Bill Overview
Title: Tribal Energy Investment Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Energy to provide direct loans to Indian tribes and tribal energy development organizations for energy development. These direct loans shall be made through the Federal Financing Bank.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: Members of Indian tribes and tribal energy development organizations globally
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill focuses on providing financial assistance to Indian tribes and tribal energy development organizations, suggesting the target population will be these groups.
- These entities may consist of thousands of individuals through various tribes and their administrative and organizational bodies.
- The potential for improved energy infrastructure could impact tribes by providing more reliable and possibly cheaper energy, thus influencing the wellbeing of community members.
- The legislative text suggests the benefit is indirect to individuals, as the funds are targeted at the tribal organizational level for development initiatives.
Reasoning
- Policies like this can have various levels of impact depending on the tribal community's current energy infrastructure and their readiness to implement new energy projects.
- While some tribes may see immediate improvements in energy efficiency or cost, others may take longer to plan and execute energy infrastructure projects.
- The policy's direct benefits might be felt more by tribal organizations initially, with individual benefits (such as community resource savings) manifesting over time.
- By including individuals who are directly and indirectly impacted, such as tribe members or employees of tribal organizations, we get a comprehensive view of the policy's reach.
- The policy will not directly affect those not involved with or affiliated with Indian tribes, hence including such individuals illustrates a baseline understanding of its limited reach.
- Investment in energy infrastructure may indirectly benefit entire communities by fostering economic growth through improved energy access and cost savings.
Simulated Interviews
Tribal Council Member (Navajo Nation, AZ)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could significantly enhance our tribal energy projects.
- If managed well, this would provide long-term energy security for the nation.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Energy Consultant (Cherokee Nation, OK)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding means we can accelerate our green initiatives.
- This policy could potentially attract more technical expertise to tribal lands.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Pine Ridge Reservation, SD)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to funding could improve our energy infrastructure.
- It will require community effort to ensure funds are used effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Non-Tribal Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is unlikely to affect my business directly.
- Improved tribal infrastructure could indirectly benefit surrounding areas, though.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Educator (San Carlos Apache Reservation, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sustainability of funding and projects is key.
- This could improve living conditions for future generations.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Non-Profit Director (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a critical step toward energy independence for tribes.
- It’s essential to collaborate closely with tribal leadership for successful implementation.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Student (Standing Rock Indian Reservation, ND)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could open up career opportunities in energy for me locally.
- Investment in energy development is crucial for our community's future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Government Employee (Casper, WY)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policymaking like this reflects significant progress.
- Successful projects could be used as benchmarks.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
IT Specialist (Ho-Chunk Reservation, WI)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integrating new technology into energy plans is exciting.
- It's a chance to modernize our infrastructure efficiently.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Renewable Energy Technician (Alaska)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the right allocation, this policy could boost our renewable projects.
- The community benefits could be vast if projects are successful.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The feasibility and impact of the energy projects will depend on the scale and type of energy development pursued.
- There could be variance in uptake and repayment of loans depending on administrative capabilities of tribal entities.
- Interest rates and terms of loans will influence the long-term financial outcomes.