Bill Overview
Title: Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity and River Restoration Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows a new investment tax credit for 30% of the basis of any hydropower improvement property. The bill defines such property as property that, amount other things (1) adds or improves fish passage at a qualified dam (i.e., a hydroelectric dam licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or legally operating without such a license before the enactment of this bill); (2) maintains or improves the quality of the water retained or released by such a dam; (3) promotes downstream sediment transport processes and habitat maintenance for such a dam; (4) removes an obsolete river obstruction; or (5) places into service an approved remote dam (i.e., a hydroelectric dam that services certain communities and does not contribute to atmosphere pollution).
Sponsors: Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on or living near hydroelectric power facilities and affected river ecosystems worldwide
Estimated Size: 10000000
- Hydropower is a significant source of renewable energy, providing about 16% of the world's electricity.
- The United States is the fourth largest producer of hydropower globally.
- By providing a tax credit, the legislation encourages investments in improvements that could increase the efficiency and environmental impact of existing hydroelectric facilities.
- Regions and communities near existing or potential hydroelectric sites may experience direct economic and environmental benefits from improvements or the construction of remote dams.
- Communities that rely on rivers affected by hydroelectric dams could see environmental improvements.
Reasoning
- The population affected by this policy includes individuals living near or relying on hydropower facilities and river ecosystems. These are relatively dispersed across many rural and some urban areas.
- The Cantril wellbeing scale provides a measure of people’s perceived quality of life and future expectations, which can be influenced significantly by local environmental and economic changes.
- The policy provides a financial mechanism intended to incentivize improvements in hydropower infrastructure that reduce negative ecological impacts or enhance technological efficiency.
- The financial budget limits imply that only a subset of possible projects will receive benefits initially, potentially influencing perceptions among different communities depending on whether they directly benefit.
- The diversity in demographics and occupations in our interviews reflects the range of direct and indirect benefits or concerns various people might attribute to this policy.
- Not all individuals will experience a change directly, hence some will report 'no impact'. However, regional economic impacts might still register indirectly in metrics over longer durations.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Bend, Oregon)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will significantly aid in river restoration efforts.
- The improvement tax credits can encourage sustainable practices in hydropower facilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Hydropower Facility Manager (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tax credit makes it feasible for us to undertake needed upgrades.
- It should benefit both the environment and operational efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Urban Planner (Queens, New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected, but encouraging more hydropower supports sustainability goals in the broader context.
- It may not have an immediate impact in urban areas but is crucial for sustainable energy grids.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy leads to cleaner waterways, it will benefit my business significantly.
- River restoration is a priority for us locals, balancing between recreation and nature.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired Engineer (Sacramento, California)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm eager to see these improvements, though skeptical about real implementation.
- A history of promises but little follow-through leaves me cautious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Missoula, Montana)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with many of our community goals.
- Funding is the biggest obstacle to restoration, so this is optimistic news.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Local Government Official (Asheville, North Carolina)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any support for renewable energy projects is helpful.
- Implementing such policies can be challenging due to complicated bureaucratic processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Biologist (Redding, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efforts to improve fish passage are essential for ecological balance.
- It's past time we had substantial policy backing for these improvements.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The tax credit can be a strong driver for investment in hydropower technology improvement.
- However, statewide and local implementation can vary widely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Outdoor Enthusiast and Blogger (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don’t have direct utility from the policy, healthier rivers benefit my lifestyle and content.
- River restoration supports diverse interests from fishermen to rafters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $130000000)
Year 3: $125000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $175000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $210000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy offers significant ecological benefits that may outweigh the initial loss in tax revenue over time.
- The effectiveness and cost of the tax credit depend significantly on the number and scale of projects that qualify.
- Long-term cost savings may benefit from reduced environmental remediation and infrastructure maintenance costs.