Bill Overview
Title: National Risk Management Act of 2021
Description: This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to establish a recurring process by which to identify, assess, and prioritize risks to critical infrastructure and requires the President to deliver to Congress a national critical infrastructure resilience strategy designed to address the risks identified.
Sponsors: Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally benefiting from improved critical infrastructure resilience
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The bill impacts specialists involved in cybersecurity and critical infrastructure sectors.
- Public agencies involved with infrastructure planning and risk management will be directly impacted.
- It influences policymakers focused on national security and infrastructure resilience.
- There is indirect impact on businesses and organizations that operate critical infrastructure facilities.
- General public safety and service reliability could improve with better risk management.
- International partners may also adjust their strategies in response.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects those in sectors related to cybersecurity and infrastructure risk management. This includes IT professionals, government employees in infrastructure roles, and businesses managing critical infrastructure, hence these groups are explored in more detail in the interviews.
- Since the general public indirectly benefits from the resulting improvements to infrastructure resilience and safety, a few interviews also focus on average citizens in diverse roles to capture these broader societal impacts.
- Given the large potential population served and the high budget, the policy can feasibly reach millions; however, only a relatively small fraction will be engaged deeply, thus the representation focuses on impacted segments, explored through subjective wellbeing analysis.
Simulated Interviews
Cybersecurity Specialist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With increased focus on cybersecurity, my workload might increase initially, but it should promote job security and advancement.
- I'm hopeful that the resilience strategy will provide clearer guidelines and resources for tackling infrastructure vulnerabilities.
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 | 9 | 6 |
Infrastructure Policy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns well with sustainable development goals. It can provide the needed push for incorporating resilience in our infrastructure planning processes.
- I'm optimistic, but wary of any potential bureaucratic delays in implementation.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Public Sector IT Manager (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will likely bring more projects to enhance our systems. It's exciting, but also an added responsibility.
- There's potential for innovative use of technology to preempt risks better.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
CEO of Energy Sector Firm (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might create initial stress as our regulations and compliance requirements increase.
- Long-term benefits could be substantial if the strategy is clear and supports infrastructure strengthening.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Federal Emergency Management Officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal support directed towards infrastructure resilience would be a relief and amplify our ongoing efforts.
- I'm looking forward to a more coordinated national strategy.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any steps taken to bolster infrastructure should help prevent outages, which can only be good given our reliance on stable networks.
- There may be associated costs with stricter compliance that could strain resources.
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 |
Graduate Student in Public Policy (Austin, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy's emphasis on resilience excites me as it aligns with innovations crucial for next-gen infrastructure.
- It could lead to new research opportunities that contribute to the field significantly.
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 |
Retired Electrical Engineer (Miami, FL)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm not directly involved anymore, I believe that focus on critical infrastructure is very necessary given recent events.
- If executed well, such policies can leave a positive legacy for future generations.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Nurse Practitioner at a Public Hospital (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved resilience can mean better response capabilities during emergencies, which is critical for public health.
- Some concerns about how these plans integrate into health sector initiatives and potential funding shifts.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Engineer for Local Water Authority (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integrated strategies for infrastructure resilience are critical, and it's reassuring that this is being prioritized.
- Hopeful for innovations in water management that come out of this initiative.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $180000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $230000000)
Year 3: $180000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $240000000)
Year 5: $190000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $250000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $270000000)
Year 100: $270000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- Long-term commitment to infrastructure resilience requires consistent monitoring and updating strategies.
- Inter-agency collaboration is crucial for cohesive implementation and success of the policy.
- Balancing immediate costs with future savings and benefits is key to understanding the policy's value.
- Public awareness and cooperation with private infrastructure operators is necessary for effective risk management.