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: Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Target Audience
Population: Global population impacted by coastal restoration and conservation efforts
Estimated Size: 126000000
- The bill directs revenue generated from energy leases on federal lands and submerged lands in the Outer Continental Shelf to coastal states and communities.
- The revenue can be used for coastal restoration, conservation, or infrastructure—areas that directly affect local residents, industries such as fishing and tourism, and the environment.
- The bill is likely to impact states that border the ocean and rely on coastal economies, which can be substantial, such as those along the eastern seaboard and Gulf of Mexico.
- Globally, the focus is on energy leases on federal and submerged lands, which primarily would impact people in coastal regions and local environments reliant on these areas.
Reasoning
- The RISEE Act directs substantial revenues to coastal states for environmental and infrastructure projects, benefiting local economies and communities.
- Given the focus on offshore energy leases, the most impacted populations are those living in or relying on coastal regions, which include a large proportion of the U.S. population.
- The policy's impact would be seen over an extended timeframe as infrastructure and restoration projects develop, requiring a longitudinal study approach.
- Considering the budget is effectively $0 initially, this suggests implementation is contingent on generated revenues, which could influence the initial perception of the policy's impact.
Simulated Interviews
Fisherwoman (Louisiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy will help restore some of the damaged wetlands.
- If it means more fish and a stable income, I'm all for it.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (California)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could accelerate offshore wind projects, which is crucial.
- It's aligning energy policy with sustainability goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide much-needed funding for conservation.
- I think it will have a long-term positive impact on ecosystems.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Oil and Gas Worker (Texas)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about job losses if oil revenues decline.
- Hopefully, the policy provides solutions instead of problems.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Mississippi)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding is needed to build protections against rising sea levels.
- I hope this means more parks and natural spaces for our community.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Tourism Industry Employee (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If revenue goes into better infrastructure, it will help tourism.
- There's potential for job growth if managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Alabama)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a positive change if revenue is used effectively.
- My main concern is transparent management of funds.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Real Estate Developer (New Jersey)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased funding might enhance property values.
- Development needs to consider environmental impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Marine Biologist (North Carolina)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a step forward for marine conservation.
- Potential for significant improvements in marine life health.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Coastal Engineer (Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funds can transform our coastal infrastructure.
- Encouraged by potential improvements in resilience.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $-500000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $-500000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $-500000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $-500000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $-500000000, High: $100000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $-500000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- The exact revenue redistribution will depend heavily on the volume and success of energy leases.
- The impact on U.S. Treasury receipts due to the reallocation of revenues from energy leases.
- Administrative costs associated with ensuring compliance with use conditions imposed on the funding.