Bill Overview
Title: Alaska Offshore Parity Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of the Treasury to share more revenues derived from energy and mineral development in the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region with Alaska and its coastal political subdivisions. Currently, only revenue generated by certain nearshore areas of the OCS is shared with Alaska. Alaska may use the funding from such revenue for coastal protection, coastal infrastructure, systems to reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, programs at institutions of higher education, and other related purposes.
Sponsors: Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
Target Audience
Population: Residents of Alaska
Estimated Size: 730000
- The bill targets the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region, impacting the population that depends on this area for economic activities.
- Revenue sharing with Alaska implies financial benefits for the state, potentially impacting all its residents in terms of enhanced public services and infrastructure.
- The use of funds for coastal protection and infrastructure will directly impact communities located along the Alaskan coast.
- Programs focused on reducing energy costs and emissions will benefit individuals across Alaska, particularly those in remote areas where energy costs are high.
- The potential funding for institutions of higher education may impact students and faculty who are part of the Alaskan educational system.
Reasoning
- The bill directly influences Alaskan residents as it involves state revenue sharing derived from offshore drilling and energy production, which impacts public services and infrastructure.
- Not everyone in Alaska will be equally impacted as the funds are directed towards specific sectors like coastal protection, energy systems, and education.
- Similar policies have had varied levels of impact depending on how funds were utilized and distributed.
- The populations most likely to feel a significant impact are those in coastal communities and areas where energy costs are notably high.
- Some individuals outside the immediate impact area may not notice changes directly attributable to this bill.
- Considering the budget constraints, the initial years might show limited change as infrastructure projects have long lead times.
- The policy is likely to have long-term impact potential by reducing energy costs and improving educational outcomes, impacting future generations.
- Energy cost reduction could attract business growth and economic development over a longer horizon, benefiting more residents over time.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy results in substantial improvements in infrastructure and environmental protections.
- Initially, I don't expect much change, but in 10 years, this could be significant for our community.
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 |
Fisherman (Juneau, Alaska)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's promising but unclear how much we'll see change right away.
- My livelihood depends on these waters, so any protection is welcomed.
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 |
College Student (Fairbanks, Alaska)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could have a positive impact on my education and future job prospects.
- Lowering energy costs is crucial, especially where I live.
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 |
Small Business Owner (Nome, Alaska)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am cautiously optimistic that this could stabilize my business environment.
- Long-term benefits are key for small businesses like mine.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Barrow, Alaska)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Investing in education and infrastructure seems like a wise use of resources.
- As long as funds reach the areas promised, this is a positive change.
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 |
Construction Worker (Ketchikan, Alaska)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Jobs created from this policy could help my company and community.
- I see potential for economic growth if handled correctly.
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 (Sitka, Alaska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time we had more focus on reducing energy costs in Alaska.
- This could be a game-changer for energy sustainability.
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 | 10 | 7 |
High School Student (Wasilla, Alaska)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our future depends on how we handle natural resources, so I support this bill.
- I hope this can lead to better educational opportunities in science.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Commercial Pilot (Kodiak, Alaska)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Infrastructure improvements could enhance our operations.
- Direct impact might be later down the line, but it's essential.
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 |
Healthcare Worker (Bethel, Alaska)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved infrastructure could indirectly improve healthcare access.
- Hopeful for energy savings to translate into healthcare improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $41000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $42000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $55000000)
Key Considerations
- The success of revenue-sharing policy largely depends on the effective management and allocation of funds at the state level.
- Environmental and energy initiatives funded through this act could result in a range of economic and environmental benefits, requiring consistent oversight and assessment.
- Long-term economic benefits include potential reductions in statewide energy costs and enhanced infrastructure resilience.