Bill Overview
Title: Energy Security and Independence Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses domestic industrial base and manufacturing capabilities for specified energy-efficiency and renewable energy systems and technologies (e.g., electric transportation systems), including by establishing a program to provide financial assistance for the construction of new facilities that manufacture components of specified energy-efficiency and renewable energy systems and technologies (or to retool, retrofit, or expand such facilities).
Sponsors: Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]
Target Audience
Population: People working in or benefited by energy-efficiency and renewable energy sectors
Estimated Size: 15000000
- The bill affects industries related to energy-efficiency and renewable energy systems, which constitute a significant portion of the global energy sector.
- The focus on manufacturing facilities means skilled and unskilled labor in these sectors will be directly impacted.
- Technological advancements in electric transportation systems have implications on related industries worldwide.
- The shift towards energy independence has potential impacts on global energy markets and economies relying heavily on traditional energy exports.
Reasoning
- The policy is expected to have varied impacts across different demographics. Those directly involved in the energy sector will see the most direct changes, while others might experience more subtle shifts in the economy or job market.
- Focus on renewable energy development means those in fossil fuel industries might face new challenges, whereas individuals in solar, wind, and electric vehicle sectors could see growth opportunities.
- Urban areas with existing infrastructure for electric vehicles and renewable energy will likely benefit more quickly than rural areas.
- With a significant portion of policy funding concentrated in early years, initial impacts will be felt by new and expanding manufacturing facilities in strategic states.
- Overall, the policy aims to increase the base of skilled workers in renewable industries, impacting educational paths and career choices.
Simulated Interviews
Solar panel technician (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will create more job opportunities and increase job security.
- I am concerned about transitioning to new technologies and training requirements.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Auto assembly line worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could ensure my job's longevity as we transition to electric vehicles.
- However, I worry about how well older workers will adjust to new processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Coal miner (Appalachia, WV)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could threaten my job as it favors renewable energy.
- I hope there will be opportunities for retraining or support for affected workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about this policy as it could mean more contracts and growth for my company.
- I wonder how quickly these changes will be implemented.
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 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental scientist (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my career goals, which is exciting.
- I'm curious about how effectively the policy will be implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired electrician (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems beneficial for the younger workforce, but I'm already retired.
- It may shift more state funding towards renewables, impacting utility costs.
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 | 8 | 5 |
Public policy advisor (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is a great opportunity to lead on climate initiatives.
- Implementation will be key to achieving meaningful change.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Oil industry engineer (Tulsa, OK)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly impact my job security negatively.
- I'd like to see retraining programs included in this bill.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Graduate student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find the policy very encouraging as it may enhance career prospects.
- It's crucial that these investments are sustained beyond initial phases.
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 |
Wind turbine technician (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This sounds very positive for my field.
- I hope it ensures long-term stability and growth in renewable sectors.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3500000000)
Year 2: $3200000000 (Low: $2700000000, High: $3700000000)
Year 3: $3300000000 (Low: $2800000000, High: $3800000000)
Year 5: $3400000000 (Low: $2900000000, High: $3900000000)
Year 10: $3700000000 (Low: $3200000000, High: $4200000000)
Year 100: $5000000000 (Low: $4200000000, High: $5800000000)
Key Considerations
- The capital required for infrastructure improvements may vary significantly depending on the scale and location of manufacturing facilities.
- Local and federal regulatory environments could influence the speed and cost of implementation.
- Retooling and retrofitting costs are critical for transitioning existing facilities and skills.
- Potential geopolitical shifts due to reduced dependency on global energy supply.