future jobs.
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 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Environmental Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see policies targeting high-emitting industries.
- The financial assistance needs to be accessible and the process transparent.
- Community input should be considered when applying solutions.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Industrial Equipment Supplier (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Equipment sales could increase, especially for items that qualify for rebates.
- There's uncertainty about how competitors will price tech given the subsidy.
- We need to adapt our strategies to align with the policy shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
HR Specialist at a Manufacturing Plant (Portland, OR)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Investing in new technology could mean new roles for current workers.
- Supporting staff through education and training will be key.
- I hope facilities emphasize workforce development alongside efficiency improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Operations Manager (Newark, NJ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've been inching towards more efficient processes, now we can move faster.
- Temporary halts in production during upgrades are my main worry.
- Overall, it's a necessary change we're embracing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Community Health Researcher (Cincinnati, OH)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This can improve air quality around major facilities, benefiting local health.
- Continuous monitoring of outcomes is essential to see the actual impact.
- Local communities should be informed about changes and expected improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired Coal Miner (Charleston, WV)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Old habits die hard, but necessary for the environment's sake.
- There's hesitation because past transitions haven't always been smooth for workers.
- I support it if it means a cleaner future for my grandchildren.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Urban Planner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can aid cities in managing industrial zones better.
- Planning will have to incorporate these considerations as industries evolve.
- Existing infrastructure may need adjustments to support new tech.
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 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The scale of rebates and the speed of technology adoption will significantly affect the overall costs and savings.
- Market readiness and the availability of qualified technologies will influence program success.
- Coordination with state and local incentives could optimize impact and reduce redundant expenditures.