Bill Overview
Title: Technological Hazards Preparedness and Training Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to maintain the capacity to provide states and local governments with technical assistance, training, and other preparedness programming to build community resilience to technological hazards and related emerging threats.
Sponsors: Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]
Target Audience
Population: People living in communities vulnerable to technological hazards worldwide
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill is focused on building community resilience to technological hazards and related emerging threats.
- Technological hazards can affect any community, especially those with infrastructure heavily reliant on technology, like urban areas.
- Training and preparedness can benefit all residents in these communities by improving safety and response to technological risks.
Reasoning
- The policy is aimed at improving the resilience of communities against technological hazards, such as cyber-attacks or power grid failures, which are increasingly important in a technology-dependent society.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy will likely prioritize areas with greater vulnerability and population density, such as urban centers.
- The simulated interviews should include a diverse group of individuals, ranging from those highly impacted by power outages or cyber threats to those who might slightly benefit from increased safety assurances.
Simulated Interviews
IT Professional (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm generally confident in my community's ability to handle tech issues, but additional training could be useful.
- The policy seems to prioritize important issues. More training could prevent and mitigate disruptions.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The training provided by this policy would address the recurrent power issues.
- I believe this will improve our building's safety standards against tech hazards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Developer (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think community-wide resilience training will strengthen our defense against cyber threats.
- Although I’m tech-savvy, there are still areas where I can learn to improve safety.
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 |
Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will be useful for educators to handle data securely and ensure student privacy.
- It’s essential for schools to have protocols in place for tech-related incidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Orlando, FL)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree, I’m concerned about protecting my personal data from threats.
- The proposed training could be beneficial in educating seniors on digital security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know my city could be better prepared for tech risks.
- I'm particularly worried about infrastructure vulnerabilities during extreme weather.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Freelancer - Graphic Designer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this program helps maintain a reliable baseline for tech services.
- Greater resilience is critical when dependent on tech for work.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Consistency in factory tech services is vital for my job safety and productivity.
- Policy sounds promising if it can prevent service interruptions.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Hospital Administrator (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthcare heavily relies on tech; improving safety there is crucial.
- I welcome any policy that strengthens hospital resilience to cyber threats.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m less affected by this policy, but power outages can still impact me significantly.
- Increased security in the power grid can be beneficial.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $510000000 (Low: $405000000, High: $615000000)
Year 3: $520200000 (Low: $416000000, High: $624000000)
Year 5: $530000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $640000000)
Year 10: $550000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $660000000)
Year 100: $600000000 (Low: $480000000, High: $720000000)
Key Considerations
- The transient nature of certain technological hazards may lead to fluctuating annual costs.
- Potential overlap with existing local and state government initiatives may reduce required federal cost burden.
- Ensuring equitable distribution of resources so that all vulnerable communities benefit is crucial to the program's success.