Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3808

Bill Overview

Title: Restoring Offshore Wind Opportunities Act

Description: This bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to grant leases on the Outer Continental Shelf for activities that produce or support production, transportation, or transmission of energy from sources other than oil and gas (e.g., wind energy) in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic and Straits of Florida Planning Areas. In September of 2020, presidential memorandums placed a moratorium on all energy leases in those areas for a 10-year period. This bill allows energy leases from such sources in those areas during that time.

Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

Target Audience

Population: Global population benefiting from renewable energy expansion

Estimated Size: 331000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

engineer (Houston, TX)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy provides new opportunities in the renewable sector.
  • Expecting job growth in my industry and more projects to work on.
  • Excited about contributing to clean energy solutions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

fisherman (Charleston, SC)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Worried about potential impacts on fishing activities.
  • Concerned for marine life and sustainability.
  • Hoping for collaborative efforts between energy and fishing industries.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

construction worker (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could bring more jobs to the area.
  • Excited about potential new projects and stable income.
  • Worried about long-term job security, but this seems positive.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 3

environmental scientist (Miami, FL)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This aligns well with environmental goals.
  • Positive that renewable energy is prioritized.
  • Concerned about local habitat changes.

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 8 6

retired military (Pensacola, FL)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this could strengthen our economy.
  • Jobs for younger generations are important.
  • Skeptical about environmental safety procedures.

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 6 6
Year 20 6 5

graduate student (Tampa, FL)

Age: 24 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is the right direction for energy policy.
  • Great for climate initiatives.
  • Concerns about pace of policy implementation.

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 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

small business owner (Mobile, AL)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Worry about the effects on tourism.
  • Projects may bring business but also risks to scenic value.
  • Hope for balance between development and preservation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 4

software developer (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy won't affect my day-to-day directly.
  • Good for tech and innovation in green energy.
  • Supports clean energy transition.

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 7 6

nurse (Austin, TX)

Age: 47 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Supports policies that improve public health.
  • Clean energy is a good move for future health outcomes.
  • Indirectly related to my work but impactful overall.

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 6 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 5

barista (Savannah, GA)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Neutral on this policy.
  • Don't see how it might change my current lifestyle.
  • Potentially beneficial to society but doesn't reflect in my life now.

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 5 5
Year 20 5 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Year 2: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $32000000)

Year 3: $24000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $34000000)

Year 5: $28000000 (Low: $23000000, High: $38000000)

Year 10: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $45000000)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations