Bill Overview
Title: Hydrogen Permitting Simplification Act
Description: This bill exempts certain major federal actions, including actions that produce hydrogen from nuclear, solar, wind, or geothermal energy sources, from requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Sponsors: Rep. Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in or affected by hydrogen energy production
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill focuses on the hydrogen production industry, particularly involving advanced technologies like nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal sources.
- It aims to simplify the permitting process, potentially accelerating hydrogen project developments.
- Key stakeholders include companies and workers in the hydrogen energy sector.
- The environmental implications may also impact communities near hydrogen production sites.
- Hydrogen, as a clean energy source, can affect sectors aiming to reduce carbon emissions.
Reasoning
- The focus of this policy is primarily on individuals and entities engaged in the hydrogen production and renewable energy industries.
- The estimated target population directly affected by this policy within the US is about 300,000, mostly comprising people working in energy production and associated industries.
- Some people living near potential hydrogen project sites might experience indirect effects, particularly concerning environmental concerns.
- Given the budget constraints and the size of potential beneficiaries, only a subset of industry workers and local communities directly related to these projects will experience significant impacts.
- There is a variety of perspectives within the population, ranging from those in support of expedited hydrogen projects to environmental groups concerned about regulatory exemptions.
Simulated Interviews
Hydrogen project engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will help expedite project approval times and increase work opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental scientist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the environmental oversight being reduced. This could lead to long-term ecological impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Startup founder (San Francisco, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a big win for innovation in hydrogen technologies. We need clear pathways to bring new solutions to market.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Energy sector worker (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The shift towards hydrogen could impact my current job, but it's also an opportunity to transition into a growing sector.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Rancher (Midland, Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm open to leasing my land for hydrogen projects, but I want to ensure environmental protections are maintained.
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 |
College student (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy simplifies the permitting process, but I hope it still considers robust environmental regulations.
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 |
Renewable energy consultant (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining processes can boost renewable adoption, but needs balance to safeguard ecological interests.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Construction manager (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Projects could pick up pace, which is good for business, though I worry about possible corner-cutting on safety.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired educator (Albany, New York)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's worrying when policies bypass environmental scrutiny. Long-term impacts need consideration.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Urban planner (Brooklyn, New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited about potentially expanded infrastructure for urban hydrogen use, but cautious about oversight limitations.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $-300000000 (Low: $-200000000, High: $-400000000)
Year 2: $-300000000 (Low: $-200000000, High: $-400000000)
Year 3: $-300000000 (Low: $-200000000, High: $-400000000)
Year 5: $-300000000 (Low: $-200000000, High: $-400000000)
Year 10: $-300000000 (Low: $-200000000, High: $-400000000)
Year 100: $-300000000 (Low: $-200000000, High: $-400000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact of the bill largely depends on the number and scale of eligible hydrogen projects that capitalize on the expedited permitting process.
- There may be concerns or challenges associated with excluding certain projects from NEPA oversight, especially from environmental groups.
- The policy could provide significant competitive advantages to U.S. producers if hydrogen production costs are reduced, enhancing market growth prospects.