Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9049

Bill Overview

Title: RISEE Act of 2022

Description: This bill expands the amount of revenue generated from leases for energy development on federal land or submerged lands in the Outer Continental Shelf that is shared with certain states and coastal communities. For example, the bill dedicates a percentage of the revenue generated from offshore wind leases for coastal states. Currently, this revenue is deposited in the U.S. Treasury. In addition, the bill increases the amount of revenue generated from offshore oil and gas leases that is shared with states under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. States must use the funding from the revenue for specified purposes, such as coastal restoration, conservation, or infrastructure.

Sponsors: Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7]

Target Audience

Population: People living in coastal states and communities near offshore energy development areas

Estimated Size: 129000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Fisher (Galveston, TX)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm cautiously optimistic about this policy. Our livelihoods depend on a healthy coastline.
  • Sharing revenue could improve our fishing grounds if used for restorations.

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 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Marine biologist (Virginia Beach, VA)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased funding for restoration is excellent. It could significantly aid in our conservation projects.
  • Hope it includes provisions for scientific research and monitoring.

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 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Retired oil worker (Mobile, AL)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's about time states see financial benefits from offshore activities.
  • I just hope it trickles down and isn't just bureaucratic benefits.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Environmental policy analyst (New York, NY)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could set a precedent for future environmental funding mechanisms.
  • I'm interested in how it will impact long-term shorelines and policy dynamics.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Small business owner (restaurant) (Ocean City, NJ)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope investment in coastal infrastructure helps protect local businesses.
  • If it boosts tourism, that's a big win for us.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

State government official (Seattle, WA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This revenue could empower our state's initiatives for sustainability and better infrastructure.
  • Managing this allocation efficiently is crucial.

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 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Renewable energy consultant (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any policy that increases investment in renewable energy is positive.
  • Curious about the wind sector's role in California's development.

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 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Tour guide (Miami, FL)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could be a game-changer if it really tackles our needs for better coastal management.
  • I've seen too many friends lose out when storms hit.

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 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Environmental activist (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More funds are critical for defending our coastlines; we need this before it's too late.
  • It's a step towards acknowledging what coastal states contribute.

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 teacher (Biloxi, MS)

Age: 65 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Additional funding for restoration is good, but I'm skeptical about where it really goes.
  • I'd love to see visible improvements, like better flood defenses.

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 7 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3500000)

Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3500000)

Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3500000)

Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)

Year 10: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4500000)

Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)

Key Considerations