Bill Overview
Title: Firewood Banks Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Energy, in collaboration with the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, to establish a pilot program to provide heat energy for residences of low-income and disabled individuals with wood-burning stoves. Under the program, trees on federal land shall be made available to firewood banks and federal land may be made available for firewood banks. The bill also directs the Forest Service, using certain funds made available by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, to provide financial assistance for operating firewood banks. Cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, and state, local, or tribal governments may apply for financial assistance.
Sponsors: Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on wood-burning stoves for heating and are low-income or disabled.
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill targets low-income and disabled individuals who rely on wood-burning stoves for heating, as they may benefit from the provision of firewood.
- According to the US Census, there are approximately 61 million people with disabilities in the US.
- The US Department of Health & Human Services reports about 37 million people live in poverty in the US.
- There may be overlap between the disabled and low-income populations, but exact figures on overlap are scarce, so an aggregate estimate is necessary.
- Heating with wood as a primary source is very common in rural areas, where the cost of electric or gas heating may be prohibitive.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to improve the quality of life of low-income and disabled individuals who rely on wood for heating. The fund allocation must take into account the high variability in rural areas where wood heating is prominent.
- The program's funding is limited, targeting an estimated population of 5 million eligible users, yet it should also accommodate people who are beyond direct benefit but still part of the socio-economic context, such as their neighborhoods and communities.
- The anticipated Cantril wellbeing improvements should reflect how much the policy can enhance warmth access and reduce financial stress through energy support. However, long-term impacts vary significantly depending on individuals' situations and external economic conditions.
Simulated Interviews
Stay-at-home parent (Rural New Hampshire)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am thrilled about the potential support with heating costs. Winters are quite harsh here, and heating is a major expense for us.
- I hope this program lasts long-term; otherwise, it might feel like a temporary fix.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired forest ranger (Northern Minnesota)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to hear there's support. Ensuring warmth in winter could mean a world of difference to my budget.
- More stability in energy costs can greatly improve my emotional wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Part-time mechanic (Southern Appalachia)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mostly it sounds good, but I'd need to share resources fairly among us here.
- I'm hopeful, though it may not solve all our problems - might ease the heat bill load.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 1 |
Nonprofit worker (Central Oregon)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our organization eagerly supports this bill - it’s giving real hope to those struggling.
- There might still be issues with the logistics of securing wood supply consistently.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Unemployed (Eastern Kentucky)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could save my season. I can hardly afford heating otherwise.
- Hopefully, I can also find some work soon. It feels like a lifeline but I need more permanent solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 1 |
Retired teacher (Rural Alabama)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good use of resources but geographically feels a bit limited based on forestry areas.
- It’s reassuring for those of us in old homes in need of help with heating.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Self-employed artist (Western New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Really hopeful that this acts towards broader awareness - not just about firewood, but the struggle it represents.
- It’s like lifting a weight off my shoulders, knowing there’s help during icy months.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Gardener (Northern California)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s promising to see policy toward sustainability but concerns still about fairness in resource allocation.
- Though I’m not the primary target, knowing friends who depend on it gives me relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
College student (Upstate New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m a bit skeptical but definitely appreciate any reduction in expenses.
- It might also aid my studies indirectly by reducing stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 2 |
School librarian (Northeastern Arizona)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act is a wonderful initiative, but needs better alignment with the educational funding too.
- In terms of direct impact, it's minimal but worthwhile symbolically for needy families I work with.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Access to federal lands must be managed carefully to ensure environmental protections.
- The scalability of the program depends on successful collaboration between various government departments and local entities.
- The available funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act need to be carefully allocated to ensure they address the needs of eligible households without compromising other planned projects.