Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7065

Bill Overview

Title: Hydrogen for Ports Act of 2022

Description: This bill supports infrastructure for hydrogen-derived fuels, including ammonia, at ports and in the shipping industry. For example, the bill directs the Department of Energy to establish a program that awards grants to states, local governments, Indian tribes, and other eligible entities for infrastructure that supports hydrogen-derived fuels, including ammonia, at ports and in the shipping industry.

Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]

Target Audience

Population: people in the global shipping industry

Estimated Size: 600000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Port Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a step in the right direction for sustainable energy at ports.
  • There might be initial disruptions, but long-term benefits are clear.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Environmental Scientist (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm excited about the potential reduction in port emissions from the policy.
  • Health benefits for local communities could be significant.

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 7
Year 20 9 7

Retired Dockworker (Houston, TX)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy lowers pollution near the port, improving air quality in my neighborhood.
  • Not sure how fast changes will happen.

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 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Freight Forwarder (Savannah, GA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Transitioning to hydrogen fuels sounds challenging for logistics but could improve systems long-term.
  • I'm concerned about initial cost impacts on business.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Port Authority Official (Newark, NJ)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is crucial for the future-proofing of port infrastructure.
  • It will require extensive training and adaptation efforts across staff.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Port Worker (Miami, FL)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The shift to a cleaner fuel source is promising, but I worry about job disruptions during the transition.
  • Environmental benefits could make this worthwhile.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 4

Shipping Company Executive (Seattle, WA)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could set new performance standards within the industry.
  • Navigating regulatory changes will be a challenge but necessary.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 5

Shipping Analyst (Chicago, IL)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm optimistic about the data suggesting better environmental outcomes from hydrogen fuel adoption.
  • Monitoring changes will be key to adjusting strategies.

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 7 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 5

Fisherman (Mobile, AL)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Cleaner ports could improve fish stock health and therefore my business.
  • Short term challenges could impact port access during changes.

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 7 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Environmental Advocate (Boston, MA)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Ecologically, this policy is a win. It's the kind of initiative we've been advocating for.
  • The implementation timelines and real-world emissions data will make or break its success.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)

Year 2: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 3: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)

Year 5: $450000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $500000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations