Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4559

Bill Overview

Title: SUPER Act of 2022

Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the production of iron, steel, and steel mill products. Specifically, DOE must establish a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of advanced tools, technologies, and methods for low-emissions steel manufacturing. In carrying out the program and in collaboration with industry partners, institutions of higher education, and its national laboratories, DOE must support an initiative for the demonstration of low-emissions steel manufacturing.

Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in or living near steel production and affected by pollution reduction

Estimated Size: 500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Steel Mill Supervisor (Pittsburgh, PA)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy seems promising as it aims to modernize our operations.
  • Reducing emissions is important, but I'm concerned about job security during the transition.

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 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 9 5

Environmental Consultant (Gary, IN)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improving steel plant emissions will greatly enhance our community's air quality.
  • I see a lot of potential for green job growth.

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

Retired Steelworker (Youngstown, OH)

Age: 56 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I’ve seen how the industry changes can impact jobs, so I’m concerned about current workers.
  • However, healthier air would be a huge benefit for everyone here.

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

Air Quality Analyst (Bethlehem, PA)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with my work goals and ambition to reduce local pollution.
  • It’s going to be challenging but necessary work.

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 10 8

Truck Driver (Birmingham, AL)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support better environmental practices, though I'm worried about how transport regulations might change.
  • I hope the new tech doesn’t reduce the need for raw materials transportation.

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 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Local Business Owner (Fairfield, AL)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Cleaner air would definitely be a plus for my customers and my business.
  • I am concerned about economic dips if steel production decreases.

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 8 7

Steel Production Engineer (Cleveland, OH)

Age: 41 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could spur much-needed innovation in steel production techniques.
  • There is excitement, but also pressure to deliver results quickly.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Health Inspector (St. Louis, MO)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy is a step forward for healthier communities.
  • It might be slow progress, but every reduction in pollution counts.

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 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 10 7

Supply Chain Coordinator (Chicago, IL)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The technological advancements could smoothen supply operations and logistics.
  • Changes could mean shifts in logistics, potentially reducing errors.

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 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 9 6

Community Health Advocate (Akron, OH)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Reducing industrial emissions should be a priority for public health.
  • It's important that community voices guide how these changes are implemented.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 3: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)

Year 5: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)

Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

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

Key Considerations