Bill Overview
Title: Investing in State Energy Act of 2022
Description: This bill revises requirements concerning the distribution of funds under the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and the State Energy Program (SEP) to state agencies and local partners that implement energy initiatives. Under WAP, the Department of Energy (DOE) reduces energy costs for low-income households by increasing the energy efficiency of their homes. Under SEP, DOE supports state energy conservation plans and energy security. This bill requires DOE, upon receiving state or area plans under WAP or SEP, to distribute funds to the recipients of the funding as quickly as practicable. Within 60 days of Congress making the funds available for WAP and SEP, DOE must (1) provide application guidance for financial assistance, and (2) publish the allocation of financial assistance to be provided to states under the programs.
Sponsors: Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
Target Audience
Population: People living in low-income households
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill focuses on the distribution of funds for energy efficiency and state energy programs, which predominantly impact low-income households benefiting from the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).
- Energy initiatives supported by State Energy Program can have a wider impact on the residents of each state due to improvements in energy efficiency and security.
- The bill requires DOE to act quickly in allocating these funds, so affected populations might see more immediate benefits.
Reasoning
- The policy predominantly impacts low-income households through the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), aiming to enhance energy efficiency and reduce energy costs for these families, thereby improving their overall quality of life.
- The State Energy Program (SEP) promotes broader state energy initiatives that can indirectly benefit the wider population by improving regional energy security and efficiency, potentially lowering energy bills for all residents.
- The policy's quick fund distribution requirement can result in faster implementation and realization of benefits, particularly for weatherization projects that directly affect household energy costs.
- Given the typical demographics served by WAP, the majority of the interviews reflect perspectives of low-income families, but some interviews also consider individuals from different demographic segments to acknowledge the broader impact of SEP initiatives.
Simulated Interviews
Part-time Retail Worker (Rural Georgia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about high energy bills, especially during winter.
- This program could be really helpful if it reduces my bills.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Urban California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- ENERGY COSTS ARE A BIG STRAIN. I HOPE THIS POLICY HELPS.
- HOPING FOR SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN ENERGY BILLS.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Suburban Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I SUPPORT ANY PROGRAM THAT HELPS REDUCE ENERGY USE AND SAVES MONEY.
- IT'S GREAT THAT THERE'S A FOCUS ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
- EVEN SMALL IMPROVEMENTS IN ENERGY CONSERVATION HELP.
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 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO LOWER ENERGY BILLS FOR US.
- PROGRAMS LIKE THIS MEANS LESS STRESS FOR PAYING THOSE HIGH BILLS.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
IT Consultant (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I THINK IT'S GOOD TO PUSH FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY EVEN IF IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY AFFECT ME.
- IT COULD REDUCE OUR OVERALL ENERGY EXPENSES SLIGHTLY.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Nurse (Miami, Florida)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I NEED HELP WITH MY ENERGY COSTS.
- THIS POLICY SOUNDS LIKE IT CAN PROVIDE ME WITH BETTER AFFORDABILITY OF LIVING EXPENSES.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Construction Worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- SKEPTICAL ABOUT GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, BUT IF IT WORKS, IT'S GOOD.
- DEPENDING ON IMPACT, IT COULD BE A WASTE OR A HELP.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
College Student (New York City, New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I FULLY SUPPORT ANY POLICY THAT FIGHTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
- IT COULD IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR MANY, NOT JUST LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- THIS POLICY IS GREAT FOR PROMOTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
- ANY IMPROVEMENT IN ENERGY USAGE IS A WIN FOR BUSINESS AND HOME ALIKE.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- The expedited timeline for fund distribution may place additional strain on DOE staffing and resources, potentially requiring increased administrative budgeting.
- While the target population is low-income households, the broader impact includes enhanced state energy security and potential economic benefits through energy efficiency improvements.
- Regional disparities in how quickly funds can be distributed given varying state agency readiness levels should be addressed.