{"title":"Financing low-carbon hydrogen: The role of public policies and strategies in the EU, UK and USA","authors":"J. Moura, I. Soares","doi":"10.3934/gf.2023011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The goal of this study is twofold: first, to understand the rationales of public policies and possible outcomes on energy systems design behind supporting national hydrogen strategies in three major economic blocs (the EU, UK and USA) and possible outcomes on energy systems design; second, to identify differences in policy approaches to decarbonization through H2 promotion. Large-scale expansion of low-carbon H2 demands careful analysis and understanding of how public policies can be fundamental drivers of change. Our methodological approach was essentially economic, using the International Energy Agency (IEA) policy database as a main information source. First, we identified all regional policies and measures that include actions related to H2, either directly or indirectly. Then, we reclassified policy types, sectors and technologies to conduct a comparative analysis which allowed us to reduce the high degree of economic ambiguity in the database. Finally, we composed a detailed discussion of our findings. While the EU pushed for renewable H2, the UK immediately targeted low-carbon H2 solutions, equally considering both blue and green alternatives. The USA pursues a clean H2 economy based on both nuclear and CCS fossil technology. Although there is a general focus on fiscal and financing policy actions, distinct intensities were identified, and the EU presents a much stricter regulatory framework than the UK and USA. Another major difference between blocs concerns target sectors: While the EU shows a broad policy strategy, the UK is currently prioritizing the transport sector. The USA is focusing on H2 production and supply as well as the power and heat sectors. In all cases, policy patterns and financing options seem to be in line with national hydrogen strategies, but policies' balances reflect diverse institutional frameworks and economic development models.","PeriodicalId":41466,"journal":{"name":"Green Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Green Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2023011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The goal of this study is twofold: first, to understand the rationales of public policies and possible outcomes on energy systems design behind supporting national hydrogen strategies in three major economic blocs (the EU, UK and USA) and possible outcomes on energy systems design; second, to identify differences in policy approaches to decarbonization through H2 promotion. Large-scale expansion of low-carbon H2 demands careful analysis and understanding of how public policies can be fundamental drivers of change. Our methodological approach was essentially economic, using the International Energy Agency (IEA) policy database as a main information source. First, we identified all regional policies and measures that include actions related to H2, either directly or indirectly. Then, we reclassified policy types, sectors and technologies to conduct a comparative analysis which allowed us to reduce the high degree of economic ambiguity in the database. Finally, we composed a detailed discussion of our findings. While the EU pushed for renewable H2, the UK immediately targeted low-carbon H2 solutions, equally considering both blue and green alternatives. The USA pursues a clean H2 economy based on both nuclear and CCS fossil technology. Although there is a general focus on fiscal and financing policy actions, distinct intensities were identified, and the EU presents a much stricter regulatory framework than the UK and USA. Another major difference between blocs concerns target sectors: While the EU shows a broad policy strategy, the UK is currently prioritizing the transport sector. The USA is focusing on H2 production and supply as well as the power and heat sectors. In all cases, policy patterns and financing options seem to be in line with national hydrogen strategies, but policies' balances reflect diverse institutional frameworks and economic development models.
期刊介绍:
Green Finance is an international, interdisciplinary Open Access journal dedicated to green finance, environmental, and sustainability research and practice. It offers a platform for publishing original contributions and technical reviews on green finance and related topics, following a rigorous peer-review process. Accepted article types include original research, reviews, editorials, letters, and conference reports.