Bill Overview
Title: First Three Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to establish a program to provide grants or loan guarantees for certain innovative technology projects at industrial plants. The technology must (1) be technically viable at pilot scale and ready for commercial-scale implementation, (2) be able to significantly reduce energy use or greenhouse gas emissions, and (3) have the potential to significantly reduce annual U.S. industrial energy use or greenhouse gas emissions if the technology is widely implemented at appropriate industrial plants in the United States.
Sponsors: Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally benefiting from reduced greenhouse gases due to innovative technologies in industrial plants
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill is primarily targeted at industrial plants that could benefit from innovative technologies aimed at reducing energy use or greenhouse gas emissions.
- The broader population of people who may be indirectly impacted includes those who could see environmental benefits from reduced industrial emissions.
- Additionally, workers and industries involved in the manufacturing, development, and implementation of these technologies may experience economic and career-related impacts.
- The population could also include those who live near industrial plants that might implement such technologies, potentially improving local air quality.
Reasoning
- The First Three Act is primarily focused on U.S. industrial plants, potentially impacting many in the manufacturing and industrial sectors.
- The broad economic impact extends to those working on innovative technologies that reduce energy use and emissions.
- The indirect environmental benefits, like improved air quality, have the potential to impact a large portion of the U.S. population.
- Not everyone in the population will feel a direct effect; some will only indirectly benefit from environmental improvements.
Simulated Interviews
Industrial plant engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a great step towards sustainability in our industry.
- The grants could help us implement some long-planned projects that can cut emissions and costs.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental scientist (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with the sustainability goals that I advocate for in my research.
- If implemented widely, it can significantly improve air quality in industrial regions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Tech entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could open up new markets for clean energy startups.
- Access to grants would accelerate the development of scalable solutions.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in industrial emissions would greatly benefit our community's air quality.
- I hope the policy leads to meaningful changes and is not just another administrative procedure.
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 |
Energy policy analyst (Boulder, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I view this policy as a positive shift towards greener energy practices within industry sectors.
- It's crucial to measure the long-term impacts and benefits accurately.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Construction worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy actually reduces emissions, it would make my work environment and overall health better.
- I remain skeptical but hopeful that real changes are around the corner.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Industrial policy advisor (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could set a useful precedent for integrating innovation into industrial policy.
- Industries need incentives like these to test and implement new solutions.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Machinery operator (Columbus, OH)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New technology could make my job easier and potentially more secure.
- There is always a risk that changes could mean job cuts instead of improvements.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Climate activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although it's a step forward, this policy must be robust in application to truly lower industrial emissions.
- Continuous public pressure is necessary to ensure its effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Industrial designer (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grants present an exciting opportunity for more sustainable design and manufacturing processes.
- I hope to see significant improvements in industrial environmental practices as a result.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 2: $550000000 (Low: $330000000, High: $770000000)
Year 3: $600000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $840000000)
Year 5: $650000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $900000000)
Year 10: $700000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $950000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The scale and timing of implementation will critically affect both costs and savings.
- Technological success and the ability to scale up are dependent on various market and regulatory factors.
- Long-term environmental benefits may take time to materialize, impacting net cost-savings balance.