Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4711

Bill Overview

Title: First Responders’ Equipment Access Act

Description: This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to revise regulations to exempt from emission standards engines and equipment of certain marine vessels that are owned by emergency response or public safety agencies with responsibility for domestic response or homeland security activities.

Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals relying on emergency response/pubic safety marine vessels

Estimated Size: 2000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Coast Guard Officer (Miami, FL)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might streamline our operations and allow us better access to maintain and upgrade essential equipment.
  • It could lead to more efficient and effective responses during emergencies, potentially saving lives.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Firefighter (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Fireboats are critical in coastal fire responses, and any policy easing equipment regulations can enhance our capabilities.
  • Reducing emissions standards for our specific use should not be a major environmental concern compared to the benefits in emergency response.

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 8 7
Year 20 7 6

Police Officer (New York, NY)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could significantly reduce downtime of our boats awaiting repairs under current emission standards.
  • An increase in efficiency of vessel usage aligns with our department's goals to secure the waterfront more effectively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Environmental Scientist (Seattle, WA)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Although the intent of aiding emergency services is commendable, emission exemptions might set a precedent for loosening environmental standards.
  • There needs to be a balance between operational efficiency and environmental stewardship.

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 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 5 6

Retired Fisherman (Galveston, TX)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More efficient marine patrols and search operations could greatly enhance our area's response in case of natural disasters.
  • Though I don't directly impact the regulation, I find peace in knowing emergency services are well-equipped.

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 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 7 7

Emergency Services Director (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could cut bureaucratic delays and costs related to compliance, enhancing service delivery during emergencies.
  • It's pivotal that our systems remain robust, especially during initial hurricane responses.

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 8 6

Marine Conservationist (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this could spell increased precedents for emissions leniency, which can be concerning from a conservation perspective.
  • Collaboration between emergency services and environmental agencies could yield effective outcomes without expanded exemptions.

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 4 5

Fireboat Operator (Chicago, IL)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This exemption may allow us to upgrade our fleet without worrying about stringent emissions compliance, fostering quick response times.
  • Overall, the community benefits when we can update our equipment more feasibly.

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 8 7
Year 20 7 6

Coast Guard Mechanic (Houston, TX)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • With this policy, our maintenance schedule could become more predictable, reducing vessel downtime significantly.
  • While this helps operations, challenges may arise in balancing maintenance costs and new regulatory compliance.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Policy Analyst (Portland, OR)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While important for operational readiness and public safety, nuances around exemptions will require careful monitoring to avoid broader environmental impacts.
  • Joining forces with environmental groups to find a middle ground seems imperative.

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 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 5 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)

Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)

Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)

Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)

Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)

Key Considerations