Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3866

Bill Overview

Title: Ocean Regional Opportunity and Innovation Act of 2022

Description: This bill directs the Department of Commerce to designate at least seven entities as Ocean Innovation Clusters. Ocean Innovation Clusters are hubs of operation and entrepreneurship for private, public, and academic stakeholders to collaborate on opportunities to promote and enhance the maritime industry. In designating entities, Commerce shall prioritize entities with a history of supporting cross-sector growth and development of the Blue Economy. Additionally, Commerce must designate at least one Ocean Innovation Cluster in (1) each of the regions covered by the five regional offices of the National Marine Fisheries Service, (2) the Great Lakes region, and (3) the Gulf of Mexico region. Commerce may award competitive grants for the establishment, operation, and administration of Ocean Innovation Clusters.

Sponsors: Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in the Blue Economy and Maritime Industry

Estimated Size: 300000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

marine biologist (Houston, TX)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy is a great opportunity for scientific collaboration.
  • It will bring more funding and projects to our area.
  • I am optimistic about new conservation projects emerging.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

fisherman (Seattle, WA)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about whether small fishers will benefit or the big companies.
  • If it increases regulations, it could make our lives harder.
  • If it brings more business opportunities, that could be good.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

oceanographer (Miami, FL)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy seems like a good chance to enhance our research facilities.
  • I'm hopeful for more international collaboration opportunities.
  • The impact on local ecosystems could be beneficial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 6 4

marine transportation manager (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This might improve shipping routes and efficiency.
  • I hope it translates into more jobs and less bureaucracy.
  • The Great Lakes could benefit from this focus on innovation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

retired (Boston, MA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's exciting to see new clusters being developed, though I wonder about their long-term sustainability.
  • As a former executive, I see potential but also caution in terms of investment.

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 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 4 4

environmental policy advisor (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe the clusters will drive forward the Blue Economy ethos.
  • Implementation should carefully consider inclusivity and diverse stakeholder engagement.

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 7 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

graduate student (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's encouraging to see potential job opportunities in my field within my region.
  • The policy could bridge academic knowledge with practical entrepreneurship.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

ship engineer (Baltimore, MD)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope the focus includes sustainable ship engineering.
  • It would be great to see more innovation here especially towards reducing emissions.
  • Collaboration opportunities sound promising if inclusive of engineers on the ground.

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 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

indigenous rights advocate (Anchorage, AK)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It’s crucial any policy respects indigenous coastal rights and practices.
  • Hoping the policy brings attention and support to indigenous communities' ideas.

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 4 4

startup founder (Cleveland, OH)

Age: 32 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The clusters could provide the networking and growth opportunities we need.
  • I'm excited about the potential for novel partnerships and technology development.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 6 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $55000000)

Year 2: $48000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $52000000)

Year 3: $51000000 (Low: $47000000, High: $55000000)

Year 5: $53000000 (Low: $49000000, High: $57000000)

Year 10: $56000000 (Low: $52000000, High: $60000000)

Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $110000000)

Key Considerations