Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to improve provisions relating to the development of hydropower at Corps of Engineers facilities, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to (1) assess opportunities to increase hydroelectric power at its projects (e.g, dams and locks), and (2) create a new program manager position for nonfederal hydroelectric power development.
Sponsors: Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on and affected by hydroelectric power worldwide
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The development of hydropower at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers facilities will mainly impact individuals and communities that rely on electricity generated from these sources.
- Electricity consumers nationwide might experience changes in their power sources and potential cost changes if the new hydroelectric developments are implemented.
- Industries related to renewable energy, especially those focusing on hydroelectric power generation, will be directly impacted.
- Environmental effects and modifications in river ecosystems due to increased hydroelectric activities could impact local communities and wildlife populations indirectly.
- Potential job creation in the renewable energy sector and infrastructure development could impact local economies and workforce.
Reasoning
- Because the policy is focused on developing hydroelectric power, its direct impacts are largely technical and industrial, affecting regions where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates.
- The budget limits suggest that while initial impacts might be modest, over time more substantial improvements or changes could occur assuming technical and economic feasibility of projects.
- Impacts will vary depending on the role and location of stakeholders, from workers and businesses benefiting directly to consumers and local communities experiencing indirect effects.
- Taking the policy's scope, budget, and target population into account, we assume mostly low-to-medium impact at the individual level but with variations depending on proximity to hydroelectric facilities and involvement in related industries.
- Considering potential environmental changes, local adjustments will vary widely; communities adjacent to affected waterways will see more perturbation.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Portland, OR)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about the ecological implications of expanding hydroelectric power. It could disrupt local wildlife habitats and river ecosystems.
- The job might get a little more intense if environmental assessments are called for regularly, but that is good for conservation work as well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Hydroelectric Plant Engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means potential growth in job opportunities and technology upgrades at my workplace.
- I see it positively impacting both my career and the renewable energy sector as a whole.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy could stimulate the market for renewable energies, but as it stands, I don’t see any immediate changes for my current client base.
- Over the longer term, however, increased hydroelectric capacity could offer better partnership opportunities.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Fisherman (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any alteration to river management affects my business's fish yields. Look at what happened with other dams.
- I'm cautious about what this could mean for local fish populations and my livelihood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired (Memphis, TN)
Age: 65 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I suppose if hydroelectric power expands, we could see cheaper power bills eventually, which would be welcome.
- On the flip side, noise and activity for new developments might be a slight nuisance given my proximity to the dam.
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 | 5 |
Power Grid Analyst (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integrating more hydroelectric capacity can make our grids cleaner and more reliable, improving my job satisfaction.
- My stakeholders will want to track project progress and operational efficiency closely as a result of this policy.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could be a step towards greater sustainability if hydroelectric is correctly managed.
- It gives me hope, but I'm concerned about the environmental impact if not careful.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Electricity Consumer Advocate (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see an immediate effect on electricity prices, but I will be watching for changes.
- Long-term benefits should drive down costs once these projects come online.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Hydropower Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy opens up more business opportunities and partnership potentials with the Army Corps.
- It should benefit both the environment and energy economics; more funding is always welcomed.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Local Historian (Harrisburg, PA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious but cautious about how new developments might impact the area historically and socially.
- Increased activity could shift our quiet lifestyle, which has certain charms.
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 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $180000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $220000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $450000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $450000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial stages of increasing hydropower capacity involve significant capital investment.
- Environmental impacts must be thoroughly assessed to avoid adverse ecological consequences.
- Economic benefits include potential job creation and reduced energy costs in the long run.