Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4232

Bill Overview

Title: A bill to address the recovery of certain costs with respect to certain Reclamation facilities in the Colorado River Basin, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill prohibits the federal government from recovering certain costs related to certain hydropower facilities in the Colorado River Basin (e.g., Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona) when no power is being produced. The bill provides funding to the Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration to cover activities and obligations that otherwise rely on the recovery of these costs.

Sponsors: Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

Target Audience

Population: People dependent on the Colorado River Basin Reclamation facilities

Estimated Size: 30000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Farmer (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I feel that any support for the Colorado River system is crucial.
  • We're always worried about water and power here.
  • I'd welcome anything that makes power supply more stable, especially for irrigation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Engineer at Utility Company (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 32 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The inconsistent output from these dams can be a headache for power supply management.
  • Extra funding for these facilities is a wise move.

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 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 5

Casino Manager (Las Vegas, Nevada)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that helps stabilize our power supply is good for business.
  • We rely on consistent power, and fluctuations impact us heavily.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (Flagstaff, Arizona)

Age: 61 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about how these dams impact the environment, but I understand their importance.
  • Hopefully, this policy means better management overall.

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 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Tribal Leader (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

Age: 54 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our community relies heavily on the river for daily life.
  • This support is vital for ensuring our way of life is preserved.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental Scientist (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see the potential environmental benefits of more stable funding for these facilities.
  • Better maintenance can mean less ecological disruption.

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 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 7 4

Software Developer (Salt Lake City, Utah)

Age: 50 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm not directly affected, but I see how important these infrastructures are when I travel.
  • I support policies that address stability.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Concerned Citizen (San Diego, California)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More investment in renewable hydropower is the right direction.
  • Ensuring these dams are well-maintained is crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Water Policy Analyst (Grand Junction, Colorado)

Age: 43 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's crucial that we manage our water resources effectively.
  • This policy appears to help stabilize funding, which is positive.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

College Student (Reno, Nevada)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's important to have stable hydropower as part of our clean energy mix.
  • Policies like this help ensure a steady transition to sustainable energy sources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)

Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)

Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)

Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)

Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)

Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)

Key Considerations