Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9399

Bill Overview

Title: Protect Our Waters and Expand Renewables on Our Reservoirs Act

Description: This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to study the feasibility of and, if supported by the results of the study, carry out pilot programs deploying floating photovoltaic solar panels at specified projects.

Sponsors: Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

Target Audience

Population: People living near or dependent on US-managed reservoirs

Estimated Size: 40000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Engineer (Arizona)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am excited about the potential of the POWER Our Reservoirs Act because it aligns with my work and personal values in promoting sustainable energy.
  • Deploying solar panels on water bodies like reservoirs is an innovative step that could set precedents for renewable energy development elsewhere.
  • I hope this will create more engineering jobs and drive further innovation in Arizona.

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

Farmer (California)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Initially, I was worried about potential disruptions to water flow from the reservoirs.
  • If the panels support consistent water levels and improve local power supply, I see the potential benefits for my farm and community.
  • I am cautiously optimistic but need more concrete information on any changes to water management.

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 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Recreational Fisher (Colorado)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried that the introduction of such panels could impact the natural habitats and my recreational fishing experience.
  • If there's significant environmental disruption, I might need to reconsider my recreational activities.
  • I hope there are measures in place to minimize impacts on aquatic life.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental Scientist (New Mexico)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The POWER Our Reservoirs Act provides a forward-thinking model for integrating renewable energy, which is crucial as we address climate change.
  • My main concern is ensuring the ecological impact assessments are thorough and transparent.
  • This policy could set an example for balancing energy needs with environmental conservation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (Texas)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm curious as to whether this will change how the reservoir looks and whether access will be limited due to these changes.
  • While the environmental benefits make sense, I'm concerned about the loss of natural beauty which I value.
  • Monitoring the impact on public access to recreational areas will be crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Manager (Nevada)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The promise of improved local energy supply through the POWER Our Reservoirs Act could integrate into our operations positively.
  • Ensuring that water access isn't affected by new infrastructure is critical to me.
  • Utilities could potentially enjoy reduced energy costs, although careful coordination will be necessary.

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 8 7

Energy Consultant (Montana)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this pilot could encourage more investments in solar technology, showing its practicality and sustainability.
  • Public reception will depend on clear communication of the pilot's benefits.
  • This could lead to increased consultancy opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Park Ranger (Oregon)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • My excitement comes from potential office and recreational facility energy cost savings through on-site solar power generation.
  • Ensuring limited environmental disruption will be my primary duty during policy implementation.
  • I'm eager to see successful integration with minimal ecosystem effects.

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 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Educator (Washington)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Teaching about renewable energy in real-time makes the learning experience richer for students.
  • I'm hopeful this initiative provides more stable and diversified local power resources.
  • An emphasis on clear, factual education about the benefits and concerns surrounding solar innovations is necessary.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

College Student (Idaho)

Age: 26 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm thrilled to see practical infrastructure applications of what I'm studying.
  • It could stimulate greater interest in my field, leading to more career opportunities.
  • The policy's success will likely influence my future job market positively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $16000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $16000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $20000000)

Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $16000000)

Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $13000000)

Year 10: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $8000000)

Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)

Key Considerations